Am I playing Dungeons and Dragons wrong?

[MonkeyIke]

Only about a year and half of D&D under my belt, so far enjoying immensely to the point where I just started DMing, but my question revolves around classes and their roles. Prior to D&D, majority of my role playing gaming was from World of Warcraft. There, the only roles I had available were Tank, Melee DPS, Range DPS, and Healer along with the fact each class could only provide a certain type of role(s). Once I was introduced to D&D, I came in with the mindset that D&D wasn't limited by the notion of class roles. While I knew that obviously a fighter would be great at martial combat and taking hits, I wasn't limited in only choosing that. With feats and such available, I could design a character that kind of goes against the stereotypical fighter and be more of a medic. Or at least I thought. I never attempted a concept like that yet.

So, if I were to try and play a monk less as skirmisher but more as a toe-to-toe Brawler is that possible? Am I "gimping" myself or, even worse, hindering the party because of my decision to play this particular class against the hit and run type role that I see constantly recommended for it?

If so, I was wondering if there is a list somewhere depicting the roles each class, and their specialization/archetype, can possibly provide? Including UA if possible as well.

[Fishyninja]

There is a simple answer and a not so simple answer.

Simple Answer; No, I have about the same (maybe a little less) game time as you and from what I have seen is that so long as you play your character you are fine, now note I said character, not class. If you want to build a brawler Monk then go ahead. Sure you wont be optimised, but that doesn't mean it cant work as a concept.
To Iterate. You play a character, not a class, the class is the mechanics of the game.

The not so simple answer deals more with your request about a list of roles of each class. Obviously each class has it's own mechanics, however so long as your imagination works within the rules of the game and the DM's guidance then fill your boots.

Following on from your idea of a Brawler Monk, one thing you could look at is the Way of the Long Death Monk, when it kills an enemy it gains temp HP keeping you in the fight for longer. If not you could look at 'The Pugilist (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/184921/the-Pugilist-Class)' from the DM's Guild.
This certainly has a brawler feel to it :).

[jitzul]

Only about a year and half of D&D under my belt, so far enjoying immensely to the point where I just started DMing, but my question revolves around classes and their roles. Prior to D&D, majority of my role playing gaming was from World of Warcraft. There, the only roles I had available were Tank, Melee DPS, Range DPS, and Healer along with the fact each class could only provide a certain type of role(s). Once I was introduced to D&D, I came in with the mindset that D&D wasn't limited by the notion of class roles. While I knew that obviously a fighter would be great at martial combat and taking hits, I wasn't limited in only choosing that. With feats and such available, I could design a character that kind of goes against the stereotypical fighter and be more of a medic. Or at least I thought. I never attempted a concept like that yet.

So, if I were to try and play a monk less as skirmisher but more as a toe-to-toe Brawler is that possible? Am I "gimping" myself or, even worse, hindering the party because of my decision to play this particular class against the hit and run type role that I see constantly recommended for it?

If so, I was wondering if there is a list somewhere depicting the roles each class, and their specialization/archetype, can possibly provide? Including UA if possible as well.

Yes you are gimping yourself by playing a monk as not a hit and run skirmisher. A monk works best as a battlefield control (they are the best controls of the game.). A brawler monk is a poor mans fighter/barbarian. Sure people will say you can bonus action dodge but a ki point spent on anything besides stunning strike (the most powerful feature in the game.) is a wasted ki point.

[mgshamster]

The only wrong way to play D&D is to play it in a way where you're not having fun and/or you're actively hindering others fun.

So long as you and you're group are enjoying the game, you're playing it right.

Anyone who tells you differently is wrong.

Edit: To answer the question of gimping yourself by playing a brawler monk, the answer is "not really." You can squeeze out a bit more dpr by doing other tactics, but that doesn't really matter. Are you having fun? Is your group having fun? Then you're good to go. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[Lalliman]

Through the application of subclasses, feats and multiclassing, classes are indeed flexible, but not infinitely. To use your example, a fighter can be a medic by taking the Healer feat, but it's not something you can do fulltime. A fighter can never be a healbot in the way that a cleric can. (Not that you should ever try to be a healbot as a cleric. There's much more valuable things you can do than cast healing spells every round.)

The monk, compared to other classes, is very specific in its role and mechanics, which makes it kind of hard to customise. So that might not be the greatest example. Even so, yes, you could build a more frontline-ish monk. If, for example, you take the Tough feat, you can spend less time running around the battlefield to avoid damage, thus saving those bonus actions from Step of the Wind, and allowing you to use Flurry of Blows or Stunning Strike more often.

Is that as effective as playing the monk the way it was designed? Probably not, but you won't do horribly either.

