New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 121314151617181920212223 LastLast
Results 631 to 660 of 684
  1. - Top - End - #631
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    I had once proposed a monk sub-class that added Wisdom mod as extra damage on every hit and folks on here hated it so much I no longer try to create content. The hate isn't worth the effort. :(
    "I'll have my revenge, and Deathstalker (part) II! ™"

  2. - Top - End - #632
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    We keep arguing about euclidian movement, but my game world is on a semi-spherical planet, so all in-game movement is non-euclidian. Please help!

  3. - Top - End - #633

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    So, wait, your claim is that diagonals don't exist unless you are using a battlemap?
    Diagonal with respect to what?

    I'm not trying to move 100 forward and then 50 up, I'm going at an angle upwards 100 ft. Will I not be able to get at least 50 ft off the ground going at an angle? By Raw and Common Sense, yes, I can. Because I'm not moving orthogonally. I'm not going 1 ft up and then 1 ft over, I'm going 1 ft diagonally.

    Now, if you want to enforce Pythagoras and have me calculate the exact angle of ascent I'd need to end up in the space I want to end up in (or really within 5 ft of the enemy) then I'll bring my graphing calculator to your game and try and remember how to calculate all of this. I'm sure watching me plug numbers into an equation will be riveting gameplay. But, at my table? I'm going to stick by the fact that there is no penalty for moving diagonally, and limit the amount of math we have to do at the table, because I find playing the game more fun than math homework.
    Nobody ever told you that you can't simplify for the sake of gameplay, and of course there are lots of ways to simplify. (The 2/1 rule is popular and generates results pretty close to realism. Under the 2/1 rule that move you propose would cost 125' movement, which turns out to be reasonably close to the Pythagorean distance of 112 feet. If you want to absolutely maximize everything then yes, feel free to punch sqrt(100^2+50^2) into your calculator, but most people don't bother.)

  4. - Top - End - #634
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    Dude, the chase rules are optional to begin with. Saying "complications" doesn't mean I'm immediately going to think of a random table associated with an optional ruleset.

    You could have meant complications in any number of ways.

    This is ridiculous. There is literally only a single "urban chase" complication that even has a chance to apply to someone not running on the ground. In fact, out of 20 complications across both tables, only 3 could possibly apply to anything flying.

    But sure, let us treat this like it is completely fair and balanced. Oh wait, what is this?

    "The Tables presented here don't work for all possible environments." pg 254 and back on pg 253 "The Urban Chase Complications and Wilderness Chase Complications table provide several examples."

    Almost seems like they didn't account for every possible variable when creating an optional rule set. Maybe they expected people to apply the rules evenly, and account for discrepancies themselves.

    So, wait, your claim is that diagonals don't exist unless you are using a battlemap?

    I'm not trying to move 100 forward and then 50 up, I'm going at an angle upwards 100 ft. Will I not be able to get at least 50 ft off the ground going at an angle? By Raw and Common Sense, yes, I can. Because I'm not moving orthogonally. I'm not going 1 ft up and then 1 ft over, I'm going 1 ft diagonally.

    Now, if you want to enforce Pythagoras and have me calculate the exact angle of ascent I'd need to end up in the space I want to end up in (or really within 5 ft of the enemy) then I'll bring my graphing calculator to your game and try and remember how to calculate all of this. I'm sure watching me plug numbers into an equation will be riveting gameplay. But, at my table? I'm going to stick by the fact that there is no penalty for moving diagonally, and limit the amount of math we have to do at the table, because I find playing the game more fun than math homework.
    But... Chase doesn't say variant on anything. Tecnically, it's RAW and to be used.

    It's true that they aren't the only possible complications, but that's going to depend on the DM. The reference RAW is that table.

