Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="auburn2" data-source="post: 8249593" data-attributes="member: 6855259">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.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 substantiallySo you only do one of 21 things called out in the players handbook under interact with an object?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?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 botherAn 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?You never grab the horses reins to control the wagon while you are in the middle of a fight?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.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,.Also if AC is that big of a concern, if it is the only thing you are worried about, a Dwarven Monk can take a feat and wear half plate and shield if he wanted to.  Further if you ignore action economy on interact with an object (like your table does) at level 3 said character can get "always on" AC which is 2 points better than a fighter (or 1 better than a fighter using defense).  Further if you ignore the action economy for sheathing and drawing weapons he can still use every single Monk ability (or at least every one I can think of) except for unarmored movement.  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).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?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.As noted above Monks can use shields and armor with a feat, and they don't lost the vast majority of their abilities.  Doing this they can get a better AC than a fighter in plate and shield.  If it is a big deal you can build your Monks to do this.The way your table plays action economy the only thing this Monk would lose is unarmored movement.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.The Romans had baths.  The modern bathtub wasn't invented, baths were absolutely used in the middle ages and long before. Flavor is the fun in my games.  Counting up all your bonuses isn't part of it.Any character can use scrolls.  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.Then why is there an example of it in the combat section of the PHB?So give up an attack because you are carrying a shield.No the seecond guy is fighting your party.  There is nothing wrong with that. scenarioIf 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".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.The difference in AC is small, the difference overall considering all the Monks abilities is not.It does in situations.  But that works both ways. If they have flyby then they are making melee attacks and taking away your ability to make them effectively, yes you and your allies can ready action a melee attack but then you lose any extra attacks their reaction and unless you clump yourselves together, usually you can't all attack. Grab him and now all your melee allies can surround him and hack the crap out of him.Further most enemies will try to engage casters and other characters who you do not want engaged.  Grappling means they only engage the Rogue or the people the Rogue purposely puts them near.  Grab the guy battering your sorcerer and move him away from your sorcerer. Now the sorcerer can cast a spell instead of taking disengage and the guy can no longer attack the sorcerer.Finally the enemy needs to use his action (wasting an action) to break the grapple, while you can attack him while he is still grappeled and move him anywhere you want.  This means inorder to move where he wants and attack who he wants he has to waste an action to try and break it.  So from an action economy point of view it one "lost" attack by the Rogue in trade for an entire lost action by the adversary and until then the Rogue controls where the enemy is on the battlefield and who he can attack.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. Martial classes are attractive because of the higher hitpoints, but after 5th level, with expertise the Rogue is generally better at grappling than they will be and like you mentioned UD reduces the damage.  Also martials that are using shields or martials that use two handed weapons can't attack with their primary weapon while they are grappling because you need one hand to grapple, two-handers need to use a backup weapon and shield users need to make an unarmed attack with a head butt, bite or kick or something.  The Rogue doesn't really get heavily effected by this, because they don't as a general rule use two handed weapons or shields. So there is less of a "damage cost" with a Rogue doing it.What I want to try is a rolled stats Rogue with a 13 strength so I can try out the grappler feat.  That sounds really awesome for a Rogue - a really high athletics with expertise and advantage (and therefore SA) on every attack against a grappled foe!</blockquote>

Verification