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

[tetrasodium]

Dodge-Tank is a thing. No, they don't want to get hit. Yes, they do want to be the subject of attention.

It's the opposite sort of tank/defender from Fighter and Barbarian and Paladin who want to soak up blows and shrug it off due to massive defenses, damage reductions, and HP sponges.

Dodge Tanks just never get hit. Conceptually, even that could be a HP-sponge if HP is not meat points. But from a class design, I think we can and should have a type of Monk that hits hard and holds the attention of their enemies (drawing aggro, marking foes, locking them into focusing on them), but instead of getting hit when they are aggroed, they avoid the damage with high mobility and a Dex/Wis AC and abilities that turn hits into misses. If they DO get hit for real, they could be hit hard and really be in trouble, but their build is all about not getting hit.

This is a classic Monk, just as much as the more Roguish Striker/Attacker move in and move out and don't draw aggro concept is.

Not in d&d 5e it's not. Dodge tank characters exist in games with equipment suites to that concept. The monk however is a class.
Worse is that it is a class which can only use gm restricted items made to grant casters increased defense. That defense is not in any form Dodge. Bracers of defense are shield. Ring/cloak/etc of defense are a magical ward bumping ac and all saves ...

 

[Emberashh]

May be DND needs to change and add such things.

 

[tetrasodium]

May be DND needs to change and add such things.

What do you mean by "Add"? Such things were sacrificed on the altar of simplicity, the hooks for that kind of thing were removed from the system to pave the way for guarantees.

 

[Emberashh]

What do you mean by "Add"? Such things were sacrificed on the altar of simplicity, the hooks for that kind of thing were removed from the system to pave the way for guarantees.

Its exhausting having to engage with this kind of doomerism.

If all one is going to conclude is that nothing will ever change, and that whatever does change will only be for the worse, why even bother discussing?

 

[CleverNickName]

(Excuse me while I bring it back to the OP)

Well there's more than one way to "tank," right?

Usually when people think of a "tank" character, they think of someone who soaks up the enemy's attacks, spells, actions, damage, whatever, so that the rest of the party doesn't have to. And there are a few ways this can be done.

One way is to soak up damage that would normally be applied to another, squishier character in the group. This is what your high-Con barbarians and fighters do...they absorb damage so that the cleric and sorcerer don't have to. It's the classic definition of a "tank" for a reason. (Barbarians are my favorite because not only do they have high hit points, they also take half-damage when raging. That's a two-for-one special.) Unfortunately it has a drawback: those hit points eventually run out, and need to be replaced...which can be a drain on the party's resources.

But another way to be a "tank" is to make the opponent waste resources. This is what your abjuration wizards, bards, and anti-magic mages do...they "tank" by cancelling out incoming enemy magic before it can be used against the party, effectively making the enemy "waste" their actions and their spell slots. It's not as common, and not as useful, but it's impressive when used against the right enemies. (Abjurers are my favorite for this tactic...they get temporary hit points every time they cast an Abjuration spell, so they get tougher the more they counterspell. Another two-for-one special. They're one of the few wizards who can "heal" themselves.) It also has a drawback: those spell slots run out quickly as well, and the party needs to rest more often to recover them.

And another way is to make the opponent waste their action economy. And that's what the monk and rogue do best...they provoke their opponent into making their attacks against them, which they will most often miss thanks to that "bonus action: dodge" ability. Any attack that targets them is an attack that isn't targeting the cleric or sorcerer...and on top of that, it's also more likely to miss. (Monks are my favorite for this, because they have a defense for almost everything. They can dodge as a bonus action, sure, but they can also block ranged attacks, shrug off mental effects, take half damage from AoE spells and effects, they're immune to poison and disease...) The monk will quickly run out of ki points, but the rogue can do this tactic all day long.

So yeah. I think that Monks can make excellent tanks.

However, I think the best way to build a "tank" character is to stop thinking of it in terms of a character's identity, and more in the terms of a tactic that everyone should be able to do in some degree. When the chips are down and you're on the ropes, your character--regardless of what their dominant role in the group might be--will need a way to roll with the punches for a few rounds until the healer or the striker can get to them. Every class should have a "shields up, red alert!" in their playbook for situations where you need to hold on for dear life. I'd choose versatility over specialization any day of the week. (But I'm starting to drift off-topic again.)

 

[tetrasodium]

Its exhausting having to engage with this kind of doomerism.

If all one is going to conclude is that nothing will ever change, and that whatever does change will only be for the worse, why even bother discussing?

Pointing out that d&d has previously included mechanical hooks needed to support a particular "concept" and that the place for a character concept should rest in character level choices rather than a class itself before character choices are added is not zl"doomerism". It's a hurdle that the monk chassis is unable to overcome without changing system design choices or significantly rebuilding something with the class.

As a gm I'd be thrilled to have some of those hooks back and available for use, but absent their return or some other changes it's unfair to have a class simply dump "identical but with special exemptions" mechanics on the gm in order to elevate design elements like "simple for the players thanks to gm support for the unwritten crunch" to sacred cow status.

 

[Staffan]

Sure, but mechanically, high mobility doesn't protect you until your mobility is double that of your opponents. So you are left with AC and turning hits into misses.

