Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8053054" data-attributes="member: 6801228">V. Human Wood ElfKenkuAarckrockaWildhunt ShifterIs it the majority of races? No, but that is 5 different races, all official without the need of optional rules (unless you count V. Human as optional, even though it is the most commonly used human build out there). This isn't strange or unusual. Just like giving a barbarian +2/+1 strength/con isn't unusual with only four options that provide that. I never denied they needed short rests. So do fighters. So do warlocks. That is what they are referred to as "short rest" classes. Heck, Druids and wizards need them too. But okay, congrats. You got me to admit a thing I never denied.7 to 10 rounds, depending. So, again you are going to get me to admit a thing I never denied. Managing ki is important. Kind of like managing your spells. Or your sorcerery points. Or Battlemaster maneuvers. Was this your big "monks have a problem" thing? That they are a short rest class who has to manage their resources? This is actually why I like Mobile on the Monk. Not because of the speed increase, but because it helps them manage their resources better by not needing to spend for disengage. Do they need it? Not really. They work okay without it, but it sure is nice.Really?I'm going to ignore the "single fight" part and just look at the 'optimal' play of the wizard. Assuming mage armor, a dex of +2, and half cover, they have an AC of 17. They use firebolt for 2d10 = 11 damage. So optimal. Monk, assuming half cover and a shortbow, can have an AC of 17 (assuming your non-variant human with 15 AC) and does 2d6+8 for... 15 damage. So, the wizard with no spells is being "optimal" but the monk stuck in the exact same situation is doing better, with possibly more AC... and that's a problem? What kind of double standards are these? What I'm essentially hearing is that you are going to have a monk player who doesn't manage their resources, vs a wizard who has their resources, and so that's why the monk is hurting. The monk still has their martial arts. The Dueling fighting style is +4 damage at level five. The monks martial arts is +7.5 on average. The Monk is doing better damage, even using a crappy shortbow than most wizards are with their cantrips. And if the monk is nearly full hp? Then their superior damage (because yes, using no resources at level 5 they have superior damage to the fighter) is likely to see them through, even if they are getting hit a bit more.I want you to think about this for a second. I'm not going to argue this is anything except a tactical choice for smart monsters, but I want you to think about the pressures this puts on the classes. If a character can increase their AC above a certain point, the monsters stop targeting them. This means that the monk is getting the same number of attacks while everyone's AC is about the same, and more attacks when everyone else's AC gets higher. And I bet, since the monk is attacking, and the wizard is hiding, the monk gets even more attacks. This could very well be why your monks suffer so much. If I knew this was likely, I'd have to use Patient Defense a lot, just to survive getting double the number of attacks my party members do. Well, it was the only reason I could think of the monk would be low on HP while the party is still pressing forward.Houserule? Because, by RAW, it takes an Action to don or doff a shield. PHB 146. If you are letting them dodge and take their action to put on their shield, might be why you see people doing it so much. That's better than the monk's patient defense.And yet, we are supposedly analyzing the monk without this option. Getting hit more matters less if I have enough potions to heal back to full between every fight.Why is an average of 24.5 damage per turn low? You keep wanting to say that monks have issues when they run out of ki, but that is frankly not true. Their damage is fine without ki. Stellar? No. The best in the game? No. But solid. Solid enough that I have yet to find a class that is able to do more the 2 damage more than the monk on average without using a resource.Is their AC a bit low? Sure. And, it seems that you target them more often because of it, which likely exaccerbates the problems they have. So, I'd say monks at your table should invest more in the monk subclasses that can deal with ranged attacking and increase their AC, so while they are getting attacked more, they can still contribute. But, I want to remind you, this started with you making the claim that the Monks base attack was sub-par. And now we've retreated to a monk using all their resources in the first fight of the day and retreating to fight at range instead of using their base melee damage, because they have low AC and are therefore targeted probably close to twice as often. While Fighters and Paladins are working with expensive armor, have a houserule to make putting on a shield free, and their base abilities are being counted more highly than the monks, despite this not being true. I will never claim that monks are perfect. They do have problems. But this analysis is not highlighting the actual problems with monks.For that analysis I was giving everyone max, non-magical AC. Note I put the Barbarian at 24, which can only happen at level 20. That is because people kept claiming monks always have the worst AC, period. So, I wanted to show that, no, they don't. It happens late game, after their damage has fallen behind, but they can have middle of the road AC with occasional bursts to the highest AC in the game.I don't care which levels we choose. I've been saying consistently that a level 5 monk's AC is likely 17. I haven't moved from that position. I was just showing end result ACs with no magical items. (and with the right gear, monk AC can get insane it looks like.)</blockquote>

Verification