How highly do we value melee mobility? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : How highly do we value melee mobility?

Waazraath

2021-04-25, 01:53 PM

Sigreid

2021-04-25, 02:05 PM

In my view, what your describing is the price of over specialization. Best solution in my opinion is varied situations where sometimes the melee king gets to be lord of the battle and sometimes he's a side player.

MaxWilson

2021-04-25, 02:19 PM

So: if it is a problem, shouldn't we rate some of the above a bit higher?

And secondary: should it be a problem? I mean, with the game being Dungeons and Dragons, it more or less assumes closed indoor spaces in which melee excels will be common. If you play horseman archers on the open grasslands, obviously melee will be less interesting, but that's more session 0 / expectations management thing than something lacking about melee characters? I mean, that's the same as making a low int/wis/cha warrior for a 95% social campaigin 'among the nobles', at least afaic.

I think what happens is that when people realize distance and mobility matter, they don't (usually) start taking mobility enhancers--they start building ranged PCs instead of melee.

The belief that mobility only matters to horse archers on infinite featureless plains is common but flawed. Mobility is a distinct advantage in many scenarios, especially if the DM uses predictable RAW initiative, and the combination of Mobile feat + strong ranged attacks can leave enemies between a rock and a hard place, even in dungeons. Nothing is infallible, but I wouldn't say melee "excels" even in a cramped dungeon, it's just not terrible there. If the dungeon gets too cramped, e.g. 3-5' wide tunnels/caves with PCs in single file, melee goes back to being bad, since melee PCs can't all attack at once while ranged PCs can.

Frogreaver

2021-04-25, 02:40 PM

Tanarii

2021-04-25, 02:53 PM

And secondary: should it be a problem? I mean, with the game being Dungeons and Dragons, it more or less assumes closed indoor spaces in which melee excels will be common. If you play horseman archers on the open grasslands, obviously melee will be less interesting, but that's more session 0 / expectations management thing than something lacking about melee characters? I mean, that's the same as making a low int/wis/cha warrior for a 95% social campaigin 'among the nobles', at least afaic.
Pretty much. Wide open spaces aren't common outside of steppes, tundra, certain kinds of deserts, or cultivated farmland, so it's not likely unless you're playing in specific kind of campaign.

If you live in the US you might be forgiven for thinking those kinds of terrain are more the norm than otherwise of course. :smallamused:

OTOH as soon as you do hit a mobile advantage terrain, ranged attacks become very dangerous. As they should be. Where 5e mostly falls down is in making ranged attacks remaining pretty effective in close quarters.

quindraco

2021-04-25, 05:23 PM

I always advocate for flying races. Having a native fly speed solves major problems for everyone - I have a ranged build right now with a fly speed (I was allowed to start with a broom of flying) and a bonus action teleport (I'm an Eladrin), and it's great. I didn't realize anyone was downplaying mobility races.

Tabaxi are great with a broom, for sure, but just going fast isn't nearly as much of a gamechanger as being suddenly allowed free vertical movement, like fly, teleport, and burrow allow (is there a PC race with a burrow speed? I know I haven't seen one, but I haven't read them all).

Man_Over_Game

2021-04-25, 05:38 PM

Personally, I've rarely seen this, up to late tier 2. But given that people do, I wonder why mobility enhancers aren't higher rated at this forum. At least, I don't think I hardly seen people thrilled with the Eagle totem barbarian (in addition to the standers +10 ft bonus to move any barbarian gets, it gets a bonus action move when raging and later burst fly - with which a barbarian should be able to reach and then grapple an airborn opponent); about a 2 lvl rogue dip to get bonus action dash; or about the psi warrior (with its psi powered leap).

Nor do I see people advocate Tabaxi or flying races too much.

So: if it is a problem, shouldn't we rate some of the above a bit higher?

And secondary: should it be a problem? I mean, with the game being Dungeons and Dragons, it more or less assumes closed indoor spaces in which melee excels will be common. If you play horseman archers on the open grasslands, obviously melee will be less interesting, but that's more session 0 / expectations management thing than something lacking about melee characters? I mean, that's the same as making a low int/wis/cha warrior for a 95% social campaigin 'among the nobles', at least afaic.

I agree that it can be frustrating, but I think it has more to do with the fact that specialization is better than versatility in most instances. If you want the best numbers, you have to grab feat X and feat Y that both start cutting away your options towards one kind of weapon/scenario, and then you spend your time trying to constantly leverage that value.

The problems are:
Players have very little influence on what kind of encounters they fight without excessive preparation (which is often controlled by players who don't care where they fight, wizards and the such). It's not like ambushes are covered much in the PHB.
The specialization cuts down on versatility. That seems obvious, but you could've been able to specialize in conditions instead of melee damage, and that'd be one form of specialization that wouldn't cut down on how often you are relevant (See: Battlemaster). Rarely does limiting options add more game.

Basically, Barbarians either need a way to cripple birds/move really fast, OR Barbarians need to be allowed to be ranged characters. Neither is feasible in 5e without specializing into something that should already be in the foundation.

I, for one, am on board with making Grappling Hooks thrown melee weapons with 30 feet range that have Disadvantage to attack but knock the target prone or pull them 10 feet. Hell, more grappling hook in general is something I think fixes a lot of these issues.

LudicSavant

2021-04-25, 06:37 PM

In discussions on melee vs ranged, but also on caster vs melee, I sometimes see people annoyed with high level melee not being able to close the distance with foes, not being able to do anytyhing, or needing a few rounds to close (doing no damage), or having to fall back on secondary ranged weapons that hardly do the damage they normal do.

Personally, I've rarely seen this, up to late tier 2. But given that people do, I wonder why mobility enhancers aren't higher rated at this forum. At least, I don't think I hardly seen people thrilled with the Eagle totem barbarian (in addition to the standers +10 ft bonus to move any barbarian gets, it gets a bonus action move when raging and later burst fly - with which a barbarian should be able to reach and then grapple an airborn opponent); about a 2 lvl rogue dip to get bonus action dash; or about the psi warrior (with its psi powered leap).

Nor do I see people advocate Tabaxi or flying races too much.

So: if it is a problem, shouldn't we rate some of the above a bit higher?

And secondary: should it be a problem? I mean, with the game being Dungeons and Dragons, it more or less assumes closed indoor spaces in which melee excels will be common. If you play horseman archers on the open grasslands, obviously melee will be less interesting, but that's more session 0 / expectations management thing than something lacking about melee characters? I mean, that's the same as making a low int/wis/cha warrior for a 95% social campaigin 'among the nobles', at least afaic.

I rate mobility pretty highly, especially on melee-reliant characters. And make no mistake, that applies in dungeon-heavy campaigns.

A character who plods along at 30 foot movement and nothing else is fairly easy to shut out even if they're just in dungeon environs of the sort we see in modules. Heck, even if there's only 30 feet of space or less to maneuver in, a little nudge of control or difficult terrain is often all it'll take. For example, a Spirit Guardians will halve your speed, no save. Start talking about dwarves or the like and it becomes even easier for this sort of thing to happen. Take a Plant Growth and you can cover a space little larger than a closet.

Basically, you want to either not be entirely reliant on melee (e.g. a Paladin can do something useful like buffing or healing if they're stuck out of range), or you want to be very maneuverable to ensure that you can get into melee or at the very least stay engaged once you get there (e.g. a Paladin has a supermount and access to movement-enhancing spells, or things that control their foes).

This is why in every build I make, you'll generally see every melee character having some sort of plan for what happens when they can't get into range. And/or tools to try and make that happen less often (stealth, teleportation, movement bonuses, control, etc). Heck one of the first builds I posted in the Eclectic thread had a Paladin capable of covering over 500 feet in a round.

Builds that don't have this kind of thing tend to be worse than they appear to many people on paper. Even occasionally being stuck out of range with nothing good to do is such a huge efficiency loss that it'll often put you behind the daily performance of a character who swapped out one of your choices for the ability to not have that happen.

Kane0

2021-04-25, 06:50 PM

As player and DM I really, really appreciate some good mobility. Swim/climb speeds, ignoring difficult terrain, bonus action dash/disengage, increased move speeds, etc. all rate pretty highly for me for both melee and ranged characters. More than once just having a fighter with winged sandals or monk that can swim or ranger that can leap large distances has significantly thrown an encounter in my favor, much to the party's or DMs chagrin.

That said it's dependant on the game and situation, but that is also true of most tactics and capabilities. If you are fighting in cramped spaces then the advantage of speed and distance is tossed into the wind, which is basically the same issue as being a charm specialist in an elven city or a war hero getting attacked at a masked ball. You can't always control the terms of engagement, but when you do have the ability to leverage your specialization (be that speed, range, grappling, illusions, summoned critters, etc) then it's usually in your best interest to make use of it.

Speed combined with range just happens to be a rather potent combination that also syncs well with a lot of specializations (ie anything that doesn't rely on being within reach of your target) due to how the action economy and standard monster manual creatures tend to operate.

LudicSavant

2021-04-25, 06:57 PM

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/455513942563880960/836028597738930186/unknown.png

Here's a random sample map from WotC. This main room in particular might as well be miles across by the standards of a Half-Orc GWM Champion. 30 feet just isn't a lot at the best of times, and if you get even a little bit of CC or difficult terrain, it plummets.

The fact that you're in caves or dungeons doesn't stop mobility from mattering. Not by a longshot. You need a plan to close the distance efficiently, or you need to have something valuable to do when you're not in melee.

Nor do I see people advocate Tabaxi or flying races too much.

I don't know who you're hearing from that rates Tabaxi and flying races low but it sure as heck ain't me, I rate 'em sky blue every time. :smallsmile:

Snowbluff

2021-04-25, 07:09 PM

I don't know who you're hearing from that rates Tabaxi and flying races low but it sure as heck ain't me, I rate 'em sky blue every time. :smallsmile:

Same. I've even started banning flying races and making it unnecessary for my melee players. It was becoming overwhelmingy meta at my table.

Kane0

2021-04-25, 07:29 PM

I've actually been disallowed from picking a flight item as my 'one uncommon magic item' when making new characters...

Hytheter

2021-04-25, 10:30 PM

I actually just got out of a combat heavy session with a highly mobile character, and while I haven't really been able to gauge it's effectiveness, it sure as heck is fun to run all over the place. He's currently Ancestral Guardian 5/Scout Rogue 4 with Mobile. Between 50ft move speed, cunning action dash, 25ft reaction move you're rarely anywhere other than where you wanna be, and it just feels nice on a big map.

Effective? Idk. Fun? Extremely.

Jerrykhor

2021-04-25, 10:48 PM

I do value it highly, but yeah its very YMMV thing. Sometimes you need it, sometimes you don't. Though its not hard to see how disadvantaged melee fighters are with their 30ft speed, when the ranged martial with SS can snipe from 600ft away without moving. Now that Rogues have Steady Aim, they can also cancel out the disadvantage on attack to hit targets out of the normal range.

The problem with Eagle totem spirit is that it is not really a good gap closer, since you usually try to close the gap in Round 1, but that round you should use your bonus action to Rage. If you can't close the gap in Round 1, then you are no different from other totem spirit. Even Elk has a better chance of that with their 55ft speed.

It also has the problem of looking like crap next to Bear's resistance. Its not an exciting feature. The level 14 fly thing is also kind of lame, its just feels like a burst jump that is limited by your speed.

Rerem115

2021-04-26, 01:06 AM

I won't say melee mobility is critical, but when I haven't had it, I've noticed its absence. I like playing Barbarians, but man, when you don't have 5th level, a thrown option, or a non-Action gap closer? It hurts.

A couple sessions of that experience, and now I think it's something I at least acknowledge in all my characters now. I haven't played someone that can't switch-hit, blink, dash, or just run really fast ever since.

Bonus points go towards the one mounted character (kobold Beastmaster) I ever played, where the DM tweaked the Mounted Combat rules so that they didn’t screw me or my mount over. Having anywhere from double to quadruple everyone else's movement on demand felt amazing. I can't lie, it was fun, especially on some bigger maps.

Waazraath

2021-04-26, 03:05 AM

Ok,

most replies can be summarized as:
- melee mobility is highly valued;
- melee mobility is also useful in dungeon settings;
- ymmv how needed it is
- it's part of specialization (which I interpret as picking (for instance) PAM / GWM and a +2 str race will let you do more damage on average, but picking even something like wood elf for +5 ft movement and mobility for another +10ft will let you reach opponents you would otherwise not reach and where you would have done 0 damage).

Alll fair. My next character will be pure melee, making it mobile is on my 'must have' list.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/455513942563880960/836028597738930186/unknown.png

Here's a random sample map from WotC. This main room in particular might as well be miles across by the standards of a Half-Orc GWM Champion. 30 feet just isn't a lot at the best of times, and if you get even a little bit of CC or difficult terrain, it plummets.

Question about this map though: from the opening in the south to the chasm in the north is about 18/19 squares. In 5e, diagonal movement doesn't cost extra movement (sorry Pythagoras). Even a regular half orc champion without any feats should be able to close such a distance by moving, spending action to move, and spending action surge to move, and by jumping over difficult terrain (assuming athletics proficient doesn't seem a stretch, else champion gives half proficiency). So you might not do damage the first round, but you do get into an opponents face. And if those things in the middle are rocks that obscure a straight path (I don't know the map), you would probably be halfway the room before initiative is rolled and it even gets easier.

Chaos Jackal

2021-04-26, 03:17 AM

I haven't taken a look at guides here in a long time, but I'm pretty sure flying characters were rated at least decently, and that was before TCE opened up the attribute bonus.

And personally, flying races are the one thing I have never been allowed to play across all my tables throughout the years.

Maybe the reason people never rated/talked about flying races much is because they're so often the target of limitation/banning? I believe even AL had a ban on flying races, no?

So yeah, while not being mentioned very often, I don't think the community, here or elsewhere, actually underestimated highly mobile races. I'd personally rate them whatever shade of blue or gold would be available in a guide, especially now that TCE has made ability score modifiers irrelevant.

And as for whether lack of mobility is a problem or not, it generally rates between annoying and downright crippling. It's not just open fields where range and mobility shine, it's also dungeon corridors. Pretty much the only place mobility isn't (much) of a concern are featureless 30x30 rooms. On larger/more open fields, the advantages of being mobile are obvious. On more enclosed spaces, all it takes is a few more enemies or some difficult terrain/magical hazard to completely cripple someone relying just on running, since enclosed space also means that there's a lot less options when it comes to movement. You might often find yourself being unable to reach the ideal opponent, or be unable to effectively run away from someone sticking on you, or unable to even fight because you're stuck between your other melee friend and the ranged in that corridor and are unable to do anything.

Get the ability to fly, or to *misty step* a couple times a day, on the other hand, and suddenly things look a lot brighter.

