If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class
Ok,so l am making a monk/barbarian,and honestly l like the barbs UD better. Should l make barb the main class,or do the effects stack? I am guessing no based on the above quote,but that's why l am asking.
(To be clear,l am asking if having monk be the main class would prevent the use of a shield,not if my AC would be Dex+Con+Wis,cause that would be insane) (though if it is possible please let me know)
You can use the Barbarian Unarmored Defense (10+Dex+Con)and that allows you to use a shield, or you can use the Monk(10+Dex+Wis) no shield, but you can't use both or combine the two. So yeah, one or the other, barbarian seems best if you want to use a shield.
Also, using a shield you can't use Monk Unarmored Movement or Martial Arts, meaning your unarmed attacks will only do 1 damage while holding a shield.
The monk class still adds plenty to a multi class character when you violate the weapons/armor restriction... you still have ki points which you can use for bonus Dodges and Dashes or a Stunning Strike, you still catch arrows, fall slowly, get statuses immunities, etc... it’s really just the unarmed strike damage, bonus unarmed strike attack, movement buffs, and AC calculation that go away. Depending on your monk subclass and overall build, there may be a lot in the monk that a shield-using Barbarian attacking with a d8 weapon would benefit from, or a race that already has a decent racial d6 unarmed strike.
I think the language about not being able to learn Unarmored Defense from more than one class was errata’d out? Don’t see it in the class descriptions currently... if it IS still there, yeah, you’d need to take a Barb level before any Monk levels if you wanted to learn the Dex+Con version of UD. But again, think that was errata’d.
It doesn’t matter which class you take first. You get both versions of Unarmored Defense and it automatically uses whichever one is better. If you pick up a shield it should default to Barbarian Unarmored Defense, otherwise it uses whichever is higher.
If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class
Ok,so l am making a monk/barbarian,and honestly l like the barbs UD better. Should l make barb the main class,or do the effects stack?
You are right and you've quoted the applicable rule; you don't get both effects. Whichever class you pick first gives you the feature, the second class doesn't.
So, if your character was a barbarian before being a monk then they do not get to use the Monk unarmoured defence feature. Monk forst means you don't get the barbarian feature.
If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class
Ok,so l am making a monk/barbarian,and honestly l like the barbs UD better. Should l make barb the main class,or do the effects stack?
You are right and you've quoted the applicable rule; you don't get both effects. Whichever class you pick first gives you the feature, the second class doesn't.
So, if your character was a barbarian before being a monk then they do not get to use the Monk unarmoured defence feature. Monk forst means you don't get the barbarian feature.
So, pick your first level carefully. :-)
That’s apparently not true. Here is a character that I specifically made to test this. I picked Barbarian first and Monk second but made sure my Wis was Higher than Con and it uses the monk Version. Both are also listed under Features & Traits as Class Features as well.
It doesn’t matter how DND beyond interprets the language, if it’s there then it does mean what it says. I just don’t see that language when I look at the players handbook or the class entries anymore so I think it was eratted out
It doesn’t matter how DND beyond interprets the language, if it’s there then it does mean what it says. I just don’t see that language when I look at the players handbook or the class entries anymore so I think it was eratted out
Odd that they would have singled that feature out to be specially punished. Maybe a holdover from a prior write up where having multiple Unarmored Defenses would have created a larger problem than it does in the current rules? Sucks, don’t imagine many DMs would enforce it, but it looks like you need to take Barb before Monk then
It doesn’t matter how DND beyond interprets the language, if it’s there then it does mean what it says. I just don’t see that language when I look at the players handbook or the class entries anymore so I think it was eratted out
It's still in the Multiclassing rules in the PHB.
Agreed. This is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, so what is in the rulebook is what matters. Whether dndbeyond.com's character creator allows something is a little bit irrelevant.
Odd that they would have singled that feature out to be specially punished. Maybe a holdover from a prior write up where having multiple Unarmored Defenses would have created a larger problem than it does in the current rules? Sucks, don’t imagine many DMs would enforce it, but it looks like you need to take Barb before Monk then
My guess is that it was written under the assumption that all Unarmored Defense features were identical, either because it was written at a time when that was true, or because whoever wrote it was simply ignorant of the differences.