    Max isn't saying diagonals don't exist unless you use a battlemap- they're saying the opposite. Unless you use the battlegrid, the monk is losing horizontal movement for the diagonal to get up the wall on the roof and then down.
    The griffon flying presumably loses less movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by samcifer View Post
    I had once proposed a monk sub-class that added Wisdom mod as extra damage on every hit and folks on here hated it so much I no longer try to create content. The hate isn't worth the effort. :(
    Weird. That's... Something another class can do, so it's nothing strange.
    In any case, I'm sorry to hear that. It shouldn't have happened.
    Last edited by Valmark; 2020-08-11 at 02:05 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #635

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    But... Chase doesn't say variant on anything. Tecnically, it's RAW and to be used.
    Doesn't the whole DMG have a giant disclaimer on it saying "these are suggestions if you feel like using them"? I could have sworn it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Weird. That's... Something another class can do, so it's nothing strange.
    I don't think any other class can do anything similar: adding +WIS on every attack, on up to four attacks per round (plus possible opportunity attack) is very strong compared to most of what's already in 5E. If you charged ki for it or limited to it 1 attack per turn it would be more 5E-idiomatic.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-08-11 at 02:31 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #636
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Doesn't the whole DMG have a giant disclaimer on it saying "these are suggestions if you feel like using them"? I could have sworn it does.
    Of course it does- but that's the only reference we have to talk things without DM ruling.

    Let's say we are a gaming group- who's the DM, they can rule homewever they want. But if we're talking out of that context we need to use that reference material because everybody will rule their own way out of there.

    Which is good, don't misunderstand me- but we need that same measuring stick when we are talking out of the specific group.

    Otherwise for example you could say that there is no limit on Dashes in a chase while I could say the opposite- your situation isn't comparable to mine. If either of us is the DM alright, but if neither is we need a common ground to discuss things on.

    We can most certainly discard the chase rules altogether from the DGM though if we so wish and treat it as normally running after somebody, which eases the conditions for the monk (since they were getting impaired the most). Monk still comes out short by either getting the difficult terrain or having to climb up walls.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I don't think any other class can do anything similar: adding +WIS on every attack, on up to four attacks per round (plus possible opportunity attack) is very strong compared to most of what's already in 5E. If you charged ki for it or limited to it 1 attack per turn it would be more 5E-idiomatic.
    A warlock can do that twice/thrice depending on the build using Cha, and they get bigger dice (or have the potential to). Assuming life drinker (which implies Pact of the Blade).
    With Eldritch Blast they add Cha up to four times at range and costs an invocation regadless of Pacts.
    Last edited by Valmark; 2020-08-11 at 02:56 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #637
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Edea's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In your head.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I don't think any other class can do anything similar: adding +WIS on every attack, on up to four attacks per round (plus possible opportunity attack) is very strong compared to most of what's already in 5E. If you charged ki for it or limited to it 1 attack per turn it would be more 5E-idiomatic.
    Now see, this sort-of mystifies me; the monk's DPR is apparently ****, yet it's getting four attacks per round, which is (also apparently) a lot for 5e. When applying a flat damage mod to those attacks, it's 'too much'. So...what should be added to these four attacks per round to bring the monk's DPR up?

    ...and bring it up to what, for that matter; people get upset if you increase any one aspect's efficacy up to the point where it matches what they personally consider 'the specialist' (so for DPR it's fighter, control it's probably wizard, tanking it's druid/barbarian, utility it's bard, etc.), but it's already been made clear that the 'jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none' aspect isn't enough. Besides, many of those classes I just mentioned are all quite versatile, probably moreso than the monk (hell, the bard seems to be more 'master-of-all-trades', this edition). Monks need to be not only 'good' but 'the specialist' in something, and that something needs to be mechanically relevant...and no, "slightly increased movement speed" ain't it, and neither is "slightly easier to budget around lack of magic items".
    "Come play in the darkness with me."
    Thanks for the avatar, banjo1985!

    Spoiler
    Show

    I guess I'm a Neutral Good Human Wizard (4th Level)
    Ability Scores:
    Strength- 14
    Dexterity- 15
    Constitution- 17
    Intelligence- 20
    Wisdom- 20
    Charisma- 12
    Take the 'What D&D Character am I?" Quiz!


    Somehow I doubt the veracity of this quiz :P
    Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?

  8. - Top - End - #638

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Of course it does- but that's the only reference we have to talk things without DM ruling.

    Let's say we are a gaming group- who's the DM, they can rule homewever they want. But if we're talking out of that context we need to use that reference material because everybody will rule their own way out of there.

