• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Monk Tortle

jgsugden

Explorer
Should the same offset be offered to players that want to play a Gith Arcane Trickster (Mage Hand overlap)? A Firbolg Gloom Stalker (Disguise Self overlap)? How about a Lizardfolk Monk or Barbarian (unarmored AC overlap)?
All yes.... For example, I gave the Aasimar Sorcerer Divine Soul/Celestial Warlock a bonus cantrip as they were granted light twice.
How about a Half-Orc Rogue or Wizard (these classes don't need +2 STR!) We could go on and on and on... amirite?
Well, if you're going to veer off course you can go on and on forever. There is a difference between redundancy and not making full use of something. Your half-orc example is off point. However, if a player makes a suboptimal choice for RPG reasons, I will reward them with something fun. So, if you play an ORC wizard, with a -2 int, I'll make sure you have fun doing it by giving it some advantages... although not always mechanical. My goal is to remove the elements that discourage people from playing 'suboptimal mechanical choices that might otherwise appear to be fun to the players.
I guess the point is that there are choices to be made a chargen that might have some drawbacks. Some people might want to follow the online color-coded "best choices" guides and have fun with it. It's certainly a limitation to adhere to too much efficiency at the expense of what might be a fun character combo, IMO.
And all of those people, wh account for the majority of players, end up having artificual limitations in their character design choices that are not necessary.
The "middle ground" who likes efficiency strikes me as a crowd that won't get hung up on one overlap or minor inefficiency if they can otherwise play a very sound and fun PC. YMMV.
MMDV. I've had this conversation in my home games, at game store gams, at conventions... and there are very few players that are willing to commit to a long term character that doesn't start out with a 16 in their prime stat, or that have 'wasted' abilities. I want to encourage people to play diverse concepts. I'm not forcing anyone else to do it, but I will reinforce there is a logic to doing so.
 
Last edited:

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
Most monks start off at 16 (Wis 16/Dex 16) with point buy, a few with rolled stats will start higher, and a good number will start around 15. By level 8, almost all will be at 17 or above.

It is lovely at level 1, but considering how fast you move through the low levels, it is not a significant benefit.
Considering that most games are played in Tier 1 & 2, that means that for 80% of the character's time spent played it's greater or equal. Also, characters are their most fragile at low levels, when you have tghe greatest AC advantage. Taken together that does sounds like a significant benefit.

Also, in order to do that you are locking into taking ASIs for DEX and WIS. A Tortle could take feats if they wanted to.

Also, a Tortle could play a STR (& WIS) monk, which normally could not be done because of their AC. Which opens up grappling and other fun things. All Martial ares default to STR, you just may you use DEX for them. It's not as great for some things, like deflect arrows, and better at others.

Regardless: A lot of shield utilizing PCs will hit 18 at level 1. [...]
The point under discussion, which was monk's unarmored defense and it's interaction with the Tortle's AC - other classes wielding shields is not in in scope. The monk can't use a shield without losing Martial Arts.

Nobody is forcing you to play outside RAW (it certainly is not necessary), but treating the overlap of the Monk and Tortle AC abilities as a non-issue is ignoring how it is perceived by most people that look at them.
Citation "most people". I see people arguing both sides here, and both sides are getting XP from others that agree. There is no majority perception to be claimed.
 

DM Dave1

Explorer
All yes.... For example, I gave the Aasimar Sorcerer Divine Soul/Celestial Warlock a bonus cantrip as they were granted light twice. Well, if you're going to veer off course you can go on and on forever. There is a difference between redundancy and not making full use of something. Your half-orc example is off point. However, if a player makes a suboptimal choice for RPG reasons, I will reward them with something fun. So, if you play an ORC wizard, with a -2 int, I'll make sure you have fun doing it by giving it some advantages... although not always mechanical. My goal is to remove the elements that discourage people from playing 'suboptimal mechanical choices that might otherwise appear to be fun to the players.
Ah, while I did veer off course with the half-orc example, it was revealing as I now think I see why our observations differ. It seems you are known to your regular players as a DM who offers concessions at chargen. And perhaps, and I'm guessing here, you inform new players at your table you offer concessions for "wasted abilities" before (or while) they come up with a character concept. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is bad - in fact, it's nice that you do that for your players and the table has fun with it. Fun is the ultimate goal, after all.

