D&D 5E Comparing Monk DPR

[Lord Twig]

Seems pretty cool to me ... a heck of a lot cooler than a +1 shield. The biggest negative about it is that it is a shield. If it was a hat that did that it would be dope.

I think it is also clear that you play a very different game compared to many others of us play when we sit down for a game of D&D.

Not right or wrong, but different.

 

[Lord Twig]

It is not unique to BOD. In fact I think every single item that gives a bonus to AC, and is not armor, requires attunement. Ring of protection, cloak of protection ..., every one I can think of does.

And I think it is fine that the ring/cloak of protection requires attunement. They stack with everything, unlike the BoD, which explicitly does not stack with armor and shields. I haven't looked, but I'm pretty sure you can't wear multiple BoD. Just like you can't wear multiple belts or gloves. So it wouldn't be a problem.

I think the intent is pretty clear - you will need to attune to a magic item to boost AC with it if it is not armor. Part of that is because of the nature of armor. A character with 5 suits of magic plate can only get the bonus from one of them. someone with 3 magic shields can only get the bonus from one of them. Without attunement you could stack rings cloaks and bracers until you had a 30AC.

Again, I don't think you can stack multiples of the same magic item. If I am somehow wrong about that, then the problem is not with the BoD, it is with the magic item rules in general.

And I went ahead and looked it up. DMG p.141. It says to use common sense, but it explicitly states that you can not wear more than one pair of bracers as an example.

Note a weapon +3 does not require attunement, but a defender, which is also +3 does. Why? because of the AC bonus.

You would be wrong there, it is because it does more than just give +3 to hit and damage. A Flame Tongue requires attunement, so does a Frost Brand, Holy Avenger, Nine Lives Stealer, Sun Blade, Sword of Answering, Sword of Life Stealing, Sword of Sharpness, Sword of Vengence, Sword of Wounding, and a Vorpal Sword. Lots of swords, and I haven't even looked at the other weapon types yet.

On thinking more about this, I believe it would be more logical to argue magic armor and shileds should require attunement instead of arguing that the other items should not.

Actually I would agree for the magic armor, but shields require a hand and, as we all know, taking up one of only two hands is a huge disadvantage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well there is a specific part in the PHB about using potions, so most people do. There are other potions besides heaqling too, how about flying so you can attack the flying enemy with your strength-based melee character .... or even in the example you gave, you must drop your weapon (leaving it on the floor) to administer person to a downed ally.

If the ally is down, it is generally worth dropping your weapon.

And, no, we never used flying potions mid-combat. Hence why I said "if we are going by RAW". We actually had to start homebrewing rules for potions, because they were never getting used, because the cost of an action during combat was too high.

Well that explains one reason why having a hand free is not a big deal and is also not RAW. Sure if you bend the rules so you can take more actions in combat then not having an intract available to pull out your potion (or do anythgin else with a free hand) is not a big deal.

To use some examples from the PHB; if you allow people to do other interact with objects including "throw a lever .... open or close a door ....withrdraw a potion from a backpack .... pull a torch from a scone, don a mask" without using an action, in addition to also sheathing a sword without using an action, or allowing new things to be done with a BA, then you are fundamentally changing the action economy and doing it in a way which offers substantial advantageous to characters doing sword and board or TWF because they will have fewer turns with "wasted" actions reconfiguring what they are holding.

This explains why shields are so popular in your game, you are eliminating one of the biggest (arguably the biggest) negative to using one.

I am not saying this is wrong, if it works in your game do it, but it does change this discussion substantially

Which is why I have kept the discussion to RAW as much as I can and not dealing with our Homebrew.

And you seem to have misunderstood about the lever. A lever is a big switch. I can throw a switch with my elbow while my hands are full of groceries. If it is a big switch, then I could catch the end with my shield and throw it. I don't need to drop anything, logically, to be able to do so. Just like I don't need to do so to charge and bust a door either.

So you only do one of 21 things called out in the players handbook under interact with an object?

1) Let's say for the sake of discussion, the enemy wizard fires a spell and then goes through a door and closes it behind him. You just stand there and do not do anything? You don't open the door to follow/attack him?

2) If your ally is behind a porticulus, and you need to pull a lever to open it so he can join the fight, you don't bother

3) An enemy drops a weapon at his feet (or maybe he dies and is holding an item you are looking for), you don't bother to pick it up?

4) You never grab the horses reins to control the wagon while you are in the middle of a fight?

5) You never drink a potion of cold resistance, THAT IS IN YOUR PACK, if you stumble apon a white dragon ... or a pack of winter wolves?

All of these things can be done without using an action if you have a free hand. Something like this is done about 50% of fights I am in and I would think it is similar in others.

1) Well, that has literally never happened in our games. But, for the sake of discussion, no, we wouldn't stand there stupidly and do nothing. But, we've never had any wizard cast then run and take the time to shut the door behind him. If it did, I guess someone would open the door. Whether it was the fighter, the rogue, the cleric, the bard or whoever would determine if the shield mattered or not.

2) Has never happened in our games. The DM has never split the party and had a lever to unsplit the party. Seems kind of unfun to force a player to not be able to do anything until we can reach a lever that is presumably difficult to get to

3) No, we don't bother picking up enemy items until they are all defeated. Generally if they have something we want, we defeat or drive off all of the enemies, then start looting. I mean, you don't pull out sacks and start filling them with gold while the Dragon is still breathing fire on you, do you?

