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

[tetrasodium]

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.

Oops hit submit before keyboard came up....


Reckless is pretty different. With it the barb accepts a weakness for better attack odds. Monk just flits about taking the best of any moment without ever really having a meaningful weakness.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

No, some melee character's don't require their bonus action.

Here was Treantmonk's recent video on the rogue,

And just for context, here is that same chart with the rogue added

His Baseline? Warlock with Eldritch Blast, new hex, and Agonizing blast.

So, yes, I mean effective. As in "the monk needs flurry of blows to even stay relevant to the discussion" Lower levels, the monk does better, but as the game progresses this becomes a serious problem.

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...

I would love if the monk was unique and not ALSO suffering from being so weak because of its uniqueness.

I will sacrifice being unique every single day of the week, if it means that they are effective in their role, something they currently lack because they are uniquely BAD.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.")

But the monk doesn't have the best defensive options.

You are literally taking the position that the monk must be fine, because you have chosen to play a monk, therefore it must be what you want. But the issue is for many of us we WANT to play a monk, but then when we begin to look at actually doing so, it fails to give us what we want.

Offensive Power? Monks lack.
Defensive Power? Monks lack until VERY high levels (13 and up)
Hit Points and Durability? Monks lack.
Control options? Monks lack.

The only thing they certainly have is mobility, but mobility alone is pointless. You need a way to use it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Reckless attack...

Does not trade offensive power for defensive power. The Barbarian uses Reckless attack for accuracy, which can be offensive power. But the Barbarian's defenses don't come from high AC, they come from resistance and high HP. Reckless attack is a taunt, so that they can actually utilize their defenses.

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.

More than they have now is the point. But also, none of the other classes sacrifice in this same manner. So, I have to wonder... why CAN'T the monk have decent offense, defense and great mobility all at the same time? Why can't they pick two of the three? Especially since they are the ONLY class with the mobility they have.

 

[Clint_L]

So, I have to wonder... why CAN'T the monk have decent offense, defense and great mobility all at the same time? Why can't they pick two of the three? Especially since they are the ONLY class with the mobility they have.

This. Is. The. Crux.

Rogues get to have great offence and mobility at the same time, because they don't need their bonus action for both. A raging barbarian has great offence and defence at the same time, all day long. A paladin's AC doesn't go down when they smite. A fighter has strong offence and defence all the time and can use action surge/second wind on top of that, as a nitrous boost when needed.

Monks are already using their nitrous boost just to hit what is a baseline for other classes.

 

[Clint_L]

D&DDeepdive's video on the UA monk, in collaboration with Treantmonk, is up. It's long but the upshot is: they think it is unequivocally the worst class in the UA that we've seen so far, and failed to address any of the fundamental issues with monks:

 

[CleverNickName]

But the monk doesn't have the best defensive options.

You are literally taking the position that the monk must be fine, because you have chosen to play a monk, therefore it must be what you want. But the issue is for many of us we WANT to play a monk, but then when we begin to look at actually doing so, it fails to give us what we want.

I said "better," not "best" defensive options. And I'm not taking any other position than "I think the Monk works as a tank."

You disagree, and that's fine. You want something else from the Monk character class, but I don't really know what to say about that. I'm not one of the devs.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I said "better," not "best" defensive options. And I'm not taking any other position than "I think the Monk works as a tank."

You disagree, and that's fine. You want something else from the Monk character class, but I don't really know what to say about that. I'm not one of the devs.

Sorry, tone is hard through text.

I meant "the best" like people say "that isn't the best part of town" or "they don't serve the best food"

As in it is pretty darn bad. Monks get decent options at high levels, but before that? Not so much.

 

[Clint_L]

Oh, ouch. That video points out something that I think most of us missed: virtually all the combat feats have been changed to require proficiency with martial weapons, and monks can no longer be proficient with any martial weapons, because the UA overrides Tasha's and weapons like short sword are no longer simple weapons. So the UA monks can't take any martial feats...like the Sentinel feat that my current monk relies on quite a bit in order to work as a quasi-tank (I chose variant human just to get it).

That just seems like a mean-spirited nerf, though I suspect it is actually an oversight.

The video really eviscerates the UA monk, and backs it up with copious evidence and hard numbers (as expected from a Deep Dive). If you watch that video and still think monks are okay, then I think you are in denial, because opinions are one thing but math is another. They point out that in many quantifiable ways the UA monk is considerably weaker than the current monk. Which is the opposite direction from which we all assumed WotC would go, that's for sure.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, ouch. That video points out something that I think most of us missed: virtually all the combat feats have been changed to require proficiency with martial weapons, and monks can no longer be proficient with any martial weapons, because the UA overrides Tasha's and weapons like short sword are no longer simple weapons. So the UA monks can't take any martial feats...like the Sentinel feat that my current monk relies on quite a bit in order to work as a quasi-tank (I chose variant human just to get it).

That just seems like a mean-spirited nerf, though I suspect it is actually an oversight.

Yeah, I suspect it has to be an oversight. Because otherwise monks are denied access to every martial feat, leaving their only viable feats to the spellcaster feats and maybe a few mental ones. I just... I can't imagine it was intentionally done to the monk.