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

[Gorck]

There are 2 main ways to tank:

High AC - Have a high enough armor class that enemies can't do damage to you. How many hit points you have isn't as important if your enemies can't penetrate through your armor to deplete them.

High HP - Have a high enough pool of hit points that enemies will take a long time chipping away at you. Having a high armor class isn't as important because you can take many more blows before you're finally taken down.

Both methods have their pros and cons, but some that come to mind as I gain more experience as a DM:

The High AC method seems more helpful against low intelligence enemies. They'll gladly sit there and mindlessly attack whatever is in front of them. But an intelligent foe will quickly realize they can't do anything against you and look to attack someone else, unless the you have something to prevent/discourage them from doing so (Protection fighting style, Compelled Duel, etc.).

The High HP method seems more useful as long as your armor class is moderate - high enough to stop some blows, but low enough to continue to entice enemies to attack you rather than your allies. But if your hit points aren't high enough, you'll find yourself making death saves before the battle's over.

The Monk can get a decent enough AC over time (20 DEX & WIS = 20 AC), but will likely start out with a moderate AC (16 DEX & 14 WIS (or vice versa) = 15AC), meaning the High AC method won't work well at lower levels unless the DM is kind enough to dole out some AC-assisting magic items. However, with only a d8 for HP and a probably too-low CON, the HP pool won't be high enough to allow for the High HP method. Abilities like Deflect Missiles/Energy and Evasion can help, but are situational depending on the type of incoming attack. If the player rolls stats instead of using Point Buy or Standard Array, and happens to get lucky and roll 3 really high ability scores, then maybe a Monk tank might be feasible. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it unless WotC releases a tank-themed subclass in the future.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

There are 2 main ways to tank:

High AC - Have a high enough armor class that enemies can't do damage to you. How many hit points you have isn't as important if your enemies can't penetrate through your armor to deplete them.

High HP - Have a high enough pool of hit points that enemies will take a long time chipping away at you. Having a high armor class isn't as important because you can take many more blows before you're finally taken down.

Both methods have their pros and cons, but some that come to mind as I gain more experience as a DM:

The High AC method seems more helpful against low intelligence enemies. They'll gladly sit there and mindlessly attack whatever is in front of them. But an intelligent foe will quickly realize they can't do anything against you and look to attack someone else, unless the you have something to prevent/discourage them from doing so (Protection fighting style, Compelled Duel, etc.).

The High HP method seems more useful as long as your armor class is moderate - high enough to stop some blows, but low enough to continue to entice enemies to attack you rather than your allies. But if your hit points aren't high enough, you'll find yourself making death saves before the battle's over.

The Monk can get a decent enough AC over time (20 DEX & WIS = 20 AC), but will likely start out with a moderate AC (16 DEX & 14 WIS (or vice versa) = 15AC), meaning the High AC method won't work well at lower levels unless the DM is kind enough to dole out some AC-assisting magic items. However, with only a d8 for HP and a probably too-low CON, the HP pool won't be high enough to allow for the High HP method. Abilities like Deflect Missiles/Energy and Evasion can help, but are situational depending on the type of incoming attack. If the player rolls stats instead of using Point Buy or Standard Array, and happens to get lucky and roll 3 really high ability scores, then maybe a Monk tank might be feasible. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it unless WotC releases a tank-themed subclass in the future.

High AC and High HP the two most basic, incremental ways of reducing the amount of damage any character takes, because that is just basic design that applies to all characters. I think it takes more than that to be able to perform the function of a "tank." A wizard can get heavy armor training and have high AC, and occasionally use the Shield spell, but that does not make them a "tank."

What sets "Tanks" apart from anyone else is:

1. They are designed to be able get BOTH high AC and HP, not just one.
2. They have other reliable abilities to mitigate the damage or otherwise keep themselves alive.

• Fighters get Second Wind and can opt into more defensive fighting styles, they later can get Indomitable and Unconquerable, and some fighters can opt into subclass abilities that help their survivability (like Battle Master maneuvers).
• Barbarians get an increasingly effective Rage ability to keep themselves alive (damage resistance), and can use subclasses to increase that (like the Bear Totem ability to resist more damage types). Unarmored Defense is a ribbon ability to enforce the theme that a barbarian doesn't need armor.