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 07:11 AM

Question about this map though: from the opening in the south to the chasm in the north is about 18/19 squares. In 5e, diagonal movement doesn't cost extra movement (sorry Pythagoras). Even a regular half orc champion without any feats should be able to close such a distance by moving, spending action to move, and spending action surge to move, and by jumping over difficult terrain (assuming athletics proficient doesn't seem a stretch, else champion gives half proficiency). So you might not do damage the first round, but you do get into an opponents face.

Right. But here's the thing:

Even if an enemy doesn't simply have the ability to efficiently disengage once you get there (and there's quite a few enemies who can), you've still spent an entire turn and an Action Surge without doing any damage or anything. That's a massive loss in efficiency.

Like, even if you are a build that's "higher DPR" against a theoretical immobile training dummy, having that happen even one time is likely going to be felt throughout the entire adventuring day, and make you a lower DPR build (in practice) than your competition.

The loss in efficiency only becomes more and more noticeable as the tactical optimization and challenge level of the table rises (because people are generally getting more stuff done per round. That, and because people are generally playing a better positioning and control game on both sides, making melee characters have to work harder to engage).

Waazraath

2021-04-26, 07:34 AM

Right. But here's the thing:

Even if an enemy doesn't simply have the ability to efficiently disengage once you get there, you've still spent an entire turn and an Action Surge without doing any damage or anything. That's a massive loss in efficiency.

Like, even if you are a build that's "higher DPR" against a theoretical immobile training dummy, having that happen even one time is likely going to be felt throughout the entire adventuring day, and make you a lower DPR build (in practice) than your competition.

Oh, true that action surge here is a big investment, and of course you're right that having a few rooms like this will make average DPR lower. Then again, half of being a melee fighter (in my book at least) is taking the damage and protecting the squishy's; so it's not a totally wasted turn. Yeah, in this case, an archer would have done better damage (but wouldn't have closed in melee range, threatening the foe/blocking the foes path), as would a melee fighter who invested feats/race/mc into mobility (speed). But in other encounters, the fighter investing instead in e.g. PAM/GWM comes out on top, so it's a trade off.

The rest of the dungeon, a standard melee fighter without any added mobility seems to be doing just fine (though that room upper right might pose a problem, depending on how high those ridges are).

As for mobility in dungeon environments: in my experience, if you have a dungeon having a lot of 5ft corridors and 2 melee fighters (which somebody refered to earlier), you just have one switching to polearm (foes would get +2 AC from cover I think but that should be managable). 3 or melee fighters in a party I haven't experienced yet, that would be annoying indeed in this type of dungeon.

stoutstien

2021-04-26, 07:43 AM

I personally rate mobility above damage but below attack for melee focused concepts. This includes high jump distances, canceling DT, climb/swim speeds, and speed reduction for enemies as a pseudo speed increase for the entire party.

Every 5ft of movement you have increases the range of the environment you can reach. This is even true in dungeons where you have multiple rooms or areas you can be moving through and around.

da newt

2021-04-26, 08:03 AM

For melee focused PCs Mobility is VERY important. It allows a PC to pick it's target and shape the battle field. If all you have is 30' of movement (no BA dash etc) it can severely limit your options. Sure you can use your action to dash, but then you can't use your action to attack or anything else.

Some players don't think about movement much. I've played with plenty of folks who move into range with the nearest enemy and stand there trading blows until one of them falls and then move to the next closest target. I like to look for opportunities to use my movement tactically - not everyone does.

One of my least favorite features in all of D&D is the FR@KK!N 5' wide passage - it is infuriating to have to burn 2x movement to squeeze by an ally and be completely blocked by a foe. Even the ranged attackers have to shoot through all that cover and LOS limitations.

Cunning Action is one of my favorite abilities in the game. The broom of flying and slippers of spider climbing are my go to uncommon magic items given the choice.

But some folks don't enjoy the spacial relations / movement aspects of the game. And some folks can't function in 3D. My father is brilliant, but watching him try to park a car is infuriating.

Lastly flight can also cause problems. I retired my flying PC because it became clear that my table could not function in 3D. It was impossible to come to an agreement on ranges and AoEs when we added the complexity of 3 dimensions.

Chaos Jackal

2021-04-26, 08:34 AM

Then again, half of being a melee fighter (in my book at least) is taking the damage and protecting the squishy's

It's important to note that you're also doing a far less effective job of "protecting the squishies" if you can't easily catch up to or lock down teleporting or high speed opponents, or if magical and environmental hazards severely gimp your ability to get to particular enemies. If you're plodding after an enemy with your walking/running speed alone, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to properly stick to that enemy and protect your party if that enemy has even rudimentary mobility abilities.

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 08:52 AM

The rest of the dungeon, a standard melee fighter without any added mobility seems to be doing just fine (though that room upper right might pose a problem, depending on how high those ridges are).

Those narrow corridors can also be perilous for He of Little Mobility. Just as a simple example:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/445485023299108875/836229569488093194/unknown.png

Monster Man wins initiative (because GWM Champion isn't Dex-based and didn't have spare feat space for Alert while he was taking GWM/PAM/Max Str), fires a shot, then just backs up. Yet again, the Champion of Immobility must eat a turn dashing if he wants to engage.

This is a very simple example... no difficult terrain, no Tucker's Kobolds using clever tactics, no special abilities or control, nothing. And yet we've already hit another significant efficiency loss.

Situations where the Champion needs to move more than 30 feet to engage are not difficult to come by, even in those narrow, twisting corridors.

Oh, true that action surge here is a big investment, and of course you're right that having a few rooms like this will make average DPR lower. (*snip*) But in other encounters, the fighter investing instead in e.g. PAM/GWM comes out on top, so it's a trade off.

There is a tradeoff. But when I said that it's felt throughout the adventuring day, what I meant is that said tradeoff is often a losing one (e.g, you often won't do better by enough in encounters where mobility doesn't matter in order to make up for the losses when it does).

the fighter investing instead in e.g. PAM/GWM comes out on top, so it's a trade off.
As an aside, two-handed PAM isn't all that wonderful for Champion Fighters specifically. With their high number of attacks (to multiply base weapon damage) and crit chance (to raise the chance of at least one crit in a turn, and thus get a bonus action attack from GWM), greatswords often do more damage than glaive+PAM.

Example at level 6 vs AC 15 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582779-Comprehensive-DPR-Calculator-(v2-0!)):

Champ A is VHuman, has Greatsword + GWF + GWM + 20 Strength.
Champ B is VHuman, has Glaive + GWF + GWM + PAM + 18 Strength (cuz they used an ASI on PAM).

Champ A does ~24.8 DPR, ~41.9 DPR with Advantage, ~49.2 with Action Surge, ~81.6 with Action Surge/Advantage.
Champ B does ~24.9 DPR, ~40.8 with Advantage, ~42.7 with Action Surge, ~69.8 with Acton Surge/Advantage.

This relationship gets worse for PAM as the Champ levels further (because higher attacks + higher crit chance = higher base weapon damage applies more times + chance of critting at least once in a turn and getting bonus action attack with greatsword rises significantly). It also gets worse if we consider Str half-feats.

...Though like I said, that's just an aside, more a thing about Champions, rather than mobility.

Waazraath

2021-04-26, 09:33 AM

snip

Ignore the whole PAM/GWM part; I was only interesting in contrasting "character with mobile feats" vs "character with extra damage feats", PAM/GWM isn't a good example for champion but besides the point.

As for the champion vs monsterman map, not convinced. First, dnd isn't a 1 on 1 game. Normally, you have a party, with the scout detecting the monsterman, maybe exchanging some arrow fire, and the party closing in after it runs away. Second, many monstermen don't have ranged attacks, or only weak ones. Third, champion has an initiative bonus from remarkable athlete, so depending on the level, I'd say he has a fair chance to win initiative - which, as he does, he is in melee with a monster using ranged attacks, which can be a very good place to be (depending on lots of factors).

Of course we can create an endless number of scenario's where mobility is key, and not having it is terrible. And I'm not arguing against mobility, #teammobility here. But in my experience, when in dungeon environments it doesn't come up that often that it hampers melee fighters in significant ways. The trade-off isn't as negative as you portray it, at least in my experience.

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 09:41 AM

All of your list is just various iterations of "in some encounters, this won't happen," which is not in dispute.

Again, you don't need to have a mobility problem crop up in every encounter for it to be a big deal. Having it even occasionally happen can cut so heavily into your output averaged over 6 or so encounters that you never catch up.

First, dnd isn't a 1 on 1 game. Normally, you have a party, with the scout detecting the monsterman, maybe exchanging some arrow fire, and the party closing in after it runs away.

There are plenty of examples where mobility will matter in those narrow corridors whether you have a party or not.

Also, Monster Man is not a mindless robot who will react the same regardless of what you do. If you just send in an archer scout alone, it might not run away. It might be in that position when the party closes in. Likewise, Monster Man can have friends, too. Or special abilities, or tactics, or those corridors could be narrow enough that you have to Squeeze, or they could be difficult terrain, or... etc etc.

Second, many monstermen don't have ranged attacks, or only weak ones. And some have good ones. Or even fantastic ones. And enemies with ranged attacks are far from the only kind of situation that can create a problem. Again, this doesn't need to happen all the time. If it happens even occasionally, it's a big deal.

Third, champion has an initiative bonus from remarkable athlete, so depending on the level, I'd say he has a fair chance to win initiative

He also has a fair chance to not. Remember, this doesn't have to happen all the time for it to be a big deal.

verbatim

2021-04-26, 09:56 AM

Whenever someone says that monk is the worst class in the game it always makes me wonder in the back of my head just how much value they put on mobility in melee.

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 10:15 AM

But in my experience, when in dungeon environments it doesn't come up that often that it hampers melee fighters in significant ways. The trade-off isn't as negative as you portray it, at least in my experience.

I said it only needs to come up as little as once to matter. Surely you do not intend to argue it's unthinkable that it will happen even once? :smallconfused:

Perhaps you are thinking that when I say the impact of an event is felt throughout the adventuring day, I mean "it will happen a lot that day." That's not what I mean.

Like, let's take a terribly oversimplified example just to try and illustrate what I mean about how something 'is felt throughout the adventuring day.'

Say you have 5 encounters in a day, with 3 rounds each. That's 15 rounds. Let's say you get 1 point of value each round, or 2 points on your nova rounds (which you have 3 of), for a total of 18 points.

Now let's say you spend 1 of your nova round (using Action Surge and such) earning 0 points. That single round means you need to do 112.5% output on every other round of the entire day just to break even.

In other words: Mobility issues don't have to crop up that often for efficient mobility investments to be well worth it.

It's important to note that you're also doing a far less effective job of "protecting the squishies" if you can't easily catch up to or lock down teleporting or high speed opponents, or if magical and environmental hazards severely gimp your ability to get to particular enemies. If you're plodding after an enemy with your walking/running speed alone, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to properly stick to that enemy and protect your party if that enemy has even rudimentary mobility abilities.

Very true. Often the backliner monsters are some of the most threatening in the game, you gotta be able to rush 'em down and put some pressure on them.

Whenever someone says that monk is the worst class in the game it always makes me wonder in the back of my head just how much value they put on mobility in melee.

Same. I usually wonder in the back of my head some combination of that, plus whether or not they're accounting for stuff like Stuns and how much that impacts the party's performance. :smallsmile:

I often feel that a lot of people trying to analyze on paper get too fixated on single variables and miss a broader picture. So you'll often see something like a Monk DPR comparison, but no accounting for, say, how much damage results from, or is prevented by, a stun.

Tanarii

2021-04-26, 01:50 PM

One of my least favorite features in all of D&D is the FR@KK!N 5' wide passage - it is infuriating to have to burn 2x movement to squeeze by an ally and be completely blocked by a foe. Even the ranged attackers have to shoot through all that cover and LOS limitations.
Conversely, they're fantastic if you've only got one melee guy and the opposition outnumbers you and has many meleers. Ditto for 10ft passages if you've got two melee guys.

quindraco

2021-04-26, 02:44 PM

Whenever someone says that monk is the worst class in the game it always makes me wonder in the back of my head just how much value they put on mobility in melee.

An issue most monk builds face is how bad they are at preventing enemy mobility. Stunning Strike prevents enemy mobility, for sure, but most monks are just bad at grappling and shoving, and there's no RAW way to get Sentinel+PAM+Reach working on them properly, since none of the PAM reach weapons are one-handed. Plus, most monks can't teleport or fly.

It's often easier to have a fighter pick up the necessary feats and then fix their mobility with magic items than it is to take a monk and give them more lockdown functionality with magic items.

Tanarii

2021-04-26, 02:56 PM

An issue most monk builds face is how bad they are at preventing enemy mobility. Stunning Strike prevents enemy mobility, for sure, but most monks are just bad at grappling and shoving, Athletics and a Str 12 (assuming standard array with Cha 8 and Int 0) is better than nothing for grappling. It's not Barbarian, Paladin, or Fighter who as invested in Athletics good, but it's as good as any of them who haven't taken the skill.

MaxWilson

2021-04-26, 03:41 PM

An issue most monk builds face is how bad they are at preventing enemy mobility. Stunning Strike prevents enemy mobility, for sure, but most monks are just bad at grappling and shoving

They're pretty good at enabling other people to grapple and shove though, since stunned targets auto-fail contests to prevent grappling/shoving.

One rule that I have toyed with (should probably add it to my houserules doc and make it official) is that Monks can subsitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Str (Athletics). It lets the wizened old master still be amazing at jujitsu/aikido. (Yes, I know that aikido is not that good in real life, but it's a fantasy trope.)

Evaar

2021-04-26, 03:46 PM

One thing that really hammered the value of mobility home for me has been my experience in our current Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign, which it will surprise no one to learn has zero battles in totally open fields.

Because so much of the dungeon is full of tricks and traps and it really matters which spaces are occupied by which characters in which order, our DM has been keeping us in initiative order even outside of combat. We move our speed plus dash most turns outside of combat.

So if you want to feel just absolutely glacial, start with 30 feet of speed and don't do anything to enhance it. Longstrider has become one of the best quality of life spells in the game for us.

I don't necessarily recommend that games should be run that way, but it's been an interesting experiment in how it shifts player priorities. I really strongly considered asking to swap to a Monk a while ago. Instead I'm playing a Battle Smith; I'm about to get an ASI and I'm strongly leaning towards Mobile even though I'm using a thrown weapon, primarily because it'll benefit me out of combat as well.

Before that I was playing an Eladrin Hexblade using a polearm and even with reach and a bonus action teleport 1/sr, I constantly felt like I struggled just to get within reach. I could shred just about anything I could get near, but too often it was a struggle to do that while the target was still healthy enough for all my damage to matter.

One rule that I have toyed with (should probably add it to my houserules doc and make it official) is that Monks can subsitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Str (Athletics). It lets the wizened old master still be amazing at jujitsu/aikido. (Yes, I know that aikido is not that good in real life, but it's a fantasy trope.)

Astral Self gets this as a feature at 3 and I agree it should be baseline across all Monks (around 3 seems right so you don't overly incentivize Clerics to dip so they can grapple).

stoutstien

2021-04-26, 04:04 PM

They're pretty good at enabling other people to grapple and shove though, since stunned targets auto-fail contests to prevent grappling/shoving.