4) Has never happened. Usually if the DM has wagons or horses nearby when the fight starts, he moves them to the edge of the map and doesn't bother with them, because it is too much overhead to track them. A few times they have attacked civilians or the like, but no one has had this particular issue come up.

5) If by stumble upon you mean that somehow we had no idea that there was a white dragon in the area, and we had a potion of cold resistance... no, we don't. Again, that situation has never come up (we don't get a lot of potions of resistance) and if we were playing by RAW, losing an entire turn to just take half damage against a foe like a dragon is a pretty terrible idea. That is a lot of damage you are leaving on the table.

I mean, I can keep telling you it doesn't come up. Because... it doesn't come up. We don't get a lot of disposable items, and if we do, we generally use them before doing things like fighting dragons, not after the fight starts.

A fighter has easier access to a static AC then any class. That is balanced by the spells, abilities etc of other classes. What you are missing is BOD give Monks access to the equivalent AC of a fighter who is optimized for AC while still having all the other abilities that made them equivalent without those BOD,.

Which is covered under "magic items change the balance of the game, they are an addition of power."

If the BoD DIDN'T make the monk more powerful it would be an even more worthless item. But, let me show you something else who can get better AC than the fighter who is optimized for AC with non-magical gear. A fighter who is optimized for AC with magical gear. See, they can get a +2 AC, same as the boost in power of the Monk, without attunement (UNLIKE THE MONK!!) by getting a +2 shield, which is the same rarity and power level as the BoD.

So, yes, BoD does give the monk a power boost to match a non-magical fighter. That should happen. That is the point of a magical item, to give them a power boost. But, comparing the power boosts of magical items, the monk's item is worse than the fighters item.

It does not stack with Monk unarmored defense or bladeson, also if your DM considers it "armor" it does not stack with mage armor, there is no sage advice ruling on the last that I know of. Shields are also not generally not compatible with the shield spell without warcaster feat, because of the somatic component (unless you modify the action economy as you have done).

"shields don't stack with the abilities that don't let you use shields" I wouldn't have guessed. By the way, the two classes you mention, the monk and the wizard, are two of the only classes who are wanting the BoD.... because they can't use shields.

It gives you a higher AC probably more than 90% even (the 10% accounting for the exceptions noted above). That is a lot different than being "better" though.

Using your action to dodge will make you even harder to hit than a shield +2, it is usable by any character at all in any kind of armor as long as he can see his foe and it will stack with the sheild +2 to boot! Is taking dodge action every turn "flat better" than not taking it?

Is a forever passive boost better than taking a specific action that prevents other actions? Why is that even a question you feel the need to ask?

Is taking the attack action better than wearing armor? They aren't comparable. One is an action, the other is gear that gives a passive effect.

BOD are more useful, in part because more characters (literally all characters) can use them and other than the attunement, there are no negatives to using them.

Any character who wears armor gets zero benefit from them. They can use them for nothing. And they still have to attune to them, which is the cost.

Getting nothing is not useful.

Maybe I don't understand because I wasn't there, but as it is a world of make believe, I really don't get your point.

Rolling for random items means it is possible for some people to get nothing, and other people to get amazing things. Even when narratively, that makes no sense. And that leads to resentment and frustration, because your actions aren't being rewarded, due entirely to poor luck.

Flavor is the fun in my games. Counting up all your bonuses isn't part of it.

Never said it was

Any character can use scrolls.

Wrong

Characters can use spell scrolls if the spells appear on their spell list, which would include some fighters and other spell casting classes that have shield proficiency.

If you never use them though, that explains why having a hand free to use them is never a problem.

Right, it needs to be a spell on their spell list. You be surprised how often that isn't the case where someone:

1) Can use the scroll

2) It can be used in combat

3) We remember we even have it

For example, I think the last scroll we used was a scroll of Greater Restoration. Out of Combat. One game of mine does have a lot of scrolls in it, my 9th level warlock got scrolls of Cloud of Daggers and Witch Bolt. Guess how much I want to cast a level 1 Witch Bolt with my action as a level 9 warlock?

Then why is there an example of it in the combat section of the PHB?

Couldn't tell you. But it seems to me that if the DM is actively dousing torches to make lighting them in combat neccessary... then the players are going to respond with magic and lanterns that can't be doused.

So give up an attack because you are carrying a shield.

Potentially. But wow you had to really dig to find a scenario where you have killed one enemy, can't reach the second, have a weapon that can be thrown, and are a shield user.

Do you think that comes up terribly often? Oh, by the way, a lot of players would just try and throw their sword. I've seen it happen.

No the seecond guy is fighting your party. There is nothing wrong with that. scenario


If your weapon is on the ground, which it would be often RAW in most campaigns with people using a shield, then yes the enemy is going to pick it up. Especially if you are in a high magic game where your weapon is magic.


Jeremy Crawford even addressed this in an interview. He said during the interview that when he is playing with both his hands full he is constantly dropping weapons on the ground because of the action economy aspect of it. He joked about it and said something like "at the end of the battle there are weapons strewn all over the ground".

Well, again, if the alarm being raised is that big of a deal, then it is probably a good trade to get hit by my weapon instead of the enemy's weapon. It is likely... no difference. Unless I also somehow have a powerful magical weapon that doesn't require attunement (most of them do)

Heck, you might as well be making a big deal over choosing to get hit by an arrow to prevent the death of the Queen. Sure, it is going to hurt you mildly, but it seems the scenario tells us that it is the best option.