It doesn’t matter how DND beyond interprets the language, if it’s there then it does mean what it says. I just don’t see that language when I look at the players handbook or the class entries anymore so I think it was eratted out
It's still in the Multiclassing rules in the PHB.
Agreed. This is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, so what is in the rulebook is what matters. Whether dndbeyond.com's character creator allows something is a little bit irrelevant.
Multiclassing rules are already optional by DM fiat, so I'm gonna with what the actual rule is from the PHB (you can have both, but only one in effect).
For the sake of argument, however, it's still fine by RAW even with the MC rule. Unarmored Defense (Monk) is not Unarmored Defense (Barbarian), nor are they simply the same "Unarmored Defense" feature that you can just get from either class; they are wholly distinct features with different requirements & effects that just happen to be extremely similar. You can absolutely gain each feature independently. They just don't stack because that is the AC formula rule.
Conversely, "Extra Attack" is the exact same feature. There is no "Extra Attack (Fighter)" which behaves differently than "Extra Attack (Paladin)". They are exactly the same, and you cannot acquire the exact same feature twice. Further, this is also exactly why Fighters gain Extra Attack (2)&(3) in their progression.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Please note, Unarmored Defense is named just like Extra Attack, there’s no such thing as Unarmored Defense (Monk). Multiclass rules are in the PHB, just like the classes. While it is technically true that multiclassing is an optional rule that a DM can exclude from their game (like Feats), nothing suggests that a DM can RAW selectively enforce some multiclassing rules but not others.
The RAW was sufficiently summarized earlier in this thread.
It doesn’t matter how DND beyond interprets the language, if it’s there then it does mean what it says. I just don’t see that language when I look at the players handbook or the class entries anymore so I think it was eratted out
It's still in the Multiclassing rules in the PHB.
Sorry, where does it say this? I couldn't find it.
edit: NM I found it. I would still let the player choose whichever was better in my game.
Please note, Unarmored Defense is named just like Extra Attack, there’s no such thing as Unarmored Defense (Monk).
To expand on this a bit further, the DMG is clear on this point. It doesn’t matter that the monk and barbarian Unarmored Defense features have different descriptions and details. What matters is that they have the same name, so they can’t be combined. Only the most potent one takes effect.
That clarification aside, Sigred’s main point about the basic AC rules also preventing the features from stacking is still the more straightforward reasoning, I think.
Please note, Unarmored Defense is named just like Extra Attack, there’s no such thing as Unarmored Defense (Monk). Multiclass rules are in the PHB, just like the classes. While it is technically true that multiclassing is an optional rule that a DM can exclude from their game (like Feats), nothing suggests that a DM can RAW selectively enforce some multiclassing rules but not others.
The RAW was sufficiently summarized earlier in this thread.
Then why does WotC always use that exact language when talking about AC formula features? Why do they always list UD (Monk), UD (Barbarian), and Draconic Resilience (Sorcerer) as separate bullet points (along with Natural Armor, Mage Armor, the default formula, etc.)? It's very obvious that they are distinct features.
They aren't the same feature, nor do they have the same formula. Extra Attack is Extra Attack, no matter where it came from. It is the exact same feature. 10+Dex+Wis is not the same as 10+Dex+Con, no matter what they name 'em. Would you argue in favor if the book had a typo that named UD from Monk as "Unarmored Defence"? I personally don't think you would, but I won't put words in your mouth either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
What bullet points are you referring to? Where do they use "that exact language when talking about AC formula features"? When do they "always" list "UD (Monk), UD (Barbarian)"?
The class features are all called "Unarmored Defense" in their class descriptions. There is a rule in the multiclassing section which says once you've learned "Unarmored Defense" from one class, you can't learn it again from a subsequent class you multiclass into. End of story. It's a crappy rule, it doesn't make sense, it isn't necessary, we all agree it should be ignored at the table... but I simply do not understand your perspective when you tell me that you don't understand that RAW it says what it says.
This is just one example. Every time I've seen them mentioned in things like SAC & Dragon articles has it broken down like that.
Your position (as I am reading it) is that an optional rule dictates that a character cannot have two mechanically distinct features, from distinct sources, simply because they share the same name.
