D&D (2024) Monks Are Not Tanks And Shouldn’t Be

[Incenjucar]

I'm not even sure monks are that good at unarmed combat. Most of their abilities are unrelated to it.

 

[nevin]

I think most people agree that the monk is a class that’s trying to do too much with too little, but one mistake that many people make in trying to improve the monk is making it tankier, trying to get the class to match up with fighter or barbarian. That’s not what the monk was ever intended to be—the monk is a skirmisher and striker, intended to move in, deal big damage, then run away. (Emphasize intended because it does need tweaking to fit this role better.)

Forget about AC and HP with the monk, for the most part. Speed and damage should be all that matter. A monk’s best defense is offense and mobility—killing enemies before the monk takes much damage, and getting well out of the range of attacks.

The monk’s increase to movement speed evidences this, as well as abilities like deflecting projectiles (for protection from ranged attacks). What the monk is lacking (that Step of the Wind tries and fails to fix because the monk’s discipline point pool is stretched too thin) is increased ability to disengage. There’s a reason so many people take Mobility for monks—the class is designed to excel by moving fast, hitting a lot, then running away and not being the target of opportunity attacks.

In my opinion, the “best” monk fixes would be as follows:

1. Any added or tweaked defensive abilities should focus on mobility or deflecting ranged attacks, not AC or HP
2. The monk by level 2 or 3 should not be able to be targeted by opportunity attacks from enemies it attacks with an unarmed strike or a simple weapon—the key part of Mobility that makes the monk really work
3. Extra attack (a third attack) at 11th level, and at some point Flurry of Blows no longer costing discipline

With these changes the monk can successfully fulfill its intended role, with less reliance on (the gutted) Stunning Strike. (Also allowing the monk to set save DCs for grappling/knocking prone with unarmed strikes using Dexterity or Wisdom would be helpful, but I’m just throwing that in as a bonus idea.)

This is not intended to be a comprehensive overhaul, but hopefully me pointing out stuff that’s obvious to most.

But but.... Tortle monk? <sorry it had to be done>...

1 seems in line with monk in general.
I think they should get a save vs opportunity attacks not immunity
3. Maybe I like the idea of the 3rd attack What about special attacks that are one full round attack losing extra attacks but doing something like flurry of blows that does base damage on everyone in 20' or 30' range depending on level. And maybe a one full round goku style KI blast of damage say equivilant of disentigrate spell or a cone with damage say 1d6 level useable once per long rest.

 

[James Gasik]

Non-Monk using his fist.

 

[Mephista]

How is "master of unarmed combat" not a broad enough tent? How is that NOT the central theme of the class?

Several reasons. Monks are actually not masters of unarmed combat. A barbarian with Tavern Brawler deals comparable damage with fists while raging (thanks to bonus rage damage) on a hit, and can actually grapple / shove / trip worth a dang. This is intentional. Because...

"Master of unarmed combat" is not actually the core class fantasy. The core class fantasy is based around wuxia stories like Kung Fu tv show with buddhist monks (ergo the class name), Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style martial artists, certain ninja fantasies, Avatar the Last Airbender, anime battle nuns. There's far more to all these than just being "master of unarmed combat," several of them use weapons, and none of these really are invovled with grappling at all.

Let alone the parkour aspects, the unarmored aspects, the mystic aspects. (healing, elements/energy blasts, shadows, etc).

How many fighters before that god-awful Fighting Style fought with their fists?

And frankly, if the fighter's fiction is good enough, the monk's is overachieving.

Here's the thing. The only real advantage the monk has when it comes to unarmed damage is that it starts off with better damage than a flat 1 and effectively get FS: TWF and the light/finesse properties on their unarmed attacks. Baseline unarmed attacks are crap, and there needs to be some boost to make it a viable choice.

If all it really takes to make unarmed viable is damage, light property and FS:TWF, then that's not really a good defense of the monk as an "overachiever." "But Flurry of Blows exists!" Yeah, and most Fighter subclasses give damage boosts, Barbarians get rage bonus damage and damage boosts from many subclasses, whereas most monk ones don't. "But stunning strike.." is not actually tied to being unarmed.