But not having a free hand limits your options, it limits the choices available to you. You can't choose to throw your javelin and not drop your weapon BECAUSE you are hodlding something in 2 hands. That choice is not on your list of options. That is what I am getting out. Yes you should make the best choice available to you, but if you have something in each hand at the start of a turn the choices you have are going to be fewer. In the case of a shield, this a built in and consistent opportunity cost to using it.

There is no such opportunity cost to using BOD.

You don't use potions in combat, you don't uise scrolls in combat, you don't do 20 of the 21 combat interactions mentioned in the players handbook. You don't throw weapons in combat. You are limiting your choices significantly already by choosing not to do these things.

Because they aren't helping us achieve our goals.

Seriously, I don't know how else to explain this to you to make it make sense to you. We don't have portcullis's cutting half the party off from the fight. We don't have this situation with one guy with low hp running for raise the alarm, while another is eyeing my sword waiting for me to drop it so he can drop his sword to pick mine up. Most potions that get used are getting used outside of combat, not in it.

But, you know what does happen, every session, multiple times a session? We get attacked by enemies. Enemies who roll versus AC. And, having a higher AC makes it more likely that we survive that attack.

The difference in AC is small, the difference overall considering all the Monks abilities is not.

The monk is mostly balanced against the fighter. So, if the monk + all their abilities + 2 AC is somehow more powerful than the fighter + all their abilities + 2 AC, then there is a problem.

You can't have it not be a big deal, but also be a big deal.

You can't lock down enemies without grappling them or using some other method of restraining them (like the sentinel feat). Without that most smart enemies are not going to be locked down. They will accept an AOO to attack who they want in combat unless you happen to be in a hallway or some other chokepoint to where they can't get around your melee fighters.

This doesn't match my experience at all. Giving the enemy free attacks is generally a terrible strategy, and relies on assuming that the enemy can reach, hit and stop a "squishier" but more dangerous target... while allowing the fighter to just wale on them from behind with impunity.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice an enemy might try it once before the party just takes advantage of them blindly charging the mage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that people are getting stuck in a pointless argument about the BoD that distracts from the real problem of magic item availability between, wotc designing everything as if no magic items will ever be present, & then that design capping the whole thing off by assuming a given bonus will be equally effective no matter who is using it or how many attacks they get to trigger it on each round.



It's exactly just "something"
View attachment 135715
It's literally a situation where everyone else got a magic item that in some cases multiplies each round with extra attack & the monk got a downgrade from a magic shield to one with zero mechanical effect on anything but very weak fluff. That something is an issue deliberately created by wotc & bragged about as if it were a good thing. When Wotc says "magic items are optional" so that 5e would have maximum compatibility with Cubicle 7's adventures in middle earth game where I believe magic items are pretty much not a thing they did so at the expense of 5e itself. Wotc designs everything pegged to a bar set with the faulty assumption that rogues & fighters will not have magic items. That faulty assumption results in classes that are less magic item dependent or even less capable of using them having no way to bridge the gap created by giving magic items to classes like fighter/rogue/paladin. Even worse is that in the name of simplification they cut off avenues for the GM to provide those other classes magic items that do so. Take this 3.5 monk guide where a bunch of magic items are listed

Spoiler

• Ki FocusPHB (+1): This would be great if it also allowed the weapon to use your unarmed strike damage, but as written it's not very useful.
• Scorpion KamaMIC: A +1 kama which uses your unarmed strike damage. You can use a cheaper mundane or magical kama for special attacks, or you can use your unarmed strikes to hit things, and you can magically enhance your hands, so this doesn't really offer anything useful except the ability to attach weapon crystals.

Rings​

• CounterspellsDMG: Not an especially exciting option, the Ring of Counterspells is frequently overlooked. Monks can get a lot from permanent spells, but the problem with permanent spells is that if they are dispelled they're gone forever and you lose all of that gold you spent. Enter the ring of counterspells, which you can fill with three spells. I recommend Dispel Magic, Greater Dispel Nagic, and either a second greater dispel magic or Reaving Dispel depending on your level. Suddenly you're protected against your biggest counter.
• FangedDM: Improved Natural Weapon (Unarmed Strike) on a ring. See the Feats section, above. It's interesting to note that sincer unarmed strikes technically aren't a natural weapon, Improved Natural Weapon (Unarmed Strike) should be an invalid feat. However, this ring seems to indicate that it's allowed.
• Force ShieldDMG: The description specifies that the shield effect is encumbrance-free, so your DM may allow you to use this without interrupting your Monk AC bonus. If that's the case, this can be a helpful way to get some more AC once your cheaper options have been enhanced quite a bit.
• Adamantine TouchMIC: If you give up Ki Strike (Adamantine) this is a cheap way to replace it.
• ProtectionDMG: With such poor AC, Monks need all of the help they can get.

Wands​

• Mage ArmorPHB: With no ability to wear armor, a wand of Mage Armor is a fantastically economical option. I don't recommend the eternal version because 2 hours may not be enough to get you through a day, but 50 charges should last long enough for you to upgrade to Greater Mage Armor.
• Mage Armor, GreaterPHB: As a third level spell, the minimum caster level is 5 so you get 5 hours per charge. Get an eternal wand and you're covered for 10 hours a day for just over 10,000gp. That's somewhere between the cost of +3 and +4 armor or bracers of armor, and you're getting +6 instead.
• Magic FangPHB: 750gp gets you 50 hours of +1 hands, which may be enough to get you by until you can afford to permanently enhance your hands. Of course, you still need a caster who can use it, but Magic Fang is on nearly every full caster's spell list.

