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

[Kalmi]

I can't really agree with the idea that a hand-to-hand combatant should not be able to stand on the frontlines, so if that's what you mean by "tank," I'm afraid I disagree. The Rogue is one thing-- it's entire shtick is skirmishing, and taking advantage of enemies distracted by the party frontliners, but it's honestly hard to think of martial arts warriors in fiction who don't specialized in fighting lots of enemies at once.

I feel like people (and perhaps the D&D designers?) confused being mobile with being a skirmisher. If "tank" means "super slow fighter in tons of armor" then yes, a Monk doesn't fit that image. But there should be room for more than one kind of front-line fighter, including lightly-armored warriors who survive through agility can skill rather than armor. And to me, designing a character class which can only excel by attacking adjacent enemies a bunch of times, and then giving them low hp, is either incoherent or confused design. And I really don't see Monks becoming broken by upping their hit dice to d10s.

 

[Incenjucar]

The "hand to hand" (or hand to weapon, hand to claw, hand to spell, etc.) element is actually the least important distinction of a monk in the modern design, as it's mostly just a controlled damage boost unless the campaign is heavily reliant on magic weapons.

In class-based game design, characters are generally assumed to excel in only so many things at once. Tanks excel at endurance, durability, and protection, allowing them to protect glass cannons and durable healers, while skirmishers and assassins excel at targeted damage and mobility to bypass tanks and take out glass cannons and healers.

A high-damage, high-durability character gets you a barbarian, which actively burns through its own durability to boost damage, but they lack a monk's mobility and control abilities.

Monks are not intended to be front-line fighters like the barbarian, and certainly not anything like a fighter's damage-soaking focus. If they are to start stepping further on those toes, they need to start giving things up, or more of their abilities given to the barbarians, rogues, and fighters so they can keep up.

 

[James Gasik]

The "hand to hand" (or hand to weapon, hand to claw, hand to spell, etc.) element is actually the least important distinction of a monk in the modern design, as it's mostly just a controlled damage boost unless the campaign is heavily reliant on magic weapons.

In class-based game design, characters are generally assumed to excel in only so many things at once. Tanks excel at endurance, durability, and protection, allowing them to protect glass cannons and durable healers, while skirmishers and assassins excel at targeted damage and mobility to bypass tanks and take out glass cannons and healers.

A high-damage, high-durability character gets you a barbarian, which actively burns through its own durability to boost damage, but they lack a monk's mobility and control abilities.

Monks are not intended to be front-line fighters like the barbarian, and certainly not anything like a fighter's damage-soaking focus. If they are to start stepping further on those toes, they need to start giving things up, or more of their abilities given to the barbarians, rogues, and fighters so they can keep up.

Do they need to give anything up? I mean, aren't they in the running for the weakest class in the game?

 

[Staffan]

Except Barbarians are often armored, because Unarmored Defense sucks and medium armor is better.

That sounds like something a subclass could do something about.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the issue

All the Warrior classes are supposed to be capable of speccing into multiple roles. These roles are usually determined by weapon specialization Ability score choice, and subclass choice.

Barbarian

1. Skirmisher/Melee Striker
   
   1. Greatweapon/Armor
   2. DualWeapon/Armor
2. Archer/Thrower/Ranged Striker
   
   1. Thrown Weapon/Armor
3. Tank/Defender
   
   1. Weapon and Shield/Armor
   2. Weapon and Shield/Unarmored
4. Buffer/Leader
   
   1. Thane subclass
5. Debuffer/Controller
   
   1. Dreadnaught subclass

Fighter

• Skirmisher/Melee Striker
  
  1. Greatweapon/Armor
  2. DualWeapon/Armor
  3. Finesse/Armor
• Archer/Thrower/Ranged Striker
  
  1. Thrown Weapon/Armor
  2. Bow/Armor
• Tank/Defender
  
  1. Weapon and Shield/Armor
  2. Reach Weapon/Armor
• Buffer/Leader
  
  1. Warlord subclass
• Debuffer/Controller
  
  1. ???? subclass

Monk

• ????
  
  1. Unarmed/Unarmored
  2. Weapon/Unarmored

The Monk being out of both the weapon system and armor system is out of the role choice paradigm. In addition, being out of both the weapon system and armor system, the monk needs ki techniques to make up for it.

Problem: Ki/Discpline techniques are chosen for you.
Solution: After level 2, you choose your techniques off a list like invocations.

 

[tetrasodium]

The lesson is that being transparent is bad! 4E proved that people don't want explanations. They want a mysterious black box that that requires strong judgment to unravel. For that sense of wonder!

