D&D 5E Monks Suck

[Flamestrike]

No ret-conning your opponent into an idiot.

Not my fault he didnt read the PHB.

 

[Helldritch]

You can always rule that hands are to soft to break wooden object... P247 of the PHB.

 

[Asisreo]

Then I target the bow string. How many hp has that got? If I can target a held object, then it follows that I can just as easily target a part of an object.

Here's an example of a called shot. You cannot target a bowstring, as that's not an object. You can target the bow because it is an object.

 

[Asisreo]

You can always rule that hands are to soft to break wooden object... P247 of the PHB.

You could...but I've literally broken wooden objects with my fist before and I'm not even STR 11.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not my fault he didnt read the PHB.

METAGAMING

Characters live in the world. If destroying weapons is an effective tactic, everyone in the world will know about it. So the character - a trained fighter - would have been taught to always carry spares.

 

[Helldritch]

To @Asisreo
Me too. But that was probably a fixed, non moving object. Check the video of Skallagrim. A moving wooden object is much more difficult to break because part of your kinetic energy will be wasted as the object will be moving away from you. Basic physics. And if a sword does not snap a wooden polearm in two in one shot, imagine fists...
Edit: Phone again... holy crap I hate auto correctors...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Regardless of efficiency of the class, I think it's BS that the Monk can't have a grappler build. If their unarmored AC wasn't tied up in WIS, and WIS was limited to saves and some subclass spell casting, they would get more build options, including a high STR grappler.

I've no issue with Fighters and Rogues being better here. While the Monk was contemplating their chakra and learning how to channelling magic into their strikes, the other two classes were out practicing their throws and joint locks.

I think the reason people can enjoy monk and have fun is that when they work (i.e. when they stun something or deflect a missile) they make a splash and are memorable. Everybody remembers their great memorable moments. The Monk certainly has potential for cinematic ones, there's no denying it. The Monk's problems are not those 'highs', it's the 'lows' between those moments that are lacking. To some people, the highs are enough, to others they just highlight the deficiencies of the lows, and it's just a question of taste what you prefer.

I find that pretty much all characters have their highs and lows like this.

If I can attack a creature's specific piece of equipment, then I can attack a specific body part, but we don't get called shots. If a system can't handle called shots I think it's a bad idea (a dumb idea even, but you do you) to allow to target specific pieces of equipment on an active combatant, especially when that specific piece is currently wielded in the hope of HURTING you. If you try to punch a sword or a mace, that weapon is in perfect position to instead strike YOU.

We're starting the discussion positing the existence of a magical martial artist who is capable of going toe-to-toe with most armed and armoured opponents.

I REALLY don't want to pull the realism card, because I think it gets over used, but we're talking about weapons here... items designed to hit stuff all the time. Personally, I'd rule that a weapon can't be damaged by something that inflicts less damage than it does. If a Greataxe can inflict 1d12+STR (up to 5 normally) of damage, it means it can handle an impact that inflict that much, so you're not damaging it unless you can do more than 17 points of damage. That's if I let you pick a specific piece of equipment to target in the first place.

When trying to damage a weapon, you rarely attack its striking surface along its axis of attack.

 

[Mort]

Awesome.

Why shouldn't this be allowed?

He can target it on the ground if its disarmed, but not when it's being held?

Why?

In order to destroy a Bow you have to hit it (AC 15) and destroy it (10 HP). A creature trying to stop you (like the guy holding it), likely imposes disadvantage on your attack roll.

A magical bow instantly stops those shenanigans, and a non magic bow is easily fixed with the Mending cantrip.

The problem is, once this starts happening it will expand. Why should I try to hit the AC 21 80 HP fighter when I can hit his steel plate mail a few times (AC 19, 18 or so HP) and reduce him to an AC 12 fighter (AC 11 if he dumped dex)? Heck if it becomes common, even animals will do it (the bear recognizes your a tin can, so will destroy the can before going to the squishy part underneath - bye, bye armor).

And as others have said - it's not highly relevant to a thread on the effectiveness on monks! Sure monks can do it, but other classes can do it just fine. Yes monks come off well without equipment.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here's an example of a called shot. You cannot target a bowstring, as that's not an object. You can target the bow because it is an object.

How? why? Makes no sense. If the bowstring is not an object what is it? Bow strings can be easily unhooked from a bow. So is unattached bowstring an object? If so, then a spare bowstring hanging on a belt could be targeted, but as soon as it is attached to a bow it can no longer be targeted. By the same logic, a weapon that is attached to a creature is part of the creature and cannot be targeted.

 

[Helldritch]

METAGAMING

Characters live in the world. If destroying weapons is an effective tactic, everyone in the world will know about it. So the character - a trained fighter - would have been taught to always carry spares.

I think we should all agree on this.