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

[Chaosmancer]

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”.

Okay, but the fiction matters FAR less than the mechanics. And saying that the monk has high mobility because they can get temp hp wouldn't exactly work for many people.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

Yeah, I think this is the key insight. It is really hard to compare monk to other classes straight-up because their action economy is so distinct. As previously noted, I don't think even WotC has fully wrapped their heads around why this matters so much. It only became clear to me after much discussion in these various threads, and in response to good ideas from a lot of other people (i.e. making patient defence a reaction). And looking at a lot of math.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Small quibble: it only affects the quantity of attacks the monk can make, not the effectiveness of those attacks (unless you believe that a melee character that doesn't do an off-hand attack every round is a failure. Clearly I don't, but I know folks who do.) Patient Defense is no more of a "drain" on the monk than Flurry of Blows, which lets them hit back even more for the same cost.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

I actually like that about the Monk: it makes them unique, and gives them options that others don't have. It's these little niche features that make it truly feel different than, say, a Rogue or an unarmored Fighter.

That said: it would be pretty cool to see other classes get some signature moves like the Monk gets...you know, something cool to do with their bonus action besides that old "attack again" broken record. Nothing huge, nothing super-powerful. Maybe drink a potion, make an Intelligence check to identify an opponent's weaknesses, trade places with an adjacent (and willing) ally...

 

[James Gasik]

Small quibble: it only affects the quantity of attacks the monk can make, not the effectiveness of those attacks (unless you believe that a melee character that doesn't do an off-hand attack every round is a failure. Clearly I don't, but I know folks who do.) Patient Defense is no more of a "drain" on the monk than Flurry of Blows, which lets them hit back even more for the same cost.

Do you feel the Monk's damage is ok without Flurry? There's a Monk in the game I'm currently playing in, and he really seems to struggle compared to the Ranger in pretty much every respect.

 

[CleverNickName]

Do you feel the Monk's damage is ok without Flurry? There's a Monk in the game I'm currently playing in, and he really seems to struggle compared to the Ranger in pretty much every respect.

Of course! As much as I can bring myself to care about damage output per round, anyway. DPR isn't the only thing that defines a melee character, and--unpopular opinion--it's not even the most important. Or the most interesting.

The thing is: if I've decided to play a monk, I've already made a lot of other decisions before I got to that point. I've already looked at the other character classes, and I've weighed their action economy and damage output, considered the different strengths and weakness, and decided my character's theme and role within the group... and after all that, I still chose to play a Monk. I'm clearly not making that choice based on damage output alone.

So a better question to ask is, what does a Monk give me that the other classes don't? This is all about tradeoffs, after all, and sometimes that trade is for better defensive options. If you're prioritizing damage output alone, you probably didn't choose a Monk (or any other "tank," for that matter. You're probably playing a "blaster" or a "striker.")

 

[Gammadoodler]

Except they don’t really have any ranged capabilities, so it instead encourages them in the direction of a hit-and-run style skirmisher, which is exactly what the monk is supposed to be. Just like melee rogues, which again, are also a high-damage, high-mobility, 1d8 hit die class.

Martial artists are known for getting into a ring and having a 1 on 1 bout… with other martial artists, with the same equipment (or lack thereof) as their opponents, for sport. A martial artist would be a fool to try to get into a ring for a 1 on 1 bout against a heavily armed and armored opponent, let alone several such opponents on a battled. In that context, the martial artist has to do what anyone does when facing better-equipped forces in battle - use hit-and-run, gurulla tactics.

Why?

They aren't RL martial artists going up against RL heavily armored warriors. They are D&D mystical martial artists powered by fantasy.

Don't see any reason why mystical ability should be intrinsically inferior to armor.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why?

They aren't RL martial artists going up against RL heavily armored warriors. They are D&D mystical martial artists powered by fantasy.

Don't see any reason why mystical ability should be intrinsically inferior to armor.

I don’t think it should be intrinsically inferior either. I just think the monk should rely on high mobility and avoiding hits rather than standing there and absorbing them. Because when I imagine a mystically-powered martial artist fighting armed and armored opponents, I imagine them doing the former, not the latter.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don’t think it should be intrinsically inferior either. I just think the monk should rely on high mobility and avoiding hits rather than standing there and absorbing them. Because when I imagine a mystically-powered martial artist fighting armed and armored opponents, I imagine them doing the former, not the latter.

And for me, if I'm starting out my class design with melee "mystical powers", I don't see a reason for any particular fighting style to be off the table.

We've got RL martial artists breaking through stacks of concrete blocks with their heads and chopping down trees with their shins. Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to imagine a mystical martial artist with that kind of toughness.

 

[mellored]

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.

Reckless attack...

But also, monks should be flexible. Mobility, defense, offense should all be available. Just not all at the same time, though more than they have now.