Fight breaks out at a barbarian moot

>you just don't come back from that

Sure you do. What you're describing only really happens in 3rd Edition. 4e and 5e monks are great.

Lets derail the thread into something interesting

I am honestly not a fan of 5E but that doesn't change how annoying these threads are

Okay. Umm...oh, here's a neat one.

What would a Mirror D&D universe look like?

Like, the goblins, orcs, and so on are the "good" and standard races, while elves (except drow, who are good), dwarves, gnomes, and so on are the "evil" monster races.

>20 stat on 5th level
Assuming too much
>4 attacks at 6 damage each
6 damage a fighter? 2d6+5 is 12, not 6. And this assuming he doesn't have two handed style that allows to reroll 1s and 2s turning 2d6 (7 on averaege) into 8.3 on average for a total of 13.3 per hit
>Wizard has no arcane focus
They start with it, and can even be a normal wooden staff, literally you can find that everywhere

The fuck am I reading?

Barbarian should deal 1+5+3= 9 per hit, with advantage on attacks, more HPs and reduces half the damage.

>4e and 5e monks are great.
No, 4e monks are great. 5e monks are just ok, they are a glorified stun gun, nothing else. And if you allow feats boom, suddenly the worse damage dealer among the martials.

That's not how it works. All you do is bump this thread and encourage OP to make more.

Just report and ignore. And go into actually good threads and bump those instead.

I'm a new player. I don't want to play anything but D&D 5e, Other D&D is old versions and I don't feel like going all nostalgia for things i never played, other RP games are just D&D with different rules and leaning whole new systems for different games is too nerdy (sorry) because DND is already girl repellant but since it's fun I make an exception.

I think there was something about orcs being so pissed of at everything because during the creation of the universe they were denied a place to live, extrapolating from that I guess in the mirror universe humans and elfs and stuff are still the dominant species but goblins and orcs have basically been exploited by the "good races"

This is literally the same pattern the other thread started in

>Assuming too much

Not really. All you need to have rolled is a 17 at character creation and then choose a race with a +1 bonus to Wisdom, like wood elf.

Remember that the standard method of ability score generation in 5e is 4d6 drop lowest.

In any event even if we only presume an 18 at level 5, the basic point doesn't change.

The fighter doesn't get to use two-handed style because the characters are expressly disarmed according to OP. They're dealing unarmed damage, which is 1 bludgeoning for everyone except the monk.

Some new math assuming 18:

>Fighter, action surge: 4 attacks at 5 damage each (1 + STR) is 20 damage
>Monk, attacks + flurry: 2 attacks at 1d6+4 damage is 14 damage total, flurry for two more attacks is a total of 28 damage.
>Wizard, no arcane focus: Scorching ray at 3rd level is 8d6 damage, which is an average of 24

So the monk still comes out on top.

Bait

That's really a problem. I still don't get it. The monk is not the best in defence at all, he's got 1d8 hd, and he's bad at attack too.
He can't do really good battlefield control, the spellcaster are better. The only thing he got is mobility and stunning strike.

The thing about that is that Stunning is one of the best conditions to impose in the game. More to the point, the Monk isn't really meant to be a front-line fighter. They're more akin to a rogue, only instead of dealing tons of damage, they focus on disabling their targets and removing their ability to fight entirely.

In particular their movement plus stunning ability plus good Wisdom save makes them prime anti-arcane casters.

17 and 18 aren't easy to achieve, you have 1.62037037037% to get an 18 with 4d6 drop lowest, 4.16666666667% to get a 17. Not easy.

A staff, not even a quarter staff can be a arcane focus, a ring (the stone on it), a pendant, etc, either you strip the wizard and force him to walk naked or else you can't be sure he doesn't have an arcane focus (he can even put a diamond in his ass and call it a day). Druids use herbs like mistletoe for example, you'll have to be a pretty damn metagamer GM to remove that shit.

And I assumed wrong, I though there was a barb, but it was a barb moot

I've actually ran a game similar to that. The world is rather primitive and low-tech and the major races are Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Ogres. Humanity died out thousands of years ago and so the ruins of their great cities dot the landscape. It turned out that not all humans died out, they instead fled the Earth to set up shop on the largest moon in the sky. The party actually found an ancient teleporter that they got working and teleported to the moon. They found the humans and discovered why they left.

Thousands of years ago the nations of goblinkind and humankind wages war ceaselessly until a powerful Hobgoblin sorcerer created a spell that would end the war forever. He lays a curse on all goblin-kind to make it so they spread a terrible sickness that the humans cannot defend against. Fearing extinction, the humans fled to the moon and destroyed any way for the goblins to reach them (or so they thought). Goblins everywhere rejoiced their victory over the humans, but did not yet know what they had lost. Without humans or the need to fight against humans, technological progress stagnated and the goblins became tribal and more barbaric.