Its a sad truth, but the monk's level 1 features only exist to bring their unarmed damage and unarmored AC up to par with a duel wielding fighter in heavy armor. In no way, shape, or form can that be called "overachieving." That is "monk is the only way to dual weild fists!" as a concept. Which... is kinda narrow compared to what everyone else can do.

 

[nevin]

Several reasons. Monks are actually not masters of unarmed combat. A barbarian with Tavern Brawler deals comparable damage with fists while raging (thanks to bonus rage damage) on a hit, and can actually grapple / shove / trip worth a dang. This is intentional. Because...

"Master of unarmed combat" is not actually the core class fantasy. The core class fantasy is based around wuxia stories like Kung Fu tv show with buddhist monks (ergo the class name), Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style martial artists, certain ninja fantasies, Avatar the Last Airbender, anime battle nuns. There's far more to all these than just being "master of unarmed combat," several of them use weapons, and none of these really are invovled with grappling at all.

Let alone the parkour aspects, the unarmored aspects, the mystic aspects. (healing, elements/energy blasts, shadows, etc).

Here's the thing. The only real advantage the monk has when it comes to unarmed damage is that it starts off with better damage than a flat 1 and effectively get FS: TWF and the light/finesse properties on their unarmed attacks. Baseline unarmed attacks are crap, and there needs to be some boost to make it a viable choice.

If all it really takes to make unarmed viable is damage, light property and FS:TWF, then that's not really a good defense of the monk as an "overachiever." "But Flurry of Blows exists!" Yeah, and most Fighter subclasses give damage boosts, Barbarians get rage bonus damage and damage boosts from many subclasses, whereas most monk ones don't. "But stunning strike.." is not actually tied to being unarmed.

Its a sad truth, but the monk's level 1 features only exist to bring their unarmed damage and unarmored AC up to par with a duel wielding fighter in heavy armor. In no way, shape, or form can that be called "overachieving." That is "monk is the only way to dual weild fists!" as a concept. Which... is kinda narrow compared to what everyone else can do.

If we go with Myths and movies monks should be able to do things like align character's ki. (lesser restoration and restoration), view alignment at will at high levels, maybe even things like detect lie (listening to the heartbeat and breathing and watching ki). Monks in movies are like swiss army knives. In DND they are a one trick pony that don't keep up with the other classes.

 

[tetrasodium]

If we go with Myths and movies monks should be able to do things like align character's ki. (lesser restoration and restoration), view alignment at will at high levels, maybe even things like detect lie (listening to the heartbeat and breathing and watching ki). Monks in movies are like swiss army knives. In DND they are a one trick pony that don't keep up with the other classes.

That bold bit is the wuxia/xianxia cultivator genre of treknobabble. It's going to be different for every work of fiction based on the author's whims. The fact that you took that and extended it to at least four or five totally different spells in a tread about monk damage/tankiness and kept the totally not magic but literally just magic shows explicitly why wotc can't make that the all encompassing theme of a base class with significant martial capabilities before the subclass adds more.

The various elements that make wuxia/cultivator fiction work as anything but mary sue self insert power fantasies* simply don't fit within standard d&d and an awful lot of them are pretty much campaign ending group walks away level problems should the GM ever employ them at the table. None of the other classes fit within the fantasy that language comes from either & as a result it only leaves two options. Option one is that the monk player unreasonably forces it upon everyone else in a way that stomps any input from the other players themselves. Option two is even worse because it means that the rest of the world and the nonmonk PCs at the table are demoted to what the genre usually refer to as "mortals". There is a difference between "swiss army knife" and what the genre elevates practitioners to.

*I kinda enjoy the genre a bit & have read/watched things from it from time to time, but lets be honest & admit that you can pretty much swap MC A with MC B & not impact the story in any meaningful way

 

[Mephista]

If we go with Myths and movies monks should be able to do things like align character's ki. (lesser restoration and restoration), view alignment at will at high levels, maybe even things like detect lie (listening to the heartbeat and breathing and watching ki). Monks in movies are like swiss army knives. In DND they are a one trick pony that don't keep up with the other classes.