    Which is good, don't misunderstand me- but we need that same measuring stick when we are talking out of the specific group.

    Otherwise for example you could say that there is no limit on Dashes in a chase while I could say the opposite- your situation isn't comparable to mine. If either of us is the DM alright, but if neither is we need a common ground to discuss things on.
    I think RAW is important primarily because it's player-facing: there are lots of quirks in 5E that I just put up with because the cost/benefit ratio of explaining to the players that we do things differently here isn't worth the hassle. They signed up to play 5E so we'll play 5E, with only a limited number of changes documented in my house rules.

    When it comes to DMing suggestions, none of that matters. The DMG may suggest that I might want to let players turn hostiles into friendlies with a Persuasion check, but I can see that's not a good fit for my game (and the math is wonky) so I ignore it. No harm no foul. The DMG may suggest chase rules which make high school athletes fall over in exhaustion after a short jog, but I can see those rules are terrible so I replace them with better rules--again, no harm no foul. On don't need to document for the players which DMG suggestions I take vs. ignore because those rules aren't aimed at players in the first place--nor do I need to document which MM creatures I reject or modify before using in my campaign.

    I think the giant DMG disclaimer is very relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edea View Post
    people get upset if you increase any one aspect's efficacy up to the point where it matches what they personally consider 'the specialist' (so for DPR it's fighter, control it's probably wizard, tanking it's druid/barbarian, utility it's bard, etc.), but it's already been made clear that the 'jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none' aspect isn't enough.
    It sounds like the people who get upset if you increase efficacy are not the same people who think being a Jack of All Trades is not good enough. Perhaps you cannot satisfy them both simultaneously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    A warlock can do that twice/thrice depending on the build using Cha, and they get bigger dice (or have the potential to). Assuming life drinker (which implies Pact of the Blade).
    With Eldritch Blast they add Cha up to four times at range and costs an invocation regadless of Pacts.
    Ah, I misunderstood then what you meant by "same thing." I thought you meant stacking Wisdom specifically. Agonizing Blast is just bringing Eldritch Blast up to parity with weapon attacks (it's good primarily for the control effects and the third and fourth beams at 11th/17th level), but Lifedrinker is more like what I understand the proposed subclass to be like: take your normal weapon damage (including Str/Dex) and add Cha on top of that. Lifedrinker is a 12th level ability and is impossible to get with four attacks per round, whereas samcifer's subclass sounded like it have out the +Wis bonus much earlier than 12th level (possibly 3rd), but understand now what you were referring to. (Don't forget the Bladesinger 14th level ability too, which adds +Int.) Thanks for clarifying.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-08-11 at 03:24 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #639
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Edea View Post
    Now see, this sort-of mystifies me; the monk's DPR is apparently ****, yet it's getting four attacks per round, which is (also apparently) a lot for 5e. When applying a flat damage mod to those attacks, it's 'too much'. So...what should be added to these four attacks per round to bring the monk's DPR up?

    ...and bring it up to what, for that matter; people get upset if you increase any one aspect's efficacy up to the point where it matches what they personally consider 'the specialist' (so for DPR it's fighter, control it's probably wizard, tanking it's druid/barbarian, utility it's bard, etc.), but it's already been made clear that the 'jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none' aspect isn't enough. Besides, many of those classes I just mentioned are all quite versatile, probably moreso than the monk (hell, the bard seems to be more 'master-of-all-trades', this edition). Monks need to be not only 'good' but 'the specialist' in something, and that something needs to be mechanically relevant...and no, "slightly increased movement speed" ain't it, and neither is "slightly easier to budget around lack of magic items".
    4e7/Fi2 is sorta the floor for damage monks. (Not due to 4e, it's the only monk with actual damage. We're just not dipping for ambusher +mark or other tricks here)

    Fangs of the fire snake is pretty great. As is fighter 2 for dueling and surge.

    When you hit for 6(1d6+1d10+2+mod) you hit good. (96 average) and hey look. 5th level spells on this list, and we can double cast them with surge in tier 3.

    So wis to damage would need to be a tier 3 or higher ability but it would be fine there.

