Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 3428673" data-attributes="member: 7211">It depends on your perspective. If the party splits up and goes after one foe each, I agree your build is better. But if the party is fighting as a team, then having one member who can generate a high AC while flanking or alternately harass spell-casters is a valuable member.I don't think a +1 to hit is a huge thing to get upset about. I agree, the damage will be lower, but my character would be focused on defense, AC, and the occasional flank/charge/stun.Again, I'm not going to quibble, but with Dodge and Fighting Defensively (or tumbling with Mobility) my build is more likely to get into a flanking position without getting hit, and does have a few extra hp for when he gets there <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Again, this goes back to realistically how often a level 4 character will fight a CR 4 opponent alone.I agree a good offense is a strong defense, but over a few rounds (the length of combat) the damage is not that different. Lets assume 4 rounds of combat, the monk gets a standard action worth of attacks in round 1, then can flurry or move + attack in the next 3 rounds. Personally, I would be moving around the battlefield to get flanking positions (I imagine you would too) which rules out flurry. So over these 4 rounds, assuming we hit during 3 of them, your monk would do 12 more damage (not an insignifcant amount of damage!). However, how much will the party's fighter have done? Or the wizard? The cleric? People don't typically play monks to be damage-dealers and personally I down-play that in my dex-based monks. Instead, I am moving all around the battlefield, aiding characters that are in a tight spot, and occasioanlly landing an important (I was going to say 'critical', but don't mean the d&d concept<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />) stunning hit.There is a difference between a character that can single-handedly defeat foes (which I would not say your monk is much better at, to be honest they would both die against a typical CR 4+ threat alone) and a character that meaningfully contributes to combat. I think both builds can contribute to combat (in different ways - Dodge and Mobility greatly enhance my build's ability to get somewhere without taking damage). Only one really has anything to do outside of combat however <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Your build sacrifices mental abilities for physical ones, a typical strategy in computer games where mental abilities are largely irrelevant (Icewind Dale or Myth Drannor for instance). In my experience at a d&d table these mental abilities come up more often and can lead someone without them to just play for the combat (since thats all their character excels at). This may frustrate the other players who are playing for NPC reactions, plot, and substance instead of just tactical combat. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for playing up weaknesses (and I love a good combat!), but a half-orc monk with a 6 cha (and an 8 int!) would be pretty boring in most of the games I've played in. YMMV, of course.</blockquote>

Verification