Myths, fiction, movies, games, and pop culture in general form the core class fantasy. We don't need to reproduce everything for everyone, that's what subclasses are for as well, but pop culture should definitely help inform what the core identity.

EDIT - someone much wiser than myself once said that the most important thing in a class is Vibes. Everything else is secondary to unimportant.

 

[le Redoutable]

Martial arts are meant to bring peace ( and so differ from fight sports )
You don't really need to be tankwise in order to end a conflict; you only have to stick to your opponent, and the moment you gain advantage, just stop the fight ( les bons comptes font les bons amis , a merchant 's trick )

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes, but if you start with the mechanics before you know the concepts you want the class to represent, then you end up pigeon-holing your class into concept that only fit within the mechanics.

5e D&D classes are BROAD TENT. Paladins aren't just knights in shining armor, they're also wardens of eldritch forests, they're blackguards and tyrannical iron mongers, they're glorious heroes of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. The class needs a central identity (in the Paladin's case, it's the idea of an inner code of conduct driving their martial arts and their magical prowess), but needs to be broad enough that it can encompass various iterations, world views, and cultural sources.

Look too at the Artificer. This is a class whose central theme is "magitechnology." Everything they do surrounds their abilities as magical technicians and engineers, but this is expressed in wildly different ways. Battle Smiths and Armorers are Arcane Gishes, serving very akin to that of the Swordmage from 4e, while Alchemists are exactly as written on the tin and Artillerists are gunslingers with a mobile ballista/dwarven windlass (from which you can fire black arrows at Smaug; thanks Bard). There are so many unexplored niches within this idea that is far more expansive than "Rogue+Wizard focused on use magic item." There's a big thread about this over on the other 5e subforum.

We can't re-design the Monk without understanding the core central theme of the class. If we just do the mechanics we like, then the theme will mold itself around the mechanics, and limit itself from various expressions. We need to create mechanics that mold around a central but expansive theme.

From a practical perspective, what does the Paladin's central theme (inner code of conduct) have to do with it's central mechanics(smites, spells, and auras)?

Almost nothing.

If you took away the ability titles and the fluff text, you would have no idea that there is any kind if internal code powering what Paladins do..

Paladins are good because their mechanics are good. The fiction just exists alongside them.

A monk designed in this way would also have good mechanics. Slap some evocative names on the abilities and throw a thin veneer of flavor at it and the fiction would take care of itself.

 

[Mephista]

From a practical perspective, what does the Paladin's central theme (inner code of conduct) have to do with it's central mechanics(smites, spells, and auras)?

The paladin's central class fantasy involves being a holy knight, and all variations thereof, following their own codes of chivalry, or holy commandments, etc. Fey knight, dark knight, chosen hero, royal knight... all variations of the same concept. Smites, auras, spells all related to that fantasy. The oath itself is related to that class fantasy.

If you took away the ability titles and the fluff text, you would have no idea that there is any kind if internal code powering what Paladins do..

Well, there's the access to Divine magic, which implies a connection to deities, who generally have moral codes. Smites and auras are usually related to deities as well.

Paladins are good because their mechanics are good. The fiction just exists alongside them.

Depends on what you mean by good. Like, knights are a fun archetype to play. Which doesn't have as much to do with mechanics. If, by good, you mean "mechanically good" then you're basically saying:

Paladins are mechanically good because their mechancis are good. Like... that doesn't tell anyone anything.

A monk designed in this way would also have good mechanics. Slap some evocative names on the abilities and throw a thin veneer of flavor at it and the fiction would take care of itself.

That's a very good way to piss off a player base. People generally want the monk to live up to its class fantasy. As I've said elsewhere, the most important thing when it comes to mechanics is VIBES. If its not vibing, its not a good mechanic.

Remember. When it comes to most players, they'll pick a story-based concept to play first, and then pick a class and other mechanics to represent that story-based concept. They will want those mechanics to be relatively balanced - too strong or too weak isn't fun for most people.