My position is that your position is based on unsound (not invalid) logic. Your position makes sense if that is the only premise, but it isn't. The non-optional rules clearly state that you can acquire multiple features that provide an AC formula, and that they just don't stack. Following your logic, it would be impossible to cast spells from a MC with two spell casting classes because they all have the same SpellcastingFeature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is just one example. Every time I've seen them mentioned in things like SAC & Dragon articles has it broken down like that.
Your position (as I am reading it) is that an optional rule dictates that a character cannot have two mechanically distinct features, from distinct sources, simply because they share the same name.
My position is that your position is based on unsound (not invalid) logic. Your position makes sense if that is the only premise, but it isn't. The non-optional rules clearly state that you can acquire multiple features that provide an AC formula, and that they just don't stack. Following your logic, it would be impossible to cast spells from a MC with two spell casting classes because they all have the same SpellcastingFeature.
Their position isn't a general one. There is no general rule about acquiring identical features multiple times, only about the simultaneous application thereof. This is why Fighting Style has to specifically call out that you can't take the same fighting style more than once (the DMG rule about stacking features would prevent a fighting style from stacking with itself regardless) and why the rules on feats specifically say you can't take a feat more than once unless the feat says you can.
The multiclassing rules specifically say that if you get Unarmored Defense from one class, you cannot gain it again from a different class. There is no such rule about Spellcasting (indeed, Spellcasting has its own set of multiclassing rules), so there's no "following your logic" point to be made here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unarmored Defense
If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class
Ok,so l am making a monk/barbarian,and honestly l like the barbs UD better. Should l make barb the main class,or do the effects stack? I am guessing no based on the above quote,but that's why l am asking.
(To be clear,l am asking if having monk be the main class would prevent the use of a shield,not if my AC would be Dex+Con+Wis,cause that would be insane) (though if it is possible please let me know)
You can use the Barbarian Unarmored Defense (10+Dex+Con)and that allows you to use a shield, or you can use the Monk(10+Dex+Wis) no shield, but you can't use both or combine the two. So yeah, one or the other, barbarian seems best if you want to use a shield.
Also, using a shield you can't use Monk Unarmored Movement or Martial Arts, meaning your unarmed attacks will only do 1 damage while holding a shield.
The monk class still adds plenty to a multi class character when you violate the weapons/armor restriction... you still have ki points which you can use for bonus Dodges and Dashes or a Stunning Strike, you still catch arrows, fall slowly, get statuses immunities, etc... it’s really just the unarmed strike damage, bonus unarmed strike attack, movement buffs, and AC calculation that go away. Depending on your monk subclass and overall build, there may be a lot in the monk that a shield-using Barbarian attacking with a d8 weapon would benefit from, or a race that already has a decent racial d6 unarmed strike.
I think the language about not being able to learn Unarmored Defense from more than one class was errata’d out? Don’t see it in the class descriptions currently... if it IS still there, yeah, you’d need to take a Barb level before any Monk levels if you wanted to learn the Dex+Con version of UD. But again, think that was errata’d.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It doesn’t matter which class you take first. You get both versions of Unarmored Defense and it automatically uses whichever one is better. If you pick up a shield it should default to Barbarian Unarmored Defense, otherwise it uses whichever is higher.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You are right and you've quoted the applicable rule; you don't get both effects. Whichever class you pick first gives you the feature, the second class doesn't.
So, if your character was a barbarian before being a monk then they do not get to use the Monk unarmoured defence feature. Monk forst means you don't get the barbarian feature.
So, pick your first level carefully. :-)
That’s apparently not true. Here is a character that I specifically made to test this. I picked Barbarian first and Monk second but made sure my Wis was Higher than Con and it uses the monk Version. Both are also listed under Features & Traits as Class Features as well.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/profile/IamSposta/characters/31865402
The rule wording seems to have been interpreted to mean that you get both, you just cannot use both at the same time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It doesn’t matter how DND beyond interprets the language, if it’s there then it does mean what it says. I just don’t see that language when I look at the players handbook or the class entries anymore so I think it was eratted out
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's still in the Multiclassing rules in the PHB.
Odd that they would have singled that feature out to be specially punished. Maybe a holdover from a prior write up where having multiple Unarmored Defenses would have created a larger problem than it does in the current rules? Sucks, don’t imagine many DMs would enforce it, but it looks like you need to take Barb before Monk then
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agreed. This is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, so what is in the rulebook is what matters. Whether dndbeyond.com's character creator allows something is a little bit irrelevant.