When they saw the party of goblins suddenly appear inside their city, widespread chaos ensued, their time spent in solitude making them paranoid and jumpy. They all feared the sickness, but it was found that the current generations of goblinkind no longer carried the plague, and peace-talks commenced for the first time in a millennia. The campaign ended with humans and goblins making peace and some of the humans coming down from the moon to help with the rebuilding process.

I disagree.
A Paladin is better. He got good save in everything earlier, Aura of protection (6th lvl), he deal much more damage, and has more HP.
Spellcaster are low HP, even with a good con, and the Paladin can crush them with smite.
I would argue also that any spellcaster with counterspell and disabling spell is better against another spellcaster.

The ONLY thing the monk got is stunning strike. So he must use all his ki for that, and is very limited in his options. It's bad.

Wotc said they were going to rise their HD, damage and ki post Alpha...that completely vanished and nobody talked about it again. Now you have the problem that with feats monks are glorified stun guns that deal no damage and that are still brittle as fuck

If you try to be mobile, dodgy (aka survive because your AC and HPs are meh as fuck) and at the same time you'll realize you don't have many stun attempts left

The problem that stun is your only needed feature also adds another problem, that is that people get mad if you waste ki in another stuff, that nobody wants you unless you stun, and that doesn't make for a fun play

>that is that people get mad if you waste ki in another stuff
Are there really people who get mad if you don't play a properly minmaxed character?

>They're more akin to a rogue, only instead of dealing tons of damage, they focus on disabling their targets and removing their ability to fight entirely.

Well, later in the game. They need to wait a while for the one good feature they get.

Well, now usually monk in my game take tough or raise con a bit in character creation, and I allow homebrew feats to have power attack with monk weapons. They closed the gap a bit now, it's better.

A monk can do better damage with a bow and sharpshooter than his hand for fuck sake. It's mind blowing.

>Not easy.

But hardly impossible. My rogue character in HotDQ pulled it off. We're not talking about the statistical impossibility of Strength 18/00 here.

>Focus obsession

Look, the point of OP was the idea that the party is totally disarmed and unable to make use of any equipment. So sure, the wizard is stripped of everything for the purposes of this thought experiment.

>you'll have to be a pretty damn metagamer GM to remove that shit.

What? No you wouldn't. Druids are a known quantity in-game, and what they use as their spellcasting foci would likewise be well-known. It's entirely plausible for someone to know to take a druid's spellcasting foci. Particularly a barbarian leader, since barbarians presumably interact with druids on a semi-regular basis, at least more so than the more urbanized classes like rogues and paladins do.

I might as a DM make the barbarian leader make an Intelligence (Nature) check to know this as justification, but the DC wouldn't be especially high, probably 13.

It's four trolls copypasta'ing posts from the twenty threads they've made before. It's insane how deep their autism goes.

>minmaxed
That has nothing to do with minmaxed, the thing is, if you don't use stun, every other martial is better than you in everything. Stun is not only your defining feature, is actually the only thing that doesn't make you stay below everybody else. Rogue deals more damage, is a better mobile combatant, has more skills and can grab/trip/shove like billion times better than you, he's basically your role, but better if you don't take into account stun. And technically Shove+Grab is as good as stun and can be done ad nauseam and most martials can do that except monk.

Let's derail into other highly controversial subjects then

How to make a good paladin in D&D? Is it acceptable to go full templar on other religions? Would you fall for spreading and enforcing the will of your deity?
Even if you did fall, why would that even matter if you can just go blackguard and stay faithful?

>Barbarians combing the Druid's hair and body hair trying to remove every leaf, root, etc to be sure he doesn't have a spellcasting foci

Also, "Eh? Oh. No, you would not part an old man from his walking stick?"

>My monks are variant humans who waste their first feat on +2 HP per level
And that will leave them with 14-15 AC on average.

I did that several times, I also thought it would help, it didn't.

Stop bumping your shit thread baiting for replies, OP.

A paladin isn't nearly as mobile as a monk, however, and a paladin who charges to the back of an enemy's lines is basically taking out enemy spellcasters at the expense of his main party role, which is to stick close to other party members so they can benefit from his aura. This also presumes that he has the movement to close in on enemy spellcasters at all in any reliable way, since it's not like the enemy spellcasters are obligated to stand still and wait the several turns it will take for the paladin to reach them.

>implying
That's having 14 in dex and in wisdom. You don't even believe what you're spouting.