    Folks are just wild around these parts and assume arbitrary roles. (Keep in mind that hexblade1/fi2/anythingX is going to shell out 88 damage average with a pair of uncommon wands at 3rd level.)
    Last edited by Nhorianscum; 2020-08-11 at 03:27 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #640
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I don't think any other class can do anything similar: adding +WIS on every attack, on up to four attacks per round (plus possible opportunity attack) is very strong compared to most of what's already in 5E. If you charged ki for it or limited to it 1 attack per turn it would be more 5E-idiomatic.
    Not a class by itself, but: Magic Initiate Monk, pick Shillelagh as one of your cantrips.

    It's a pretty commonly suggested build.

  11. - Top - End - #641

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Not a class by itself, but: Magic Initiate Monk, pick Shillelagh as one of your cantrips.

    It's a pretty commonly suggested build.
    That just replaces Dex with Wis, it doesn't let you stack them.

    Also that doesn't boost Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2020-08-11 at 03:26 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #642
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    That just replaces Dex with Wis, it doesn't let you stack them.
    I misunderstood the topic, then. I apologize.

    There is nothing in 5e that let you stack stats for attack, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Also that doesn't boost Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows.
    True, but Patient Defense is worthwhile.

  13. - Top - End - #643
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Ah, I misunderstood then what you meant by "same thing." I thought you meant stacking Wisdom specifically. Agonizing Blast is just bringing Eldritch Blast up to parity with weapon attacks (it's good primarily for the control effects and the third and fourth beams at 11th/17th level), but Lifedrinker is more like what I understand the proposed subclass to be like: take your normal weapon damage (including Str/Dex) and add Cha on top of that. Lifedrinker is a 12th level ability and is impossible to get with four attacks per round, whereas samcifer's subclass sounded like it have out the +Wis bonus much earlier than 12th level (possibly 3rd), but understand now what you were referring to. (Don't forget the Bladesinger 14th level ability too, which adds +Int.) Thanks for clarifying.
    Uh, sorry, should have been more specific (and I forgot the Bladesinger, yeah).

    I actually agree on all the previous part, actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Not a class by itself, but: Magic Initiate Monk, pick Shillelagh as one of your cantrips.

    It's a pretty commonly suggested build.
    Yes but it is limited to two weapons (and substitutes, not adds).

  14. - Top - End - #644
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Luccan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Old West

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Seeing how many people rate the monk low in usefulness makes me want to run a game with just Monks, Rangers, and Sorcerers, the three most bemoaned classes (in terms of not meeting "standards") this edition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    All Roads Lead to Gnome.

    I for one support the Gnoman Empire.
    Avatar by linklele

    Spoiler: Build Contests
    Show

    E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing

    E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand


  15. - Top - End - #645
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I misunderstood the topic, then. I apologize.

    There is nothing in 5e that let you stack stats for attack, right?

    True, but Patient Defense is worthwhile.
    Actually there is, Lifedrinker adds Charisma on top of whatever you're using and Bladesinger adds Int.

    Though, it is for damage, on the attack roll I can't think of anything.

  16. - Top - End - #646
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Actually, re-reading, Max's right.

    Nothing outside of grid movement says anything about diagonals costing more or less movement, and in grid movement it goes out of its way to say that diagonal movement is the same as horizontal movement unless you use that additional variant...

    Logically, you should take non-grid movement as it is without ignoring diagonal lenght.
    Or, logically, you can assume they added that because in older editions it was a rule that it did cost more, and they wanted to make sure that people didn't feel obligated to use a system that no longer applied.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Which, given the alternatives to grid play is miniatures and ruler, or theatre of mind, makes sense.
    Not really, since Max's way is much much harder and requires a lot more math and effort, for incredibly minimal gains.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Diagonal with respect to what?
    With respect to starting and ending position?



    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Nobody ever told you that you can't simplify for the sake of gameplay, and of course there are lots of ways to simplify. (The 2/1 rule is popular and generates results pretty close to realism. Under the 2/1 rule that move you propose would cost 125' movement, which turns out to be reasonably close to the Pythagorean distance of 112 feet. If you want to absolutely maximize everything then yes, feel free to punch sqrt(100^2+50^2) into your calculator, but most people don't bother.)
    125 ft is reasonably close to 111.8?

