I keep explaining this stuff. But the end outcome doesn't actually change. Can we please all agree now that You have to build a Tank with Tank equipment and Tank features and Tank expectations and Tank Limitations to do a Tank's job better than a non-tank can do it?
I agree with you. Is the monk the best "oops screwed around and accidentally became a tank" class in the game? The answer is yes.
That's the crux here -- to out-AC the monk at a low level with limited access to magic items (which is what I've been focused on, and one of the most common playstyles out there -- low level, not choose-your-own-magic-items world) another class would have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Paladins and Fighters are going to have to give up damage output. Barbarians are going to have to give up STR. Rangers are going to have to give up Stealth. Yes, the Monk won't be getting 18 AC until eighth level, but they also will still be able to sneak around and do max damage to their little monk heart's desire.
Other classes have to play towards higher AC. Monks get it just by being Monks.
Thank you for this understanding and summarization. This is what I've tried to say and support with details repeatedly.
I never even tried to claim that the monk was the best at anything. I try to stay away from the mentality of calling anything the best because there are usually multiple ways to reach an endpoint goal, particularly in this game. I'm very aware it has some weaknesses. All of the classes and basically any build has weaknesses. I tried to keep all my comparisons fairly basic for the sake of ease and understanding because there are a bunch of variables to be thrown in. One of the biggest is actually subclass and this is true for both sides of the equation.
I don't think that it helps that the monk is somewhat different from other classes and also when used, on a general as well as a detailed level, they are fairly complicated. There are other classes like fighter, rogues, Wizard, and even Paladin or Ranger that while they have a lot of fine detail possibilities but are very straight forward on a general level. But they also tend to share certain things in common about the way they work for one to use as a baseline for understanding.
I keep explaining this stuff. But the end outcome doesn't actually change. Can we please all agree now that You have to build a Tank with Tank equipment and Tank features and Tank expectations and Tank Limitations to do a Tank's job better than a non-tank can do it?
I agree with you. Is the monk the best "oops screwed around and accidentally became a tank" class in the game? The answer is yes.
I laughed pretty hard at this!
I agree that they can be good tanks. If they need, they can also use patient defense in a round to really up their survivability.
I keep explaining this stuff. But the end outcome doesn't actually change. Can we please all agree now that You have to build a Tank with Tank equipment and Tank features and Tank expectations and Tank Limitations to do a Tank's job better than a non-tank can do it?
I agree with you. Is the monk the best "oops screwed around and accidentally became a tank" class in the game? The answer is yes.
I laughed pretty hard at this!
I agree that they can be good tanks. If they need, they can also use patient defense in a round to really up their survivability.
The thing about patient defense is....why not just run away? Or why not just Stun them? Or why not just finish them off with damage?
The only time I see myself using Patient Defense is if I am completely surrounded by creatures and I have 0 movement speed (Grappled or the like) or the entire room is filled with archers.
Even in that latter case you are better off running and finding total cover as they cannot even target you then....if you have no cover then you are screwed anyway as you in a killbox lol.
Dodge is one of those actions that sounds good but in practice is actually not that great as you are giving up another more powerful option for monk 90% of the time.
The only real monk subclass that values you standing in and taking misses is Drunken monk and even then you can disengage for free whenever you flurry of blows so you do not ever need to stand in toe to toe unless you are absolutely certain they will miss AND there is another enemy within 5ft....but then you are potentially taking attacks from two sources for a chance to redirect one attack...its just not a great strategy for a tank.
One thing I think a monk has going for it as a tank is that you can make things chase you...you run in punch them a lot then run away and draw them away from others. Thats the real monk tank strategy to me.
Bear in mind the definition of a good tank is not staying alive on the front line. You have to be able to credibly protect the rest of the party - that can be things like locking down movement or things like taking damage for other party members or many other things, but ultimately, your job is helping to ensure other party members can credibly do their thing without the enemy stopping them, typically via murder. Stunning Strike is an excellent example of monk tanking. Another example is a Way of Shadow monk laying down Darkness, or a Way of Mercy monk inflicting Poisoned, or an Open Hand or Astral Self monk inflicting Prone.