No, that's having 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 or similar. I assume realistic stats, not everything 16+ as you do.

15, 14
+1 to two stats from V. Human
16, 15
Go to Wis/Dex
That's 15 AC, what I said

lets now assume a wizard has an arcan focus
>unarmed fighter deals 20 damage
>monk deals 28 damage
>wizard casts fireball, for 8d6 (24) with splash, watch out for allies
>barbarian deals 1+4+3 damage with 2 attacks for 16, but with resistance to normal damage
even accounting for a fireball, which has the same damage, but may hit multiple people, including your own, the monk is still the winner of an unarmed battle

also, the arcane focus according to the PHB is "specially constructed" and costs 10gp and weighs 1lb, so you cant just pick up a stick and call it an arcane focus

>so you cant just pick up a stick and call it an arcane focus
Actually you can as many official campaigns have a simple stick be an arcane focus

A monk isn't a lot more mobile, unless he take the Mobile feat, because he's gonna take opportunity attack or make a big detour to reach the spellcaster. He's got more movement speed, the Paladin Vengeance/Ancient can cast Mitsty step.
Your second point apply also to Monk.

>not 16+ as you do
I wasn't talking about level one only.
And with the standard array, a different race can go to 16 or 17 AC. A 10% difference. HP is better in the long run, you will catch up with your stats.

Could you guys go take this discussion you're forcing into another thread, rather than bumping this one? All you're doing is stroking OP's ego, if you're not just OP and his three friends to begin with.

>a different race can go to 16 or 17 AC
Then you don't have a feat at level 1 for +2 HP per level

Also, no, with elite array and any race your top AC is 16
Because 15, 14 with a +2 and a +1 is still at best 16, 16

Rolled 9, 7 + 1 = 17 (2d20 + 1)

>Also, "Eh? Oh. No, you would not part an old man from his walking stick?"

I guess the wizard can make a Deception check if he wants (almost certainly an untrained flat d20) opposed by the guard's Insight check (which even untrained will still have a +1 bonus because I never give my guards less than a 12 Wisdom).

Ignore OP then, if the actions you do are based on what OP would think you already lost to him, just ignore him and use the thread for whatever people is rationally talking.

>How to make a good paladin in D&D?

Completely ignore Judeo-Christian themes and base them on Stoicism.

The stoics believed in five core virtues: courage, honesty, justice, temperance, and wisdom. They believed that both pleasure and pain were just illusions of the senses that one must overcome to lead a life of virtue and actively pursue the betterment of the world around them. Further they believed that railing against circumstances you couldn't change or control was futile, so you should focus on actively improving the things you can control.

>Is it acceptable to go full templar on other religions?

No.

>Would you fall for spreading and enforcing the will of your deity?

If you hurt innocent people in the process, absolutely.

>Even if you did fall, why would that even matter if you can just go blackguard and stay faithful?

Hubris is a terrible sin that brings terrible justice.

Rolled 11, 19, 16 + 1 = 47 (3d20 + 1)

Hmm, congratulations, your wizard passed one guard's check. Now he just has to beat the other three.

Also Christ-Chan is a fucking creepy character, being basically a /pol/io waifu.

But I'm not OP mein negger
Just someone who's sick of seeing people bite the same bait thread every single day

And I'm saging too

>Oh shit, he passed the roll....damn, AHA! there were three other guard, that's it, my railroad is still intact
truecolors.wav

I unironically do this too, this way no rogue would be able to sneak around, I always roll till they beat his roll and say there were more guards.

Then stop adding to this thread's post count just for OP to remake this same thread after it hits bump limit after he bumps it several times.

You're really doing nothing but being almost as much of a faggot as OP is. So, do yourself a favor, and go bump a better thread.

>A monk isn't a lot more mobile

A 5th level wood elf monk has a base movement speed of 45 feet, a full 15 extra feet on most paladins (and 10 extra feet on wood elf paladins). Trust me from experience, that extra 15 feet of movement makes an immense difference. If nothing else it frequently means that the monk can Move and Dash to cover 90 feet (as opposed to the 60 of most paladins, or 70 of a wood elf paladin) and end his turn adjacent to an enemy spellcaster, ready to use reactions to (stunning) attack if the spellcaster tries to move away. If the spellcaster doens't than the monk has still set up his next turn rather favorably, putting the enemy spellcaster in "check", if you will.

If absolutely nothing else, the monk has guaranteed that the spellcaster must focus on HIM rather than on his party, essentially removing the spellcaster from the party's concerns for the next round.

>let's keep posting in OP's thread to give his bait more exposure

You must be OP, because only OP could be this stupid.

How about you fuck right off and let us have fun?

Why would there only be one guard? Even in the "walking stick" scene being mentioned in Two Towers, there were at least two that I can recall.

Speed =/= mobile

Definitely creepy, but it's part of the reason she exists.

All very solid points. A stoic paladin would be pretty neat. Why is going blackguard something born out of hubris, though?
Being unwilling to admit he fell because he was wrong, and going the "other route" rather than seeking redemption?

Also, then I guess that going full templar is only justifiable if you're a paladin of tyranny, right?

Why would the spellcaster move? he can still cast spells without risking your reaction. He can even misty step if he wants.

Also, I assume the caster is behind the non casters, so you'll have to cross over them risking many reactions.

Actually breaking WoTC breaking their own rules doesn't erase or cancel them

If you want to get pedantic, sure. The point is that a monk is able to move around the battlefield better and more reliably than any other class. Only the rogue competes with it, and only at low levels.

The Vengeance/Ancient paladin's misty step might ostensibly be better since it's more direction, but misty step is a 2nd level spell that therefore consumes a 2nd level spell slot to cast. The paladin can't keep using misty step over and over, but there's no check on the monk's movement bonus.

>Why is going blackguard something born out of hubris, though?

Well, if you're a member of a faith, you're defying the will of a god and actively mocking them by claiming to be one of their faithful.

No, rogues are better at any level, they can disengage as bonus action

Just because you move more ft doesn't mean you're more mobile

He also needs to spend ki to do that without eating a whole lot of opportunity attacks, and if he does so, he can't use his flurry of blows

>that extra 15 feet of movement makes an immense difference
My current character in PF moves 550 ft more than the second faster member of our group, it makes no difference, AoOs gonna AoO. It's incredible good though for fleeing.

>Also, I assume the caster is behind the non casters, so you'll have to cross over them risking many reactions.

Which is, again, where the monk's boosted movement comes in. A monk is better able to circumvent due to the bonus movement.

>He can even misty step if he wants.

Sure, if it's prepared, however many times he's prepared it. Each casting is one less 2nd level spell slot the mage can use, inlcuding using misty step to escape, and regardless the mage still has to deal with the problem of the monk now within melee distance. Misty step only carries you 30 feet max, moving another 30. The mage must either move at least 50 feet away from our hypothetical wood elf monk in order to avoid an attack on the following round (carrying it either further from the battlefield and therefore out of range of many spells; or close to the battlefield and therefore into the range of the monk's allies); or attempt to deal with the monk now so that he doesn't die; or accept that on its next turn it's getting flurried and stunned and it can't do anything about it and so continue focusing on the monk's allies despite the monk being right up in its grill

The last choice seems somewhat unlikely for most mages, though, who have a tendency to value their lives and are unlikely to make sound tactical decisions when there's a monk's fist coming right at their face when they were *supposed* to be safe behind the lines and not subject to melee attacks.

How about you stop sucking OP's dick by bumping his thread? This is still on page 1, so it's clear that you're not doing anything except helping him out.

>He also needs to spend ki to do that without eating a whole lot of opportunity attacks

Tactics, my friend. It's okay to give up opportunity attacks for the round if doing so puts you adjacent to an enemy spellcaster, since it forces the spellcaster to deal with you. Provided the spellcaster is being played as an actual person, that is, and not as a robot with no concern for his own safety.

Positioning, then, you pedantic asshat. The monk is better at positioning.

That's Pathfinder, which is its own separate set of issues. I'm focusing on 5e.

How about you unbunch your panties? Nobody cares, and OP totally has a point about D&D being shit.

Why hasn't this thread been deleted yet?

>I am OP

What a surprise, what a surprise, no one could have guessed.

One might think the smartest classes should be the ones making the soundest tactical decisions if you ask me. I dunno, I played a couple of casters and I still think that moving away never got me into a better situation, I just cast something that will fuck him, this usually helps me more than fleeing.

Oh god. Are we going to be putting up with this all summer?
>When did you realize OPs opinion was garbage?

Except your AC and your HPs are meh, your "tactics" (aka giving free attacks to your enemies) might cost your life.

>EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS ONE OF THEM!

Kek. Histrionic dipshit.

OP, while annoying as hell, has a point

Only on 3.PF

>One might think the smartest classes should be the ones making the soundest tactical decisions if you ask me

Maybe, but intelligence has nothing to do with coolness under pressure.

Whether you move away or cast a spell on the monk, that still means that for at least one turn you were targeting the monk, adjacent to you, rather than his allies, who could use that time to move closer.

