D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Flamestrike]

I'm still waiting to see what that Sharpshooter/ Crossbow expert BM Fighter whose bows I snapped in round 1 is going to do to me with his Short sword.

 

[Undrave]

No it's not. It's literally in the PHB, under combat section 'attack an object'.

And it also says under the 'Making an attack' section of the same PHB:

Making an Attack

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, Spells, Special Abilities, and other Effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your Attack roll.
3. Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage.

Unless your attack or spell says otherwise (Eldritch blast cannot target objects for example) you can target an object just fine.

Melee weapon attacks (such as unarmed strikes) can target objects. Both attended objects AND unattended objects.

That's literally from the PHB as RAW.

The AC and HP of the item are listed in the PHB under the combat section also.

Now a DM could rule (and probably should rule) that attacking a held or carried item is an attack roll with disadvantage (your opponent is trying to stop you from damaging it, making it harder to hit than if it was just lying there), but attacking an object is not 'optional' any more than 'Fighters' or 'elves' or 'magic missile' are optional.

If I can attack a creature's specific piece of equipment, then I can attack a specific body part, but we don't get called shots. If a system can't handle called shots I think it's a bad idea (a dumb idea even, but you do you) to allow to target specific pieces of equipment on an active combatant, especially when that specific piece is currently wielded in the hope of HURTING you. If you try to punch a sword or a mace, that weapon is in perfect position to instead strike YOU.

I REALLY don't want to pull the realism card, because I think it gets over used, but we're talking about weapons here... items designed to hit stuff all the time. Personally, I'd rule that a weapon can't be damaged by something that inflicts less damage than it does. If a Greataxe can inflict 1d12+STR (up to 5 normally) of damage, it means it can handle an impact that inflict that much, so you're not damaging it unless you can do more than 17 points of damage. That's if I let you pick a specific piece of equipment to target in the first place.

 

[Undrave]

I'm still waiting to see what that Sharpshooter/ Crossbow expert BM Fighter whose bows I snapped in round 1 is going to do to me with his Short sword.

Shortsword is a Finesse weapon and all Maneuvers that work at range ALSO work in melee. It's not that debilitating. They're essentially 1 ASI below in efficiency to someone who didn't invest in that feat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For those that disagree with eb and hex baseline, what is your suggested baseline?

Dictionary says a baseline is "a minimum or starting point used for comparisons." It's pretty easy to define a reasonable minimum - one attack per round doing an average of 7.5 points of physical damage on a hit with no riders. Then you measure everything by how many times the minimum they are.

 

[Flamestrike]

If I can attack a creature's specific piece of equipment, then I can attack a specific body part, but we don't get called shots.

Strawman.

The PHB mentions nothing about targeting body parts.

It expressly gives rules for targeting Objects, says Objects can be targeted with attacks (ranged and melee spell and weapon attacks), which Jeremy Crawford (above) clearly states includes both attended objects AND unattended Objects.

Attacking an object (held, carried, on the ground or whatever) is NOT an optional rule. It's literally in the PHB!

 

[Helldritch]

Dear @Flamestrike. Take time to watch this.


Your are right that even in real life you can attack the weapon of an opponent. But it is not as easy as the rules in 5ed seems to indicate.
1) I would give you disadvantage for this or you could attack normaly and you would grant advantage to your opponent. It would be your choice.
2) You should require something as hard or harder than the material you are attacking. Otherwise, I would probably give resistance or immunity to the object. This would be in accordance to P. 247 where the DM is entitled to give objects immunity/resistance to certain attack/damage type/source.
3) I might also be tempted to give the wielded object a save for half damage with a DC equal to the actual damage dealt. Weapons are afterall, used to parry other weapons and they do not usually break because of that.
4) You would be forced to attack the wielder's AC or the object's AC, whichever is higher.

This would make the monk attacking a weapon a not so viable solution. Otherwise, a first level character would be much more powerful than a 6th level spell (disentegrate to name it). And a bunch of other spell. Why would a BM ever use disarm if breaking a weapon would be simpler?

Don't take me wrong. I am on the side that considers that monks do not suck. But attacking weapons that are wielded is not the solution to prove that. The strength of monk lies on the fact that though it does not have the best damage (at high level), the best AC, the best control or even the best mobility, it is the fact that he can do all these at the same time that makes the monks so good. Versatility is the monk's moto.

Edit: Added the word: "Resistance" next to immunity at point number 2. Damn phones...

 

[Flamestrike]

Shortsword is a Finesse weapon and all Maneuvers that work at range ALSO work in melee. It's not that debilitating. They're essentially 1 ASI below in efficiency to someone who didn't invest in that feat.

Cool, maybe you can take over.

It's your turn. You have a shortsword left, and you have the precision strike, menacing attack and pushing attack manouvers. You're at +7 to hit with your Shortsword, and the Monk (AC 19) is standing adjacent to you. You're all full HP with action surge and all Sup dice left, and you're 5th level.

 

[Esker]

Why wouldn't average sword damage used by a fighter be the baseline?

I mean, there can be multiple baselines. But a fighter who doesn't outdamage a warlock using EB+AB+Hex isn't contributing much mechanically either, unless they have something else they are offering (consistently keeping attacks off their allies, say). Because, again, a warlock --- even a warlock using Hex --- isn't just a damage-based character. They have (other) invocations and (other) spells on top of that. And on average they can have Hex up and also have spell slots available for other things.

That’s fair. Though we could Just assume they do 99% of an enemies health in damage. That implies readying actions won’t kill them and they will get an attack each.

If they do 99% of an enemies' health without the warlock doing anything (which is the baseline against which we should be comparing HP's contribution), then they're presumably going to do more than 100% once the warlock starts adding a bit of damage too (even just a single dagger slash). If they're doing 99% with everyone's readied action and actual turn put together (which is what you can get when mowing down hypnotized enemies one by one, because you just ready for whoever's turn is right after that enemy to give the signal), then without the readied actions, they're doing significantly less than that, and so the baseline is more enemy turns.

But that aside, even if you use 6 turns denied as the measure of HP's contribution, and assume stunning strike sticks about half the time (so, about twice per fight), the warlock is still denying about 3x as many enemy turns as the monk. The gap in overall contribution closes when you take into account the damage the monk is doing on those turns that the warlock isn't doing, but the monk's damage, even including the indirect damage from granting advantage against stunned enemies, is unlikely to amount to 4 enemy turns denied per fight.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yup. I'm fine with monks, but attacking a wielded weapon to damage it is not something I would allow as DM, or expect a DM to allow. Otherwise you have to explain why all those archers hit by a fireball haven't had their bows and arrows burned to ash.

 

[Flamestrike]

Dear @Flamestrike. Take time to watch this.


Your are right that even in real life you can attack the weapon of an opponent. But it is not as easy as the rules in 5ed seems to indicate.

Man in the Gym fallacy.

We're not talking about real life. We're talking about a Wuxia Monk of 5th level, who could go toe to toe unarmed against a literal Sabre-tooth Tiger and easily win.

I would give you disadvantage for this

So would I. The AC of objects is the AC of an unattended object (it would be the AC of a weapon lying on the ground).

It should be harder to hit and damage something held by your opponent who doesnt want you to hit or damage it.

So I would impose disadvantage to the attack roll.

Id give advantage to hit an object if he had the object in his hands though.

2) You should require something as hard or harder than the material you are attacking.

Because Monks and Marital artists arent famous for putting their fists through bricks, blocks of wood, iron bars and so forth?