Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HO
houselyrander @ttrpg.network
Posts 2
Comments 6

I will always advocate for Monk buffs

0
I attack!
  • If you're using Tasha's then Gunner and Dedicated Weapon let you grab a musket. If your DM lets you use Focused Aim even on attacks you might hit with then it can trigger Ki Fueled Attack easily. It's passable damage plus being ranged means you can take advantage of Monk's mobility to actually skirmish and take cover as opposed to being saddled with the bootleg ranged combat that is typical melee skirmishing in 5e.

  • I attack!
  • Max level Fighters get Extra Attack 3 which grants 4 attacks before spending their Bonus Action or a single resource. Add in things like Action Surge and some source of a Bonus Action attack (Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, or even off hand weapon) and Fighters can easily get 9 Attacks.

  • Well, yeah...
  • Time to whip out the Oberani Fallacy again.

    Here, take a gander at this forum post from 2002.

    This my my [sic] take on the issue.

    Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

    Several correct replies can be given:

    "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X." "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X." "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue." Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

    "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue." Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

    It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

    It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

    Simple enough

  • Playtest 6 just gets worse for Monks the more I read it
  • I can only assume that WotC heard complaints about that one time that an enemy rolled a bunch of 1s to Save against Stunning Strike and "ruined the campaign" by DMs who don't know jack about encounter design and didn't notice Stunning Strike doing squat the rest of the time. There's a weirdly vocal group of people who think Monk is OP.

  • Playtest 6 just gets worse for Monks the more I read it

    13