Patient Defense's best uses for tanking are for when you need your action to do something else relevant to tanking; for example, an Astral Self monk using their base two attacks for grappled+prone (which can't be done using bonus action attacks) might use Patient Defense to keep themselves safe from other attackers while stuck in a situation where moving opens up other, vulnerable party members to attack. But I agree with Grimus; monks are all about mobility, and you'll have more success developing your playstyle with one around that as a core concept.
..... (which can't be done using bonus action attacks)
Wait.. why can't you grapple or shove as your bonus action attack?? Your unarmed strike is a type of Weapon Attack action, so by RAW a shove or a grapple can be used in place of a weapon attack
Bear in mind the definition of a good tank is not staying alive on the front line. You have to be able to credibly protect the rest of the party - that can be things like locking down movement or things like taking damage for other party members or many other things, but ultimately, your job is helping to ensure other party members can credibly do their thing without the enemy stopping them, typically via murder. Stunning Strike is an excellent example of monk tanking. Another example is a Way of Shadow monk laying down Darkness, or a Way of Mercy monk inflicting Poisoned, or an Open Hand or Astral Self monk inflicting Prone.
Patient Defense's best uses for tanking are for when you need your action to do something else relevant to tanking; for example, an Astral Self monk using their base two attacks for grappled+prone (which can't be done using bonus action attacks) might use Patient Defense to keep themselves safe from other attackers while stuck in a situation where moving opens up other, vulnerable party members to attack. But I agree with Grimus; monks are all about mobility, and you'll have more success developing your playstyle with one around that as a core concept.
Very good points here.
I think that what others (and myself included) gnerally forget is that definitions for things like "Tank" vary widely on what your perceptions/expectations are.
A monk sitting in one area and trying to draw attention is less likely to work (Long Death might be the exception). Who would an intelligent enemy try to kill first: The flippy guy who is not doing a lot of damage but is ducking around avoiding the hits....or a guy who is recklessly attacking with no shirt on throwing greataxe attacks around with ADV.
However, that doesn't mean the monk can't tank or draw ire like a tank...but I think Patient Defense is a poor way of doing that.
Bear in mind the definition of a good tank is not staying alive on the front line. You have to be able to credibly protect the rest of the party - that can be things like locking down movement or things like taking damage for other party members or many other things, but ultimately, your job is helping to ensure other party members can credibly do their thing without the enemy stopping them, typically via murder. Stunning Strike is an excellent example of monk tanking. Another example is a Way of Shadow monk laying down Darkness, or a Way of Mercy monk inflicting Poisoned, or an Open Hand or Astral Self monk inflicting Prone.
Patient Defense's best uses for tanking are for when you need your action to do something else relevant to tanking; for example, an Astral Self monk using their base two attacks for grappled+prone (which can't be done using bonus action attacks) might use Patient Defense to keep themselves safe from other attackers while stuck in a situation where moving opens up other, vulnerable party members to attack. But I agree with Grimus; monks are all about mobility, and you'll have more success developing your playstyle with one around that as a core concept.
Very good points here.
I think that what others (and myself included) gnerally forget is that definitions for things like "Tank" vary widely on what your perceptions/expectations are.
A monk sitting in one area and trying to draw attention is less likely to work (Long Death might be the exception). Who would an intelligent enemy try to kill first: The flippy guy who is not doing a lot of damage but is ducking around avoiding the hits....or a guy who is recklessly attacking with no shirt on throwing greataxe attacks around with ADV.
However, that doesn't mean the monk can't tank or draw ire like a tank...but I think Patient Defense is a poor way of doing that.