One rule that I have toyed with (should probably add it to my houserules doc and make it official) is that Monks can subsitute Wisdom (Athletics) for Str (Athletics). It lets the wizened old master still be amazing at jujitsu/aikido. (Yes, I know that aikido is not that good in real life, but it's a fantasy trope.)

I added a feature at lv 6 that just adds wis modifier to strength checks. This does mean a player could realistically double down and max str and wis but I don't see a problem with that.

arnin77

2021-04-26, 04:09 PM

verbatim

2021-04-26, 05:12 PM

An issue most monk builds face is how bad they are at preventing enemy mobility. Stunning Strike prevents enemy mobility, for sure, but most monks are just bad at grappling and shoving, and there's no RAW way to get Sentinel+PAM+Reach working on them properly, since none of the PAM reach weapons are one-handed. Plus, most monks can't teleport or fly.

It's often easier to have a fighter pick up the necessary feats and then fix their mobility with magic items than it is to take a monk and give them more lockdown functionality with magic items.

Moving 80 feet in a turn and forcing a high value target to make several concentration checks and stunning strike saves (which ends concentration and makes grapple/shove checks auto-pass on a fail) is a different kind of control than preventing melee enemies from egressing into a corridor without teleportation or flight.

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 05:47 PM

Moving 80 feet in a turn and forcing a high value target to make several concentration checks and stunning strike saves (which ends concentration and makes grapple/shove checks auto-pass on a fail) is a different kind of control than preventing melee enemies from egressing into a corridor without teleportation or flight.

Mhm. Also:

An issue most monk builds face is how bad they are at preventing enemy mobility. Stunning Strike prevents enemy mobility, for sure, but most monks are just bad at grappling and shoving, and there's no RAW way to get Sentinel+PAM+Reach working on them properly, since none of the PAM reach weapons are one-handed. Plus, most monks can't teleport or fly.

It's often easier to have a fighter pick up the necessary feats and then fix their mobility with magic items than it is to take a monk and give them more lockdown functionality with magic items.

Why do you feel these feats are "necessary"? Where did that box come from? Let's think outside it. :smallbiggrin:

A Monk doesn't even need a feat to stop enemy movement with an OA, since you can Stunning Strike on an OA. Also, the Monk build in my sig can hit people who enter their reach, with a reach weapon, with a Stunning reaction attack. No PAM/Sentinel used to do it.

Another fun Monk thing is that Stun makes people auto-fail grapples and shoves, which can allow your entire party to cheese grater someone. You can also use it to run them up a wall and piledriver them.

Another way that a Monk can keep enemies from moving is the at-will, AoE fear effect of Long Death Monks. It doesn't even take ki or anything, and Frightened foes can't move closer to the source of their fear.

Kane0

2021-04-26, 05:51 PM

Or a favourite tactic of my party, stunning a target then dragging them deep into a body of water to either drown or spend the rest of their time trying to get back out of the water.

Amdy_vill

2021-04-26, 06:17 PM

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 06:27 PM

Or a favourite tactic of my party, stunning a target then dragging them deep into a body of water to either drown or spend the rest of their time trying to get back out of the water.

Aye, there are a lot of ways to make Stunned into a death sentence.

For those who want some idea of how to make a Monk scarier than they have seen in the past, here's a little build and guide to use it from yours truly (from the Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?583957-An-Eclectic-Collection-of-Fun-and-Effective-Builds)). Like all my builds in that thread, it's stress-tested to have a place in parties that work from 1-20 against at least 6 Deadly encounters a day.

One of the things about it is that while it can outburst a Sharpshooter Samurai at mid-level alone, its real strength comes from its ability to improve the performance of its teammates -- you're not going to see its real potential until you account for just how much those stun/Silence/Darkness/Pass Without Trace/etc tactics can improve everyone else around.

(Note: I know some people are knee-jerk wary of Darkness, but if that sounds like a description of you, then definitely give the section on it a read -- there was a very productive discussion on Darkness tactics in that thread, and the people who said they had bad experiences with Darkness actually went back to try with the new tactics suggested, and changed their mind, a full 180. Used correctly, vision blockers should be your friend, not your enemy).

You've probably heard about Monks sucking at some point in your stay on these forums. Some of this is overblown (Monks are relatively easy to 'screw up,' and the impact of Stunning Strike is oft underrated just because it's indirect), but not all of it. In response, Monks have gotten some straight-up buffs in Tasha's.

So let's see if we can't go from Our Lee Sin to Their Lee Sin. (https://youtu.be/kjo1x7Y1v3s?t=24)

Here we have a build that explores what a post-Tasha's Shadow Monk is capable of, with highlights like 'doing burst damage like a Samurai Sharpshooter in tier 2' or 'Make 7 triple-advantage attacks and force 10 saving throws in a round at the start of tier 3' on top of a whole bunch of mobility, stealth, and relatively good defenses for a Monk.

Tasha's has done a lot for the Shadow Monk; Ki-Fueled Attack triggers off their spells, Focused Aim is pretty efficient if you miss by 1-2 (less so if you miss by more, though it can still do it in an emergency), Dedicated Weapon allows them to use 1d10 Versatile weapons or make good use of whips, and perhaps most importantly, tools like Blind-Fighting give them a way to better exploit their relatively cheap Darkness casts.

Fluffwise, I see this as a hypnotic, dance-like fighting style based on entrapping foes in a web of feints, shadows, and punishing lashes. With a penultimate technique that envelops the stage in blackness for a vicious Raging Demon-style beatdown.

Build 15: The Way of the Demonweb Spider
https://i.postimg.cc/760Q5w51/Siveria-zps7231652e.jpg
"The spider I, and you the fly."

Half-Drow Fighter 1 / Shadow Monk 5 / Battle Master 3 / Shadow Monk 11 (Total: Shadow Monk 16 / Battle Master Fighter 4)
Starting Stats (Point Buy): 17 Dex / 16 Wis / 16 Con (alternate: lower Con to 14 to raise Cha or Int to 12)
ASIs: Elven Accuracy & 18 Dex @5, 20 Dex @8, 18 Wis @12, 20 Wis @16, Alert @20
Maneuvers: Tripping Attack, Riposte, Brace
Fighting Style: Blind-Fighting

Punching People in the Dark (Basic Offense and DPR)
With a 10 minute duration and costing just 2 ki (plus having an extra use from your race), Darkness is spammable enough for a Shadow Monk that you can have it up nearly all the time. Certainly much more often than, say, a Barbarian can have Rage.

Thanks to Blind-Fighting, Darkness does a lot of things for you. It gives nearby enemies Disadvantage to attack you. It gives you Triple Advantage on all your melee attacks. It makes it so that all of the many, many abilities that require "a target you can see" just can't target you without countering Darkness first. And it means that you can just ignore opportunity attacks, since opportunity attacks are one of those abilities (they trigger off "a target you can see" leaving your threatened area). Who needs Mobility?

Thanks to its duration and your good stealth and scouting, you can often expect to have it pre-cast. But even when you don't, you can still follow up a cast of it with a triple advantage 1d10+Dex+Stunning Strike+Maneuver attack (from ki-fueled attacks), then possibly another from your many Reaction options (more on that in a bit).

During that whole time, you've got at least 3 triple advantage attacks. Thanks to Dedicated Weapon, two of them can be made with a Versatile battleaxe, longsword, or warhammer wielded in both hands for a healthy 1d10 damage die (and at later levels when you have a high martial arts die, you can just use any weapon, like a whip). This is pretty good for sustainable damage.

For example, a level 6 Demonweb Monk with just Martial Arts and Darkness (or any other source of Advantage) does ~27.4 DPR vs AC 15, or ~24.2 vs AC 19 (barely even losing damage against the high AC). For perspective, 18 Cha Hex + Agonizing Blast would deal 17.8 vs AC 15 or just ~12.7 vs AC 19.

But you can of course do more damage than that by spending more resources. You can Flurry. Or (at level 7) Action Surge. Or (at level 8) use maneuvers. Or use Stunning Strike to boost the damage of all your allies. Or all of the above at once.

You also have a lot of ways to get a reaction attack, so many that you can practically just assume you're getting one against many foes. Enemy enters your threat range? Brace. Enemy leaves your threat range? Opportunity attack. Enemy stands still and melee attacks you? Riposte. Enemy ranged attacks you? Deflect Missiles. And of course any of these reaction attacks can be made at triple advantage, and attach crippling riders like Stunning Strike (interrupting an enemy's turn with a Reaction!) or Tripping Attack.

So for example, at level 9 you could toss out 7 triple-advantaged attacks for 5d10+4d8+2d6+35 (87.5) damage, plus extra dice from your ~14.3% crit chance (and a ~65.9% chance of at least one attack of your 7 being a crit). And when you get a couple more levels under your belt, you can have enough ki to attach Stunning Strikes to all of those hits, for up to a whopping 10 saving throws in a single turn (7 from stuns, 3 from maneuvers). And you'll have almost no chance of missing, thanks to the combination of Elven Accuracy and Focused Aim. And exploiting those stuns for more damage and control is a whole section unto itself.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PeskySmugAsiandamselfly-size_restricted.gif
In case you're wondering, yes, that's more than a Samurai Sharpshooter Action Surge at that level, before even counting anything like Tripping Attack or Stunning Strike improving teammate damage.

As you gain further levels, your personal burst damage doesn't get much better than this (so the Samurai will outscale you, at least in terms of "selfish" burst damage), though it doesn't really need to. Instead, you get stronger defenses, greater mobility and stealth, and more ki resources to do your thing more times per day.

When not in Darkness, you're still a buffed Shadow Monk, with a variety of options. KFA-improved Silence and Pass Without Trace are great spells. You'll frequently have Triple Advantage on your first attack due to your high stealth, and that attack can carry with it Tripping Attack and/or Stunning Strike, which can then lead to all the rest of your barrage having Triple Advantage (as well as acting as a force multiplier for your teammates).

Defenses
You have a bit above average hit points for a Monk, since Half-Elf can afford a 16 Con, and because of the Fighter levels. But your HP and AC are still only ever going to be 'okay.' Instead, much of your defense comes from more active, suppressive means.

You stay unseen until you first initiative comes up. You stun enemies into submission, even with off-turn reactions ("Oh, you're approaching me? Have a Stunning Brace.") Or you can Silence casters. You have mobility to kite, and a variety of tools to avoid OAs. You have the ability to teleport or become invisible, ki-free (as long as you've got access to areas of dim light or darkness). And a whole lot of abilities won't work well against Evasion, Stillness of Mind, Purity of Body, or an unseen target in Darkness. Close ranged attacks have to contend with Disadvantage from Darkness, and long-ranged attacks have to contend with Deflect Arrows (or just using your mobility to position in cover). And you do reliable damage, and help your allies do more damage, shortening the window enemies have to do harmful things.

Techniques of the Demonweb Spider

https://media1.tenor.com/images/e169f64142ee863cec93983208de2488/tenor.gif

Stunned is one of the nastier conditions in the game, and very few things are immune to it. If you have a good team, Stun is basically a death sentence. And while it may be a Con save, the fact that you can force so many saving throws (if you're willing to burn the ki) means that there's a very high chance that people will eventually fail one.

When an enemy is stunned...

- They automatically fail Strength and Dexterity-based saving throws, which means it's open season for your mage allies, especially if they're dropping hazards like Create Bonfire. It also means that they'll automatically fail saves against Tripping Attack or Pushing Attack.

- All attacks against them have Advantage, which means it's open season for your attack-based allies. Notably, this lasts until the end of your next turn, rather than the start... so you get Advantage on the rest of your attacks for the turn, and your whole next turn.

- Stunned causes a foe to be Incapacitated, which straight up turns off a ton of features (like Legendary Actions, Bladesong, Petrifying Gaze, Displacement, anything with Concentration, etc etc etc etc etc).

- Per PHB pg195, Grapple and Shove attempts against Incapacitated creatures automatically succeed. This means that despite your 8 Strength, you can grab your stunned victim and use your speed boosts to pull 'em aaaall the way across the map. Or you could Monk-run up a wall and suplex them for action-economy-free damage and prone. Or you could cheese grater someone over a Bonfire (that they automatically fail saves against) or Spirit Guardians or Spike Growth or Sickening Radiance or whatever. And then everyone else in your party can do that too.

- It doesn't actually matter that much if your (or an ally's) Athletics check is low, because it takes an Action to break out of a grapple. If someone loses a turn to being stunned, then another to breaking a grapple, they're basically done.

If you’re only spending 1 ki to turn a miss into a hit (for 1d10+Dex+possible riders), that’s a rather efficient use of a ki. Moreso if it's comboing with ki-fueled attack, replacing a Martial Arts unarmed strike with a Versatile weapon hit. Compare to a Way of Mercy Monk using Hands of Harm for 1 ki for Martial Arts die + Wis damage. And with elven accuracy, it's rare for you to miss by more than 2 anyways.

It's much more situational for the 2 or 3 ki versions to be worth it. Those are your "this absolutely has to work right now" options.

All of your spells are useful, so you should familiarize yourself with all of them.

Minor Illusion
Notably, Minor Illusion is one of the very few spells that does not have a Verbal component, which means you can use it to mess with people or set up a battlefield without breaking stealth.

Darkvision
This spell lasts 8 hours without Concentration. It takes 1 hour to replenish your ki.

In other words, it can be used as a sort of “1 hour ritual” to grant Darkvision to those pesky VHumans so they’re not a burden to you in the underdark.

This goes hand in hand with Pass Without Trace in the ‘be able to make your whole party stealthy’ department.

Pass Without Trace
A whopping +10 bonus to stealth for an hour can turn just about anyone into a ninja. And when your entire team is undetected, that means something special: Surprise rounds. Surprise rounds are very, very powerful in 5e.

It also makes you in particular a nigh-undetectable scout, which means that you can report threats to your allies so that they have a chance to pre-cast things. This + Surprise can add up to a lot of extra output for your team. And it lasts an entire hour!

This takes Concentration and ki, so at any given time you’re going to have to weigh whether you want to be using this or Darkness.

Silence
Fighting a caster? One of the tools in your kit is Silence, which you can cast for just 2 ki. You can drop Silence on an enemy, then punch them in the face with Ki-Fueled Attack for 1d10+Dex+a Stunning Strike and/or a Tripping Attack. And then punch them again if they try to walk out of the range of silence, giving you another chance for Stunning Strike or Tripping Attack. The main upshot of this is that it makes it harder to leave your 20 foot cube.

If you do Stun them, you (or anyone in your party) can auto-succeed on grappling them, and they're basically done at that point.

Another tip: Want a completely silent version of Knock that works not only on doors, but walls? Cast silence and take out some sledgehammers.

Darkness
Darkness is a good spell that sometimes gets a bad rap because some people misuse it in a way that's detrimental to their party. So here's a few tips to avoid being that guy.