Wondrous Items​

• Amulet of Natural ArmorMIC: The AC boost is great, but Periapt of Wisdom does more for the Monk.
• Amulet of Mighty FistsMIC: This is a trap. See Greater Magic Fang under Permanent Spells, below. For less than the price of a +2 amulet you can make your hands permanently +5.
• Armbands of MightMIC: Fantastic if you want to use Power Attack and/or special attacks like Trip.
• Belt of BattleMIC: A fantastic way to get some extra actions. Use on charge to get a move action, then move into place to make a Flurry of Blows.
• Belt of StrengthMIC: The bonus to hit and damage are crucial.
• Bracers of ArmorDMG: A trap for people who don't like wands. A wand of mage armor will do much better for much less gold.
• Cloak of ResistanceDMG: Vest of Resistance is identical and takes up a much less useful slot.
• Gauntlets of StrengthDMG: Great for the Strength bonus, but it's usually better to get a belt so that you can get Gloves of Dexterity.
• Gloves of DexterityDMG: Great for your AC, and the boost to Reflex saves is always nice with Evasion.
• Monk's BeltMIC: Tempting, but the effects total to +1 to AC and a tiny bit of unarmed strike damage. Leave this for Clerics and Druids.
• Necklace of Natural WeaponsSS: Throw some elemental enhancements on this. You don't need to make it +1 before applying enhancements, so you can use permanent greater Magic Fang to get +5 hands, and add caustic/flaming/shocking to the amulet for piles of energy damage.
• Periapt of WisdomDMG: Essential for many Monk abilities, including the AC bonus. However, the Necklace of Natural Weapons is probably a better choice. Ask your DM if he'll let you move this to your head slot.
• Rags of Restraint of WisdomMIC: A very cheap healing mechanic exclusive to Monks and Ninjas, but wands of Lesser Vigor are very cheap, and someone in your party should know how to use one.
• Rapidstrike BracersMIC: +2 to your attacks with Flurry of Blows, but only 3/day.
• Vest of ResistanceMIC: Same cost as a cloak, and takes up the largely useless "torso" slot.

Those slots were important for balancing things like these & even moreso so were flat +N attribute bonus items.

To clear up some confusion. The character was a paladin, who already had been using a Sentinel Shield for... I think quite literally something like 7 or 8 levels.

 

[auburn2]

So, yes, BoD does give the monk a power boost to match a non-magical fighter. That should happen. That is the point of a magical item, to give them a power boost. But, comparing the power boosts of magical items, the monk's item is worse than the fighters item.

Which is ok because THe monk has a bunch more abilities that make up for the difference in AC.

If you assume all classes are perfectly balanced without magic (I know that is a false assumption but it is the baseline) then getting the BOD does not make the monk equal to the fighter, it makes him better (because he was equal without them).

Now the fighter getting a shield+1 gives him a +2 AC and gets them nearly but not quite back to equal - I say nearly because the Monk has a lower AC to start with so a +2 saves the Monk more damage than a +2 on the fighter. A +2 at 16 AC is better than a +2 at 20 AC.

"shields don't stack with the abilities that don't let you use shields" I wouldn't have guessed. By the way, the two classes you mention, the monk and the wizard, are two of the only classes who are wanting the BoD.... because they can't use shields.

Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, most Barbarians (because they usually use 2-handed weapons)...

Is a forever passive boost better than taking a specific action that prevents other actions? Why is that even a question you feel the need to ask?

But wielding a shield prevents other actions, it prevents anything you need 2 hands for, and with a sword in your pother hand it prevent a lot of the things I was talking about.

Wrong

I am not wrong. Every character class can use scrolls. The only thing that they can't all use is spell scrolls.

3) We remember we even have it

Do you really not remember magic items you have?

Couldn't tell you. But it seems to me that if the DM is actively dousing torches to make lighting them in combat neccessary... then the players are going to respond with magic and lanterns that can't be doused.

I think the issue is trying to light something on fire (like trolls for exampe or an enemy you just doused in oil). IF it is a dark area you probably already have torches lit.

Potentially. But wow you had to really dig to find a scenario where you have killed one enemy, can't reach the second, have a weapon that can be thrown, and are a shield user.

It happens all the time. Paladins start the gamr with 5 javelins and a shied, fighters start with 2 handaxes. Those are standard options for those classes. The example I used was a multi-attack, but it is just as relevant at first level.

Playing mines of Phadelvar (spelling) - the goblin ambush, very first fight for many D&D players - you kill one of the Goblins in the road. Next turn you start too far away to engage the ones in the bushes in melee. You can close 30 feet and hurl a axe/javelin or just not attack this turn.

Do you think that comes up terribly often? Oh, by the way, a lot of players would just try and throw their sword. I've seen it happen.

Yes, almost every single fight against multiple enemeies. There will be many, many turns where primary melee characters are too far away to get in a melee attack. This includes the first turn in most battles and usually several more turns during the battle if there are multiple foes. If you use theater of the mind it probably happens less often.