    And, actually, you are forgetting that to "reach" someone I only need to be within 5 ft of them, meaning I need to be in a "space" 95 away and 45 up. Which is 105' (your 2 for 1 rule is again adding distance to the movement, essentially the penalty they says doesn't exist, and would be 117.5 away. Which takes us from a single square that is in the range of a reach weapon to 15 ft away)

    And if we start talking smaller distances, this becomes even more ridiculous.

    if you want to move from one corner to another in a 30x30 room, that is IRL 42 ft, but since my "space" could be up to 4 ft away and I only need to be within 5 ft to interact with an object, the effective distance can be 33 ft.



    But honestly, you are taking the lack of a rule as evidence of a rule existing. When, in the only time they explicitly talk about it, they specifically say not to use that rule. Frankly, this whole discussion is just reminding me why I hate trying to use Theater of the Mind. Range matters so much between reach, flight, and ranged attacks and I'm not going to take the time and effort to calculate the "real" distance when I've been told not to, especially if I'm using a method of gameplay meant to utilize the exact distances less, for ease of play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Of course it does- but that's the only reference we have to talk things without DM ruling.
    So, of course the entire DMG is variant rules, but they must be RAW because we don't have any other rules?

    That is because the "RAW" chase rules are just the rules for movement. "Chasing" someone is literally just running after them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Otherwise for example you could say that there is no limit on Dashes in a chase while I could say the opposite- your situation isn't comparable to mine. If either of us is the DM alright, but if neither is we need a common ground to discuss things on.
    RAW is there is no limit on dashing. There is only a limit imposed by the Variant rules that you are saying are RAW.




    Honestly, this discussion is giving me a headache.

  17. - Top - End - #647
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I misunderstood the topic, then. I apologize.

    There is nothing in 5e that let you stack stats for attack, right?
    Lifedrinker does, lets you add your cha mod to all attacks.

    Think there are a few other abilities that let you do something similar, like Hexblade's curse adding prof damage.

  18. - Top - End - #648
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Luccan View Post
    Seeing how many people rate the monk low in usefulness makes me want to run a game with just Monks, Rangers, and Sorcerers, the three most bemoaned classes (in terms of not meeting "standards") this edition.
    Sounds very fun.

    Dan Hibiki & Friends vs the World.

  19. - Top - End - #649

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Luccan View Post
    Seeing how many people rate the monk low in usefulness makes me want to run a game with just Monks, Rangers, and Sorcerers, the three most bemoaned classes (in terms of not meeting "standards") this edition.
    I ran a one-shot for three Purple Dragon Knights and a Land Druid (forest). They did fine, at least numerically (strategic choices led the Land Druid into trouble). Games where only "bad" classes are allowed turn out to be pretty fun, because there's less opportunity cost. You aren't giving up a "good" class, it was just never an option.

  20. - Top - End - #650
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Weird. That's... Something another class can do, so it's nothing strange.
    In any case, I'm sorry to hear that. It shouldn't have happened.
    Well, here's a variation of that build that grants different things as I no longer remember what I had written...

    The Way of the Wise Warrior

    You have a keener insight into the ways of combat and the motives of others than most who follow the monastic traditions.

    Lv 3:

    Seeing the Truth:

    You have advantage on all Insight checks you make when interacting with npcs and pcs.

    Lv. 3:

    Finding the Way:

    Once per encounter, you may gain advantage on your attacks against a single target for one round. This ability refreshes on a short rest.


    Warrior's Forethought:

    You may take the Dodge or Dash action as a bonus action without needing to spend Ki to do so.


    Lv. 6

    Fist of the Wise:

    You may add your Wisdom modifer as extra damage whenever you inflict damage to a foe using unarmed strikes or a weapon you are proficient with.


    Lv. 11:

    Wisdom of Warriors Past:

    You can no longer be surprised. During a surprise round, you may act normally. You may also add a bonus to your initiative equal to your Wisdom modifier.


