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

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Rangers have a d10 HD, Medium Armor, and are focused on Ranged Combat, allowing them to to (with a single feat) hit any target within 600 ft. Fighters can also focus on Ranged Combat and can have Heavy Armor. Both classes deal excellent damage as well.

What have they given up that the monk has? Mobility? A Monk cannot strike a target 600 ft away from them, mobility is simply a function of reach, which Range gives.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That sounds like something a subclass could do something about.

I don't follow. If we want to have barbarians as the unarmored class, the fact that they AREN'T can't be fixed with a Subclass, because then they would be the unarmored subclass, not the class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Yeah, it is kind of silly how much of the reward system people think exists is utterly pointless for monks.

 

[CreamCloud0]

so, i ask this as someone who's never really looked at playing monks, what causes them to not measure up to par? them being M.A.D. and not enough ki points to be going around with i think are the common criticisms i hear about them?
edit: and judging by this thread's premise that they're not 'tanky' enough.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Well... I think they do struggle a bit as a skirmisher. Because the Mobile feat is basically a feat tax on them so they can get back out of melee after they go in.

Monks are a class that is designed to be in melee. And without an immense amount of special positioning, it is difficult for them to get in, attack, and get back out beyond the enemies reach. For example, a Monk with 45 ft of movement... can't. If they start 35 ft away from an enemy, then after they retreat, they are only 10 ft away. So the enemy can reach them, unless they are held in place by another character.

So, much like the skirmishing Ranger or the Dex Fighter, I think they should get a d10

 

[Incenjucar]

Rangers have a d10 HD, Medium Armor, and are focused on Ranged Combat, allowing them to to (with a single feat) hit any target within 600 ft. Fighters can also focus on Ranged Combat and can have Heavy Armor. Both classes deal excellent damage as well.

What have they given up that the monk has? Mobility? A Monk cannot strike a target 600 ft away from them, mobility is simply a function of reach, which Range gives.

A monk has a lot more defenses than a ranger does. Rangers do have spellcasting which muddles things a bit, but in general monks are wizard and artillery killers, to the point where they can deflect missiles.

 

[Chaosmancer]

so, i ask this as someone who's never really looked at monks, what causes them to not measure up to par? them being M.A.D. and not enough ki points to be going around with i think are the common criticisms i hear about them?

The Ki is part of it.

Take a monk who does not have any feats, and you will quickly notice this problem.

After level 5, the monk damage is fairly average, going slightly above average if they Flurry, but below what another class can do by spending resources. After level 11, they need to use it just to stay relevant, and often fall behind anyways. So, you need ki to have good damage by using Flurry as a Bonus Action. .

The Monk's AC is always low past 1st level. It takes them until level 16 to get a base 20 AC. Combined with their low health, they need to use Patient Defense to have the ability to survive being attacked in melee. Deflect Missiles helps at range, but can only stop a single attack. Patient Defense costs ki, and uses a bonus action, cutting into their damage.

To avoid being attacked in melee, Monks need to be mobile to get in and get out. They can do this with Step of the Wind which allows them to disengage... but costs a ki and uses a bonus action, so they can't use their damage or their defenses.

But monks have a potential control option with Stunning Strike, which may help their damage... except it is a con save and their Save DC is usually low, so you need to use it multiple times to make it likely to stick... and every use requires ki.

So you have a class that needs to spend their only resource every round of combat, and needs that resource and a bonus action to 1) Keep up with Damage 2) Stay alive 3) Stay Mobile and/or 4) Utilize their control abilities. Add in subclass abilities which almost always use bonus actions and/or ki?

And you have a class that in theory can do everything, and in practice is bad at everything.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A monk has a lot more defenses than a ranger does. Rangers do have spellcasting which muddles things a bit, but in general monks are wizard and artillery killers, to the point where they can deflect missiles.

What defenses?

Also, ranged characters are ALSO wizard and artillery killers, they do the same or better damage that the monk does to those characters, and without risking not being able to reach the enemy to hit them.

 

[Incenjucar]

What defenses?

Also, ranged characters are ALSO wizard and artillery killers, they do the same or better damage that the monk does to those characters, and without risking not being able to reach the enemy to hit them.

Deflect Missiles (Defense against ranged attacks)
Evasion (Defense against the most common AOEs)
Stillness of Mind (Defense against charmed and frightened)
Purity of Body (Immune to poison and disease)
Slow Fall (Defense against being knocked off a cliff to your death)
Diamond Soul (Defense against 4 more saves)
Empty Body (Invisibility, Defense against damage)

These allow monks to get at ranged attackers who are not sitting in an empty parking lot with a target painted on them.

Whether these seven defense abilities are sufficient for how people want to play monks in 5E and how DMs are running things in 5E, I can't say, but they absolutely have a toolkit that is intended to be sufficient for specific playstyles established rather bluntly in their original showing per Snarf's thread on their history: https://www.enworld.org/threads/mon...uestionable-future-of-an-iconic-class.698616/

 

[le Redoutable]

In BG 2ee ( Baldur's Gate ) monk have ( from 14th up to 26th ) Magic resistance of three times their level...