The monk is mostly balanced against the fighter. So, if the monk + all their abilities + 2 AC is somehow more powerful than the fighter + all their abilities + 2 AC, then there is a problem.

As noted earlier +2 AC is more valuable on a lower AC character.

This doesn't match my experience at all. Giving the enemy free attacks is generally a terrible strategy, and relies on assuming that the enemy can reach, hit and stop a "squishier" but more dangerous target... while allowing the fighter to just wale on them from behind with impunity.

Most intelligent enemies will target spellcasters and will use things like disengage or just accept opportunity attacks to do it.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice an enemy might try it once before the party just takes advantage of them blindly charging the mage.

How are you going to take advantage of this? You only get one reaction per person per turn.

Giving the enemy free attacks is not a great strategy, but taking ONE free atttack from a heavily armored martial who is optimized for AC and not for damage so you can get to a more lucrative target is generally a good strategy. Further you only get one AOO, meaning if bad guy #1 triggers an AOO then bad guy #2 is not getting attacked when he walks by the blocking character.

How much is your sword and board martial going to do on an AOO? If he hits, probably about 12 damage to ONE enemy, or 10 damage if he took defense. He is going to do that or more damage before your next turn anyway, so take the 12 damage now and go chop the sorcerer down! The other option is to stay and fight the armored guy and try to beat his 20 AC and even if you do hit him he probably has a boat load of hps, because well he is a tank. Going after the mage is in general a much better option if you can do it, especially if the blocker is a sword and board in plate.

That is one option, depending on the enemy they may try shove or grapple or something to remove the armored guy, while another goes by, or try to go around him. In some cases they have no choice but to engage armored guy and in others it may be the best of a lot of bad choices, but it is hardly always or even usually the best choice.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The argument that BoD should stack with armor is the argument that Wizards, Monks, and Sorcerers shouldn't actually get them, because Fighters, Rogues, and Paladins deserve them more. This is the diametric opposite of what the item is for, going back to their introduction roughly 40 years ago.

Thematically, armor proficiency is and should be a major feature. It shouldn't just be, "everyone is entitled to 16 AC minimum, plus a default magic item bonus per level." Otherwise, armor proficiency would actually be bad. It would mean you have the same AC as everyone else, plus penalties on stealth and action economy. The fact that your Fighter can theoretically equip a +3 Shield and +3 plate without any cost should be viewed as a feature of the class.

We should also note that this isn't new on a thematic level; jewelry that can increase your AC without wearing armor have always been extremely valuable. In AD&D 2e, Bracers of Defense AC 2 were worth, unless I counted wrong, 4000 XP, which is more than +5 full plate, which takes the Fighter's AC to -4. Attunement is a new feature, but making BoD require it seems to me to be in keeping with their general presentation as very valuable & precious items.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which is ok because THe monk has a bunch more abilities that make up for the difference in AC.

If you assume all classes are perfectly balanced without magic (I know that is a false assumption but it is the baseline) then getting the BOD does not make the monk equal to the fighter, it makes him better (because he was equal without them).

Now the fighter getting a shield+1 gives him a +2 AC and gets them nearly but not quite back to equal - I say nearly because the Monk has a lower AC to start with so a +2 saves the Monk more damage than a +2 on the fighter. A +2 at 16 AC is better than a +2 at 20 AC.

A +1 shield being worn gives +3 AC to whatever armor is being worn. And you keep missing the larger points.

Yes, a monk + Magical Item being more powerful than a Fighter + Nothing should be what happens. It isn't, unless the monk is very high level and has maxed out their Dex and Wis. This is a price the Monk is paying for their other abilities, a slower progression of AC.

And, when giving out magical items, it is fair to assume comparable items for both classes. The fighter getting their +2 AC shield (total +4) is getting a better item than the monk getting BoD. Now, you could be trying to argue that the monk is assumed to have a lower AC, and a boost for a lower AC is more valuable than a boost for a higher AC, but that just doesn't track. If it did, then +1 on Studded Leather would be more valuable than +1 on Full Plate, but it isn't. Those two items are considered identical magical items.

Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, most Barbarians (because they usually use 2-handed weapons)...

No Rogue or Warlock wants to use BoD. It will give them nothing.

Barbarians only want to use it if they have a 20 Con and 16 Dex, allowing their unarmored Defense to be better than wearing half-plate. Then they will want to use it, if they don't get Magical Armor instead.

But wielding a shield prevents other actions, it prevents anything you need 2 hands for, and with a sword in your pother hand it prevent a lot of the things I was talking about.

You are comparing oranges to cars here, wearing armor cannot be compared to taking the dodge action.

I am not wrong. Every character class can use scrolls. The only thing that they can't all use is spell scrolls.

I've never seen a scroll that isn't a spell scroll. I guess there was the scroll of protection, but that is a hyper specific item to be talking about.

Do you really not remember magic items you have?

We have a party loot page. On that page, which we generally do not look at, we list out all of the potions, spell scrolls, gems, ect that we have. No one in specific wants them, so we leave it random who has it.

So, yeah, when fighting a specific monster we don't usually check and see if one of the dozen potions we never use is a potion of cold resistance, or if it was another healing potion for after combat, or if it was a potion of waterbreathing.

Anything on our sheets we remember and look at, just not the party loot where a lot of this situational stuff gets put.

