Results 61 to 90 of 684
Thread: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
-
2020-07-28, 08:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Last edited by HPisBS; 2020-07-28 at 08:46 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 08:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2020-07-28, 08:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- Subang Jaya, Malaysia
- Gender
-
2020-07-28, 08:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Specifically, there is no RAW on long rests breaking concentration, but being unconscious does. Thankfully there's a lot of races that have still-conscious-sleep-alternatives.
-
2020-07-28, 08:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- Right behind you!
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2020-07-28 at 08:58 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 08:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
A short rest is a period "during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."
That's vague enough language to be completely up to DM interpretation whether maintaining concentration is "more strenuous than reading," etc. Thus, they'd be completely within their RAW-based-rights to rule that you can't benefit from a rest while concentrating on a spell.
Note I'm not saying anything about RAI, just that, without errata, the RAW is unclear.Last edited by HPisBS; 2020-07-28 at 09:01 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 09:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2017
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
This rabbit hole has been delved into extensively the last time we had a long debate on Coffee Locking, probably a few times since then as well. When arguing RAW you need explicit words, not inferences. RAW is very clear because there's no indication that concentrating is strenuous (in regards to resting) it's whether that's RAI that is ambiguous. The absence of a rule doesn't make RAW ambiguous, it means that by RAW there is no relation.
Then we go to rule 0, then we accuse DM's of tyranny, then the argument cycles back with some dictionary definitions and a fine tooth combing of obscure possibly out of context quotes, etc, etc.
On topic: My gut instinct (and anecdotal experience of having a high level monk in my party) tells me that the control that a Monk offers remains fantastic at all levels of the game, while their damage can fall off harshly without some powerful items to help them keep up. This isn't really news to me.
Our Monk doesn't make for all that impressive of a tank but she is durable when she needs to be, and the lack of effectiveness in this area is likely more because of player preference than the class being lacking in this aspect. I consider Monks to be a difficult class to learn but once you do have the intricacies figured out there isn't actually a lot you can expand on.Last edited by ProsecutorGodot; 2020-07-28 at 09:16 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 09:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- Subang Jaya, Malaysia
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
You're looking at the wrong rule. When arguing whether one can concentrate through short rest, you need to look at what breaks concentration, which there are only these few things: Taking damage and failing the CON save, being incapacitated/dead/unconscious, and casting another spell that requires concentration. A short rest is none of these things, therefore it does not break concentration.
The RAW is clear, but you are not.Last edited by Jerrykhor; 2020-07-28 at 09:17 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 09:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Everything is based on maintaining concentration on Hex and only ever targeting the Hexed creature the which just doesn't seem likely and breaks the intent of establishing a baseline. The whole point of a baseline is that you can always just do that, the Warlock can't always deal his Hex damage on every attack which is why it's a terrible baseline to use.
-
2020-07-28, 09:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2019
- Location
- Hearth
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
While I think Monks could use some tweaking (not as much as Sorcerer or Druid, but they could use it), Treantmonk kinda missed the forest for the trees. He pointed out how Monks are mediocre at damage, control, defense, and mobility, but failed to see how they're capable of all of them all the time. It's be like criticizing the Bard for not being the best at any one thing (Rogues get expertise and reliable talent, Wizards have better control spells, Clerics are better supports, whatever), but they're still an amazing class because they're capable of pretty much anything. On top of all that, Treantmonk also heavily overlooked the fact that Ki points are restored on a short rest. He passively says that Sorcerers are better, but Sorcerers are far worse in that department, both with how valuable the resource is as well as applications for that resource. Monks get a wide variety of applications all across the spectrum of investment, and with a Short Rest replenishment, their resource management is only really an issue if your DM is the kind of person who utilizes the "Single Encounter Adventuring Day" type thing (I fall victim to that as well). The only place I can really see Monks falling behind is in the magical weapon department. While other martials are picking up stuff like +2 axes, magic armor, and Vorpal Daggers, Monks have precious little to find, unless your DM is willing to homebrew a few items to throw your way.
TL;DR, Monks are martial Monks: If a martial can do it, so can a Monk, and then some.Last edited by Nagog; 2020-07-28 at 09:22 PM.
"I may be a Hobgoblin, but the real mythical creature I'm playing is an Ethical Billionaire"
-
2020-07-28, 09:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
I personally think you can concentrate on a spell during a short rest, but the RAW against it comes down to whether concentrating on a spell counts as a strenuous activity or not. If it's considered more strenuous then eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds then you can't take the short rest.