- For people who don't have relevant special abilities, Darkness basically causes all sources of Advantage and Disadvantage to cancel out. The attacker gets Advantage for being unseen, but Disadvantage for not seeing their target. So what's the point? Well, the point is that you can use Darkness to neutralize any sources of Advantage or Disadvantage that benefit the enemy. For example, if they use Blur or Greater Invisibility, and then you get them in your area of Darkness, all of your allies will attack without Disadvantage!

- An awful lot of enemy abilities require "a target you can see," and Darkness is an excellent defense against them. For example, a beholder just can't shoot you at all with Darkness. Even if they turn on the antimagic field, they block their own eye rays with it, and only suppress the Darkness rather than dispel it.

- Opportunity attacks trigger off of "a target you can see" leaving threat range, and thus you can just ignore them. Or help allies disengage, too. It also means you have a lot of control over positioning so that you can determine exactly who you want seen or unseen.

- Counterspells are another important thing that require "a target you can see," which means you can cover your mage allies from counterspellers.

- Darkness synergizes extra well with anyone that has Alert, Blind-Fighting, Devil's Sight, Blindsight, bonus action Hiding, or just abilities that don't depend on sight much (like most AoEs). As of Tasha's, there's more ways to synergize with Darkness than ever. Let your allies know about this! Or, alternatively, consider taking Darkness when you know your allies will have these sorts of things.

- Keep in mind that both you and allies can cover or uncover your Darkness as a free object interaction if you need to temporarily turn it off for some reason. Likewise, your allies can have fairly cheap Continual Flame items (upcast to L3 or higher) so that they can illuminate magical Darkness as an object interaction if they really need to. You can also drop Concentration at any time (even when it's not your turn).

- Darkness is one of those things that can be a huge asset for your party, or can actually impede it if it's misused. Kind of like how knocking enemies Prone can be fantastic for melee allies or non-attack-based kiters, but detrimental for allies dependent on long ranged attack rolls. That doesn't mean that shoving is bad -- quite the opposite -- it just means that it's not for all party compositions. And it doesn't need to be. Just as you wouldn't play a character who focused on shoving in a team of archers, you shouldn't play a character who makes heavy use of Darkness in a team of characters who are unusually anti-synergistic with it.

That said, there are a lot of ways to make obscurement a major asset for your teammates, or to minimize interference (like the aforementioned object interactions or Monk hit and run tactics). Often more than people think -- I've seen a number of things get blamed on anti-synergy that are really just a result of people not knowing how to take full advantage of the spell.

For example, if an allied Barbarian decides to Reckless Attack, you can follow that up by switching on or moving your Darkness over them negate the enemy's Advantage. And if they want to get Reckless Advantage again when their turn comes up? They can use a free object interaction to switch Darkness off temporarily.

Edit: The discussion from post #873-878 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24894878&postcount=873) has additional tips on how to use Darkness to your advantage, both as the Shadow Monk and as other characters on a Darkness-using-player's team!

One of the strengths of this build is the fact that you can attach up to two nasty riders to any given attack.

I chose Tripping Attack, Brace, and Riposte for the 'default' maneuver set for the build. However, you can and should tailor your maneuver choices to suit your party composition and campaign.

For example, Tripping Attack is more useful the more your allies benefit from Advantage on melee attacks, and less useful the more your allies depend on ranged attack rolls. For another, Pushing Attack is dramatically more powerful if your allies use things like Create Bonfire, Spirit Guardians, or Spike Growth.

So here are some guidelines for doing that:
- You should have at least 1 "smite-like" maneuver. These are the abilities that activate after a hit is confirmed and add a damage die and a rider. These are important to help us capitalize on our high crit-rate, giving us an extra 2d8 damage when we do (plus an extra effect).
- You should have at least 1 "reaction" maneuver, like Riposte or Brace. Normally, the tradeoff for these maneuvers is that they don't auto-hit like the "smite-like" maneuvers, but your accuracy with Advantage is so high that you almost never miss anyways. That plus the ability to attach a Stunning Strike to them makes them exceptionally good choices for you.
- Your third maneuver can be a second choice from the above categories, or it can be something like Ambush or Rally.

Disarming Attack: It’s a Strength-based save which means enemies auto-fail it if they’re stunned, but I don’t like this much because it’s too situational when you only have 3 maneuvers known. Competent foes will have backup weapons anyways.

Trip Attack:
Since it’s a Strength save, Stunned enemies automatically fail against it.

Tripping has a lot of possible uses. It’s yet another way for you to give Advantage to yourself and allies if the first way doesn’t work (or if you just want to use your ki for something else). It’s a way to punch winged creatures out of the sky. It’s a way to impair enemy movement for hit and run tactics. It’s a way to lock down Stunned enemies even more with grapple+prone.

Tripping is best in parties that benefit a lot from prone. Melee allies and kiting / controlling spellcasters will love it. Ranged archers and eldritch blasters on the other hand might actually be impeded, with the possible exception of aggressively positioned Crossbow Experts or Gunners who can benefit from prone at point blank range.

Unfortunately, it’s a bit limited by the fact that it can only trip Large or smaller creatures.

Pushing Attack:
Like trip attack, stunned foes autofail the save, which combined with your move speed means you can punt people aaaaall the way across the map.

It also can help you kite/disengage when you’re not using Darkness (or an enemy can see through it).

Pushing Attack is especially good if you’re in a party that uses hazard spells; think Create Bonfire, Spike Growth, Spirit Guardians. If you have those kind of party members, this is great and will frequently add good-sized chunks of damage and/or control to your attacks, action-economy free.

Unfortunately, it’s a bit limited by the fact that it can only knockback Large or smaller creatures.

Menacing Attack:
Darkness blocks line of sight to you, and therefore inhibits the fear effect. Doesn't help that there's a fair number of foes who are immune to fear, either. I usually like this maneuver, but less so for this particular build.

However, the "they can't move closer to you" line doesn't rely on sight, allowing you to strand melee foes out of range. And you can just switch Darkness off with an object interaction if the effect takes. And it doesn't care about size categories, unlike Pushing/Tripping Attack.

Distracting Strike
While things like Pushing Attack and Tripping Attack have a bigger payoff, the appeal of Distracting Strike is that it has no saving throw and works against all enemies.

Distracting Strike is best taken when you're going to hit and run, and have allies who can get a lot of benefit out of a single attack getting Advantage, such as Booming Blade or Sneak Attack.

Maneuvering Strike
Off-turn movement is nice, and doesn’t care about enemy saving throws. Best taken with teammates who want to kite, or ones where formation is particularly important (example: a Paladin aura). Oh, and where your allies don’t use their reactions too much.

Goading Attack:
Now the enemy has Disadvantage on attacking everyone, rather than just you when you’re in Darkness.

This is best used when allies won’t be standing inside your Darkness (in which case, either the Disadvantage/Advantage cancel out, OR they already benefit from Disadvantage to be hit) and when enemies can’t easily switch targets to you, like if you have a Warcaster/Booming Blade tank on your team.

One of the nice things about Goading Attack is that the rider works on everyone, unlike Menacing/Pushing/Tripping.

Brace: A great way to get a reaction attack for a triple-advantage 1d10+1d8+5 damage+a possible Stunning Strike… which can interrupt the turn of the person that was moving into range of you!

It doesn’t even have to be willing movement! Someone like an ally with Repelling Blast or Telekinetic or whatever can just give you that reaction.

Note you can also use a Whip as your Dedicated Weapon (if you're willing to lose out on a little bit of damage) in order to control a larger area with Reach.

Riposte:
A great way to get a reaction attack for a triple-advantage 1d10+1d8+5 damage+a possible Stunning Strike… which can interrupt the turn of multiattacking creatures while you’re at it!

Whether you pick this or Brace depends on how likely you are to be in a position where an enemy is closing in on you, or where they’re already stuck in melee with you and prioritize attacking you.

Or you can pick both this and Brace and have a situation where just about anything the enemy does causes a reaction attack:
- Attacking you in melee causes a Riposte
- Entering your melee range causes a Brace
- Leaving your melee range causes an Opportunity Attack
- Making a ranged attack causes a Deflect Missiles

Ambush
Makes you even better at winning initiative, stealth, and surprise.

Bait and Switch
An action-economy-free AC boost and positioning tool is a Nice Thing. And +4.5 (average) AC is pretty good when that’s being combined with Disadvantage to be hit. It’s just brief, and can be wasted if the enemy can easily switch targets.

Evasive Footwork:
Bait and Switch is better. If you really need to Disengage without provoking, you can do it with Darkness or Step of the Wind, or simply by pummeling the poor sucker with Stunning Strike or Pushing Attack.

Grappling Strike, Quick Toss, Commander’s Strike, Feinting Attack:
Doesn’t fit your action economy. Do not take.

Precision Attack:
This is great for people who risk a lot of damage whiffing with SS or GWM. You’re not those people. You almost never miss, don’t have too much damage riding on any single attack, and have Focused Aim anyways.

For you, turning a miss into a hit with Precision Attack is less efficient than spending a maneuver on a reaction attack or a critfishing mini-smite, and you’re likely to have enough opportunities to use up all your maneuvers on those things during a short rest.

Lunging Attack.
You might be thinking that this might help you use a hit and run / skirmishing style when Darkness isn’t up. If so, you would be thinking wrong, because it increases your reach for only one attack. That sucks.

Sweeping Attack:
Overly situational, can’t crit-fish, generally inefficient. Do not take.

Rally:
So this isn’t something you take to actually use in combat -- it’s a generally inefficient use of your bonus action and maneuver slot. Instead, it’s something you take if and only if you plan to cheese it a bit by using it like a “1 hour ritual” -- giving everyone temp HP then short resting to refresh the slots.
That’s a neat trick, but you have so few maneuvers known that I’m cautious about diminishing your in-combat options.

Parry: Riposte, Brace, Deflect Missiles, and Opportunity Attack are all better reactions IMHO.

Tactical Assessment, Commanding Presence:
Unless your campaign very specifically places an unusually heavy emphasis on these skills, you shouldn’t take these.

Progression

Being a half-elf basically lets you fit a 16 into Con instead of 14, while still keeping your Dex/Wis where you want them.

Tier 1 is a little rocky. You're safer but less damaging at level 1 and 2 just from that extra HP and Second Wind from Fighter, and level 4 is great, but level 3 and 5 are worse than straight-class Shadow Monk.

You could do Monk 5 then Fighter 1, but I don't recommend this as default because it makes the rest of your progression (up until Diamond Soul) lose out on the Con save proficiency (not to mention a couple of hit points). Not only will Con save proficiency help you keep Darkness running, it's just arguably a better save than Dexterity in general (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612120-Hierarchy-of-Saving-Throws). Besides, you're still going to be resistant to Dex save-based attacks anyways because of your max Dex and Evasion.

Tier 2, you kick into high gear. Darkness is cheap and gives you triple Advantage on all of your attacks, and you have plenty of them. And when you grab Action Surge and maneuvers, you legitimately can do Sharpshooter Samurai levels of burst damage... and that's without counting the impact your stuns or riders have on your allies' damage (which can be quite a lot). Or the possibility of getting Surprise rounds for your party with Pass Without Trace, which is just huge.

Tier 3 you're basically doing the same things, but with a lot more ki, better stats, and a growing set of useful defensive features like poison immunity, evasion, stillness of mind, etc. If you run into someone you just really don't like, you can dump 7 triple advantage attacks and up to 10 saving throws against nasty effects in a single round. Or you can stretch out your resources, getting steady triple advantage output, using maneuvers opportunistically on your frequent crits, and sprinkling in some stuns or Pass Without Trace surprise.

Tier 4 you get Diamond Soul and are therefore amazing at saving throws, and have enough ki to liberally spam your abilities.

Variants/Notes:
- You can take a 1 level dip in Peace Cleric right after Monk 14 to get a whopping 6 Concentration-free uses of Emboldening Bond.
- Though Half-Drow is likely the best choice, any kind of elf or half-elf will work.
- You can and should change up your maneuver choices based on your party composition and campaign (see the "choosing your maneuvers" section).
- You could go Fighter 1 / Monk 8 / Fighter 3 / Monk 8, if you want more ki and Monk defensive abilities first, rather than Battle Master stuff first. Level 8 is a good breakpoint for Monk because they don't have a lot of scaling between then and 14, other than ki scaling.
- If you go Monk 5 first instead of starting with Fighter 1, you'll have a better 3, 5, and arguably 2. However, you'll be a bit worse at other levels due to missing out on the benefits of your first level being Fighter.

Man_Over_Game

2021-04-26, 06:29 PM

I have never seen mobility or range be the defined part of combat ever. tho I have also only been in 2 dungeons in my 10+ years of playing.

I have also never had to spend more than 1 turn closing distance in 5e wherein in other editions I have had the problem of closing distance. 5e just lack speeds low enough and speeds high enough to make I a problem in my experience. I have seen a 25ft race have problems closing distance once but that was in a battle with a lot of anti-movement setups. wall everywhere, difficult terrain, and casters using spells to reduce movement speed. so I have only seen movement be important when a dm stacked the deck in favor of it.

I think this is mostly because most battle maps I have seen are under 100ft in size.

I honestly don't understand why people think range and movement are so powerful given the above points.

I have seen one build make mobility viable, a monk tabaxi running build the ran into melee ranged punched, them move all the way off the battle map. this build only worked because it was able to not only leave melee range but leave the ranged range. witch is really hard to do.

Ancestral Guardian barbarians make good use of mobility, and maybe Horizon Walker Rangers. The other that comes to mind are Arcane Tricksters with Booming Blade.

But otherwise, I agree with you, for the most part. A lot of it is going to come down to trends of the table and prep time of the DM.

If you’re a casual DM, you’re not going to have a battlemap that’s 300x300 feet. You’re going to have a battlemap that’s 60x60, and most of the fighting takes place in the center.

Which is one of the reasons I believe that ”range” should not be a defining character component. Similarly, the Assassin Rogue is either incredibly useful or completely irrelevant, entirely determined by the culture at the table.

LudicSavant

2021-04-26, 07:05 PM

I have never seen mobility or range be the defined part of combat ever. tho I have also only been in 2 dungeons in my 10+ years of playing.

I have also never had to spend more than 1 turn closing distance in 5e wherein in other editions I have had the problem of closing distance. 5e just lack speeds low enough and speeds high enough to make I a problem in my experience. I have seen a 25ft race have problems closing distance once but that was in a battle with a lot of anti-movement setups. wall everywhere, difficult terrain, and casters using spells to reduce movement speed. so I have only seen movement be important when a dm stacked the deck in favor of it.

I think this is mostly because most battle maps I have seen are under 100ft in size.

I honestly don't understand why people think range and movement are so powerful given the above points.

Part of it is table culture (e.g. map size, campaign style, etc), part of it is the tactical/challenge level of the table (the higher it is, the more important things like initiative, vision control, and good positioning become), part of it is optimization and monster choices (e.g. speed differences can get pretty big, but that doesn't mean your table made those choices), but another part is perspective:

Spending 1 turn closing isn't negligible! That's valuable action economy.