Someone else may have covered this already, but another thing to remember about Patient Defense (or the Dodge action specifically) is that it also grants Advantage on Dexterity Saving Throws. So if you are fighting something that does area damage (like a dragon's breath weapon), then being able to dodge is incredibly useful, especially after you pick up Evasion at 7th level. Its also helpful in the rare moments where you have enemies that can match your mobility OR are restricted from moving by the environment you are in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Bear in mind the definition of a good tank is not staying alive on the front line. You have to be able to credibly protect the rest of the party - that can be things like locking down movement or things like taking damage for other party members or many other things, but ultimately, your job is helping to ensure other party members can credibly do their thing without the enemy stopping them, typically via murder. Stunning Strike is an excellent example of monk tanking. Another example is a Way of Shadow monk laying down Darkness, or a Way of Mercy monk inflicting Poisoned, or an Open Hand or Astral Self monk inflicting Prone.
Patient Defense's best uses for tanking are for when you need your action to do something else relevant to tanking; for example, an Astral Self monk using their base two attacks for grappled+prone (which can't be done using bonus action attacks) might use Patient Defense to keep themselves safe from other attackers while stuck in a situation where moving opens up other, vulnerable party members to attack. But I agree with Grimus; monks are all about mobility, and you'll have more success developing your playstyle with one around that as a core concept.
Very good points here.
I think that what others (and myself included) gnerally forget is that definitions for things like "Tank" vary widely on what your perceptions/expectations are.
A monk sitting in one area and trying to draw attention is less likely to work (Long Death might be the exception). Who would an intelligent enemy try to kill first: The flippy guy who is not doing a lot of damage but is ducking around avoiding the hits....or a guy who is recklessly attacking with no shirt on throwing greataxe attacks around with ADV.
However, that doesn't mean the monk can't tank or draw ire like a tank...but I think Patient Defense is a poor way of doing that.
Someone else may have covered this already, but another thing to remember about Patient Defense (or the Dodge action specifically) is that it also grants Advantage on Dexterity Saving Throws. So if you are fighting something that does area damage (like a dragon's breath weapon), then being able to dodge is incredibly useful, especially after you pick up Evasion at 7th level. Its also helpful in the rare moments where you have enemies that can match your mobility OR are restricted from moving by the environment you are in.
Good point as well I know I forget about that aspect.
I am new to 5e, but it's worth mentioning earlier editions. There was a time when no one but a Monk could deal out lethal damage. An unarmed punch by a Fighter against someone did only temporary damage: they were bar fights. This separation made the Monk a unique character. For the sake of realism, I can see where a Fighter's punch should do actual damage, buy regardless of strength, the Fighter should not outdo a Monk. The whole point of classes is that fighters studied weapons not MMA. A fighter could break a nose, crack a tooth; a Monk could shatter a jaw and drop a man dead (hm, that sounds like what a Fighter could do with a sword). I do not like these lined blurred. You always be stronger in your particular area.
Fun thread with a lot of silly apologists for a bad game design direction. If Barbarians were able to take a class feature at level 1 that gave them an extra attack Fighters would be up in arms. You would see a lot of 1/1/x martial builds that dip in to Barbarian/Warlock/Whatever.
It’s all these questionable design decisions that have plagued this edition. This wasn’t the first. It won’t be the last.
Fun thread with a lot of silly apologists for a bad game design direction. If Barbarians were able to take a class feature at level 1 that gave them an extra attack Fighters would be up in arms. You would see a lot of 1/1/x martial builds that dip in to Barbarian/Warlock/Whatever.
It’s all these questionable design decisions that have plagued this edition. This wasn’t the first. It won’t be the last.
It's not apologists for bad design. Your not liking it does not necessarily make it bad design. there are plenty of good game designs that people really don't like. Despite the fact that they do their job perfectly.
And most of those builds your talking about are more about perception than actual true capability. They look good on the surface and in a white room. Though they don't necessarily work nearly as well in an actual game for various reasons.