If we liken it to a battlefield, consider the mage as an artillery brigade and the monk as special forces, with everyone else being infantry. The special forces' attack on the artillery prevented them from firing while the artillery dealt with the special forces' attack, which allows the special forces' infantry to advance upon the enemy infantry, even as their own artillery now lays into the enemy infantry without having to worry about the enemy artillery attacking back at them.

Or something, the metaphor's a bit muddy but you get the point.

5E is bad too if only because of how bland and ubiquitous it is

Nah, the other editions have plenty of shit, and the monk being useless is pretty standard for D&D at this point.

I thought we were talking about the specific case OP presented.

>No, 4e monks are great.

4e Monks are garbage by virtue of being in 4e

Eh, I enjoy OSR

4e monks have something no other D&D monk has, A ROLE, they know what they want to do and they excel at it. You might not like how combat focused and battlefield tactic 4e is, but that doesn't mean 4e Monk isn't good in that system.

A 5th level wood elf monk can be reasonably expected to have a 17 AC (18 Wis, 16 Dexterity), which is about average, not "meh". Likewise with a 12 Constitution he can be reasonably assumed to have about 33 hit points, which is enough to survive the average damage of any one spell that comes his way, if it hits, which it might not (enemy spellcaster can be reasonably presumed to have an 18 (+4) in casting stat for a +7 (+3 prof) to attack, meaning an attack spell has only a 50/50 chance to hit the monk's AC; the enemy spellcaster's save DC is 15 (8+4+3); the monk's saves down the line can be presumed to be +3/+6/+1/+0/+4/-1, which means the % chance of passing a DC 15 saving throw down the line are 45/60/35/30/50/25; since the most common saves are Dex, Con, and Wis, only the Con saving throw is truly worrying)

Monks have a role in both 3.5e, Pathfinder, and shit even 5e.

And yes, Monks did have a role in 4e! ...One that was literally said by the game to be a role in of itself.

Good games do not work like that. They let a player grow into a role rather than "THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE PLAYING!"

There is literally nothing redeeming about monks in 4e or 4e in general. We've been over this time and time again. Sales have shown this because 3.5e, PF, and 5e are far more popular than the disaster that was known as 4e. There is nothing redeeming about the system or anything inside of it. The fact that virtually no one outside of small groups remain to the system and that 3.5e/PF/5e's playbase DWARFS 4e is testament to that.

Now toddle off, adults are talking.

I like it well enough too, but it's got some serious issues and one of the most annoying fanbases.

>one of the most annoying fanbases
What makes you say this? In my experience the fanbase of OSR is one of the tamest and mildest I've ever seen, in RPGs or outside of them.

>playing anima
>forced to hand over all we have to the lord of the land
>we are all taos

>Good games do not work like that. They let a player grow into a role rather than "THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE PLAYING!"

But said role is determined by your class. A fighter is never going to be the group's skill monkey, his class doesn't allow it.

Popularity doesn't equate to quality, that and 4E does what it sets out to do, which is better than the mess of 3.f and the blandness of 5E

>Monks have a role in both 3.5e, Pathfinder, and shit even 5e.

Is that role 'Be a trap for new players?' as jesus christ 3.5 and pathfinder monks are terrible.

When I realize I've seen this EXACT thread every day for, what, two weeks now. Oh wait, it's the THREAD that's garbage.

1/10: Got your , find new bait.

By role I mean a useful and effective role, cook is a role, but is nor useful not effective in D&D.

3.5 monk had no role, it pretended to be a mobile combatant with some skills, it was nor mobile (as his speed clashed with other of his features) nor combatant (it sucked at it) nor skillmonkey as even the barb had the same skill ranks and probably could had more Int because not MAD. Stun gun is not a role either.

In 4e monk was a melee battlefield controller, he was good at melee, and great at controlling the battlefield, something uselful.

>Good games do not work like that. They let a player grow into a role rather than "THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE PLAYING!"

You mean like 4e where a monk could be a Striker, Controller OR Defender depending on how you built him?

Not the guy you're responding to, but I remember several threads, either with the same person or several people with very similar notions, who decried "Modern" sensibilities and pined for an older school style of play.

I'm a real oldfag, started playing tabletop RPGs in 1983. I remember the old school era when it wasn't a revival, and I remember the warts too. Trying to explain this person/these people the possible downsides of a looser, vaguer system was inevitably met with "nuh-uh, it doesn't work like that" or with appeals as to how better refereeing would have resolved things better. Especially if you get a bad referee, the systems are not good, precisely because they regulate less and give the ref more to handle.

But the attitude of
>I know how this style works better than you do because I looked at a few PDFs and am looking for a game and you've played for years like that
is pretty cancerous.