In order for a monk to be a "tank", which can include a "dodge tank", they still need to:

1. Have d10 HD (It would be fine for a melee-focused Monk to have the same HD as a ranged ranger).
2. Be able to get AC comparable to a barbarian. (At first glance, a monk's Unarmored Defense is a little behind because of MAD and they can't use shields. Barbarians only need Str and Con. Monks need Dex, Wis, and Con.) But this may not need changed if they get more reliable access to the damage mitigation (see below).
3. Be able to mitigate melee attack damage better, which while they get Deflect Arrows for ranged attacks, and Evasion for Dex save AoEs, they currently do not handle targeted melee attacks very well because of low Di Points at low level preventing them from using Patient Defense very well. This can be fixed by adding Wis mod to Di points.

Making the Monk function as a Dodge Tank is totally do-able in a way that fits the theme.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

If you're talking pure movement rate with no other abilities, sure. But that doesn't mean you can't design a class around mobile defense. You can either tie an AC boost to movement, or make it easier to get out of attack range:

• Ability that lets you move places your enemies can't (e.g., up a wall).
• Ability to reduce an opponent's speed, or halt their movement at range.
• Ability to negate attacks (or boost AC, etc.) from enemies who started the turn more than X feet away, or when you yourself ended your last turn X feet from where you started.

 

[Incenjucar]

There's also giving them off-turn movement-based abilities like a dodge that actually removes them from the area of the AOE.

 

[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.

TL;DR: There's more than one way to "soak up an enemy's attack." High hp is just one way; high AC and action denial are also valid and I'm sure there are others. So in this sense, yes--the monk is an excellent tank.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you're talking pure movement rate with no other abilities, sure. But that doesn't mean you can't design a class around mobile defense. You can either tie an AC boost to movement, or make it easier to get out of attack range:

• Ability that lets you move places your enemies can't (e.g., up a wall).
• Ability to reduce an opponent's speed, or halt their movement at range.
• Ability to negate attacks (or boost AC, etc.) from enemies who started the turn more than X feet away, or when you yourself ended your last turn X feet from where you started.

Yeah, I was talking about high mobility in terms of just movement. Many people claim this allows the monk to be safe and waste enemy turns, but in practice it is much harder to pull off.

As to your expansions.

1) Tying an AC boost to movement is really interesting, and defintely something worth exploring I think.

2) Moving to places the enemy cannot reach is of limited effectiveness. It is the same as saying "get into cover the enemy can't reach" a useful defense, but has many exceptions and caveats based on the battlefield and situation.

3) Monks really do not currently have an effective way to reduce their enemies speed, and they can't halt movement at range. It can be designed, but it also has to be considered carefully. Sentinel+PAM is very effective, but it can also make you essentially immune to melee attacks in certain fights,

4) Discussed negating attacks already.

 

[Staffan]

If you're talking pure movement rate with no other abilities, sure. But that doesn't mean you can't design a class around mobile defense. You can either tie an AC boost to movement, or make it easier to get out of attack range:

• Ability that lets you move places your enemies can't (e.g., up a wall).
• Ability to reduce an opponent's speed, or halt their movement at range.
• Ability to negate attacks (or boost AC, etc.) from enemies who started the turn more than X feet away, or when you yourself ended your last turn X feet from where you started.

Again, this is skirmishing defense. It doesn't help the rest of the group. If the monsters can't reach the monk, they'll happily eat the wizard instead, and that's bad tanking.

If everyone in the group is trying to be in the second line, that just means that everyone is in the front line. The tank is the character who wants to be in the front line.

 

[Emberashh]

Again, this is skirmishing defense. It doesn't help the rest of the group. If the monsters can't reach the monk, they'll happily eat the wizard instead, and that's bad tanking.

If everyone in the group is trying to be in the second line, that just means that everyone is in the front line. The tank is the character who wants to be in the front line.

This was something I solved by making movement something you roll for rather than getting a fixed amount.

Being forced to spend a limited amount of movement where you don't want to go is the idea, and it works. Just a matter of defining the abilities and rulesets that support that exchange being meaningful.

A speed tank in this instance operates by being able to place themselves opportunistically so that zone of control rules go into effect, meaning mobs burn movement to pass those hexes (either directly or through circumvention), and then the tank can absorb blows by burning their extra movement to add to their damage mitigation. Coupled with some decent position control to force mobs to double back over the same hexes, you've got a decent playstyle to chew on.

 

[Incenjucar]

I do find it funny that monks don't have a sweep kick move.

 

[James Gasik]

I do find it funny that monks don't have a sweep kick move.

Or a flying kick. I remember playing an Unchained Monk in PF1 where they had a list of style strikes you could use a certain times per round, from spin kicks to head-butts and elbow strikes. It seems weird that D&D's martial artist barely knows anything other than basic strikes. Meanwhile, the playtest Rogue can disarm, blind, and trip foes with Cunning Strike. Feels like you could give the Rogue a martial arts die and have a strong contender for a better Monk!