Alternatively, you can get creative with refluffing classes. You can achieve the image of a brawler monk by going Monk 1 / Barbarian X. Monk will supply you with Martial Arts so you can fight with your fists, while barbarian gives you high HP and great grappling prowess, something the monk unfortunately doesn't have. You'll probably be slightly worse than a pure barbarian, but barbarian is a powerful class, they can handle it. And if you take the Grappler feat and focus on grappling, the inability to use a two-handed weapon won't matter so much.

[Fishyninja]

Yes you are gimping yourself by playing a monk as not a hit and run skirmisher. A monk works best as a battlefield control (they are the best controls of the game.). A brawler monk is a poor mans fighter/barbarian. Sure people will say you can bonus action dodge but a ki point spent on anything besides stunning strike (the most powerful feature in the game.) is a wasted ki point.
I agree in part.
Yes the build isn't optimised and yes Stunning strike is amazing and yes Monk's make great controllers however they can work as brawlers, if you check the Pugilist Class I posted above, that is essentially the monk as a brawler.

[djreynolds]

You are like the samurai in the last samurai movie against the gattling gun.

You are a guy in robes fighting a guy in plate armor, and shield and sword.

Throw is some magic. Grab 3 wizard or sorcerer for shield, blur, and mirror image.

Now go back in a kick that Knight's butt in

[RSP]

5e isn't like WoW where you need to squeeze out optimization to be effective.

It's actually kind of tough to make an ineffective character with how well they balanced the classes.

You'll see a difference between your "brawler" monk and a combat-optimized Vengence Paladin while in combat, but you won't be ineffective.

As others have said, the fun of D&D is in playing your character, in my opinion. Certainly others enjoy the hack and slash part, and if this is you, and you enjoy combat (and being good st it) most of all, then you may want to try something a little more optimized.

But the answer is you can play a brawler monk and have fun and be effective.

[Hathorym]

Are you having fun? That's really all that matters. You will change characters, groups, concepts, editions, and even games,. The bottom line is it should be fun. If it isn't for you, change something then ask the question again.

Also, no one has the right to dictate to you what you think is fun.

[Honest Tiefling]

The only wrong way to play D&D is to play it in a way where you're not having fun and/or you're actively hindering others fun.

So long as you and you're group are enjoying the game, you're playing it right.

This. If you are in a good of optimizers, don't be dead weight as that goes against the expectations of the game. In other games, a concept or unique character contributes more to group fun.

If it helps, think of the former as a crack raiding team who derives enjoyment from accomplishment, and doing weird things to impede this is wasting everyone's time. The latter, a group who either strips to their skivvies and runs through a lower level dungeon to be silly or fun, or a team RPing their way through a dungeon. If you try to tell the latter two how to optimize effectively, they probably won't care.

Don't force a character onto a group, make a character that'll suit the group. But plenty like unique builds, so there's a chance you'll play your monk yet.

[djreynolds]

You could begin as a barbarian, just 2 levels. And use dex and con... instead of dexterity and wisdom. Now just max dex and con.

Grab 1 level of rogue for expertise in athletics, even with an 8 in strength same as a fighter with a 20.

Grab warlock for armor of I cannot spell it.

You are playing a character not just a class, pick from what you want

[JellyPooga]

Yes you are gimping yourself by playing a monk as not a hit and run skirmisher.

Don't listen to this. Monks are arguably at their best in a skirmishing role, but really the only feature that supports this is your unarmoured speed bonus. That's it. Rogues are the real skirmishers with Cunning Action. Monks are perfectly viable as a stand-up brawler and to be an effective skirmisher, the Monk is spending Ki to Disengage just as often as a stand-up Monk might spend it to Dodge.

So yeah, pump your Dex and Wis, get that unarmoured AC:20 and stand there pummeling your foes as they come to you, like a real kung-fu hero. Stunning Strike is just as good whether you're standing still or moving and with Evasion, you don't have to worry about being right there in the thick of things when the Wizard lobs that Fireball into the mix.

First and foremost, as others have said, have fun. If you're enjoying standing on the front-lines punching people to death, go for it. You might want to consider picking up some support for that role, like the Tough feat or a little extra Con, but whichever way you cut it, you should be just fine.

[Unoriginal]

I don't want to sound like an elitist jerk, but World of Warcraft isn't a Role-Playing Game like a Pen and Paper RPG is.

In WoW, the "role" in "Role-Playing" is about your function within the game's parameters.

In PnP RPGs, the "role" part is about you playing the role of your character in the world.

If one looked at a MMORPG's PCs as characters, they'd discover they all lived shockingly similar lives, for the most part, down to doing the same actions in the same circumstances and literally defeating the same enemies.

[ad_hoc]

I don't want to sound like an elitist jerk, but World of Warcraft isn't a Role-Playing Game like a Pen and Paper RPG is.

In WoW, the "role" in "Role-Playing" is about your function within the game's parameters.

In PnP RPGs, the "role" part is about you playing the role of your character in the world.