It's kind of like how sometimes Bless can outdamage an Action Surge (it only needs to create a few extra hits, or save a lost turn from a failed save) without people even mentally registering that it did much that combat. Things like accuracy, action economy, etc can be more subtle than a giant damage roll, but very impactful when you actually tally it up and realize just what a big difference it made.

strangebloke

2021-04-26, 08:38 PM

Its really funny to me that people say that "mobility only matters in white room scenarios" when in reality the opposite is the case. 'White room scenarios' are by definition scenarios where terrain and range of engagement is ignored. In such an analysis the conversation is almost always about DPR and you'll often see immobile melee builds compared against ranged builds compared against highly mobile melee builds without a word spared to consider the combat utility of faster movement.

For contrast, analysis that takes into account things like "range of engagement" and terrain and mobility are definitionally not white room scenarios.

I honestly wonder...

To all you DMs who say that they've never seen mobility be a factor in their games, do you know how to use mobility? Do you have your monsters use their mobility to their advantage?

Because if you are, I can't imagine how players haven't been getting use out of those mobility enhancing abilties. Dragons in the air strafing with breath attacks as the players fight their way up a mountain, Oni under greater invisibility flying about and killing with glaive attacks, Banshees ambushing enemies by flying through the walls and then screaming, vampires using their legendary movement to rush in, grapple, rush out and away up a wall... All these things are difficult to impossible to counter without fast movement and/or lots of strong ranged attacks.

and if you're not doing that, do you not see how this sort of thing is really cool and fun and makes encounters more interesting?

"But Strangebloke!" I hear you say "You're being a bad DM! You're invalidating those poor melee character players who are just trying to play to their archetype!"

Yes! I do care about the melees. (I think ranged play should be nerfed across the board) But its also worth pointing out that even relatively mobile monsters aren't that fast. Melee characters generally need to get access to flight sometime in t2 alongside some other movement enhancing ability. Many classes get some amount of help here by default. Rogues and monks can BA dash, Barbarians and monks have enhanced movement, Paladins have magic steeds, Rangers have a whole suite of movement buffs, Moon Druids have combat wild shape.... Haste and Fly are spells that exist.

A level 9 party with a Vhuman GWM fighter in it has no one to blame but themselves if the GWM fighter has no means of contributing against flying enemies.

Man_Over_Game

2021-04-27, 09:54 AM

Its really funny to me that people say that "mobility only matters in white room scenarios" when in reality the opposite is the case.

I don't think anyone's saying that. It's just worth looking at what the realistic expectations are of the scenarios your table is in.

If a Warlock with Spell Sniper and a distance-invocation empowered Eldritch Blast can have a worthless range of 480 feet, it is also possible for someone not to need a Bonus Action Dash.

If your DM never has enemies that never willingly provoke Opportunity Attacks and only attack the person adjacent to them, don't play a Cavalier.

If your party doesn't bother with survival checks in the wilderness, don't play a Ranger.

And if most of your combat encounters aren't any bigger than 90x90 feet, consider just packing a throwing weapon for that first turn.

Personally, I kinda hate the fact that so much of 5e is more-or-less relevant based off of chance and opinion, but at least the player can make their choices around those limitations (nobody is forced into playing the Assassin).

strangebloke

2021-04-27, 10:17 AM

I don't think anyone's saying that. It's just worth looking at what the realistic expectations are of the scenarios your table is in.

If a Warlock with Spell Sniper and a distance-invocation empowered Eldritch Blast can have a worthless range of 480 feet, it is also possible for someone not to need a Bonus Action Dash.

If your DM never has enemies that never willingly provoke Opportunity Attacks and only attack the person adjacent to them, don't play a Cavalier.

If your party doesn't bother with survival checks in the wilderness, don't play a Ranger.

And if most of your combat encounters aren't any bigger than 90x90 feet, consider just packing a throwing weapon for that first turn.

Personally, I kinda hate the fact that so much of 5e is more-or-less relevant based off of chance and opinion, but at least the player can make their choices around those limitations (nobody is forced into playing the Assassin).

I think people are exactly saying that "melee mobility" never comes up in real play, that the importance of it is soley pushed by people who think encounters are only on wide featureless plains.

But I pretty much do agree WRT melee mobility should be baked into melee combat by default. Something like every character getting the charger feat by default would help a lot, as would cutting all ranges for spells and weapons in half.

BoxANT

2021-04-27, 10:18 AM

Mobile feat is useful for just about any melee (or ranged) character.

+10 speed & attack/disengage are both very useful for being able to get into (or out of) positions.

However, being able to dash & ignore difficult terrain is something that saves lives. Moving 80 ft and engaging with the enemy caster/ranged gives melee a huge tactical boost. In addition, if you have a bonus action dash (cunning, exp. ret, haste), it gets even better.

Even a caster/gish with booming blade can get a ton of use out of Mobile.

Segev

2021-04-27, 10:59 AM

Question about this map though: from the opening in the south to the chasm in the north is about 18/19 squares. In 5e, diagonal movement doesn't cost extra movement (sorry Pythagoras).I feel the need to point out that this is a misleading statement. IN 5e, the default assumption is "theater of the mind," and if you do use figurines, it's equally supported by the rules to use no grid (get out the rulers and tape measures and strings) as it is to use a grid. The suggested way of running on a grid may not tell you to treat diagonals as different than non-diagonals, but that's not the only 5e movement mechanic.

Also, I still recommend sticking to 3.5's means of measuring with that, because while 2 squares diagonal being 15 feet is still not "right," it's much closer and avoids a lot of tactical movement that is really silly.

Those narrow corridors can also be perilous for He of Little Mobility. Just as a simple example:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/445485023299108875/836229569488093194/unknown.png

Monster Man wins initiative (because GWM Champion isn't Dex-based and didn't have spare feat space for Alert while he was taking GWM/PAM/Max Str), fires a shot, then just backs up. Yet again, the Champion of Immobility must eat a turn dashing if he wants to engage.

This is a very simple example... no difficult terrain, no Tucker's Kobolds using clever tactics, no special abilities or control, nothing. And yet we've already hit another significant efficiency loss.

Situations where the Champion needs to move more than 30 feet to engage are not difficult to come by, even in those narrow, twisting corridors.

"Monster Man wins initiative" is not a safe assumption, first of all. It's not unlikely, but it also isn't particularly more likely than Champion of Immobility doing so. That said, your Monster Man looks to me to have expended 35 feet of movement, minimum, due to squeezing through that narrow corridor right next to him. This isn't a HUGE difference, unless it makes the difference between being within 5 feet of the champion of immobility after the champion of immobility dashes to get to him or not.

While the earlier example of moving, dashing, and action surge dashing to deal zero damage is a lot of tragic waste of resources, the notion that the monster man will likely have a means of disengaging safely AND be able to actually move away in such a fashion that he isn't within one move of the Champion of Immobility means that you've got a highly-mobile monster man.

Yes, a highly-mobile ranged fighter against a not-highly-mobile melee fighter is going to have a lot of advantage when it comes to being chased down.

However, you're also assuming that the champion of immobility plays the monster's game. And that he has no ranged options, himself.

The absolute worst case scenario should be that the highly mobile monster man archer is dancing in and out of range, using stealth to make sure the Champion of Immobility cannot figure out which way he's coming from. But in those tight confines, under that worst-case scenario, the champion of immobility can still tank that first hit, and then settle himself into a position where he has very short approaches and can wait for the monster man to show himself. That little cave to the left of where the monster man starts has no more than 10 feet of line of sight. Position himself there, and if the monster man approaches to try to skirmish-shot, a readied action will bring the champion of immobility up into his face for at least one good attack.

Not optimal, no; the monster man has his full action, possibly a multiattack, but it's now happening in the champion of immobility's face, which makes ranged combat harder. Unless this monster is further optimized for high mobility, great ranged damage, and the ability to fight in melee (either with its ranged attack or its fallback melee option being just as good). And also has a disengage option, which can still put it out of reach of the champion of immobility's movement.

So, our worst case scenario gets a narrower and narrower set of requirements that stack advantage after advantage onto monster man in order to make it actually turn these tunnels into a true death trap.

We're also looking at a 1 v 1, here. That almost never happens in 5e. First off, there's usually a party accompanying the champion of immobility. Secondly, monster man being a singleton in such a case is almost surely doomed very quickly. Yes, probably before the champion of immobility gets to him, if the rest of the party is well-balanced. The champion of immobility's job is to punish creatures that try ambush tactics in melee in the narrow tunnels in such a scenario.

As you, yourself, have pointed out, a meleeist is usually going to be doing a Tank roll, and has ways to mess up decision trees for the enemy. Also, he should have fallback ranged damage; monster man should be being shot when the champion moves to where monster man was. And, if that isn't possible due to the champion of immobility not being able to cover that distance, monster man still has to come into the champion's movement range to get line of sight if the champion positions himself tactically. Add in allies with their own ranged capabilities, and the champion's job is to position himself such that he shuts down options for monster man and monster man's minions, allies, or boss.

You don't have to have melee have high mobility to make that tunnel scenario very advantageous for the melee guy. But you do have to have more options than JUST melee. That doesn't make melee focus with PAM/GWM a bad build. It just means you have to know your strengths and have a party-based strategy.

LudicSavant

2021-04-27, 11:12 AM

"Monster Man wins initiative" is not a safe assumption, first of all.[ It's not unlikely, but it also isn't particularly more likely than Champion of Immobility doing so.

"It's not unlikely" is the point in the first place. We're not assuming it happens all the time. We're saying that if/when that kind of thing happens, it matters.

While the earlier example of moving, dashing, and action surge dashing to deal zero damage is a lot of tragic waste of resources, the notion that the monster man will likely have a means of disengaging safely

The only thing I spoke about in said example was the 'tragic' loss of an Action from the initial engagement. All this talk about disengagement appears to be your notion, not mine. :smallconfused:

You don't have to have melee have high mobility to make that tunnel scenario very advantageous for the melee guy. But you do have to have more options than JUST melee. Yes.

J-H

2021-04-27, 11:21 AM

As a DM, there have been quite a few times where the party Paladin is spending turns just running to close the distance. The monk, by that point, has already arrived and is fighting. The barbarian does this too, but he's faster and has a returning greataxe that he throws.

The paladin now has a summoned flying mount with 80' speed, but the mount is a bit squishy (AC 13/14 and only 60hp) so he doesn't always use it. He also picked up a cantrip from a feat, but 3d8 vs a melee w/ possible smite is not a good tradeoff for him.

The cleric has the same issue too, but she at least has some ranged cantrips.

Segev

2021-04-27, 12:16 PM

The only thing I spoke about in said example was the 'tragic' loss of an Action from the initial engagement. All this talk about disengagement appears to be your notion, not mine. :smallconfused:

My mistake, then. Somebody brought up, in response to the one about a vanilla half-orc Champion charging across the diagonal, that if he burned all those resources, he still couldn't even take an opportunity attack if the monster had a disengagement ability. I may have conflated that with your description. Though I probably was just trying to cover my bases in anticipating additional arguments why getting into melee range might be insufficient.

Regardless, I'm not saying your scenario doesn't illustrate a problem. Just that it's easy to read into what you wrote, given the context of the thread, that it means the champion of immobility always loses, which I don't think is your intent.

OldTrees1

2021-04-27, 12:34 PM

There is a difference between Enabling Mobility and Enhancing Mobility.

Flight is typically highly rated because it enables you to engage or disengage were you previously could not. This first shows up at low levels as disengaging from melee without allowing pursuit. At low levels flying is not enabling you to engage because fights tend to be within longbow range of some ground. However as levels increase and terrain becomes more exotic, you might find yourself facing an enemy that is flying 1+ mile in the sky. At that point flying allows you (ranged or melee) to engage in the fight.

Speed enhancers on the other hand tend to just save you actions. Those saved actions (or lost actions) are combat multipliers. They matter when they matter, but they are a continuum rather than the effective binary of the enabling mobility.

Also a ranged weapon is the most accessible speed enhancer, so all other less accessible speed enhancers compete with "draw a ranged weapon" unless there is enough reward to stack multiple speed enhancers.

Wings? Very useful enabler
<gap between enabler and enhancer>
Bow? Sometimes useful enhancer
Fast Movement? Occasionally useful enhancer

LudicSavant

2021-04-27, 12:57 PM

Regardless, I'm not saying your scenario doesn't illustrate a problem. Just that it's easy to read into what you wrote, given the context of the thread, that it means the champion of immobility always loses, which I don't think is your intent.

I see. Indeed, that is not my intent.

Perhaps an analogy will help make my intent clearer:

Think of it like an accuracy penalty in a DPR calculation. An accuracy penalty doesn't mean you'll always miss, but it will always decrease your expected average DPR (unless you're off the bounded accuracy range entirely).

Also, like an accuracy penalty in a DPR calculation, how much it decreases your expected DPR depends on the situation (the enemy's AC, whether you get Advantage or Disadvantage, etc). It might even make the penalty not matter at all (ex: You have +25 to hit vs 15 AC, you get -10 to hit, your accuracy is really still the same for that situation).

Mobility is similar -- it won't always make you fail to get where you need to be, and how much it matters will vary a lot based on the scenario, but it is still going to be a decrease to your expected average action economy (unless you're the equivalent of "off the bounded accuracy range," like if the whole campaign takes place in a 10x10 ft closet).

The main points I've been trying to get across are that

A) it does not take a lot of lost action economy to make a mobility feature (like a Tabaxi dash) worth more than a small damage feature (like Half-Orc criticals). It takes quite a lot of attacks over the course of a day for the extra damage of half-orc criticals to be worth even one lost Action.

B) it comes up sometimes even if you're in dungeons with smallish maps.

Therefore

C) If you're a melee-reliant character, investing a bit in mobility is frequently a good choice even if you're always in dungeons.

Like OldTrees says, speed enhancers save you actions. Actions are a big deal. Like... Action Surge is a big deal, for instance, and it's just 1 extra Action per rest.

Waazraath

2021-04-27, 03:25 PM

I said it only needs to come up as little as once to matter. Surely you do not intend to argue it's unthinkable that it will happen even once? :smallconfused:

Perhaps you are thinking that when I say the impact of an event is felt throughout the adventuring day, I mean "it will happen a lot that day." That's not what I mean.

Like, let's take a terribly oversimplified example just to try and illustrate what I mean about how something 'is felt throughout the adventuring day.'

Say you have 5 encounters in a day, with 3 rounds each. That's 15 rounds. Let's say you get 1 point of value each round, or 2 points on your nova rounds (which you have 3 of), for a total of 18 points.

Now let's say you spend 1 of your nova round (using Action Surge and such) earning 0 points. That single round means you need to do 112.5% output on every other round of the entire day just to break even.

In other words: Mobility issues don't have to crop up that often for efficient mobility investments to be well worth it.