And all of those people, wh account for the majority of players, end up having artificual limitations in their character design choices that are not necessary.MMDV. I've had this conversation in my home games, at game store gams, at conventions... and there are very few players that are willing to commit to a long term character that doesn't start out with a 16 in their prime stat, or that have 'wasted' abilities. I want to encourage people to play diverse concepts. I'm not forcing anyone else to do it, but I will reinforce there is a logic to doing so.
Our experiences are similar in that I see the majority of players going for a 16 or higher in their prime stat, too. The same is true for "wasted abilities", however.

So, for your experience - again I'm extrapolating from what you've said - you have set up a self-fulfilling prophecy. You offer concessions to players for "wasted abilities", so they seek those concessions out. Hence your observation of "all of those people" and "majority of players". Methinks that is "majority of players" in your games and not in the whole D&D player universe. My hunch (and, like you, I have no data to back this up, only personal and second hand experience) is that many players play the concept they want. They may or may not ask for concessions for said "wasted abilities" and a DM may or may not offer concessions. The player plays the concept either way most of the time because they think it will be fun. Concessions therefore do not necessarily correlate with more diverse player options. The majority of my experience is the DM not offering concessions at chargen (me as DM, my DM when I'm a player, other DMs I've spoken with) and players create diverse characters that they like. And... we have fun, too!

Citation "most people". I see people arguing both sides here, and both sides are getting XP from others that agree. There is no majority perception to be claimed.
This.
 

nobody69.420

Villager
My hunch is that many players play the concept they want. They may or may not ask for concessions for said "wasted abilities" and a DM may or may not offer concessions. The player plays the concept either way most of the time because they think it will be fun. Concessions therefore do not necessarily correlate with more diverse player options. The majority of my experience is the DM not offering concessions at chargen (me as DM, my DM when I'm a player, other DMs I've spoken with) and players create diverse characters that they like. And... we have fun, too!
In my adventure group, as the DM, I tend to make almost all my player's characters. I just give them a small summary over each race and class, and they pick which ones sound the coolest. So since they are just picking race and class, they don't choose the ones that work better together. To make up for that, if there are overlapping abilities, I like to give them concessions. It seems more fair to the players.
 
Last edited:

nobody69.420

Villager
Another example of overlapping abilities: I'm making a mountain dwarf cleric, and clerics are proficient in light and medium armor. The Mountain dwarf has the feature Dwarven Armor Training, giving him proficiency in light and medium armor. I was gonna make up for that by giving him proficiency in heavy armor, but his divine domain is the Forge domain, giving him Proficiency in heavy armor already. So I'm not sure how to make up for the only feature of the Mountain dwarf, that they'd be missing out on.
 

DM Dave1

Explorer
Another example of overlapping abilities: I'm making a mountain dwarf cleric, and clerics are proficient in light and medium armor. The Mountain dwarf has the feature Dwarven Armor Training, giving him proficiency in light and medium armor. I was gonna make up for that by giving him proficiency in heavy armor, but his divine domain is the Forge domain, giving him Proficiency in heavy armor already. So I'm not sure how to make up for the only feature of the Mountain dwarf, that they'd be missing out on.
They aren't missing out on anything - they just have two ways of getting the same thing. That dwarven cleric is going to be just as effective - and players will likely be just as willing to choose to play your dwarven cleric PreGen - whether you give them some minor concession or not. As DM, you aren't obligated to "make up for" this or any other perceived deficiency.
 

jaelis

Explorer
Now I'm curious, what kind of benefit might I get at your tables if I wanted to play a gnome barbarian?
 