I think the issue is trying to light something on fire (like trolls for exampe or an enemy you just doused in oil). IF it is a dark area you probably already have torches lit.

That is not an issue we generally have. Most magic-users can call up fire or acid.

I've only seen one character ever bother with items like oil, my own Rogue Theif who used Fast Hands,

It happens all the time. Paladins start the gamr with 5 javelins and a shied, fighters start with 2 handaxes. Those are standard options for those classes. The example I used was a multi-attack, but it is just as relevant at first level.

Playing mines of Phadelvar (spelling) - the goblin ambush, very first fight for many D&D players - you kill one of the Goblins in the road. Next turn you start too far away to engage the ones in the bushes in melee. You can close 30 feet and hurl a axe/javelin or just not attack this turn.

And that is completely not the same situation at all.

Because then you could drop your weapon, run forward 30 ft, then throw your handle/Javelin. The goblin isn't going to run past you, leaving no options to attack you, to grab your weapon you left behind.

Yes, almost every single fight against multiple enemeies. There will be many, many turns where primary melee characters are too far away to get in a melee attack. This includes the first turn in most battles and usually several more turns during the battle if there are multiple foes. If you use theater of the mind it probably happens less often.

Nope, a lot of Roll20 games and generally it is a massive melee and the melee characters can reach the majority of the enemies, Very rarely do we have a situation where they get stuck halfway with no enemies to attack.

Most intelligent enemies will target spellcasters and will use things like disengage or just accept opportunity attacks to do it.

If most intelligent enemies are going to act predictably, then that is all the better for us to defeat them.

How are you going to take advantage of this? You only get one reaction per person per turn.

Giving the enemy free attacks is not a great strategy, but taking ONE free atttack from a heavily armored martial who is optimized for AC and not for damage so you can get to a more lucrative target is generally a good strategy. Further you only get one AOO, meaning if bad guy #1 triggers an AOO then bad guy #2 is not getting attacked when he walks by the blocking character.

How much is your sword and board martial going to do on an AOO? If he hits, probably about 12 damage to ONE enemy, or 10 damage if he took defense. He is going to do that or more damage before your next turn anyway, so take the 12 damage now and go chop the sorcerer down! The other option is to stay and fight the armored guy and try to beat his 20 AC and even if you do hit him he probably has a boat load of hps, because well he is a tank. Going after the mage is in general a much better option if you can do it, especially if the blocker is a sword and board in plate.

That is one option, depending on the enemy they may try shove or grapple or something to remove the armored guy, while another goes by, or try to go around him. In some cases they have no choice but to engage armored guy and in others it may be the best of a lot of bad choices, but it is hardly always or even usually the best choice.

Easy, we put the Sorcerer 35 ft past the melee fighter. Enemy charges past, can't reach the sorcerer except with a weaker thrown weapon and the sorcerer hits them with magic and the fighter, who got a free attack runs up behind them and hits them again. Sorcerer falls back, the enemy charges and I get ANOTHER free attack. Rinse and Repeat and until they turn to fight me after giving me X free attacks.

"Smart enemies will always reliably use the same exact strategy and you can't stop them" is a terrible argument, because players are smarter still and will start adjusting to use tactics that take advantage of your consistent targeting of a single member of the party by making them bait to lure the enemy into exactly the position they want.

 

[auburn2]

No Rogue or Warlock wants to use BoD. It will give them nothing.

Absolutely they do. Aside from the fact they can't find armor that is any better, both of these classes often have mage armor and that is the difference between a 12 and a 15 (before dex bonus)

Barbarians only want to use it if they have a 20 Con and 16 Dex, allowing their unarmored Defense to be better than wearing half-plate. Then they will want to use it, if they don't get Magical Armor instead.

No Barbarian is going to wear half plate when they can get a breast plate for less money and not have to deal with disadvantage on stealth.

I have never had a Barbarian at the table wear half plate. Never. I have had them go naked though (especially at lower levels).

The people who wear half plate are mostly Dwarf Rogues or multiclass Rogues that take medium armor master.

You are comparing oranges to cars here, wearing armor cannot be compared to taking the dodge action.

I agree, but that just goes to show that having a high AC is not the end all be all.

I've never seen a scroll that isn't a spell scroll. I guess there was the scroll of protection, but that is a hyper specific item to be talking about.

There are four types of scrolls listed in d&d beyond:
spell scroll (usable by casters)
scroll of protection (usable by anyone)
scroll of summoning (usable by anyone)
Nether Scroll (not applicable to this discussion, but usable by anyone)

So spell scrolls compromise one third of the available types of scrolls (not counting the nether scrolls)

Because then you could drop your weapon, run forward 30 ft, then throw your handle/Javelin. The goblin isn't going to run past you, leaving no options to attack you, to grab your weapon you left behind.

No, you are without a melee weapon so the goblin can run up to you, then attack you, then go pick up your sword and he does not suffer an AOO .... and after he picks it up he can try to break sight and take the hide bonus action.

Further even if he is "predictable" and does not go to pick up your sword, and instead just attacks you, you are now in melee with him and either have to take an AOO to get your sword yourself or use disengage.

Finally even if said Goblin does not go into melee with you and instead stays in the bushes, now your sword, your primary weapon is 20 feet behind you, meaning you have to go back and get it (and lose a melee attack)

No matter how this is played, no matter how stupid the DM plays the enemy you lose an attack because you are carrying a shield. Either you lose an attack on the first turn because you cant use a missile weapon or you lose it on a subsequent round because either the enemy has your sword or because you have to go back and get it.