I understand what you're saying, but still reach another conclusion. This has to do with 3 things, I think:
1) melee that can't reach foe doesn't 'do nothing'
2) team play can mitigate this
3) your overstate the number of situations this is relevant, compared with my own game experience: 3 five round combats is fair for an example, but I think that in less than 3 combats this is an actual issue; more like 1 in 10.

Let's go from this from the top.

1) is easiest. A clever melee fighter (bar PAM users) will walk through a dungeon with at least 1 arm free, only drawing a weapon when encountering a foe. Melee weapon when in melee range, else a javelin (or dagger, or pre-loaded hand x-bow). So when moving into a room and seeing somebody 40 ft away, you don't move/dash, but move/throw javelin. At level 1-4, this is hardly a reduction of damage for s&b fighters (1d8 vs 1d6), while compared to great weapon wielders damage you still do over 50% regular damage. After 5 (extra attack) you fall back to less than 50% of your damage.

2) My current party has a paladin (melee), fighter (melee), artificer (ranged) and sorcerer (ranged). If we encounter a room where the melee warriors need to be mobile to function, the artificer can cast haste, or the sorcerer can twin haste (both casters have much higher initiative). These are also very fine options, and in no way a burden: also when not needed for mobility, it's often a good option to give a melee fighter (or 2) +2 AC and an extra attack. Of course this is N=1, but many characters have options to give others a boost in the case it is needed, or have very good scouting options which makes it possible to avoid these situations, or have stealht boosters like pass without trace that helps melee to sneak up into melee range. There are just so many ways to deal with this that in a 4 person party, I assume something will be available to mitigate.

3) I've played the last years through 2 dungeons from Tales of the Yawning Portal, a AD&D Al Qadim conversion, DM'd PotA, and played through OotA. From there, it's far less than 1 in 3 encounters that melee getting into melee range is a thing. This is a ymmv thing, but still.

If I translate 1 to your terribly simplified example, you don't need to spend a nova round (action surge) instead to close, but just throw a javelin. You loose not 2 points, but ~0.5, or ~0.75, depending on level / unknown context, close in next round and go nova then (mind you, a fighter can still choose to make the tactical choice to spend the nova round to e.g. get into threatening range of a ranged attacker - but from a simplified strictly dpr perspective, I ignore this). So instead of 18 : 16, we're talking 18 : 17.25.

If I translate 2 to your terribly simplified example, there will be many cases where mobility might have been an issue, but it won't because you got hasted, or could have stealth'd your way into melee range. Of course, that can fail, or your melee fighter might go before the sorcerer in initiative. Lets say you avoid 50% of situations like this (I think it's more in practice, but nvm). So now, we're talking about 36 : 35.25

If I translate 3 to all this, it gets even less of an issue. But even when ignoring this, I don't think this matters too much - not so much that the Tabaxi is going to do that much extra compared to the half orc minor damage boost on criticals. Let alone if you pick a tabaxi instead of a +str race (ignoring Tasha's racial rules for the moment), or pick the mobile feat instead of a stat boost.

Honestly, I don't think there is much reason to argue, cause I get your point, and I understand that even if it comes up sometimes it impacts DPR. It's just that my 'sometimes' seems to happen less than your 'somtimes', possibly due to how we play the game, at what level, etc.. Personally, I'd favour mobility due to opening more tactical options, and because the times it does come up, standing there and not being able to do anything is just no fun.

LudicSavant

2021-04-27, 04:46 PM

(Deleted the original post #53 because I think this one explains better).

If I translate 1 to your terribly simplified example, you don't need to spend a nova round (action surge) instead to close, but just throw a javelin.

The spending Action Surge bit is going off your own suggestion, from post #16 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25022104&postcount=16).

Basically, the "terribly oversimplified example" is a terribly oversimplified example of why it matters throughout the day if you choose to do your suggestion in post #16.

You loose not 2 points, but ~0.5, or ~0.75
No, and here's why:

1) melee that can't reach foe doesn't 'do nothing'

Obviously. But that doesn't change the case.

In our "terribly oversimplified example," we're minimizing our variables. We're not comparing a ranged character to a melee character there, we're comparing a melee character to a faster melee character, who is otherwise identical.

The faster character gets to take 18 actions, while the slower character that uses your suggestion from post #16 gets 16 actions. In order for that to break even, the slower character must have 112.5% impact per action available to them.

2) team play can mitigate this

the artificer can cast haste, or the sorcerer can twin haste

This is a mobility investment -- it's just the teammate buying it instead of you doing so. It's already agreeing with what I recommend: it is worthwhile to make mobility investments, even in a dungeon, for melee-reliant characters.

It can be you being a Tabaxi, or it can be having an Alert Glamour Bard teammate. The point is that those mobility investments are often worthwhile even in a dungeon.

3) your overstate the number of situations this is relevant, compared with my own game experience: 3 five round combats is fair for an example, but I think that in less than 3 combats this is an actual issue; more like 1 in 10.

Here's the number I actually stated.

having that happen even one time

I said it only needs to come up as little as once to matter. Surely you do not intend to argue it's unthinkable that it will happen even once? :smallconfused:

That single round

Valmark

2021-04-27, 04:53 PM

I'd like to point out that while chucking a ranged attack is going to be better for damage it also means that the enemy will have freedom of movement, since nobody's threatening it. So the lack of (enough) mobility isn't really mitigated by a javelin or other ranged attack, it just shifts the downsides (of course it may or may not matter depending on the enemy).

LudicSavant

2021-04-27, 05:15 PM

there will be many cases where mobility might have been an issue, but it won't because you got hasted

If you are Hasted, you are not a character who plods along at 30 foot movement and nothing else, are you?

I think that is the cause for the disconnect. You're not counting what I would count as mobility investments as mobility investments.

A character who plods along at 30 foot movement and nothing else

OldTrees1

2021-04-27, 06:34 PM

If you are Hasted, you are not a character who plods along at 30 foot movement and nothing else, are you?

I think that is the cause for the disconnect. You're not counting what I would count as mobility investments as mobility investments.

Double checking, are you counting "owning a dagger" as a mobility investment? Because having a ranged weapon with 20/60 range is an extra 15ft of reach on the first turn.

LudicSavant

2021-04-27, 07:06 PM

Double checking, are you counting "owning a dagger" as a mobility investment? Because having a ranged weapon with 20/60 range is an extra 15ft of reach on the first turn.

I'd count it as
some sort of plan for what happens when they can't get into range

Provided you are good enough at throwing the daggers. Otherwise it's much as Valmark says above.

For a reminder, here's what we're talking about, from my first post in the thread:

Basically, you want to either not be entirely reliant on melee (e.g. a Paladin can do something useful like buffing or healing if they're stuck out of range), or you want to be very maneuverable to ensure that you can get into melee or at the very least stay engaged once you get there (e.g. a Paladin has a supermount and access to movement-enhancing spells, or things that control their foes).

This is why in every build I make, you'll generally see every melee character having some sort of plan for what happens when they can't get into range. And/or tools to try and make that happen less often (stealth, teleportation, movement bonuses, control, etc). Heck one of the first builds I posted in the Eclectic thread had a Paladin capable of covering over 500 feet in a round.

Builds that don't have this kind of thing tend to be worse than they appear to many people on paper. Even occasionally being stuck out of range with nothing good to do is such a huge efficiency loss that it'll often put you behind the daily performance of a character who swapped out one of your choices for the ability to not have that happen.

Note how I specifically note stealth and movement bonuses (like haste) as examples of the kind of things that you should get.

Then Waazrath disagrees by saying that you could instead get stealth and movement bonuses. It is the very most frustrating kind of disagreement, because it seems like there actually isn't one, and that there was just a miscommunication somewhere. :smallconfused:

there will be many cases where mobility might have been an issue, but it won't because you got hasted, or could have stealth'd .

OldTrees1

2021-04-27, 08:17 PM

I'd count it as

Provided you are good enough at throwing the daggers.

Aka, "yes, and for good reason".

Note how I specifically note stealth and movement bonuses (like haste) as examples of the kind of things that you should get.

Then Waazrath disagrees by saying that you could instead get stealth and movement bonuses. It is the very most frustrating kind of disagreement, because it seems like there actually isn't one, and that there was just a miscommunication somewhere. :smallconfused:

That is frustrating. Their example about a javelin sounds like another place you agree.

Now I find my preferences to be a bit different. I don't really value Enhancing Mobility in a similar way that I don't value initiative. My mind is much more focused on Enabling Mechanics, and thus on Enabling Mobility. I end up with some Enhancing Mobility mostly by accident.

My 1st 5E character got a ranged weapon because they wanted the 3E Knockback feat.
My 2nd 5E character got a ranged weapon because it let the other characters get more of the combat spotlight.
My 3rd 5E character has a dagger as their melee weapon, but would have never thrown it, except it got the Returning property as a side effect of buffing their allies.

So I recognize the value of Enhancing Mobility, and use it when I have it, but it is never high enough priority for me to seek it (unlike Enabling Mobility).

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 02:44 AM

Here's the number I actually stated.

Your example is this: "Say you have 5 encounters in a day, with 3 rounds each. That's 15 rounds. Let's say you get 1 point of value each round, or 2 points on your nova rounds (which you have 3 of), for a total of 18 points."

I worked from here. Implicit assumption my side is that in 1 of these 3 combats [edit: this should have been 1 in 5], you start from a distance that a melee character without special investment isn't able to close. This leads to exactly that single round / once / one time you mention.

And in practice, that single round every 3 combats [edit: should have been every 5 combats] won't happen, because [see post #52] -it happens far less than that, because there are ways to mitigate it.

This is a mobility investment -- it's just the teammate buying it instead of you doing so. It's already agreeing with what I recommend: it is worthwhile to make mobility investments, even in a dungeon, for melee-reliant characters.
No, it's not. It's a strategy that's also being used when mobility isn't involved. It isn't an investment, as I did mentioned in the former post. Nor is 'having stealth options' or 'a good scout' that allow you to bypass encounters / sneak up close. These aren't 'investments' used to counter bad melee mobility of a party member, just things that party's tend to have. Which happen to help in this department.

I think that is the cause for the disconnect. You're not counting what I would count as mobility investments as mobility investments.

I think this is correct, but what are we talking about then? A melee fighter, without a ranged backup weapon, in a party without any way to mitigate this would suck - but it also seems like a theoretical construct.

In our "terribly oversimplified example," we're minimizing our variables.

But also so many variables get minimized that it doesn't resemble actual play anymore (at least actual play in my experience). Again, if I take the last 4 campaigns I've seen, this is only rarely an issue. I just went through Princes of the Apocalyps (minor spoilers), and barring the first "fire" adventure and an optional farmstead raid, allmost all are closed of dungon environments with fairly small rooms. Even the first air adventure is inside a small closed space. No way that 1 in 3 fights "melee mobility" is an issue, and if a simplified example implies it to be, it is simplified too much.

Finally, and again, we aren't fundamentally disagreeing. I even doubted responding to your first post #10, because I'm not disagreeing that moblity matters. I only did because of its exagarrating of mobility's importance, through "This main room in particular might as well be miles across by the standards of a Half-Orc GWM Champion." This is simply incorrect: even in this example ment to illustrate mobility's importance, the melee can either close the distance and threathen an opponent, or move and make an attack. Next turn it can just do its thing.

So yeah, mobility is important, and yeah, when it comes up it decreases dpr, that's obvious, but you make it bigger than it is.

follacchioso

2021-04-28, 04:00 AM

I've played a good share of PvP fights, and I can testify that yes - mobility is the main thing for melee characters.

The Athlete feat is more useful than what people expect, because it allows you to run towards a ranged enemy, drop prone to find cover, and quickly stand up on the next turn. It is still a weak feat, though, and it loses importance at higher levels; I think it should be merged with Mobile.

Spells like Expeditious Retreat and Longstrider are also very important for mobility. Expeditious Retreat is particularly defensive for spellcasters: it's very hard for a melee character to fight a wizard that can dash away every turn, keeping away from closed-quarters distance.

At higher levels, when players get Fly, it becomes even more unfair. A good DM would limit the mobility of a flying character, for example by not allowing to change flying direction without manoeuvres, except if hovering; but still, you cannot do much against a flying enemy unless you have a good ranged attack, or ability to fly yourself.

Note that distance and mobility is important for casters as well. You need to be very careful of the Counterspell range whenever you cast a big slot spell, because you don't want to waste it by being counterspelled. Metamagic such as Distant and Subtle spells can make a big difference, especially when an enemy thinks they are outside of Power Word Stun range, but you can surprise them with Distant metamagic.

LudicSavant

2021-04-28, 07:33 AM

Your example is this: "Say you have 5 encounters in a day, with 3 rounds each. That's 15 rounds. Let's say you get 1 point of value each round, or 2 points on your nova rounds (which you have 3 of), for a total of 18 points."

I worked from here. Implicit assumption my side is that in 1 of these 3 combats,

There are not 3 combats in the example you quoted.

that single round every 3 combats won't happen

There is nothing about “a single round every three combats” in the text you quoted.

At all.

No way that 1 in 3 fights There is no “1 in 3 fights.”

I don’t know how many times I can repeat to you that the number you are saying is not the number in the text you are quoting.

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 07:44 AM

There are not 3 combats in the example you quoted.

Ah, my bad, 5x3 instead of 3x5. Replacing "1 in 3" by "1 in 5" doesn't change the main point though. [edited the post above for clarification]

OldTrees1

2021-04-28, 07:52 AM

Ah, my bad, 5x3 instead of 3x5. Replacing "1 in 3" by "1 in 5" doesn't change the main point though.

Double checking, but wasn't part of your main point:

"I agree, melee fighters tend to walk around dungeons with 1 hand free so they can throw a ranged weapon on the first turn while they close"?

1) melee that can't reach foe doesn't 'do nothing'

1) is easiest. A clever melee fighter (bar PAM users) will walk through a dungeon with at least 1 arm free, only drawing a weapon when encountering a foe. Melee weapon when in melee range, else a javelin (or dagger, or pre-loaded hand x-bow). So when moving into a room and seeing somebody 40 ft away, you don't move/dash, but move/throw javelin. At level 1-4, this is hardly a reduction of damage for s&b fighters (1d8 vs 1d6), while compared to great weapon wielders damage you still do over 50% regular damage. After 5 (extra attack) you fall back to less than 50% of your damage.

I really am not seeing the disagreement and this sounds like it is relevant to more than 1 combat.

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 08:03 AM

Double checking, but wasn't part of your main point:

"I agree, melee fighters tend to walk around dungeons with 1 hand free so they can throw a ranged weapon on the first turn while they close"?

I really am not seeing the disagreement and this sounds like it is relevant to more than 1 combat.

Yes, that's part of it. Breaking it down, there are instances (e.g. rooms, dungeons, encounters) where a melee fighter lacking mobility will not be able to reach an opponent; as I said in #52, I estimate it is closer than 1 in 10 encounters than 1 in 5 (or 3 with my earlier mixing up numbers) - I think this is the major point of disagreement. And for those (estimated) 1 in 10 situations as they might come up, you can mitigate the drawback by (among others) carrying a ranged weapon, so you can use it the first round when you are closing the distance - just as you can prevent some others completely due to party tactics. (effectively meaning that in actual play, I expect to see even less than 1 in 10 combats where this will play up).

OldTrees1

2021-04-28, 08:11 AM

Yes, that's part of it. Breaking it down, there are instances (e.g. rooms, dungeons, encounters) where a melee fighter lacking mobility will not be able to reach an opponent; as I said in #52, I estimate it is closer than 1 in 10 encounters than 1 in 5 (or 3 with my earlier mixing up numbers) - I think this is the major point of disagreement.

Please forgive me but 1 in 20 is smaller than your 1 in 10 estimate and still matches LudicSavant's "more than zero" estimate.

If this is a major point of disagreement, then you will need to teach me this new math where 1 in 10 is less than "more than zero".

And for those (estimated) 1 in 10 situations as they might come up, you can mitigate the drawback by (among others) carrying a ranged weapon, so you can use it the first round when you are closing the distance - just as you can prevent some others completely due to party tactics. (effectively meaning that in actual play, I expect to see even less than 1 in 10 combats where this will play up).

Likewise I don't see any disagreement here. Your first mitigation technique (carrying a ranged weapon) is one of the examples LudicSavant explicitly mentions.

If I had to summarize the disagreement it would be:
"You are wrong because I agree with you."
Which leaves me very confused and unsure if I understand.

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 08:52 AM

Please forgive me but 1 in 20 is smaller than your 1 in 10 estimate and still matches LudicSavant's "more than zero" estimate.

If this is a major point of disagreement, then you will need to teach me this new math where 1 in 10 is less than "more than zero".

Likewise I don't see any disagreement here. Your first mitigation technique (carrying a ranged weapon) is one of the examples LudicSavant explicitly mentions.

If I had to summarize the disagreement it would be:
"You are wrong because I agree with you."
Which leaves me very confused and unsure if I understand.

Where I disagree has nothing to do with "more than zero" (though I'm curious where you read that in my text). It has to do with:

There is a tradeoff. But when I said that it's felt throughout the adventuring day, what I meant is that said tradeoff is often a losing one (e.g, you often won't do better by enough in encounters where mobility doesn't matter in order to make up for the losses when it does).

In combination with the context of #27, whith a concrete simplified model which shows, quote "Mobility issues don't have to crop up that often for efficient mobility investments to be well worth it."

This model has a concrete assumption in it (times where this matters), which isn't "more than 0", but "5 encounters with 3 rounds, 1 round where this matters", which I think it's pretty off from what you can realistically expect in a game. If it would have been "10 encounters with 5 rounds, 1 rounds where it matters" the conclusion of #27 would have been a very different one.

I don't really care about "somebody being wrong", I simply see that based on my own experience, and maps in official modules, the issue is less big than it seems to be made, even while I don't disagree on a fundamental level (as I've said a few times). I don't think it is that important to be honest, but neither see how this is such a confusing position :smallconfused:

LudicSavant

2021-04-28, 09:15 AM

haste

This is a mobility investment

No, it's not.

Haste is an ability Team PCs invested in, which boosts mobility.

I think this is correct, but what are we talking about then? A melee fighter, without a ranged backup weapon, in a party without any way to mitigate this would suck - but it also seems like a theoretical construct.

We are talking about a character pursuing the exact course of action you recommended in post #16, and comparing to what would happen if they spent 0 actions getting to the exact same position, instead of 2 actions.

Which makes it very odd that you keep talking about it being an "unrealistic theoretical construct" given that this exact strategy is what you suggested.

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 09:23 AM

Haste is an ability Team PCs invested in, which boosts mobility.

This bugs me. If all haste did was boost movement this might be true always be true. But haste adds an action and ac - which may have been what was invested in. The movement from haste can easily be viewed as a non-invested free bonus if this is the case.

Segev

2021-04-28, 09:30 AM

It seems to me the disagreement has boiled down to whether or not something "most parties will likely have for other reasons" is an "investment in mobility."

The reason this disagreement seems to matter at all is in answering whether mobility is more or less highly valued because of the need for these possible-investments.

I believe one side of this disagreement is saying that mobility is more highly valued because parties need to invest in these things, while the other is saying that, while mobility is valuable, these things don't count as investments, and therefore it is naturally handled and not "highly valued" to the same extent.

I don't think there is any disagreement that mobility is important and helps, only over whether or not mitigation for lack of mobility in the form of ranged weapons or a spell that is on hand not due to mobility but to its other effects but which does help with mobility shows that it is more valuable than people think or not.

LudicSavant

2021-04-28, 09:34 AM

(Note: This post was being edited while people were already replying, so it's slightly different than the quotes)

This bugs me. If all haste did was boost movement this might be true always be true.

If it is true that you have purchased an ability that boosts mobility and other things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy), it is still true that you have purchased an ability that boosts mobility.

The movement from haste can easily be viewed as a non-invested free bonus if this is the case.

If you view it as so affordable that it is free, then that would be a strong argument for taking mobility options being worthwhile, now wouldn't it?

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 09:42 AM

If it is true that you have an ability that boosts mobility and other things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy), it is still true that you have an ability that boosts mobility.

But that’s not what I’m saying :(

I believe one side of this disagreement is saying that mobility is more highly valued because parties need to invest in these things, while the other is saying that, while mobility is valuable, these things don't count as investments, and therefore it is naturally handled and not "highly valued" to the same extent.

This is a good summary. I think there is also a quibble over the magnitude of mobilities importance.

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 09:45 AM

It would be true no matter how many things it did.

If it is true that you have an ability that boosts mobility and other things, you have an ability that boosts mobility. The fact that it does other things does not stop it from boosting mobility.

Just like if Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement, then Linda is a bank teller. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy)

But that an ability boosts mobility does not make it an investment in mobility. What is remarkable that this example is me, talking about my own campaign, my own character even (the artificer). I know why I picked haste as a spell, and it is not an investment in mobility, though that is an interesting side effect that might occasionally help the fighter out. You telling me why I do as I do is not very convincing tbh, cause I think I'm the authority there.

For the rest, I think Segev hits the nail on the head (also Frogreaver regarding magnitude). And frankly, I think it's fine to look at things in slightly different ways, without keeping arguing till somebody 'wins' or 'is right' or whatever. I think I made my point and it should be clear where I stand and why. Everybody can make of it what he or she wishes.

LudicSavant

2021-04-28, 09:46 AM

But that an ability boosts mobility does not make it an investment in mobility.

Haste is an ability you purchased (with your class levels, Action, Concentration, spell slot, spell known/prepared, and risk of action interruption if it drops). It improves your mobility and other things.

If I had to summarize the disagreement it would be:
"You are wrong because I agree with you."

Indeed.

Waazrath is basically currently arguing that I am wrong to recommend investing in abilities such as Haste, because they won't matter, because he takes Haste.

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 10:08 AM

Waazrath is basically currently arguing that I am wrong to recommend investing in abilities such as Haste, because they won't matter, because he takes Haste.

...

If this is what you get out of this thread, well, so be it, but I can't help being curious where exactly I was "arguing that you are wrong to recommend investing in abilities such as Haste"...

Segev

2021-04-28, 10:21 AM

If you view it as so affordable that it is free, then that would be a strong argument for taking mobility options being worthwhile, now wouldn't it?

Not at all. If something is "so affordable that it is free," that technically denotes nothing about how highly you value it, other than you value it enough to accept it if it's free. You might value it highly and feel like you're getting a huge bargain, or you might value it little and think "eh, I guess it'll be nice if it comes in handy, and it's not like it costs me anything to have on hand."

The point he's making, though, isn't that you shouldn't invest in mobility. It's that you don't need to make special investment in mobility, because you probably already have tools to deal with mobility issues that you've picked up for other reasons. This doesn't make mobility non-important, but it does make emphasis on specifically going out of your way for features that improve mobility less important.

Both of you agree that lacking means of dealing with mobility issues cropping up is a bad thing. The disagreement is over whether you need to take special effort to resolve that problem. Heck, it's not even that, if I understand Ludic correctly; I don't think he's saying you need to go out of your way, just arguing that the standard things you already have on hand count as "an investment." Whereas the other side of the argument is saying it doesn't count as "an investment in mobility" for the same reason that "going to work" isn't "an investment in finding a spouse" even if you do happen to meet your future spouse at work. It's a nice bonus that that happened, but it wasn't why you did it and you would have done it even if there'd been zero chance of meeting your future spouse in so doing.

LudicSavant

2021-04-28, 10:23 AM

...

If this is what you get out of this thread, well, so be it, but I can't help being curious where exactly I was "arguing that I am wrong to recommend investing in abilities such as Haste"...

My argument in this thread has been that it is worthwhile to invest in abilities such as Haste, because if you do not, X can happen. You argued that X will not happen, because you have Haste.

Do you see the problem here?

The disagreement is over whether you need to take special effort to resolve that problem. Heck, it's not even that, if I understand Ludic correctly

Yep, it's not even that. To me it does not matter whatsoever why you have an ability, only whether or not you have it.

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 10:31 AM

Yep, it's not even that. To me it does not matter whatsoever why you have an ability, only whether or not you have it.

If that’s all your saying then maybe Don’t call it an investment in mobility.

After all, There’s a difference between investing in Coca Cola and investing in bobs burgers who just so happens to also sale Coca Cola.

Segev

2021-04-28, 10:41 AM

Yep, it's not even that. To me it does not matter whatsoever why you have an ability, only whether or not you have it.

I think the reason people are arguing with you about it is that, to them, you're making a point along the same lines as, "If you don't invest in hit points, you're going to suffer when combat breaks out. Taking any class that gives you hit points is investing in hit points." While that's a more extreme example (it's impossible to take a class that doesn't give you hit points), their point is that of course you'll already have these things that you, Ludic, are counting as "investment in mobility," so it's not really an "investment."

To put it another way, their point is that you almost have to deliberately TRY to NOT "invest in mobility" by the way you're defining it. "You should invest in pants so you aren't indecent when you go outside," spoken to somebody already putting on a full hazmat suit, is what they're seeing this as. Yes, it's technically true, and yes, wearing the hazmat suit is, in fact, investing in pants that will keep them from being indecently exposed, but that's not why they're wearing the hazmat suit and they were already going to be wearing it.

You are making a very good and valid point that keeping in mind how you're going to reach enemies is important. Investments in mobility in one way or another - especially as you define "investment in mobility" - is critical to a viable, well-rounded combatant. Nobody, I think, is disagreeing with this.

The quibble is over whether it really counts as "an investment" if you were going to get it anyway, particularly if your reason for getting it wasn't the mobility enhancement. (There's also argument to be made over whether investment in range counts as investment in mobility. They are both investments in "being able to reach the enemy," but mobility can do things that range cannot. If a high-mobility enemy is chasing you down, no amount of range will help you run away from them, as an example. Such distinctions may also cause people to disagree with your definition of "investing in mobility." Assuming I understand your definition correctly; you HAVE been saying that investing in a ranged backup option is an "investment in mobility," right?)

LudicSavant

2021-04-28, 11:17 AM

Assuming I understand your definition correctly; you HAVE been saying that investing in a ranged backup option is an "investment in mobility," right?

I have not. I said Haste was an investment you could make to improve your mobility.

Here's what I said about backup ranged options:

Basically, you want to either not be entirely reliant on melee (e.g. a Paladin can do something useful like buffing or healing if they're stuck out of range), or you want to be very maneuverable to ensure that you can get into melee or at the very least stay engaged once you get there (e.g. a Paladin has a supermount and access to movement-enhancing spells, or things that control their foes).

In fact, I did not use the word "investment" at all prior to Waazrath disagreeing, therefore that word cannot be the root cause of our disagreement unless he is a time traveler.

Valmark

2021-04-28, 11:24 AM

I rate mobility pretty highly, especially on melee-reliant characters. And make no mistake, that applies in dungeon-heavy campaigns.

A character who plods along at 30 foot movement and nothing else is fairly easy to shut out even if they're just in dungeon environs of the sort we see in modules. Heck, even if there's only 30 feet of space or less to maneuver in, a little nudge of control or difficult terrain is often all it'll take. For example, a Spirit Guardians will halve your speed, no save. Start talking about dwarves or the like and it becomes even easier for this sort of thing to happen. Take a Plant Growth and you can cover a space little larger than a closet.

Basically, you want to either not be entirely reliant on melee (e.g. a Paladin can do something useful like buffing or healing if they're stuck out of range), or you want to be very maneuverable to ensure that you can get into melee or at the very least stay engaged once you get there (e.g. a Paladin has a supermount and access to movement-enhancing spells, or things that control their foes).

This is why in every build I make, you'll generally see every melee character having some sort of plan for what happens when they can't get into range. And/or tools to try and make that happen less often (stealth, teleportation, movement bonuses, control, etc). Heck one of the first builds I posted in the Eclectic thread had a Paladin capable of covering over 500 feet in a round.

Builds that don't have this kind of thing tend to be worse than they appear to many people on paper. Even occasionally being stuck out of range with nothing good to do is such a huge efficiency loss that it'll often put you behind the daily performance of a character who swapped out one of your choices for the ability to not have that happen.
For clarity, this was Ludic's original post. Any way you cut it having Haste already falls outside the realm of "plods along at 30 feet movement and nothing else" regardless of the reason to take Haste.

I think this is important to point out because...

But that an ability boosts mobility does not make it an investment in mobility. What is remarkable that this example is me, talking about my own campaign, my own character even (the artificer). I know why I picked haste as a spell, and it is not an investment in mobility, though that is an interesting side effect that might occasionally help the fighter out. You telling me why I do as I do is not very convincing tbh, cause I think I'm the authority there.

For the rest, I think Segev hits the nail on the head (also Frogreaver regarding magnitude). And frankly, I think it's fine to look at things in slightly different ways, without keeping arguing till somebody 'wins' or 'is right' or whatever. I think I made my point and it should be clear where I stand and why. Everybody can make of it what he or she wishes.

...Ludic hasn't spoken about why you took Haste. He has spoken about how it helps mobility. Keeping on arguing against him on this is pointless since that was never said.

In addition...

Question about this map though: from the opening in the south to the chasm in the north is about 18/19 squares. In 5e, diagonal movement doesn't cost extra movement (sorry Pythagoras). Even a regular half orc champion without any feats should be able to close such a distance by moving, spending action to move, and spending action surge to move, and by jumping over difficult terrain (assuming athletics proficient doesn't seem a stretch, else champion gives half proficiency). So you might not do damage the first round, but you do get into an opponents face. And if those things in the middle are rocks that obscure a straight path (I don't know the map), you would probably be halfway the room before initiative is rolled and it even gets easier.

...when there was the talk about the example, no Haste was figured. Instead the suggestion was to use an Action and an Action Surge to close the distance, consuming a pretty big resource in the meantime.

