Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8052778" data-attributes="member: 6855114">(Edited the quote to add the possible AC and removed those spending resources).Thank you to have proven my point. At AC 16, and at level 5 the average mook will hit you more than 50% of the time (55% to be exact). Most CR 3 mook will have +5 to hit (if not higher). Your character is beaten, no resource and really good only when in melee. You are taking a big risk just staying in LOS. In such scenarios my players invariably switch to weapon and shield all the time. And the groups are 6 players each! Less damage done, but a lot less taken.I'll give you that Warlocks and Rangers might still have their Hex and Hunter's mark, but even then, it is not a sure thing as they might have failed a concentration check. In a four man party, having a melee type characters out of melee might spell your doom as the squishies will not be protected from getting over run by enemies.The squishies will use trees as cover or corridor corners to get cover. Enhencing their AC. Without these possible covers, our monk has the lowest AC of all melee characters. Easier to hit and already wounded going in hand to hand will not be the monk's first choice. We both know that. This is what I have seen players do at my table every single time this has happened (and I do let them have short rests, 2 per days, so if the monk is not careful, he might fall in the "no resources" scenario) and at many other tables. Yes the monk is a skirmisher.It is because of this fact that monks are less used in general. With such an inefficient fall back option, and the risk of being hit very real a Ki-less monk is worst than any other melee type and the monk is not a good ranged character...Not at all. In fact, I do love the monk. I do not blind myself to its shortcomming as some others in this thread are doing.Yep, it is pretty much only the monk. Druid is a close second but the cantrip fall back is still goodish...My comments are not born of emotion. I am never a player. I am a DM to the core. I have two groups and help at other tables once in a while at our hobby store. I have seen scenarii as I described a lot (too often dare I say?). The monk is really dependent on short rests. Even the warlock is not as vulnerable as the monk when it does not get short rests. The warlock can always EB his enemies and push them back. 20 feet might not seems a lot but it makes closing the distance pretty hard without taking a double move. The monk to be effective in melee without taking too much risk needs his Ki. The fall back option is subpar compared to anyone else.Not from me. I am actually defending the monk. I am saying that with short rests, the monk is a great class. Do not take my criticism of the short fall of the monk for an emotionnal response. I enforce the 6-8 encounters per day with 2 or 3 short rests so that monks can shine too. And monk is pretty popular at my table just because I do not gimp them by denying them short rests as I have seen a lot in real life and the many comments/threads on this forum (and not just this thread. A lot of people are arguing that the short rest mechanic is ruining pace and narrative...go and check them.)Unfortunately, it seems that it is the only one that people care about. So we're stuck with this. Wether we like it or not. AC is also taken into account.So? Who cares about overkill? It happens all the time. You know that to get an overkill, you have to have short of making a kill a first? The hobgoblin has 11 hp and you only did 10? When the barb hits the poor sod with a crit from his two handed sword, you will get quite an over kill. I fail to see the logic in their. Long Death monk are exactly doing what they should do. Find and kill those enemies that are about to die. Nothing is new under the sun here.</blockquote>

Verification