In addition, mobility generally only protects you. The tank's job is to protect the group. If you are defending yourself by bouncing into and out of melee, that just means the opponent will direct their efforts elsewhere.

"Skirmishing" is much more attractive in Pathfinder 2 than in D&D5, particularly on classes with some action economy enhancing abilities (like the monk's Flurry of Blows). Many monsters have routines that require multiple actions to set up, and forcing them to spend an action on movement can be very good mitigation. But movement in 5e is free, so that's not an issue.

 

[Emberashh]

Pointing out that d&d has previously included mechanical hooks needed to support a particular "concept" and that the place for a character concept should rest in character level choices rather than a class itself before character choices are added is not zl"doomerism". It's a hurdle that the monk chassis is unable to overcome without changing system design choices or significantly rebuilding something with the class.

As a gm I'd be thrilled to have some of those hooks back and available for use, but absent their return or some other changes it's unfair to have a class simply dump "identical but with special exemptions" mechanics on the gm in order to elevate design elements like "simple for the players thanks to gm support for the unwritten crunch" to sacred cow status.

Then just fix the problem. Make the design changes. Improve the game.

If you're just going to say no in response remember that you're just doing what I said.

There is no reason to argue against ideas you agree with.

 

[tetrasodium]

In addition, mobility generally only protects you. The tank's job is to protect the group. If you are defending yourself by bouncing into and out of melee, that just means the opponent will direct their efforts elsewhere.

"Skirmishing" is much more attractive in Pathfinder 2 than in D&D5, particularly on classes with some action economy enhancing abilities (like the monk's Flurry of Blows). Many monsters have routines that require multiple actions to set up, and forcing them to spend an action on movement can be very good mitigation. But movement in 5e is free, so that's not an issue.

That's a good point. As a gm it's incredibly frustrating when monk players start complaining that monsters are somehow being unreasonable by not wasting their efforts simply because a monk PC is being played by someone at my table or being met with demands that every encounter go through a "test that the monk works like a monk" cycle before opponents target someone else.

 

[Chaosmancer]

(Excuse me while I bring it back to the OP)

Well there's more than one way to "tank," right?

Usually when people think of a "tank" character, they think of someone who soaks up the enemy's attacks, spells, actions, damage, whatever, so that the rest of the party doesn't have to. And there are a few ways this can be done.

One way is to soak up damage that would normally be applied to another, squishier character in the group. This is what your high-Con barbarians and fighters do...they absorb damage so that the cleric and sorcerer don't have to. It's the classic definition of a "tank" for a reason. (Barbarians are my favorite because not only do they have high hit points, they also take half-damage when raging. That's a two-for-one special.) Unfortunately it has a drawback: those hit points eventually run out, and need to be replaced...which can be a drain on the party's resources.

But another way to be a "tank" is to make the opponent waste resources. This is what your abjuration wizards, bards, and anti-magic mages do...they "tank" by cancelling out incoming enemy magic before it can be used against the party, effectively making the enemy "waste" their actions and their spell slots. It's not as common, and not as useful, but it's impressive when used against the right enemies. (Abjurers are my favorite for this tactic...they get temporary hit points every time they cast an Abjuration spell, so they get tougher the more they counterspell. Another two-for-one special. They're one of the few wizards who can "heal" themselves.) It also has a drawback: those spell slots run out quickly as well, and the party needs to rest more often to recover them.

And another way is to make the opponent waste their action economy. And that's what the monk and rogue do best...they provoke their opponent into making their attacks against them, which they will most often miss thanks to that "bonus action: dodge" ability. Any attack that targets them is an attack that isn't targeting the cleric or sorcerer...and on top of that, it's also more likely to miss. (Monks are my favorite for this, because they have a defense for almost everything. They can dodge as a bonus action, sure, but they can also block ranged attacks, shrug off mental effects, take half damage from AoE spells and effects, they're immune to poison and disease...) The monk will quickly run out of ki points, but the rogue can do this tactic all day long.

So yeah. I think that Monks can make excellent tanks.

However, I think the best way to build a "tank" character is to stop thinking of it in terms of a character's identity, and more in the terms of a tactic that everyone should be able to do in some degree. When the chips are down and you're on the ropes, your character--regardless of what their dominant role in the group might be--will need a way to roll with the punches for a few rounds until the healer or the striker can get to them. Every class should have a "shields up, red alert!" in their playbook for situations where you need to hold on for dear life. I'd choose versatility over specialization any day of the week. (But I'm starting to drift off-topic again.)

I think this does also run into the problem with Monks as "tanks"

A fighter and barbarian "tank" by taking hits... and this in no way impacts their contributions to winning the fight on their turn.

An anti-magic character is really only using Counterspell, which while it affects the offensive and support abilities of the caster by using spell slots, does not effect their ability to contribute on their turn.

Rogues don't have the ability to dodge as a bonus action, and often don't tank, instead avoiding hits by hiding and staying out of reach. However, if you do want a rogue to tank they can use their bonus action dash or disengage, or their reaction uncanny dodge to absorb a hit or two. And their offense is not affected, because sneak attack doesn't care.


The best defense of the monk is Patient Defense... which directly interferes with the monk's ability to deal damage. Monk offense requires their bonus action, and even Flurry of Blows, which directly competes with their offense. No other class has this problem in such a stark manner.