Last edited:

WaterRabbit

Villager
Should the same offset be offered to players that want to play a Gith Arcane Trickster (Mage Hand overlap)? A Firbolg Gloom Stalker (Disguise Self overlap)? How about a Lizardfolk Monk or Barbarian (unarmored AC overlap)? How about a Half-Orc Rogue or Wizard (these classes don't need +2 STR!) We could go on and on and on... amirite?

I guess the point is that there are choices to be made a chargen that might have some drawbacks. Some people might want to follow the online color-coded "best choices" guides and have fun with it. It's certainly a limitation to adhere to too much efficiency at the expense of what might be a fun character combo, IMO. The "middle ground" who likes efficiency strikes me as a crowd that won't get hung up on one overlap or minor inefficiency if they can otherwise play a very sound and fun PC. YMMV.
Exactly. Unless one wants to go through the effort of creating a Pathfinder like method of swapping out racials, it seems to me that players understand that no all race/class combinations are 100% efficient -- that's what makes it a role-playing game vs. a roll-playing game.

There is no reason for a dm to give players freebies because they chose something inefficient. Instead, build your encounters with that idea in mind. I think the players would appreciate that much more than being treated as children who cannot understand the consequences of their choices.

Building and playing sub-optimal race/class combinations is fun in its own right and DMs that take that away by handing out freebies are just as bad as stingy DMs.

IMHO, just play by the rules. Everyone can read them and make their own decisions. Only change the rules when they really break your game or they kill the enjoyment of everyone at the table. Don't play favorites which is what the freebie stuff can feel like.
 

Flamestrike

Registered User
Any DM that says no to a Toitle Monk, likely isnt a DM I would want to play with.

The Character portrait alone would have me in stitches each week.



My all time favorite Character portrait was a Pathfinder Grippli Zen Archer Monk.

Portrait used was:

 

nobody69.420

Villager
I don't think that anyone was suggesting tortle monks should be disallowed?
I whole-heartedly agree. Tortle Monks wouldn't be a teenage mutant ninja turtle, that would have to be a Tortle Rogue. And a Tortle Monk is just a good combination of class and race, and I don't think any classes or races should be disallowed for any reason, regardless of the circumstance.
 

Beleriphon

Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
I whole-heartedly agree. Tortle Monks wouldn't be a teenage mutant ninja turtle, that would have to be a Tortle Rogue. And a Tortle Monk is just a good combination of class and race, and I don't think any classes or races should be disallowed for any reason, regardless of the circumstance.
I feel like a teenage shadow monk tortle is pretty close to a TMNT. TSMT is kind of close.

So with that, next game has four NPC tortle monks lead by a wererat. They're fighting a human that wears spiked armour and leads a clan of monk mooks, and is aligned with a sapient clay golem.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
Another example of overlapping abilities: I'm making a mountain dwarf cleric, and clerics are proficient in light and medium armor. The Mountain dwarf has the feature Dwarven Armor Training, giving him proficiency in light and medium armor. I was gonna make up for that by giving him proficiency in heavy armor, but his divine domain is the Forge domain, giving him Proficiency in heavy armor already. So I'm not sure how to make up for the only feature of the Mountain dwarf, that they'd be missing out on.
So, for example, every elf in a martial class (and some others) deserves a freebie because their elven weapon training overlaps?

If I multiclass into a class that grants armor/weapon proficiencies (all but sorcerer & wizard), should I be expecting a "make-up" bennie for already having them? It's a conscious choice just like my race/class combo.
 

nobody69.420

Villager
So, for example, every elf in a martial class (and some others) deserves a freebie because their elven weapon training overlaps?

If I multiclass into a class that grants armor/weapon proficiencies (all but sorcerer & wizard), should I be expecting a "make-up" bennie for already having them? It's a conscious choice just like my race/class combo.
I see your point, but there is a large difference between armor and weapons. While you can only have proficiency in three different types of armor, you can have proficiency in any weapon. Also, none of my players expect a "make-up" for wasted features, but since they only decide class and race (they're new to D&D), I feel obligated as DM, and as the creator of their characters, to make their characters as good as they can be.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top