My guess is that it was written under the assumption that all Unarmored Defense features were identical, either because it was written at a time when that was true, or because whoever wrote it was simply ignorant of the differences.
Multiclassing rules are already optional by DM fiat, so I'm gonna with what the actual rule is from the PHB (you can have both, but only one in effect).
For the sake of argument, however, it's still fine by RAW even with the MC rule. Unarmored Defense (Monk) is not Unarmored Defense (Barbarian), nor are they simply the same "Unarmored Defense" feature that you can just get from either class; they are wholly distinct features with different requirements & effects that just happen to be extremely similar. You can absolutely gain each feature independently. They just don't stack because that is the AC formula rule.
Conversely, "Extra Attack" is the exact same feature. There is no "Extra Attack (Fighter)" which behaves differently than "Extra Attack (Paladin)". They are exactly the same, and you cannot acquire the exact same feature twice. Further, this is also exactly why Fighters gain Extra Attack (2)&(3) in their progression.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Please note, Unarmored Defense is named just like Extra Attack, there’s no such thing as Unarmored Defense (Monk). Multiclass rules are in the PHB, just like the classes. While it is technically true that multiclassing is an optional rule that a DM can exclude from their game (like Feats), nothing suggests that a DM can RAW selectively enforce some multiclassing rules but not others.
The RAW was sufficiently summarized earlier in this thread.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sorry, where does it say this? I couldn't find it.
edit: NM I found it. I would still let the player choose whichever was better in my game.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To expand on this a bit further, the DMG is clear on this point. It doesn’t matter that the monk and barbarian Unarmored Defense features have different descriptions and details. What matters is that they have the same name, so they can’t be combined. Only the most potent one takes effect.
That clarification aside, Sigred’s main point about the basic AC rules also preventing the features from stacking is still the more straightforward reasoning, I think.
Then why does WotC always use that exact language when talking about AC formula features? Why do they always list UD (Monk), UD (Barbarian), and Draconic Resilience (Sorcerer) as separate bullet points (along with Natural Armor, Mage Armor, the default formula, etc.)? It's very obvious that they are distinct features.
They aren't the same feature, nor do they have the same formula. Extra Attack is Extra Attack, no matter where it came from. It is the exact same feature. 10+Dex+Wis is not the same as 10+Dex+Con, no matter what they name 'em. Would you argue in favor if the book had a typo that named UD from Monk as "Unarmored Defence"? I personally don't think you would, but I won't put words in your mouth either.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
What bullet points are you referring to? Where do they use "that exact language when talking about AC formula features"? When do they "always" list "UD (Monk), UD (Barbarian)"?
The class features are all called "Unarmored Defense" in their class descriptions. There is a rule in the multiclassing section which says once you've learned "Unarmored Defense" from one class, you can't learn it again from a subsequent class you multiclass into. End of story. It's a crappy rule, it doesn't make sense, it isn't necessary, we all agree it should be ignored at the table... but I simply do not understand your perspective when you tell me that you don't understand that RAW it says what it says.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is just one example. Every time I've seen them mentioned in things like SAC & Dragon articles has it broken down like that.
Your position (as I am reading it) is that an optional rule dictates that a character cannot have two mechanically distinct features, from distinct sources, simply because they share the same name.
My position is that your position is based on unsound (not invalid) logic. Your position makes sense if that is the only premise, but it isn't. The non-optional rules clearly state that you can acquire multiple features that provide an AC formula, and that they just don't stack. Following your logic, it would be impossible to cast spells from a MC with two spell casting classes because they all have the same Spellcasting Feature.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Their position isn't a general one. There is no general rule about acquiring identical features multiple times, only about the simultaneous application thereof. This is why Fighting Style has to specifically call out that you can't take the same fighting style more than once (the DMG rule about stacking features would prevent a fighting style from stacking with itself regardless) and why the rules on feats specifically say you can't take a feat more than once unless the feat says you can.
The multiclassing rules specifically say that if you get Unarmored Defense from one class, you cannot gain it again from a different class. There is no such rule about Spellcasting (indeed, Spellcasting has its own set of multiclassing rules), so there's no "following your logic" point to be made here.