I don't think it's bad, but The 5e monk seems to get labeled with an awful lot of roles as things it must be top tier or close to it simultaneously with no specialized gear... Tanking dpr mobility control etc... It doesn't take long to ask why there is a class being designed for the DM's girlfriend and why it is constantly getting complaints about failing to live up to the trope

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think it's bad, but The 5e monk seems to get labeled with an awful lot of roles as things it must be top tier or close to it simultaneously with no specialized gear... Tanking dpr mobility control etc... It doesn't take long to ask why there is a class being designed for the DM's girlfriend and why it is constantly getting complaints about failing to live up to the trope

Two things-

First, let's avoid terms like "DM's girlfriend" and consign that to the dustbin of history, not to be resurrected. 40% of D&D players identify as female, and women (contrary to the old and thankfully discarded stereotypes about them) like to play D&D when they aren't excluded from the game. I know that this wasn't your intent, but casually using terms like that serve old and incorrect ideas that women only play D&D as some sort of adjunct to their partners; not because they genuinely want to play. If you want to make a point about DM favoritism, just say "DM's favorite" or something like that.

Second, this is a strange comment to make. No one (literally, no one) would argue that the 5e Monk is overpowered, or "the Optimizer's Choice." The reason that we currently have a lot of threads about the Monk right now is because ... wait for it ... WoTC finally released the UA Monk. If anything, the fact that every other class got at least one full revision (and many classes received TWO revisions) when the Monk was still cooking kind of shows you where the Monk was in terms of priorities. But yes, people are discussing the Monk now because we are reacting to a document that was just released.

To the extent you see a lot of different people advocating for different things, that's because this is the internet. People will have different opinions as to what direction they want the Monk to go in. Get five people commenting on the internet, you'll get six different opinions. No one expects that WoTC will enact ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS. In all honesty, it's unlikely that WoTC will enact any of the many good suggestions made. But people spitballing ideas on the internet are unlikely to be perfectly balancing their own ideas, let alone balancing their own ideas with the contradictory goals of every other poster that is also posting in multiple threads.

If you play a Monk, you can understand both why it has an appeal and also why it is dissatisfying and people are looking for improvements in certain areas. If you are uninterested in playing Monks or understanding why people are looking at the design from different perspectives, no one is forcing you to contribute positively to the conversation, but it's your choice as to what you choose to do with that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Two things-

First, let's avoid terms like "DM's girlfriend" and consign that to the dustbin of history, not to be resurrected. 40% of D&D players identify as female, and women (contrary to the old and thankfully discarded stereotypes about them) like to play D&D when they aren't excluded from the game. I know that this wasn't your intent, but casually using terms like that serve old and incorrect ideas that women only play D&D as some sort of adjunct to their partners; not because they genuinely want to play. If you want to make a point about DM favoritism, just say "DM's favorite" or something like that.

Second, this is a strange comment to make. No one (literally, no one) would argue that the 5e Monk is overpowered, or "the Optimizer's Choice." The reason that we currently have a lot of threads about the Monk right now is because ... wait for it ... WoTC finally released the UA Monk. If anything, the fact that every other class got at least one full revision (and many classes received TWO revisions) when the Monk was still cooking kind of shows you where the Monk was in terms of priorities. But yes, people are discussing the Monk now because we are reacting to a document that was just released.

To the extent you see a lot of different people advocating for different things, that's because this is the internet. People will have different opinions as to what direction they want the Monk to go in. Get five people commenting on the internet, you'll get six different opinions. No one expects that WoTC will enact ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS. In all honesty, it's unlikely that WoTC will enact any of the many good suggestions made. But people spitballing ideas on the internet are unlikely to be perfectly balancing their own ideas, let alone balancing their own ideas with the contradictory goals of every other poster that is also posting in multiple threads.

If you play a Monk, you can understand both why it has an appeal and also why it is dissatisfying and people are looking for improvements in certain areas. If you are uninterested in playing Monks or understanding why people are looking at the design from different perspectives, no one is forcing you to contribute positively to the conversation, but it's your choice as to what you choose to do with that.

You will need to go back much further than d&d. The times of Shakespeare and probably Greek plays were when the root of that term started with playwright's and director's girlfriend/wife/mistress. You have a huge hill to climb there .

Yes a monk with a few levels who digs in to push for a short rest every fight or three so they can spam flurry stunning strike and so on as a cantrip is absolutely just as broken as the warlock and action surge spamming fighter digging in beside the monk

 

[Incenjucar]

Do they need to give anything up? I mean, aren't they in the running for the weakest class in the game?

There is always a weakest, so unless you mean they're significantly weaker and thus unable to fulfill their role as skirmisher that's not really a point.

Giving them more features of a different role doesn't help.

--

Yeah I think that we can indeed refrain from sexism in the year 2023.

 

[le Redoutable]

Edit: sorry I mismatched the topic my post was referring to