D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Minigiant]

Can it use magical defensive devices e.g. a Ring of Protection or similar?

Otherwise, I'd say the issue isn't that it starts with AC 14 - AC 14 at 1st level is fine, all things considered - it's that said AC doesn't increase fast enough to keep up with level-appropriate challenges.

I can't offhand think of a better way, though, that keeps Monks viable at low levels yet doesn't give them ridiculously good AC at high. Maybe knock off one of the Wis or Dex bonus but allow them to wear light armour?

Or give them some sort of dodging ability so they don't get hit quite as often? This could be something flat, that doesn't increase with level, making it more useful at low level than at high (by which point they've got other things going for them).

Yeah the issue is't the starting AC. Hide and Ring starts you at 14 AC. It's that armor users get to 17-18 AC very quickly. Armor users can use shields. And bot armor and shields can get AC bonuses.

A monk with 14s can only start with 14 AC and if they bump DEX or WIS can get to 15 AC. Whereas every warrior, priest, rogue, and bard is 16+ AC minimum. This is with the monk having the HD of a rogue AND worse weapons AND worse skills.

How this got past playtesting, IDK.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah the issue is't the starting AC. Hide and Ring starts you at 14 AC. It's that armor users get to 17-18 AC very quickly. Armor users can use shields. And bot armor and shields can get AC bonuses.

A monk with 14s can only start with 14 AC and if they bump DEX or WIS can get to 15 AC. Whereas every warrior, priest, rogue, and bard is 16+ AC minimum. This is with the monk having the HD of a rogue AND worse weapons AND worse skills.

How this got past playtesting, IDK.

Sure, monk has issues. And whilst floating ASIs might be able to help a tad, the real issue lies in the class design.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, monk has issues. And whilst floating ASIs might be able to help a tad, the real issue lies in the class design.

Played in two campaigns where other players played monks. One was level 1 to 20. We seven other players were almost always amazed at what the monk could do. In a large group, especially at high levels, the monk seemed to do really really well.

 

[Minigiant]

Played in two campaigns where other players played monks. One was level 1 to 20. We seven other players were almost always amazed at what the monk could do. In a large group, especially at high levels, the monk seemed to do really really well.

Oh the monk is amazing.
It's just very squishy at what the roles you expect it to be and/or gasses out very quickly because its' core design is based on ability scores with other classes' are based on equipment and proficiency.

All the classes and subclasses based on ability score are lower on the totem pole.

 

[Older Beholder]

Yeah the issue is't the starting AC. Hide and Ring starts you at 14 AC. It's that armor users get to 17-18 AC very quickly. Armor users can use shields. And bot armor and shields can get AC bonuses.

A monk with 14s can only start with 14 AC and if they bump DEX or WIS can get to 15 AC. Whereas every warrior, priest, rogue, and bard is 16+ AC minimum. This is with the monk having the HD of a rogue AND worse weapons AND worse skills.

How this got past playtesting, IDK.

Two words:
Tortle Monk

It's not the greatest combo, but the AC 17 means not having to worry so much about Dex.

 

[Lanefan]

Played in two campaigns where other players played monks. One was level 1 to 20. We seven other players were almost always amazed at what the monk could do. In a large group, especially at high levels, the monk seemed to do really really well.

I think you hit the answer there: it was a large group.

Suboptimal characters can often do far better in a larger group where their weaknesses can be more easily covered off by other characters yet their strengths can still shine through.

A Monk in a three-character party is probably going to end up a liablility, assuming typical-average play.
A Monk in a party of 8? Rock on, dude!

Edit to add: and this was just as true in 1e as it seems to be now.

 

[teitan]

I am old school as a DM but I am not a grognard. I don't mind the no negatives but I also understand why they existed. For me, my middle road is one fixed (there are inherent differences) plus one floating (training) with a negative that can be offset by the floating to represent that one character that is different from his fellows or to represent that elf who, while being inherently more dextrous by genetics, hones his intellect to become a great wizard of Evermeet. A Dwarf, hardy by nature, who becomes a great orator and story teller of the history and traditions of his people, able to move even the toughest of crowds in the dankest and dingiest bars of Baldur's Gate. A Half-Orc, who is incredibly strong due to her heritage, also has grown to be wise in the ways of the world, and many underestimate her because of this (charisma penalty if you use ASP).

 

[Lyxen]

Ah, but the difference in perspective (as an actual optimizer) is that we optimizers CAN'T use the floating ASIs to make a powerful choice, or at least not much more of one. There simply aren't any races where their racial benefits were so strong that we were waiting for floating ASIs to be able to use them. V-Human and/or Custom Lineage are the best choice still for like 90% of cases.

I'm not so sure, and in particular I see a lot of noise about flying races in particular. Also, as a reminder, the Variant Human is that, an option, just as feats are. And multiclassing, which is why we are being very careful with them as they are the main source of power gap.

Whereas now casuals (who prioritize concept over mechanical efficiency) can make a purely concept driven choice and still have a 16 in their main stat if they so choose.

Only, to justify the above, they can't choose, they have to put their racial ASIs in their class choices to avoid widening, if ever slightly, the power gap.

The thing is that, once more, there is nothing inherently bad, but if one is concerned about the power gap and the power creep (and as a former 3e player, or even AD&D UA player, I'm very concerned about that), one should not assume that options are in play, and I think it's a rather bad design principle to say "oh, there is not much power gap/creep with that new option, there was much more with the previous ones", my answer to that is "just remove all these options which don't bring much to the game".

 

[clearstream]

I think it's a rather bad design principle to say "oh, there is not much power gap/creep with that new option, there was much more with the previous ones", my answer to that is "just remove all these options which don't bring much to the game".

For me that depends on whether random ability score generation is going to remain in the game. I like random generation, and therefore I highly value the ability to slightly customise the resultant scores. The play-feel of that is satisfying.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not so sure, and in particular I see a lot of noise about flying races in particular. Also, as a reminder, the Variant Human is that, an option, just as feats are. And multiclassing, which is why we are being very careful with them as they are the main source of power gap.

V Human is rarely banned and is by far the best race except for the Dwarf/HalfElf/Other matching a class primary AND secondary AND feats are DM nerfed. Flying races is mostly a DM fear as flight can be easily mitigated by good DMs.

Strict optimancers go Vuman 90% of the time. It's a DM red flag.