I am new to 5e, but it's worth mentioning earlier editions. There was a time when no one but a Monk could deal out lethal damage. An unarmed punch by a Fighter against someone did only temporary damage: they were bar fights. This separation made the Monk a unique character. For the sake of realism, I can see where a Fighter's punch should do actual damage, buy regardless of strength, the Fighter should not outdo a Monk. The whole point of classes is that fighters studied weapons not MMA. A fighter could break a nose, crack a tooth; a Monk could shatter a jaw and drop a man dead (hm, that sounds like what a Fighter could do with a sword). I do not like these lined blurred. You always be stronger in your particular area.
There were ways in some of the older editions that did make the distinction for things like fighters to do Lethal Damage as well. They just didn't do it naturally. And in some of the other old editions they didn't actually make any difference between unarmed and armed damage either as far as lethality goes.
The variety of subclasses has taken way most of the unique aspects of a class. Bladesinging wizards fight in melee, divine soul sorcerers have access to all the spells of a cleric, arcane tricksters and eldritch knights can cast spells in traditionally non spellcasting classes and so on. A fighter that can fight unarmed is no different to this.
You can argue whether or not this is a good thing but it is a much wider question than whether it should be viable for a fighter to be unarmed and as others have pointed out the monks features such as unarmoured movement, stunning strike and diamond soul mean that no fighter will be flat out better than a monk just different.
Fun thread with a lot of silly apologists for a bad game design direction. If Barbarians were able to take a class feature at level 1 that gave them an extra attack Fighters would be up in arms. You would see a lot of 1/1/x martial builds that dip in to Barbarian/Warlock/Whatever.
It’s all these questionable design decisions that have plagued this edition. This wasn’t the first. It won’t be the last.
It's not apologists for bad design. Your not liking it does not necessarily make it bad design. there are plenty of good game designs that people really don't like. Despite the fact that they do their job perfectly.
And most of those builds your talking about are more about perception than actual true capability. They look good on the surface and in a white room. Though they don't necessarily work nearly as well in an actual game for various reasons.
If you can render an entire class moot with one design element like this, yeah, it’s bad design.
Fun thread with a lot of silly apologists for a bad game design direction. If Barbarians were able to take a class feature at level 1 that gave them an extra attack Fighters would be up in arms. You would see a lot of 1/1/x martial builds that dip in to Barbarian/Warlock/Whatever.
It’s all these questionable design decisions that have plagued this edition. This wasn’t the first. It won’t be the last.
It's not apologists for bad design. Your not liking it does not necessarily make it bad design. there are plenty of good game designs that people really don't like. Despite the fact that they do their job perfectly.
And most of those builds your talking about are more about perception than actual true capability. They look good on the surface and in a white room. Though they don't necessarily work nearly as well in an actual game for various reasons.
If you can render an entire class moot with one design element like this, yeah, it’s bad design.
Giving a mid level class feature to another class as an option at level 1.
People sure do love shitting on the monk but this is such a bad argument. Go read my first post on page 2 and if you have an actual argument we can discuss it further.
Giving a mid level class feature to another class as an option at level 1.
People sure do love shitting on the monk but this is such a bad argument. Go read my first post on page 2 and if you have an actual argument we can discuss it further.
It’s a factual portrayal. If you want to argue against reality there’s all kinds of windmills in this world for you to tilt at.
The variety of subclasses has taken way most of the unique aspects of a class. Bladesinging wizards fight in melee, divine soul sorcerers have access to all the spells of a cleric, arcane tricksters and eldritch knights can cast spells in traditionally non spellcasting classes and so on. A fighter that can fight unarmed is no different to this.
You can argue whether or not this is a good thing but it is a much wider question than whether it should be viable for a fighter to be unarmed and as others have pointed out the monks features such as unarmoured movement, stunning strike and diamond soul mean that no fighter will be flat out better than a monk just different.
At least those classes do have hard drawbacks built into them. The Bladesinger is optimized to be a Wizard who doesn't necessarily want to cast spells, and stand in the front line where they are squishy. Divine Soul Sorcerer has a pittance of spells known. Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights are 1/3rd casters with spell choice restrictions.