-
2020-07-28, 09:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
-
2020-07-28, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2019
- Location
- Hearth
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
"I may be a Hobgoblin, but the real mythical creature I'm playing is an Ethical Billionaire"
-
2020-07-28, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2020-07-28, 09:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
-
2020-07-28, 09:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
I never said anything about a short rest breaking concentration; that isn't the question. The question is whether you can benefit from a short rest while concentrating. And that question rests solely on whether the DM considers concentrating on a spell to be strenuous.
I also never said what my personal view on it is (I happen to prefer allowing concentration while resting). All I've said is that there's enough ambiguity in the text for people to honestly rule it either way, so you shouldn't necessarily count on it being treated... what you'd call "properly."
-
2020-07-28, 09:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
-
2020-07-28, 09:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- Subang Jaya, Malaysia
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
If you want a good argument whether concentration is considered strenuous, think about what you can do while concentrating: If you can still fight and move around the freely during combat (as long as you don't take damage), then what else is more strenuous? Being in combat mode generally requires quite a high level of focus.
-
2020-07-28, 09:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
That really depends, if concentrating on a spell is basically adding a layer of stress on your mind then you could still easily move around and fight freely you are just more stressed in an already stressful situation so doesn't really change much. But in a non-stressful situation it's enough to prevent you relaxing and recovering.
-
2020-07-28, 09:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2020
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
The monks role does indeed change as they lvl, and that’s one of the frustrating parts of the class.
I personally believe that they would be designed very differently if they were released today as opposed to PHB. Their design niche was as a skirmishers, with some battlefield control and the mobility to dive the backline.
The problem is since that time, there are many Martial subclasses that can achieve that control and lvl of mobility, and can do it far more safely. Take eg the echo knight, which achieves greater mobility, with far less threat and more dpr.
Worse, the ranged mechanics in this game makes it too easy to simply target the backline directly, so why the need for crazy mobility when you can just safely hit people behind cover with a single feat tax from a mile away.
The most fun monk class that I’ve played was the UA astral hand monk, and I found the reach made a huge difference, bc I wasn’t so vulnerable to being collapsed on, and I could do my job properly (our DM is very strong at positioning in combat and if you aren’t careful you simply die).Last edited by Hael; 2020-07-28 at 09:50 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 09:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
The Monk being reliant on Ki is less burdensome then limited pool of superiority dice the BM gets simply because the Ki pool is so much bigger. It's also unfair to claim the monk is using Ki for other abilities but ignoring the fact that the BM is also probably using maneuvers for non battlefield control things like Precision Attack, Riposte, etc...
Also what conditions is the BM applying at range that don't require a enemy saving throw?
-
2020-07-28, 10:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Somewhere here is a thread I posted about... big exciting kicks or punches.
Quivering palm comes to late... and only open hand.
Flying sidekick... the damage is probably the same as using FOB and two attacks...
Just something fun.
I might've fold open hand into the base monk chassis.
As crazy as it sounds the way of the 4 elements allows for something exciting.... at a huge cost... It may not even beat 4 attacks... But it's something.
Every class deserves to be able to nova once in a while.... bring the pain once a day
-
2020-07-28, 11:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Delawhere?
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Monks are kinda like axle grease: they're a bit squishy, but if you don't have any, you miss it. Their ability to always do something comes in handy . Really, though, I'm playing a monk now. By myself, I'm just OK. But with a rogue in the party we can be deadly. Same for other classes. Sometimes support = healing (cleric/druid), sometimes support = buffs (bard), sometimes support = flaming death, sometimes support = opportunities. Monks are more of this last one, I think, able to move around and provide the pretexts for everyone else to be able to do what they are good at.
[Just one quick point I'd like to make, which I don't normally see mentioned. An OH monk - I know this is subclass, but it's the "basic" monk -- in tier 4 gets quivering palm. 3 ki for death or 10d10 necrotic if you save. Every other round. Granted, this is a subclass feature, and in this thread we are talking base class, and also it's level 17 (not often attained), but still, not shabby.]
-
2020-07-28, 11:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Location
- The Old West
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Much as I think the establishment of a class hierarchy is unnecessary for 5e and don't personally believe Monk is suffering, they did fold a fair number of classically Monk class things into Open Hand. I also think the Prone and Push abilities would've been appreciated
Last edited by Luccan; 2020-07-28 at 11:08 PM.
Avatar by linklele
Spoiler: Build Contests
E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing
E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand
-
2020-07-28, 11:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Location
- Purgatory
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Well for one thing, even with no subclass figured in, the fighter is still better than the monk with one.
- they may survive due to getting out of the way, And if they live long enough good saves, that just makes them the last to die.
- they don’t have the HP to take hits, especially considering they barely have room to boost con.
- every class can get better AC, because unlike ever other class who may not start with proficiency with good armor or shields, monks get negatives even if they do get proficiencies. No shield alone is a loss of 2 to 5 ac
- they are not really a threat from range, but have great speed. So that means they can run ahead of the front line and get to HVTs... then what? Become the alone target for the whole group of enemies? They can’t stealth like the rogue, they can’t take the hit like a barbarian, they don’t have the ac of a weapon and armor of any of the other martials but a rogue.
- they can only use magic weapons and all their bonuses for 2 attacks their other 1 or 2, don’t get anything, so they will also have less chance to hit when magic weapons are around.
- they can’t use armor so they can’t get any of those nice magic bonuses
- They don’t get any more skills than other, no expertise, not even consistent bonuses to the skills they do get.
- if they do get a chance to get a feat, they can’t really use any of the really powerful ones.
So what do they bring to the table?
Can’t tank, because they are fragile and low threat.
They are not a high damage class, they are not really even a medium damage class.
They are definitely not a skill class.
They will never have the stats to be a face.
They are fast, they are cheap, and they have stunning fist...
My biggest issue with them is this:
Every build is the same.
Max starting dex and wis, as much con as they can spare and who cares about the rest.
Carry a spear/quarterstaff.
Monk would only really work in a game with no multclassing, no feats, or magic items.Last edited by Misterwhisper; 2020-07-28 at 11:35 PM.
-
2020-07-28, 11:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Quick and dirty version: if anyone wants to play a pure striker monk, just play the kensei. It hits or exceeds the baseline at all levels of play with no special build* which is something I can't say for some paladins, barbarians, and rangers. That pure striker monk will also still get 60' movement, 20 AC, proficiency in all saves, permanent tongues, nearly equal capability with a longbow, immunity to poison, selectively 22 AC in melee, running up walls... the whole weird monk package. Sure, I think the monk is a little weaker than it should be (I publicly endorse d10 HD and faster martial arts improvement), but if Treantmonk can't hit the baseline damage with one then TM hasn't considered all the options, to say the least.
*Just use deft strike and flurry, and people consider stunning strike > flurry > deft strike, so I'd expect every other monk to be nearly as good, in their own way.
I've heard that they had to go to print before they could test a monk with better hit die and martial arts die, but this is actually one thing that could easily fit into their errata physically. It's just replacing a few numbers. Changes to step of the wind, flurry of blows, patient defense, martial arts, or even getting one more extra attack are harder to print in. Remember when WotC thought rangers should have d8 hit die? It's like that in reverse.
As an example, 4d4 for the final martial arts die value is a little higher than I'd suggest but not a lot higher, and I think would be divisive mainly based on how people feel about rolling d4s.
-
2020-07-28, 11:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
I agree with this, but I just wanted to say that if the DM is handing out +2 weapons and the like to a party, they are real jerks if they don't give the monk some +1 handwraps or a ki necklace or something.
I would absolutely say you should not play a monk in a game where the DM refuses to make up for the monk's lousy official loot pool.
-
2020-07-28, 11:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2018
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
I said 4d4 just because I don't think adding a d4 each tier is unreasonable conceptually to show the Monk's growth. Personally I would take it to 1d4-1d8-2d6-2d8 because yes that is a ton of d4s across attacks.
Also in regards to this idea of Warlock damage not being a good baseline because of concentration and spell slots and all that: Once again, a greatsword fighter does virtually the same damage with gwf. No optimization necessary.
-
2020-07-29, 12:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2015
- Gender
Re: Treatmonk on Monks in 5e
Pretty much this.
Also Monk DPR, unlike most martials (IIRC Barb suffers from this too), stops significantly growing after level 5. Most other martials gain another bump to their damage at level 11-12, Monk gets +1 die size which is +4 damage at best. That levels out by level 17 (unless we're talking Fighter), but there are quite a few levels where Monk damage is subpar.
And they don't get any magic weapons unlike other martials. Ranger gets an Oathbow, Paladin gets a Holy Avenger, Fighter and Barb get a Flametongue, Monk...gets an Insignia of Claws, which is an equivalent of a +1 weapon. But even getting a +2 weapon with no fancy effects lets other martials get significantly ahead of monks.
Kensei fixes that last problem, but their growth is even worse, since they start off stronger. They also need fixes to their level 11 ability (at least let it buff existing magic weapons to +3, or let them share the weapon enchantments with their fists).Last edited by Ignimortis; 2020-07-29 at 12:09 AM.
Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
-
2020-07-29, 12:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015