D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[DemoMonkey]

"Seems too disingenuous for my tastes."

And that's fine. I try to offer solutions that can be added to the toolbox; whether it works for your group is up to you to decide.

As far as I'm concerned (as DM of a home game with friends), being a neutral arbiter is not my primary job as a DM. Being an entertainer is. I look upon being it more like being a magician than a referee. The players know the whole thing is a trick but willingly suspend their disbelief, because they want to have a good time.

And they do.

So I suppose our "social contract" is "I may or may not fudge things behind the screen and make things up on the spot, and you will pretend that isn't even a possibility, because that way we will ALL have more fun."

And given that - and I am 100% certain we are not unique - my suggestion may be totally wrong for your group, but makes perfect sense and would be useful to others who play the same way as us.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=6803203]DemoMonkey[/MENTION] I'm not trying to knock on your play style or anything, so I hope you don't take this that way. I definitely get the idea of suspension of disbelief and the DM being an entertainer. But where this particular fudging bothers me is that it basically nullifies player choice. The choices players make are meaningful and should impact the way the game plays. Otherwise, the game becomes more like a railroad where regardless of what players choose, the outcome is the same. Movies are cool and entertaining, and I love me a good storytime, but I play D&D to engage in a new world to explore and experience things through my character. I want my choices to matter in some way. Maybe there are players and groups that are different, that's ok. But my experience as a DM has been that players generally don't like being railroaded or making decisions if in the end it all leads to the same place.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can always give the player what they want and then subtract a point from their damage behind the screen. If that makes them happy and doesn't bother the other players, have at it.

I chuckled, but taken seriously that doesn't actually solve the problem I'm describing. I don't really care if they get a little bit of extra damage. I just don't want the extra damage to be the reason they are asking for the rule modification. I want it to be because they love the image of an elven monk with a long sword.

So I'd be more likely to tell them the longsword does the same damage as a monk weapon, and then behind the screen add the extra damage back in.

 

[CapnZapp]

Where in RAW does it distinguish Natural Armor from Armor?

Nowhere.

There are only ways to get AC, and the only rule is you can only choose one.

There are no provisions in the rules for "combining" ways to get AC.

(Note: Bracers of defense etc is a completely separate thing)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nowhere.

There are only ways to get AC, and the only rule is you can only choose one.

There are no provisions in the rules for "combining" ways to get AC.

(Note: Bracers of defense etc is a completely separate thing)

In general, yes. But specific beats general (as you imply with your reference to Bracers of Defense). The language around monks and tortles specifically uses the word "wear".

For me that answers the martial arts question, but Unarmored Defense is a bit different. I suppose a very strict parsing of the words would force Tortles to use Unarmored Defense instead of their natural armor, even if the former were a lower AC. That's where I would be flexible and allow the player to choose, but not so flexible as to allow them to use both at the same time. (That is, 17 + wis + dex)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Nowhere.

There are only ways to get AC, and the only rule is you can only choose one.

There are no provisions in the rules for "combining" ways to get AC.

(Note: Bracers of defense etc is a completely separate thing)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The issue being discussed is not potential 'stacking' of the armour. Its whether having natural armour like a lizardman or tortle prevents you from using monk abilities that don't work when you wear armour.

 

[CapnZapp]

The issue being discussed is not potential 'stacking' of the armour. Its whether having natural armour like a lizardman or tortle prevents you from using monk abilities that don't work when you wear armour.

This is left undefined by the rules.

Personally "natural armor"<>armor, so I would answer "of course".

As has been said, the lizards monk will still prefer his Unarmored Defense (rendering his "natural armor" moot), so it's not a power move anyway.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

For me that answers the martial arts question, but Unarmored Defense is a bit different. I suppose a very strict parsing of the words would force Tortles to use Unarmored Defense instead of their natural armor, even if the former were a lower AC. That's where I would be flexible and allow the player to choose, but not so flexible as to allow them to use both at the same time. (That is, 17 + wis + dex)

Oh okay.

Then yes, the rules are clear on one point: you never get to "stack" two sources of armor. (17 + wis + dex is definitely a house rule and not RAW, and rightly so IMO - it's clearly unbalanced.)

As I said previous, I'd be "flexible" too. (I don't really consider myself generous for avoiding a practical ban on lizardmen monks, though...)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

What this is really about, is:

Shouldn't a Lizardman monk get anything for his natural armor.

My answer is no. That is actually not as reasonable as it seems at first blush, in a 5e context.

I'm fine with saying play a monk if you want. About the only build that actually gains much of anything for choosing a natural armor race is Wizards and wild Sorcerers.

For everybody else natural armor is a ribbon ability - it let's you keep a decent AC even when you're forced out of your armor (such as at an audience with the Queen, etc).

Regards

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Al2O3]

Nah this counts as an attempt at power gaming without aestethics (No offense intended that is just me ranting on one of my favorite Topics)

Give him a bow, that is Zen archery, give him short swords, that is ninja, or reskin a scimitar / shortsword as a ninja-to, use a sai or two of them, reskin them as shortswords but doing blunt damage.

But why, why does your monk have to wield

a) a medieval 1-1/2 hander (bastard sword) (this is what a longsword is by the numbers and the best historical approach)
b) an arming sword (this is what some Players think a Long sword is, when used in 1 Hand, and would look a bit clumsy on an elf)
c) a rapier like sword with a broader than usual blade so that it still can do reasonable slashing damage (This is what most players think an elven longsword looks like and would be fine for an elven fighter or rogue or even wizard maybe but for a monk? )

Give him 1- 2 sickles reskin them as moonblades to reflect the elven aspect, ahm i am out of ideas now

Why, oh why would they want a katana?

Sent from my Huawei P10 plus