The fighter's unarmed fighting still isn't quite as good as the monk's unarmed fighting just straight up because of the martial arts bonus attack, and then flurry of blows, and then unarmed strikes counting as magical. Arguably, the fighter with unarmed fighting overcomes this with their own class and subclass abilities, as well as the extra ASI.
I think after level 5 is where it starts to feel weird for the monk as opposed to the unarmed fighter. And after 11, the fighter can really start to pull ahead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thank you for this understanding and summarization. This is what I've tried to say and support with details repeatedly.
I never even tried to claim that the monk was the best at anything. I try to stay away from the mentality of calling anything the best because there are usually multiple ways to reach an endpoint goal, particularly in this game. I'm very aware it has some weaknesses. All of the classes and basically any build has weaknesses. I tried to keep all my comparisons fairly basic for the sake of ease and understanding because there are a bunch of variables to be thrown in. One of the biggest is actually subclass and this is true for both sides of the equation.
I don't think that it helps that the monk is somewhat different from other classes and also when used, on a general as well as a detailed level, they are fairly complicated. There are other classes like fighter, rogues, Wizard, and even Paladin or Ranger that while they have a lot of fine detail possibilities but are very straight forward on a general level. But they also tend to share certain things in common about the way they work for one to use as a baseline for understanding.
I laughed pretty hard at this!
I agree that they can be good tanks. If they need, they can also use patient defense in a round to really up their survivability.
I made a huge comment in the wrong forum lol
The thing about patient defense is....why not just run away? Or why not just Stun them? Or why not just finish them off with damage?
The only time I see myself using Patient Defense is if I am completely surrounded by creatures and I have 0 movement speed (Grappled or the like) or the entire room is filled with archers.
Even in that latter case you are better off running and finding total cover as they cannot even target you then....if you have no cover then you are screwed anyway as you in a killbox lol.
Dodge is one of those actions that sounds good but in practice is actually not that great as you are giving up another more powerful option for monk 90% of the time.
The only real monk subclass that values you standing in and taking misses is Drunken monk and even then you can disengage for free whenever you flurry of blows so you do not ever need to stand in toe to toe unless you are absolutely certain they will miss AND there is another enemy within 5ft....but then you are potentially taking attacks from two sources for a chance to redirect one attack...its just not a great strategy for a tank.
One thing I think a monk has going for it as a tank is that you can make things chase you...you run in punch them a lot then run away and draw them away from others. Thats the real monk tank strategy to me.
Bear in mind the definition of a good tank is not staying alive on the front line. You have to be able to credibly protect the rest of the party - that can be things like locking down movement or things like taking damage for other party members or many other things, but ultimately, your job is helping to ensure other party members can credibly do their thing without the enemy stopping them, typically via murder. Stunning Strike is an excellent example of monk tanking. Another example is a Way of Shadow monk laying down Darkness, or a Way of Mercy monk inflicting Poisoned, or an Open Hand or Astral Self monk inflicting Prone.
Patient Defense's best uses for tanking are for when you need your action to do something else relevant to tanking; for example, an Astral Self monk using their base two attacks for grappled+prone (which can't be done using bonus action attacks) might use Patient Defense to keep themselves safe from other attackers while stuck in a situation where moving opens up other, vulnerable party members to attack. But I agree with Grimus; monks are all about mobility, and you'll have more success developing your playstyle with one around that as a core concept.
Wait.. why can't you grapple or shove as your bonus action attack?? Your unarmed strike is a type of Weapon Attack action, so by RAW a shove or a grapple can be used in place of a weapon attack
Very good points here.
I think that what others (and myself included) gnerally forget is that definitions for things like "Tank" vary widely on what your perceptions/expectations are.
A monk sitting in one area and trying to draw attention is less likely to work (Long Death might be the exception). Who would an intelligent enemy try to kill first: The flippy guy who is not doing a lot of damage but is ducking around avoiding the hits....or a guy who is recklessly attacking with no shirt on throwing greataxe attacks around with ADV.
However, that doesn't mean the monk can't tank or draw ire like a tank...but I think Patient Defense is a poor way of doing that.
Someone else may have covered this already, but another thing to remember about Patient Defense (or the Dodge action specifically) is that it also grants Advantage on Dexterity Saving Throws. So if you are fighting something that does area damage (like a dragon's breath weapon), then being able to dodge is incredibly useful, especially after you pick up Evasion at 7th level. Its also helpful in the rare moments where you have enemies that can match your mobility OR are restricted from moving by the environment you are in.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Good point as well I know I forget about that aspect.
Would be great for a dragon fight for sure!
I am new to 5e, but it's worth mentioning earlier editions. There was a time when no one but a Monk could deal out lethal damage. An unarmed punch by a Fighter against someone did only temporary damage: they were bar fights. This separation made the Monk a unique character. For the sake of realism, I can see where a Fighter's punch should do actual damage, buy regardless of strength, the Fighter should not outdo a Monk. The whole point of classes is that fighters studied weapons not MMA. A fighter could break a nose, crack a tooth; a Monk could shatter a jaw and drop a man dead (hm, that sounds like what a Fighter could do with a sword). I do not like these lined blurred. You always be stronger in your particular area.
Nedka Rōkōnōkōva
Fun thread with a lot of silly apologists for a bad game design direction. If Barbarians were able to take a class feature at level 1 that gave them an extra attack Fighters would be up in arms. You would see a lot of 1/1/x martial builds that dip in to Barbarian/Warlock/Whatever.
It’s all these questionable design decisions that have plagued this edition. This wasn’t the first. It won’t be the last.
It's not apologists for bad design. Your not liking it does not necessarily make it bad design. there are plenty of good game designs that people really don't like. Despite the fact that they do their job perfectly.
And most of those builds your talking about are more about perception than actual true capability. They look good on the surface and in a white room. Though they don't necessarily work nearly as well in an actual game for various reasons.
There were ways in some of the older editions that did make the distinction for things like fighters to do Lethal Damage as well. They just didn't do it naturally. And in some of the other old editions they didn't actually make any difference between unarmed and armed damage either as far as lethality goes.
The variety of subclasses has taken way most of the unique aspects of a class. Bladesinging wizards fight in melee, divine soul sorcerers have access to all the spells of a cleric, arcane tricksters and eldritch knights can cast spells in traditionally non spellcasting classes and so on. A fighter that can fight unarmed is no different to this.
You can argue whether or not this is a good thing but it is a much wider question than whether it should be viable for a fighter to be unarmed and as others have pointed out the monks features such as unarmoured movement, stunning strike and diamond soul mean that no fighter will be flat out better than a monk just different.
If you can render an entire class moot with one design element like this, yeah, it’s bad design.
What design element are you referring to?
Giving a mid level class feature to another class as an option at level 1.
People sure do love shitting on the monk but this is such a bad argument. Go read my first post on page 2 and if you have an actual argument we can discuss it further.
It’s a factual portrayal. If you want to argue against reality there’s all kinds of windmills in this world for you to tilt at.
At least those classes do have hard drawbacks built into them. The Bladesinger is optimized to be a Wizard who doesn't necessarily want to cast spells, and stand in the front line where they are squishy. Divine Soul Sorcerer has a pittance of spells known. Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights are 1/3rd casters with spell choice restrictions.
The fighter's unarmed fighting still isn't quite as good as the monk's unarmed fighting just straight up because of the martial arts bonus attack, and then flurry of blows, and then unarmed strikes counting as magical. Arguably, the fighter with unarmed fighting overcomes this with their own class and subclass abilities, as well as the extra ASI.
I think after level 5 is where it starts to feel weird for the monk as opposed to the unarmed fighter. And after 11, the fighter can really start to pull ahead.