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

[Clint_L]

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.

There's loads of ways to tank. High HP. High AC. Action denial. Avoidance. Self-healing. Mitigation. Mobility.

Barbarians: Very High HP and mitigation.
Moon Druids: Mega-high HP.
Fighters: High HP and AC, limited self-healing.
Paladins: High HP, AC, and self-healing.
Monks: Action denial (after stunning strike at level 5), avoidance (patient defence; evasion). Mobility (in theory)

The problem with monk tanking is everything is tied up in a limited resource pool and action economy, which is overly reliant on the bonus action. Move patient defence to a reaction and give monks a bit more ki, and suddenly they become decent off-tanks. And they would tank in a very unique way, which is fun for the game, IMO.

I see this in practice with my current Way of Mercy monk. Because she is able to automatically apply the poisoned condition along with damage from her flurry of blows, when fighting a single opponent she is basically getting the benefit of patient defence plus full offence, and she is able to go toe-to-toe very effectively. It feels like what a monk should feel like.

These three simple changes will make the 2024 monk a much more viable off-tank:
1. Flurry of Blows adds one extra unarmed strike to the attack action, rather than the bonus action.
2. Patient defence becomes a reaction.
3. Add wisdom bonus to Ki pool.

Look at how that would open up opportunities for the monk to tank - let's say our monk is level 3, with a +3 wisdom modifier (so 6 ki points).

Round one: bonus action step of the wind to leap at the enemy spellcaster in the back. Attack with staff and FoB. Enemies rush back to support the caster; monk uses patient defence as a reaction to keep them at bay (3 ki used).

Round 2: Attack and FoB. Decision time: use the bonus action for an extra unarmed strike, or step of the wind to get back out of danger? If the former, will still be able to use patient defence (2 ki used either way; leaving one more to get out of there next round or stay in close and keep patient defence up).

Suddenly we have a monk who plays like a monk - they aren't afraid to use their mobility to make that unexpected attack against a vulnerable opponent, can ably tank for a few rounds if needed, and can get back out if things get too hairy. They aren't taking over the main tank's job, they are adding an new element to the party.

And we are so close to getting that monk. Just a few tweaks to the current 2024 iteration gets us there. Less than ten words.

 

[le Redoutable]

About quivering palm : why not transform it to Harm ( the reverse of Heal , the 6th level cleric spell ) ?

 

[Chaosmancer]

About quivering palm : why not transform it to Harm ( the reverse of Heal , the 6th level cleric spell ) ?

Because then it would count as a disease and have more monsters immune to it.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

Mobility protects the group if you’re both dodiging the attacks and aggro-ing the enemy’s attention.

Such things have and still exist in D&D - such as gaining Opportunity Attacks that punish enemies for targeting someone other than you.

5e should actively support this fiction in the class that makes the most sense for it - the unarmored martial artist.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

The fiction of dodge mobility includes High armored defense and features that turn hits into misses, but also perhaps a subclass feature that does damage reduction or provides THP representing “near hits”.

 

[Staffan]

Mobility protects the group if you’re both dodiging the attacks and aggro-ing the enemy’s attention.

Such things have and still exist in D&D - such as gaining Opportunity Attacks that punish enemies for targeting someone other than you.

5e should actively support this fiction in the class that makes the most sense for it - the unarmored martial artist.

The only instance I can think of of an ability punishing an opponent for attacking someone other than you at range is whatever the 4e paladin ability was called (Divine Challenge?). Maybe some of the other 4e defenders had similar abilities, but that's about it. Opportunity attacks generally require you to be in someone's face, and that's hard to combine with defensive mobility.

Dodging attacks by being in melee and having a high AC and/or using other means of negating enemy attacks is fine. Dodging attacks by running up to an opponent, punching them, and running away again would not constitute tanking in any meaningful way.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

The problem with monk tanking is everything is tied up in a limited resource pool and action economy, which is overly reliant on the bonus action. Move patient defence to a reaction and give monks a bit more ki, and suddenly they become decent off-tanks. And they would tank in a very unique way, which is fun for the game, IMO.

It's true that that in order to "tank," a Monk must spend more bonus actions than other classes. All I'm saying is, for some styles of play, this is an acceptable trade. Of course the Monk is trading their bonus action to force enemies to attack at disadvantage (or to keep them from attacking at advantage) but bonus actions are free resources: they automatically replenish every round.