    Lv. 17:

    Wisdom of the Master Monks:

    You may use your Flurry of Blows without spending Ki to do so.
    Whenever you attempt to use Stunning Strike, you may spend one additional Ki to impose disadvantage to the target when they attempt to make a saving throw against it. If the target saves successfully, you regain 1 Ki Point (might make this to include a wisdom save to see if you regain that spent Ki point. Only 1 Ki pt. can be regained per round.)

    Just an idea...
    "I'll have my revenge, and Deathstalker (part) II! ™"

  21. - Top - End - #651
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    Or, logically, you can assume they added that because in older editions it was a rule that it did cost more, and they wanted to make sure that people didn't feel obligated to use a system that no longer applied.

    Not really, since Max's way is much much harder and requires a lot more math and effort, for incredibly minimal gains.

    With respect to starting and ending position?

    125 ft is reasonably close to 111.8?

    And, actually, you are forgetting that to "reach" someone I only need to be within 5 ft of them, meaning I need to be in a "space" 95 away and 45 up. Which is 105' (your 2 for 1 rule is again adding distance to the movement, essentially the penalty they says doesn't exist, and would be 117.5 away. Which takes us from a single square that is in the range of a reach weapon to 15 ft away)

    And if we start talking smaller distances, this becomes even more ridiculous.

    if you want to move from one corner to another in a 30x30 room, that is IRL 42 ft, but since my "space" could be up to 4 ft away and I only need to be within 5 ft to interact with an object, the effective distance can be 33 ft.

    But honestly, you are taking the lack of a rule as evidence of a rule existing. When, in the only time they explicitly talk about it, they specifically say not to use that rule. Frankly, this whole discussion is just reminding me why I hate trying to use Theater of the Mind. Range matters so much between reach, flight, and ranged attacks and I'm not going to take the time and effort to calculate the "real" distance when I've been told not to, especially if I'm using a method of gameplay meant to utilize the exact distances less, for ease of play.

    So, of course the entire DMG is variant rules, but they must be RAW because we don't have any other rules?

    That is because the "RAW" chase rules are just the rules for movement. "Chasing" someone is literally just running after them.

    RAW is there is no limit on dashing. There is only a limit imposed by the Variant rules that you are saying are RAW.

    Honestly, this discussion is giving me a headache.
    Yes, people aren't obligated to use grid movement. Out of that though diagonal counts normally.

    Wait, the fact that it takes longer doesn't mean that it makes no sense.

    The proposed rule 2/1 though while fast increases distances, true.
    ...yeah nothing to add there. Though 95/45 feet actually makes you farther then 5 ft. from 100/50. Don't worry about answering this, it's me getting compelled to run numbers, it doesn't matter that much.
    Though I'm not making the math on the next example.

    Attention: Max isn't taking the lack of a rule as a rule existing- they are taking the rule and applying it RAW. As in RAW from PHB. Which is supported by the fact that gridplay specifies ignoring diagonals increase in distance unless one wants.

    And... We already agreed on the DMG not being RAW, dunno why bring that up.

    Though I am mildly irritated by the fact that the DMG calls some things "Optional rules" now as if the rest wasn't

  22. - Top - End - #652
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Edea's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In your head.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    I guess another way to frame the question is "what about the monk needs the most improving"? DPR? Tanking? Utility? Control? Something else?
    "Come play in the darkness with me."
    Thanks for the avatar, banjo1985!

    Spoiler
    Show

    I guess I'm a Neutral Good Human Wizard (4th Level)
    Ability Scores:
    Strength- 14
    Dexterity- 15
    Constitution- 17
    Intelligence- 20
    Wisdom- 20
    Charisma- 12
    Take the 'What D&D Character am I?" Quiz!


    Somehow I doubt the veracity of this quiz :P
    Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?

  23. - Top - End - #653
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by samcifer View Post
    Well, here's a variation of that build that grants different things as I no longer remember what I had written...

    The Way of the Wise Warrior

    You have a keener insight into the ways of combat and the motives of others than most who follow the monastic traditions.

    Lv 3:

    Seeing the Truth:

    You have advantage on all Insight checks you make when interacting with npcs and pcs.

    Lv. 3:

    Finding the Way:

    Once per encounter, you may gain advantage on your attacks against a single target for one round. This ability refreshes on a short rest.

