D&D 5E Monk and Druid "reviews"

[scruffygrognard]

But Mike Mearls doesn't seem to think about it that way:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/18/barkskin-and-shield-ac/

Basically, he would allow a shield to boost the armor class of a character with Barkskin.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Again, that might be his opinion, but all that proves is that he doesn't understand how order of operations works As I said, I don't know how they intended it, but how they wrote it has a very clear and precise meaning. Maybe they wrote it wrong, and that's an entirely different conversation. RAW, it means one certain thing.

 

[Gadget]

Again, that might be his opinion, but all that proves is that he doesn't understand how order of operations works As I said, I don't know how they intended it, but how they wrote it has a very clear and precise meaning. Maybe they wrote it wrong, and that's an entirely different conversation. RAW, it means one certain thing.

The spell is not a mathematical equation (this edition made a big deal of 'plain English' wording) , and you're ignoring the final clause of "regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing" thereby linking the spell to the armor component of AC (By some very valid interpretations). That clause is very unnecessary and confusing otherwise. There is a reason mathematicians use precise and clear notions and not 'plain English' to represent their work: 'plain English' is not sufficient to represent what they wish to express in an efficient manner.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You could argue that it's worded poorly because it's not worded like the designers wanted (as evidenced by Mearls tweet) and I wouldn't argue that. But as it's written, it's clear. Any time you say something "can't be below X, or it is X", that means it's the final check in the process. It's a simple IF-THAN statement that's been around since before the days of BASIC coding. Nothing about that spell triggers until the AC is below 16 when tallied. Even if you were to argue that that check is made at every step of the process, you still wouldn't ever have an AC over 16 with that spell

For example, if you cast the spell and your AC is 14, then it triggers the spell and your AC becomes 16. If you then add a shield which brings it to 18, then the spell no longer is in effect since it's not below 16, and wouldn't take effect, which means you'd be back at your base 14 +2 for shield = 16.

That's because the spell does not take effect unless your AC is below 16, RAW. Again, it might not have been intended that way, but RAW, that's what it means. And in plain English, that's what it means when you say that "if something is less than X, then make it X."

Another example.

Let's say you make $1000 a week for 40 hours of work. If you have a rule that states if you work less than 30 hours, your minimum pay is $750 a week. So let's say you work 23 hours. The rule kicks in and you make $750. If you then work 10 more hours in that week somehow, that doesn't mean you get the $750 + the additional pay for the additional hours because it's inferred that that rule isn't checked until the end of the week. Just like the barkskin rule, RAW, doesn't take affect until your AC has been tallied. That's what that language means, and that's how it's used in logic when programming.

I'm also not ignoring the "regardless of armor" because that's a redundant statement. By your logic then, it means that it ONLY factors in armor since that was the only thing expressly called out. Does that mean you're arguing that barkskin is stackable with DEX, other spell buffs, magic items, and shields?

 

[dmnqwk]

I agree with Mearl's viewpoint, but unfortunately his mistake is treating Barkskin as a calculation instead of a replacement effect.

Unarmoured Defense, Draconic Resilience, Normal AC calculations are all ways or methods of calculating your armour class, but Barkskin is not a calculation... it's a replacement Effect.

If you wear a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power with a Str of 12, then find another item or spell/potion which grants you a Strength bonus of 2, you would not consider yourself Str 21, but 19. Replacement effects do not calculate things, except to consider whether they apply. Barkskin is the same, there is no Armour Value to add the Shield to, because the Shield can only be applied to an Armour Calculation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So... commence beating a dead horse on a necro'ed thread?

does dual necromancy cancel out in some fashion?

By the way, just started a game with a shadow monk player. He's incredibly new, but having a good time finding the limits of the minor illusion.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

So... commence beating a dead horse on a necro'ed thread?

does dual necromancy cancel out in some fashion?

By the way, just started a game with a shadow monk player. He's incredibly new, but having a good time finding the limits of the minor illusion.

With necromancy, there's no need to beat a dead horse. You can raise it, mount it and ride it hard into the ground!

Re: minor illusion. Care to share? What sort of things have you successfully used MI for? I'm starting a monk and am torn between Open Hand and Shadow.

 

[choryukami]

Here is an interesting idea I was going to pursue with my druid (that I have now retired in favor of other characters). 1 level in monk, the rest in druid. In animal forms, your unarmored defense takes precedence to your beast form's AC, and Wisdom should be your highest stat. So at 2nd level with your wild shape you're looking at a 16ish Wisdom and a garbage Dex in bear form, a 10 + 1 + 3 = 14 AC rather than an 11. On top of that, you can put your second highest in Con and your third in Dex and have a fairly decent and durable 'human' form if you get knocked out of wild shape. Finally, if you do take enough monk to get KI points, you can use those in animal forms, allowing you to disengage and dodge if you need to. And of course, you always have the backup of using Shilelagh with your quarterstaff and using flurry of blows with that in your natural form. Overall, it is an unusual, but helpful package.

Now, ask your DM if he considers natural attacks to be 'unarmed attacks.' If you have a form that doesn't utilize multiattack, but a regular attack action, then you can use flurry of blows (I would rule they just get 1d4+Dex/Str just like in 'human' form).

But yeah, her concept could be that she is a hermit that unlocked the power of nature while training in the wilderness. Whether she was a monk before and she learned how to get her 'animality' while meditating, or she was a druid and studied the natural fighting styles of the animals to get her monk powers is up to her to decide.

One last note: my druid was a human who started with Sentinel. Your animal form may not always be the strongest in damage, but it can be sticky as heck, especially when it is large and gets multiple attacks AND sentinel. You want all the hits to funnel onto you and sentinel is a way to do it.

 

[Mephista]

Re: minor illusion. Care to share? What sort of things have you successfully used MI for? I'm starting a monk and am torn between Open Hand and Shadow.

Go shadow! Its a ton more fun! All Open Hand does is make you hit harder, while Shadow lets sneak around and play infiltrator along with any rogues, warlocks, or rangers! More play time > hit harder.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

Go shadow! Its a ton more fun! All Open Hand does is make you hit harder, while Shadow lets sneak around and play infiltrator along with any rogues, warlocks, or rangers! More play time > hit harder.

Tempting. I have set myself up as an urchin who had a reputation as a spirit of the city. Using stealth to sleight of hand hand-carved wooden toys to poor families. He was rescued by a monastery when the mayor cleaned up the streets of riffraff. Kind of fits my character being a shadowy sneak. Another look at Open Hand and the trade off is pushing people over or pushing them around. Yeah, shadow is starting to look very attractive. Thanks for the info!