Nope, a lot of Roll20 games and generally it is a massive melee and the melee characters can reach the majority of the enemies, Very rarely do we have a situation where they get stuck halfway with no enemies to attack.

So outdoors you players can normally only see 30 feet ahead and the enemy can only see 30 feet?

I don't think most games are like that. Heck in the Roll 20 game I am playing right now my Rogue is engaging at long range with a heavy crossbow regularly, and they need to be beyond 100ft for that.

If this is true you do not use the roll20 maps built for most of the WOTC campaigns.

If most intelligent enemies are going to act predictably, then that is all the better for us to defeat them.

You are the one who says the enemy never runs past you, would never bother to pick up a weapon you drop etc.

Easy, we put the Sorcerer 35 ft past the melee fighter.

Except you claim that the enemy is always within 30 feet when you spot them. Fighters never ever start out of melee range remember?

I guess you are never surprised, the sorcerer never loses initiative and you never face enemies with a move over 30 feet ...... and you certainly never face Orcs that can move 60 feet towards an enemy.

"Smart enemies will always reliably use the same exact strategy and you can't stop them" is a terrible argument, because players are smarter still and will start adjusting to use tactics that take advantage of your consistent targeting of a single member of the party by making them bait to lure the enemy into exactly the position they want.

Yet you are the one sitting here saying the enemy always attacks your sword and board fighter and never does anything else. I am the one suggesting enemies are not that predictable. Moreover, what are you going to do after you bait them? The only thing you ever do in combat is swing your sword, remember! When I mentioned using grapple to control positioning you scoffed at the idea.

YOU are the one who is predictable as you have said repeatedly you never use grapple, you don't use shove, you don't do most of the interactions mentioned in the PHB, you don't use scrolls or potions, you don't throw weapons, you don't use oil. By your own admission, YOU "use the exact same strategy" in every fight. How does your party adjust if you do the same thing every single fight? What do you do so as not to be predictable?

Good enemies do not always reliably use the same strategy like you do.

 

[Lord Twig]

All sword and board or great weapon fighters I have seen enter combat without their weapons drawn unless they know the enemies will be close. Round one the fighters move and throw weapons. This will continue until melee is joined and after that it is rarely required to make a ranged attack. And I mean, like, really rare, like hardly ever. And if it is that is why you have ranged characters or a monk with insane speed that can close the distance. Not every character needs to be able to handle every situation.

I'll also mention my Eldritch Knight here, who had no problem dropping his weapon to throw a javelin. Then he would either summon the javelin or his sword back to his hand depending on which one was needed next. Or he could drop sword, cast fire bolt, then bonus action call his sword back to his hand. Bending down to pick up your sword was for plebs.

Oh, and he wore full plate and was capable of casting shield. Combined with a regular shield getting 25AC when he needed it was not an issue.

You also seem to place a great deal of stock on Stealth. This makes sense as you have previously stated that you like to play Rogue characters, but there are a lot of people that don't think very highly of stealth.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Absolutely they do. Aside from the fact they can't find armor that is any better, both of these classes often have mage armor and that is the difference between a 12 and a 15 (before dex bonus)

If you can't find Studded Leather armor (12+Dex, same as wearing BoD) before finding a rare magical item, there is something weird going on in your games.

The only rogue with access to Mage Armor is the Arcane Trickster, who at 3rd level had to take Mage Armor as their "any school" spell, and to cast it they had to use half of their spells. Unlikely, since it is only a +1 over wearing studded leather. High Opportunity cost and only a good benefit if they happen to get BoD? Unlikely.

And, basically the same story for the Warlock. Yes, their invocation gets them an at-will Mage Armor, but an invocation is a big opportunity cost. Again, and again the studded leather is almost as good for no real opportunity cost other than finding some cheap armor

(and yes, I know, 13 lbs. It isn't something that comes up, like I said)

No Barbarian is going to wear half plate when they can get a breast plate for less money and not have to deal with disadvantage on stealth.

I have never had a Barbarian at the table wear half plate. Never. I have had them go naked though (especially at lower levels).

The people who wear half plate are mostly Dwarf Rogues or multiclass Rogues that take medium armor master.

It is a +1 AC and barbarians don't tend to be "stealthy" people.

And, while I've seen barbarians go naked, they often are doing so because they haven't even bothered to figure out what wearing armor would mean for their AC. Much of the time, it is the superior option.

I agree, but that just goes to show that having a high AC is not the end all be all.

I never said it was, but again, you are comparing two things that cannot be compared.

There are four types of scrolls listed in d&d beyond:
spell scroll (usable by casters)
scroll of protection (usable by anyone)
scroll of summoning (usable by anyone)
Nether Scroll (not applicable to this discussion, but usable by anyone)

So spell scrolls compromise one third of the available types of scrolls (not counting the nether scrolls)

I just checked... are you seriously referencing the Scroll of Tarrasque Summoning? A unique Legendary item to a single adventure? Because that is the only "scroll of summoning" on DnD Beyond.

So, spell scrolls are 1/2 of all scrolls... with the other half being scrolls of protection, and all they do is create a barrier that can't be passed by specific creature types. They are rare and highly specific, so for most campaigns, you are only going to see spell scrolls.

Which can only be used by a spellcaster who has the proper spell list.