    Warrior's Forethought:

    You may take the Dodge or Dash action as a bonus action without needing to spend Ki to do so.

    Lv. 6

    Fist of the Wise:

    You may add your Wisdom modifer as extra damage whenever you inflict damage to a foe using unarmed strikes or a weapon you are proficient with.


    Lv. 11:

    Wisdom of Warriors Past:

    You can no longer be surprised. During a surprise round, you may act normally. You may also add a bonus to your initiative equal to your Wisdom modifier.

    Lv. 17:

    Wisdom of the Master Monks:

    You may use your Flurry of Blows without spending Ki to do so.
    Whenever you attempt to use Stunning Strike, you may spend one additional Ki to impose disadvantage to the target when they attempt to make a saving throw against it. If the target saves successfully, you regain 1 Ki Point (might make this to include a wisdom save to see if you regain that spent Ki point. Only 1 Ki pt. can be regained per round.)

    Just an idea...
    Lv. 3 abilities look fine, though just to keep it easier I'd make it Dash/Disengage (basically making it a free version of Step Of The Wind). It's not too much when compared to other features.

    I'd switch level 6 and level 11. The level 6 feature is similar to other features that come online at levels 12 or 14 (Lifedrinker/song of victory or whatever it is called) while the initiative thing is comparable to features of lower levels (like the barbarian's dangers sense that makes them not surpriseable and gives advantage on initiative)

    I wouldn't put ki recovery on the 17th feature, since it seems to impact more then the capstone which does a similar thing. Plus you have already removed costs by two features and a half.

    Don't think I'd have any qualms on imposing disadvantage through ki as a DM, it's very similar to EK giving disadvantage on spells saving throws with an attack.

  24. - Top - End - #654
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Luccan View Post
    Seeing how many people rate the monk low in usefulness makes me want to run a game with just Monks, Rangers, and Sorcerers, the three most bemoaned classes (in terms of not meeting "standards") this edition.
    My god.

    That would be the greatest tier 2 party of all time.

  25. - Top - End - #655
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Valmark View Post
    Actually, that should be the opposite. A griffon may not have more speed but will definitely have more mobility. That example needs the mount to be unavailable, otherwise it is a perfect situation for the griffon. And if it's unavailable, then it's a non issue.

    Wouldn't say it's hard to beat them, but I'm in agreement on everything else.
    Yes. When it was unavailable. I meant to stipulate that. Usually, he wouldn’t be allowed to be just flying above a city. Wouldn’t make sense. Our DM also used sewers and buildings a lot.

  26. - Top - End - #656
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    A crowded street... Where on the ground you have to avoid all the populace, and the Griffin can just fly above?
    Meant to stipulate when he wasn’t riding it. Because situationally he wasn’t just “flying around” on the Griffin. He would have to get it into action and that took time. And within that time I had caught up to the target.

  27. - Top - End - #657
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    That makes more sense, yes.

  28. - Top - End - #658
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Edea View Post
    I guess another way to frame the question is "what about the monk needs the most improving"? DPR? Tanking? Utility? Control? Something else?
    I personally don't think the monk "needs" improving but I'll fully admit it's not a class that everyone will enjoy.

    That said if I had to pick one I'd go with Control. Just a small thing like allowing them to use Dex for Grapling/Shove attacks would be more then enough to give the monk some very strong control elements beyond spamming Stunning Strike.

  29. - Top - End - #659
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Valmark's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Montevarchi, Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    It would also make a lot of sense seeing how the monk is a martial artist that... Sucks at grapples and shoves. He can get out of a grapple at least.

    "Sucks" as in, Strenght's usually low.

  30. - Top - End - #660
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Edea View Post
    I guess another way to frame the question is "what about the monk needs the most improving"? DPR? Tanking? Utility? Control? Something else?
    That's the catch-22 I think. A lot of aspects of the Monk are so "almost there but not quite" that I don't think any one bandaid fix will be enough. Or more positively there are many ways you can make the Monk better to match what you want out of it, whether that's more damage, more ki points, more movement etc. Lots of knobs to tweak.

    The one thing I'm certain that needs an improvement is Stillness of Mind. That feature is just really awkward to use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •