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

[Dausuul]

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.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think monks should only tank on a limited basis; probably at a ki/discipline/focus cost. They should be primarily skirmishers. But they still need the defensive capability to survive on the front line, and ideally that capability will fit the theme of the mobile, agile combatant.

For when the monk does jump in to cover the tank role, movement reduction seems like the obvious way to do it.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I think we have to treat it as a nerf, though, because that's what it is right now, oversight or not, and make a big stink about it on the survey so it doesn't slip through the cracks. Because that would be disastrous. Not that a lot of folks are going to be playing monks if the base class doesn't improve, but still.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ll

As I said earlier in the thread, I think monks should only tank on a limited basis; probably at a ki/discipline/focus cost. They should be primarily skirmishers. But they still need the defensive capability to survive on the front line, and ideally that capability will fit the theme of the mobile, agile combatant.

For when the monk does jump in to cover the tank role, movement reduction seems like the obvious way to do it.

I don't think monk "needs to survive on the front line" any more than a rogue I can't recall a group or player ever trying to make a rogue into a tank of anything but desperation and straw grasping but ime monk players are constantly trying to declare themselves worthy of being tanks even in groups with actual tank classes. There's no reason for a class to mislead players so badly into a tunnel that only works if the gm bends over backwards to support it, nor is it reasonable for a class to encourage players to feel the gm is somehow being adversarial if they don't structure encounters and monster behavior around expanding their niche beyond the actual niche.

 

[Dausuul]

Ll

I don't think monk "needs to survive on the front line" any more than a rogue I can't recall a group or player ever trying to make a rogue into a tank of anything but desperation and straw grasping but ime monk players are constantly trying to declare themselves worthy of being tanks even in groups with actual tank classes. There's no reason for a class to mislead players so badly into a tunnel that only works if the gm bends over backwards to support it, nor is it reasonable for a class to encourage players to feel the gm is somehow being adversarial if they don't structure encounters and monster behavior around expanding their niche beyond the actual niche.

Surviving on the front line doesn't make you a tank. It just means you don't need anyone else to tank for you.

The monk is much more combat-oriented, and specifically melee-oriented, than the rogue. If it isn't able to defend itself from melee foes, it can't fulfill its basic function. Movement-oriented defense suits the theme best IMO, but some kind of defense is absolutely necessary.

Actual tanking means holding the enemy back from your allies. I think a monk should be able to pinch-hit in that role using movement or action denial, but not do it full-time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think we have to treat it as a nerf, though, because that's what it is right now, oversight or not, and make a big stink about it on the survey so it doesn't slip through the cracks. Because that would be disastrous. Not that a lot of folks are going to be playing monks if the base class doesn't improve, but still.

Agree. Personally, I think if we lost weapon mastery and instead could use dex for the save DC of unarmed strikes, then said something to the effect of "you count as being proficient in martial weapons for feats" it would work out pretty nicely. Then again... just give them shortswords again instead of trying to finangle a way to qualify for martial weapon feats.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Surviving on the front line doesn't make you a tank. It just means you don't need anyone else to tank for you.

The monk is much more combat-oriented, and specifically melee-oriented, than the rogue. If it isn't able to defend itself from melee foes, it can't fulfill its basic function. Movement-oriented defense suits the theme best IMO, but some kind of defense is absolutely necessary.

Actual tanking means holding the enemy back from your allies. I think a monk should be able to pinch-hit in that role using movement or action denial, but not do it full-time.

Yeah, rogues can seamlessly and without a reduction in damage or capability, switch between range and melee. Monks NEED to be in melee, thematically and conceptually, so they need to be hardier and better able to survive in melee than rogues... and it is hard to say that is true, considering Uncanny Dodge.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

The fiction matters FAR MORE than the mechanics. The mechanics needs to support the fiction, not the other way around.

 

[Incenjucar]

Mechanics drive fiction, so the two need to match. Mechanics create opportunity for narrative, and narrative should inspire mechanics.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The fiction matters FAR MORE than the mechanics. The mechanics needs to support the fiction, not the other way around.

while i agree both fluff and crunch matter and that the crunch should support the fluff i'd prioritise effective crunch over making it directly align with the fluff, i mean best case scenario it would be fully in line with it but people are typically far more willing to refluff than recrunch a class's abilities, monk is such a pile of mechanical shambles i'd at least get it functioning effectively any way we can before we move onto making it mechanically effective in fiction aligning manner.

don't let perfect be the enemy of good and all that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Surviving on the front line doesn't make you a tank. It just means you don't need anyone else to tank for you.

The monk is much more combat-oriented, and specifically melee-oriented, than the rogue. If it isn't able to defend itself from melee foes, it can't fulfill its basic function. Movement-oriented defense suits the theme best IMO, but some kind of defense is absolutely necessary.

Actual tanking means holding the enemy back from your allies. I think a monk should be able to pinch-hit in that role using movement or action denial, but not do it full-time.

Does the ability to redirect arrows fall under "defend itself from melee foes"? What about all the other monk defensive abilities that try to build a whole new class specific system above the one used by everyone else like evasion slow fall purity of body stillness of mind diamond soul empty body and so on that are powered by eighth grader syndrome rules lawyering rather than the system of magic & mundane skill like every other class uses, are those also used to "defend itself from melee foes"?