Sort of how a Fighter or Barbarian must spend a lot more hit points (and therefore, more of the healer's actions, more healing potions, more Hit Dice, and/or more rests) than other classes. For some styles of play, this is also an acceptable trade--but these hit-point tankers need a lot more "life support" from the party than the Monk does.

 

[WanderingMystic]

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!

Not just a better monk but a better every martial class. Monks need manuvers like that, but so do Fighters and I would say rangers. Barbarians have always been shown as more of a brute force and no finesse so I can understand them not getting any fanclub maunvers and paladins smites take of the same space as a manuvers would so they feel fine.

 

[Clint_L]

It's true that that in order to "tank," a Monk must spend more bonus actions than other classes. All I'm saying is, for some styles of play, this is an acceptable trade. Of course the Monk is trading their bonus action to force enemies to attack at disadvantage (or to keep them from attacking at advantage) but bonus actions are free resources: they automatically replenish every round.

Sort of how a Fighter or Barbarian must spend a lot more hit points (and therefore, more of the healer's actions, more healing potions, more Hit Dice, and/or more rests) than other classes. For some styles of play, this is also an acceptable trade--but these hit-point tankers need a lot more "life support" from the party than the Monk does.

It's not the same, though, because to tank effectively the monk needs mobility and avoidance, and to generate meaningful offence they need FoB. All of which currently run off the bonus action. So, for monks, it's not really a "bonus" at all, it's integral to their basic functioning. And with all three things they need to tank effectively, if briefly, running off one "bonus" action, tanking becomes non-viable.

Again, my Mercy monk can only tank effectively because Hand of Harm automatically adds the disadvantage effect to her target without using up the bonus action.

Fighters and barbarians don't "spend" hit points, they lose them - no action economy required. So for them, the bonus action is a true bonus - their defence and offence are fine without it, so the barbarian can use it to rage, the fighter to second wind, etc. Totally different action economy.

Edit: Let's take my monk example above. They are burning through ki points pretty quickly, but during that time, let's see how they stack up against an Orc (assuming current damage because I don't want to deal with mastery effects, and skipping critical hits, though monk's defence actually improves by slightly less than 5% compared to barbarian and fighter if we factor them in, due to patient defence effectively pushing them off the table):

Monk: Offence: 9.1 DPR. Defence: 2.375 DPR
Barbarian: Offence: 7.8 DPR. Defence: 2.6125 DPR
Fighter: 7.475 DPR. Defence: 2.375 DPR

Very close, with the monk being a little bit better. But I think this is as it should be, because the monk has a smaller HP pool and is burning through ki, so this is only sustainable for a few rounds. And note that the fighter still has second wind, and barbarian has that big HP pool, the fighter can double their DPR for one round, etc. The upshot is that if it's a long fight or a fight against many foes, the monk is not going to be your first choice of tank, but they will be able to do a good job for a short time before using that mobility to get away. This makes sense for how most folks see the class, I believe.

All of which is to say that if you make those small tweaks outlined above, I don't think monks need a d10 hit die. They just need their resource pool slightly improved and their action economy cleaned up.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's true that that in order to "tank," a Monk must spend more bonus actions than other classes. All I'm saying is, for some styles of play, this is an acceptable trade. Of course the Monk is trading their bonus action to force enemies to attack at disadvantage (or to keep them from attacking at advantage) but bonus actions are free resources: they automatically replenish every round.

Sort of how a Fighter or Barbarian must spend a lot more hit points (and therefore, more of the healer's actions, more healing potions, more Hit Dice, and/or more rests) than other classes. For some styles of play, this is also an acceptable trade--but these hit-point tankers need a lot more "life support" from the party than the Monk does.

Whether or not it is an acceptable trade ignores the fact that the Monk is the only martial character, and perhaps the only class at all, which trades offense for defense in this manner. For every other class their defense and their offense can be used simultaneously, high HP and high AC don't go away because you were hit and lost some health temporarily, and that loss happens WHILE your high offense is still in play.

A monk's defense drains their ability to hit back effectively, drawing the fight out longer, and making their chances of taking damage and being forced to retreat higher.