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

[Dausuul]

i think the monk needs more capacity to disengage from immediate melee without using step of the wind/spending ki.

i'd love if they had the ability as a free action to expend 10ft of their movement to not provoke opportunity attacks for the first 10ft of the rest of their move action.

SotW disengage would still be valuable for covering their whole move action from opportunity attacks and not cutting into their maneuverability but this would really gel into their skirmisher playstyle without turning them into a full tank or burning through ki at a rate of knots, using their increased movespeed as an additional resource to spend in a way that isn't just moving.

Agreed. IMO, the monk's toolkit should make them pay ki for doing a) spectacular moves and b) things outside their "core playstyle." So if you want to stand there and tank, you can do it, but you're burning ki and you can't keep it up for long. If you want to dart in, hit hard, and zip away, you can do that all day.

 

[James Gasik]

Given that hit points include factors such as morale, stamina, divine protection, luck, and techniques to minimize the risk of serious injury, Hit Die size should be based strictly on how much training your class gives you to deal with armed opponents in melee.

So pure front liners like Barbarians, Paladins, and Fighters should be d12.
Strong combatants with more mobility or versatility like Rangers, Monks, and yes, Clerics, should be d10.*
Moderate combatants who can simply resort to ranged when melee is too risky, such as Rogues, Warlocks, and Bards, can sit at d8.
And Wizards and Sorcerers, who normally should avoid melee, have a d6.

*I think Artificers could be here, but I've never seen one played so I'm not certain about how they play.

 

[Staffan]

I think there's room for a tanky character that's unarmored and unarmed. I'm not sure that character needs to be a monk. I could easily see that character as a barbarian, for example, with a subclass giving them a good unarmed attack and other neat things.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I thought "roles" got expunged from D&D? I thought classes were now representations of historical/fictional concepts not meant to be siloed into mere game functions?

Doesn't this topic better belong in the Older Edition sub forum (cause that's were 4th Edition talk goes)?

 

[Charlaquin]

I thought "roles" got expunged from D&D? I thought classes were now representations of historical/fictional concepts not meant to be siloed into mere game functions?

Doesn't this topic better belong in the Older Edition sub forum (cause that's were 4th Edition talk goes)?

Surprise, roles have always been a thing and always will be. 4e was just the only edition transparent enough to acknowledge them textually.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Surprise, roles have always been a thing and always will be. 4e was just the only edition transparent enough to acknowledge them textually.

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!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Given that hit points include factors such as morale, stamina, divine protection, luck, and techniques to minimize the risk of serious injury, Hit Die size should be based strictly on how much training your class gives you to deal with armed opponents in melee.

So pure front liners like Barbarians, Paladins, and Fighters should be d12.
Strong combatants with more mobility or versatility like Rangers, Monks, and yes, Clerics, should be d10.*
Moderate combatants who can simply resort to ranged when melee is too risky, such as Rogues, Warlocks, and Bards, can sit at d8.
And Wizards and Sorcerers, who normally should avoid melee, have a d6.

*I think Artificers could be here, but I've never seen one played so I'm not certain about how they play.

Artificers are surprisingly tanky, but I feel a d8 is fine for them, because they are usually using items and tools to increase their AC. It was not uncommon for my artificers to hit 20 AC by levels 4 or 5.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think there's room for a tanky character that's unarmored and unarmed. I'm not sure that character needs to be a monk. I could easily see that character as a barbarian, for example, with a subclass giving them a good unarmed attack and other neat things.

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

 

[billd91]

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!

Except that people have been talking about roles long before 4e. I didn’t think it was that roles were openly talked about or defined, rather, they were a bit too defined when they were a lot more informal and loosey-goosey before.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, the classic Fighter's "job" was to protect weaker party members, even if they had no specific ability to do so- AD&D rules were such that once you got into melee you basically stayed there, and by being the first to enter a room in a dungeon, you could pretty much guarantee Fighters took the brunt of attacks.

That it took decades before any game designer thought to actually give Fighters some ability to actually force enemies to attack them to justify their high hit points and armor is somewhat astonishing; equally astonishing is how many people claim to hate having such abilities built in to a character class!

One of the strangest criticisms of 4e was people not wanting to play Defender Fighters; they wanted their Fighters to be superbly tough Strikers...er, excuse me, "damage dealers", and wouldn't accept any other class unless their character sheet said "Fighter", a situation that mostly persists to this day.

The fact that the Monk doesn't really have a traditional role, and even in 4e, when it was a Striker, it's damage output was inferior to the Barbarian or the Ranger, instead emphasizing stances and combat maneuvers, is really a huge factor in what's wrong with the class today- nobody can agree on what the class should do in combat, despite the class having an arguably stronger identity than most.

If the Monk can outperform another class in any way, it tends to have a very limited ability to do so.

It doesn't need weapons- but there is almost always a weapon that is better than what a Monk can use.

It doesn't need armor- but only at very high levels can it match the defensive ability of armor.

It can attack multiples per round- but only as long as it has ki, and at the cost of it's other powers. Also, the Fighter eventually gets better at this anyway.

It can weave in and out of combat- but only as long as it isn't using ki to make a bunch of attacks, and also, it can't do this at will like a Rogue could.

It can heal itself- but not as effectively as a Paladin (who can also heal others).

It has a hard control power- limited by ki and an unfavorable Con save, and is arguably only as good as a 1st-2nd level spell.

And so on. Any attempt to buff almost anything the Monk does will have some people crying that "this one time, a Monk totally dominated my game, nerf Monks plz".

Others will decry that the idea of a character who isn't motivated by finding better gear and doesn't use clearly superior weapons and armor violates their idea of what D&D fantasy is, and such a character should always be hamstrung as a result.

Never mind that early D&D has psychic powers, aliens, spaceships, robots, and eldritch horrors- get that kung fu guy in the pajamas out of my dungeon!