Only afterwards did Waazrath talk about Haste, ranged options and about not spending a "nova round" and whatever else (with which Ludic agreed if I'm misremembering it).

So yes, there was a misunderstanding between the two sides of the argument- but it seems to me that Ludic alone is being misinterpreted at the moment (at least from some of the people involved, not everybody).

MaxWilson

2021-04-28, 11:32 AM

2) My current party has a paladin (melee), fighter (melee), artificer (ranged) and sorcerer (ranged). If we encounter a room where the melee warriors need to be mobile to function, the artificer can cast haste, or the sorcerer can twin haste (both casters have much higher initiative). These are also very fine options, and in no way a burden: also when not needed for mobility, it's often a good option to give a melee fighter (or 2) +2 AC and an extra attack. Of course this is N=1, but many characters have options to give others a boost in the case it is needed, or have very good scouting options which makes it possible to avoid these situations, or have stealht boosters like pass without trace that helps melee to sneak up into melee range. There are just so many ways to deal with this that in a 4 person party, I assume something will be available to mitigate.

3) I've played the last years through 2 dungeons from Tales of the Yawning Portal, a AD&D Al Qadim conversion, DM'd PotA, and played through OotA. From there, it's far less than 1 in 3 encounters that melee getting into melee range is a thing. This is a ymmv thing, but still.

I'm interested in details.

Let's say you encounter a room with monsters. The DM is using vanilla PHB initiative. When you open the door and combat begins, on the first character or monster's first turn, are the PCs already in the room with the monsters?

Assuming that they're not in the room yet: If Haste or moving through other PCs as difficult terrain is needed (e.g. Paladin in front but Fighter wins initiative), doesn't that ever cost you a round?

On the other hand, if they are in the room, is it assumed that there were a period of prior activity? What would happen if they wanted to Dodge during that period of prior activity? Would they start the combat in the room and with Dodge benefits?

How do you / does your DM run things?

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 11:44 AM

For clarity, this was Ludic's original post. Any way you cut it having Haste already falls outside the realm of "plods along at 30 feet movement and nothing else" regardless of the reason to take Haste.

I think this is important to point out because...

...Ludic hasn't spoken about why you took Haste. He has spoken about how it helps mobility. Keeping on arguing against him on this is pointless since that was never said.

In addition...

...when there was the talk about the example, no Haste was figured. Instead the suggestion was to use an Action and an Action Surge to close the distance, consuming a pretty big resource in the meantime.

Only afterwards did Waazrath talk about Haste, ranged options and about not spending a "nova round" and whatever else (with which Ludic agreed if I'm misremembering it).

So yes, there was a misunderstanding between the two sides of the argument- but it seems to me that Ludic alone is being misinterpreted at the moment (at least from some of the people involved, not everybody).

Ludic used the phrase investment in mobility. If she had only used the phrase investment in an ability that adds mobility there would be no argument.

That’s because one can invest in a an ability that grants mobility without investing in mobility provided the reason you choose that ability was for the non mobility related things it does.

That’s the crux.

Valmark

2021-04-28, 11:58 AM

Ludic used the phrase investment in mobility. If she had only used the phrase investment in an ability that adds mobility there would be no argument.

That’s because one can invest in a an ability that grants mobility without investing in mobility provided the reason you choose that ability was for the non mobility related things it does.

That’s the crux.

If you actually search for it you'll see that the first person to call something an investment was Waazrath regarding Action Surge used to cover the distance. Dunno about you, but it doesn't look very different from calling Haste an investment- both of those offer mobility without they needing to be used as such. The difference is that Haste costs more and has different applications/a potentially bigger effect.

OldTrees1

2021-04-28, 12:06 PM

Where I disagree has nothing to do with "more than zero" (though I'm curious where you read that in my text). It has to do with:

LudicSavant's position is the frequency is "more than zero".

You are arguing about frequency with LudicSavant. Specifically you are claiming it happens less that LudicSavant.

Therefore your argument is unintentionally arguing that 1 in 10 is less than "more than zero".

That leaves me confused. Almost as confused as when you say "No, when they don't carry a javelin they carry a javelin and that is why LudicSavant is wrong about the merits of carrying a javelin." Basically this argument reads, to the confused onlooker, as if you are arguing about nothing. Whenever I compare your criticism of LudicSavant's position, it sounds like "No, you are wrong because <insert agreeing with them>".

Here's the number I actually stated.

I said it only needs to come up as little as once to matter. Surely you do not intend to argue it's unthinkable that it will happen even once? :smallconfused:

Like, even if you are a build that's "higher DPR" against a theoretical immobile training dummy, having that happen even one time is likely going to be felt throughout the entire adventuring day, and make you a lower DPR build (in practice) than your competition.

Now let's say you spend 1 of your nova round (using Action Surge and such) earning 0 points. That single round means you need to do 112.5% output on every other round of the entire day just to break even.

Although the more I read the more I wonder are you trying to say:
"I agree, but here is a nitpick about your example. I think the estimation used in the example calculation is off"?

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 12:12 PM

If you actually search for it you'll see that the first person to call something an investment was Waazrath regarding Action Surge used to cover the distance. Dunno about you, but it doesn't look very different from calling Haste an investment- both of those offer mobility without they needing to be used as such. The difference is that Haste costs more and has different applications/a potentially bigger effect.

Doesn’t matter who did it first. Just that ludic did it.

OldTrees1

2021-04-28, 12:14 PM

Ludic used the phrase investment in mobility. If she had only used the phrase investment in an ability that adds mobility there would be no argument.

That’s because one can invest in a an ability that grants mobility without investing in mobility provided the reason you choose that ability was for the non mobility related things it does.

That’s the crux.

Doesn’t matter who did it first. Just that ludic did it.

That would be an interesting root cause if that is what caused the argument. It seems plausible that the phrasing could have made it muddled.

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 12:15 PM

LudicSavant's position is the frequency is "more than zero".

You are arguing about frequency with LudicSavant. Specifically you are claiming it happens less that LudicSavant.

Therefore your argument is unintentionally arguing that 1 in 10 is less than "more than zero".

That leaves me confused. Almost as confused as when you say "No, when they don't carry a javelin they carry a javelin and that is why LudicSavant is wrong about the merits of carrying a javelin." Basically this argument reads, to the confused onlooker, as if you are arguing about nothing. Whenever I compare your criticism of LudicSavant's position, it sounds like "No, you are wrong because <insert agreeing with them>".

Although the more I read the more I wonder are you trying to say:
"I agree, but here is a nitpick about your example. I think the estimation used in the example calculation is off"?

Lyrics position was also that it happens X out of y times.

Arguing that it’s actually A out of y times where A < X doesn’t require the mental gymnastics you just jumped through and makes perfect sense.

OldTrees1

2021-04-28, 12:18 PM

LudicSavant position was also that it happens X out of y times.

Arguing that it’s actually A out of y times where A < X doesn’t require the mental gymnastics you just jumped through and makes perfect sense.

LudicSavant said their position was not M out of N times. They spent a few posts clarifying that X>0 was their position. I presume they are honest and thus I take their statement of their position as the more accurate representation.

Valmark

2021-04-28, 12:19 PM

Doesn’t matter who did it first. Just that ludic did it.

It does matter though. One can't argue something when they said the opposite (or something very similar to it) earlier.

Unless one changed their mind, but it doesn't look like it's case.

And of course you can't exactly fault someone for using the same terminology others used.
EDIT: In a similar manner, I mean.

MaxWilson

2021-04-28, 12:25 PM

LudicSavant's position is the frequency is "more than zero".

It's a little bit stronger than that truism. LudicSavant's stated position originally was that it was a huge efficiency loss that tends to make the build perform worse in practice than it looks to most people on paper, compared to a different build:

Builds that don't have this kind of thing tend to be worse than they appear to many people on paper. Even occasionally being stuck out of range with nothing good to do is such a huge efficiency loss that it'll often put you behind the daily performance of a character who swapped out one of your choices for the ability to not have that happen.

That's more than just a claim of nonzero applicability. It's a quantitative claim, if a vague one: it happens enough to require planning at build time. Waazrath's point is that his group has gotten away with zero build time planning for mobility, and so far isn't missing it.

OldTrees1

2021-04-28, 12:36 PM

It's a little bit stronger than that truism. LudicSavant's stated position originally was that it was a huge efficiency loss that tends to make the build perform worse in practice than it looks to most people on paper, compared to a different build:

Builds that don't have this kind of thing tend to be worse than they appear to many people on paper. Even occasionally being stuck out of range with nothing good to do is such a huge efficiency loss that it'll often put you behind the daily performance of a character who swapped out one of your choices for the ability to not have that happen.

That's more than just a claim of nonzero applicability. It's a quantitative claim, if a vague one: it happens enough to require planning at build time. Waazrath's point is that his group has gotten away with zero build time planning for mobility, and so far isn't missing it.

LudicSavant also counts happening to own a dagger and be able to throw it. (I double checked that specifically)
Waazrath cites a character owning a javelin with the intention to throw it as they close.

If they argued about amount of thought during build time, they might disagree. If they did, that would be a valuable argument (and I would be much less confused).

Or maybe Frogreaver is right about the word "investment" causing the surface level argument (where they appear to agree) to be a proxy for an underlying argument (like amount of thought during build time)?

Honestly the meta commentary on the argument is helping me understand it better. Thank you. It still sounds like the surface argument is one they agree about. So I am still confused.

Evaar

2021-04-28, 12:38 PM

And thus the fate of all D&D threads, as the discussion devolves into a semantic argument about who said what and what that means.

Anyway mobility is good. If you don't have a solution to solve problems caused by lack of immobility, you should look into getting one. Haste is one way to do that. Also, other ways exist.

tKUUNK

2021-04-28, 12:52 PM

Frogreaver

2021-04-28, 12:56 PM

LudicSavant said their position was not M out of N times. They spent a few posts clarifying that X>0 was their position. I presume they are honest and thus I take their statement of their position as the more accurate representation.

X > 0 could mean once in a million which no one would find significant enough to worry about. So no, at least one argument that was presented is more than you are suggesting here.

Segev

2021-04-28, 01:07 PM

Mobility? It's just FUN.

If you have a great ranged attack, usually that's enough. Mobility not needed. Actually, usually a ranged threat is better than mobility. Unless you're running away, or chasing enemies.

Mobility shines when line of sight is limited...in fog, or twisting corridors.

I'm playing a shadow monk now, Tier 3. And the BEST thing about mobility? It's knowing I can physically punch any enemy on the map, this turn. I can physically assist any ally on the map, this turn. We hear a scream a few blocks away? I'm the first one on scene.

On the other hand, a decent spellcaster can usually exert force over the same radius, without moving from where they stand.

So yeah. I don't build for it every character. But mobility is a ton of fun.

And I rate fun pretty high, to answer the original question.

I'm playing a shadow monk cecaelia (not sure where the original source for the race is, but think octopus-merman a la Ursela from Little Mermaid; this version gets to see through fog as far as their darkvision goes for some reason). Currently rogue 1/monk 4, but I have a fog bottle that, when he's solo for any reason, is magnificent for closing with enemies and ruining their days. He's a grapple-monger.

Athletics makes him practically treat climbing like walking on regular ground. And the jumping ability is very nice, too. I won't be getting mobility as I have other things on my plate that I want, but it's a big temptation nonetheless. I think the 60 ft. bonus action teleport will likely make me miss Mobility less, though, when I get it.

Waazraath

2021-04-28, 01:41 PM

I'm interested in details.

Let's say you encounter a room with monsters. The DM is using vanilla PHB initiative. When you open the door and combat begins, on the first character or monster's first turn, are the PCs already in the room with the monsters? (1)

Assuming that they're not in the room yet: If Haste or moving through other PCs as difficult terrain is needed (e.g. Paladin in front but Fighter wins initiative), doesn't that ever cost you a round? (2)

On the other hand, if they are in the room, is it assumed that there were a period of prior activity? What would happen if they wanted to Dodge during that period of prior activity? Would they start the combat in the room and with Dodge benefits? (3)

How do you / does your DM run things?

1) This really depends. Most often, the party isn't in the room when the encounter begins, but: find door, listen at said door, check for traps if they are expected somehow, sometimes use more precaution (like Detect Magic to see if a high level critter with magical gear is on the other side) before opening; open door; if there are enemies, roll initiatieve. But at other times, there's a pool in the dungon and something surfaces when we are already there, or there is a mimic, or another kind of ambush; those happen as well.

2) Rarely. In the current dungeon it's not really an issue since most doors are 2 squares / 10 ft. If not, the person not standing in front can move through another person's space if he happens to go first. If that would not allow the character to reach an enemy, and neither the Artificer nor the Sorcerer have had a turn to use haste (or just used their turn in another way) they have to look for an alternative, which might be casting bless as the paladin or throwing a javelin for the fighter - wasting a turn and doing nothing is rare. It does come up, but than often other motives play a role - the paladin wanting to keep the others in his saving throw aura, or facing a single 5ft reach critter the fighter (PAM/Sentinel) rather makes an attack of opportunity against and reducing its movement to 0 than engaging, to prevent it from doing damage, etc.

3) don't have a clue... I don't think we ever said we use dodge in a room before an encounter actually starts, due to dodge being a 'combat action'... never given that much thought tbh if that could be done, or how I would rule it as a DM.

tKUUNK

2021-04-28, 01:45 PM

I'm playing a shadow monk cecaelia (not sure where the original source for the race is, but think octopus-merman a la Ursela from Little Mermaid; this version gets to see through fog as far as their darkvision goes for some reason). Currently rogue 1/monk 4, but I have a fog bottle that, when he's solo for any reason, is magnificent for closing with enemies and ruining their days. He's a grapple-monger.

Athletics makes him practically treat climbing like walking on regular ground. And the jumping ability is very nice, too. I won't be getting mobility as I have other things on my plate that I want, but it's a big temptation nonetheless. I think the 60 ft. bonus action teleport will likely make me miss Mobility less, though, when I get it.

FYI Segev, I also did NOT take the Mobility feat for my shadow monk. I still miss it sometimes even WITH shadow step... for the obvious reason of making a full attack with flurry, then dashing away. But it's a team game and the abilities I chose work better for the party on the whole. With grappling and the fog bottle, you'll probably end up in the same boat- missing the mobility feat only slightly.

Thunderous Mojo

2021-04-28, 06:43 PM

I tend to view mobility in 5e as the interplay between the following three factors:

1) Character Speed
2) Alternative Movement modes (climbing, jumping, swimming, flying etc) and/or Abilities that mitigate movement penalties..such as Difficult Terrain.
3) Abilities that allow the PC to avoid Opportunity Attacks.

Haste is a prime example of an ability that boosts your speed, which may allow you to brute force through Difficult Terrain, and the extra action can allow one to Disengage or Dash.

Being able to Attack the best target at the best time, with the best attack is influenced heavily by mobility in my opinion.