No, you are without a melee weapon so the goblin can run up to you, then attack you, then go pick up your sword and he does not suffer an AOO .... and after he picks it up he can try to break sight and take the hide bonus action.

No he can't. The sword is 30 ft behind me, even if I stopped with a 5ft gap between me and the goblin, they don't have a 35 move speed.

Unless he dashes, in which case he didn't attack me.

And, I can make an AOO, you can make an AOO with an unarmed strike. Not much, but this goblin potentially was just hit with a Javelin, meaning that he could be taken out with a punch from a strength character, which will deal 4 damage.

Further even if he is "predictable" and does not go to pick up your sword, and instead just attacks you, you are now in melee with him and either have to take an AOO to get your sword yourself or use disengage.

Or pull out that second handaxe or javelin. Those are melee weapons you know. And you specifically said "two handaxes or 4/5 Javelins"

Finally even if said Goblin does not go into melee with you and instead stays in the bushes, now your sword, your primary weapon is 20 feet behind you, meaning you have to go back and get it (and lose a melee attack)

No matter how this is played, no matter how stupid the DM plays the enemy you lose an attack because you are carrying a shield. Either you lose an attack on the first turn because you cant use a missile weapon or you lose it on a subsequent round because either the enemy has your sword or because you have to go back and get it.

Only if you've thrown your last weapon, in which case... yeah, but you should have better tactical awareness than to desperately throw your final weapon and have no other options. After all... I kind of had an answer to every single point, and none of them involved the melee fighter being unable to attack.

So outdoors you players can normally only see 30 feet ahead and the enemy can only see 30 feet?

Literally never said that, but nice try at a strawman. See, generally, you can't make melee attacks until you are within 5 ft of a target. So, the enemy generally rushes the party to make melee attacks. If they do, we tend to have a whole bunch of enemies who are incentivized to be within 5ft of you (you know, to make melee attacks) so I don't often see enemies who are 35 ft away unless they are ranged enemies. And those generally are the ones being targets by our ranged allies.

I don't think most games are like that. Heck in the Roll 20 game I am playing right now my Rogue is engaging at long range with a heavy crossbow regularly, and they need to be beyond 100ft for that.

If this is true you do not use the roll20 maps built for most of the WOTC campaigns.

We do not run modules, but that literally has nothing to do with anything.

You are the one who says the enemy never runs past you, would never bother to pick up a weapon you drop etc.

Yes, I have said that. And I think I've mostly demonstrated why it would be a waste of their time to do so. There is simply no value in it.

Except you claim that the enemy is always within 30 feet when you spot them. Fighters never ever start out of melee range remember?

I guess you are never surprised, the sorcerer never loses initiative and you never face enemies with a move over 30 feet ...... and you certainly never face Orcs that can move 60 feet towards an enemy.

That was not my claim. My claim was that after battle starts and after I have taken my first attack, I generally am still within 30 ft of another enemy I can attack. That has nothing to do with starting combat with the enemy more than 30 ft away. It was all about mid-turn.

And, who says the sorcerer didn't lose initiative? The enemy had to run past the fighter first. The Enemy in my example WON initiative.

Also, congrats, you found a single enemy type who can dash as a bonus action. Do you only fight orcs? Never bugbears, hobgoblins, humans, dwarves, drow, duergar, undead, ect ect ect ect

Yet you are the one sitting here saying the enemy always attacks your sword and board fighter and never does anything else. I am the one suggesting enemies are not that predictable. Moreover, what are you going to do after you bait them? The only thing you ever do in combat is swing your sword, remember! When I mentioned using grapple to control positioning you scoffed at the idea.

YOU are the one who is predictable as you have said repeatedly you never use grapple, you don't use shove, you don't do most of the interactions mentioned in the PHB, you don't use scrolls or potions, you don't throw weapons, you don't use oil. By your own admission, YOU "use the exact same strategy" in every fight. How does your party adjust if you do the same thing every single fight? What do you do so as not to be predictable?

Good enemies do not always reliably use the same strategy like you do.

Well, first of all, I scoffed at the idea of grappling because it seemed like a waste of time. It is giving up the advantage of momentum to basically allow the enemy a free attack on you, because you were too busy grabbing them to hold them tight instead of trying to kill them. I'm not saying it is never the right move, but so very rarely is it better than just trying to finish them off.

Oil? Dealing fire damage to a creature with oil is 5 damage. I'll assume you get two rounds and make it 10. So, for two actions, over three round, you can deal 10 damage. A fighter with a longsword against a creature resistant to damage can deal 2d8+10 (3+2 from dueling) or an average of 19, which is just shy of 10 damage in two actions in two rounds. Maybe it is the fighter using the oil then the wizard using firebolt? But, breaking the math down the fighter is still just dealing 5 damage a round. And that is just as good as their worst scenario of just attacking a resistant enemy. And oil is an improvised weapon, so no prof to hit. Making it less accurate. So, no, we don't use oil.


What do we do? We use spells and abilities. Some fights we utilize Spike Growth to turn the terrain into a meat grinder. Sometimes we use hypnotic pattern to make enemies helpless. Sometimes the rogue plays peek-a-boo and uses their bonus action hide to kite and snipe. Sometimes we have the Barbarian use their Ancestral spirits ability to protect us from a single enemy.

Fighter doesn't have a lot of options, so they tend to be the hammer. They are very good at it though.