If one looked at a MMORPG's PCs as characters, they'd discover they all lived shockingly similar lives, for the most part, down to doing the same actions in the same circumstances and literally defeating the same enemies.

This.

Also don't neglect the other pillars of play.

Combat is only 1/3 of the game. Exploration and Social Interaction are also important. Monks are quite good at Exploration.

[Naanomi]

If you can enjoy playing a character 'wrong' by some design principles or optimization mindset (and I have enjoyed doing just that with many characters over the years), go for it!

[Fishyninja]

Are you having fun? That's really all that matters. You will change characters, groups, concepts, editions, and even games,. The bottom line is it should be fun. If it isn't for you, change something then ask the question again.

Also, no one has the right to dictate to you what you think is fun.
OP if you take nothing from the thread....Take this.

[Naanomi]

Also, no one has the right to dictate to you what you think is fun.
With the caveat that you are not ruining other people's fun with yours... as I've seen players over the year who only feel like they are 'winning' if other players are 'losing' or some such. It is a cooperative hobby, and it isn't always going to be rainbows and puppies, but at the end of the day everyone is at least somewhat responsible for everyone's fun at the table

[Sigreid]

Only about a year and half of D&D under my belt, so far enjoying immensely

This right here says you're not playing wrong. You are, in fact, playing very right.

Also, if 5e, roles are not tied to classes. Some classes lean heavier to one or two roles than others, but if you want a fighter that's a light armor scout and skirmisher, they can do that very well. If you want a rogue that is a front line fighter, they can do that very well. etc. Build what you want to play. What I have seen is when people worry too much about being optimal they often cut off some of their own potential fun. And in 5e it is very hard to gimp yourself to the point where you simply aren't a good member of the team. It can be done, but you have to work at it.

[Hrugner]

Hit and run isn't really a role so much as a defense option. It's best to look at it as mitigation options: avoidance, reduction, endurance, healing, burst; monks have built in support for avoidance but don't really have the reduction offered to toe to toe fighter types. Their AC also comes from stats meaning they have fewer stat resources to spend on endurance as well. Avoidance scales infinitely, but isn't as good against casting and ranged, but monks get benefits against those two eventually as well.

You can go toe to toe, but you'd need a method of either bumping up one of your other mitigation options, or bumping up the burst of one of your allies.

[MonkeyIke]

I agree in part.
Yes the build isn't optimised and yes Stunning strike is amazing and yes Monk's make great controllers however they can work as brawlers, if you check the Pugilist Class I posted above, that is essentially the monk as a brawler.

From the preview that I have seen, I do like the concept of that brawler. I'll have to see if my DM will allow, or, heck, maybe I'll try to incorporate into the session I'm DMing. Thank you!



Are you having fun? That's really all that matters. You will change characters, groups, concepts, editions, and even games,. The bottom line is it should be fun. If it isn't for you, change something then ask the question again.

Also, no one has the right to dictate to you what you think is fun.

So far, I do enjoy the character and I am having a blast playing him. Only level 2 though.


This. If you are in a good of optimizers, don't be dead weight as that goes against the expectations of the game. In other games, a concept or unique character contributes more to group fun.

If it helps, think of the former as a crack raiding team who derives enjoyment from accomplishment, and doing weird things to impede this is wasting everyone's time. The latter, a group who either strips to their skivvies and runs through a lower level dungeon to be silly or fun, or a team RPing their way through a dungeon. If you try to tell the latter two how to optimize effectively, they probably won't care.

Don't force a character onto a group, make a character that'll suit the group. But plenty like unique builds, so there's a chance you'll play your monk yet.

Luckily enough I am apart of two campaigns and I can see a drastic differences between each group. In one group our DM is rather strict in concepts of classes and generally doesn't refluff things. In this group it seems everyone is playing to their strengths so to speak. The other group I am apart of only had a couple of sessions but they are clearly the more friendly to wild concepts who don't really care for optimization and just want to have fun. Glad that I decided to make this character with the latter.


I don't want to sound like an elitist jerk, but World of Warcraft isn't a Role-Playing Game like a Pen and Paper RPG is.

In WoW, the "role" in "Role-Playing" is about your function within the game's parameters.

In PnP RPGs, the "role" part is about you playing the role of your character in the world.

If one looked at a MMORPG's PCs as characters, they'd discover they all lived shockingly similar lives, for the most part, down to doing the same actions in the same circumstances and literally defeating the same enemies.

No worries, while i still love my video games this past year of D&D has given me an experience that video games won't be able to replicate.

Thanks everyone for the replies!

[djreynolds]

Use a staff or spear in melee til your fists become 1d8.

Your KI is connect to your bonus action.
Decide 2 attacks (5th level)
BA 1 more attack
BA and KI 2 more attacks
BA and KI patient defense (dodge action)
BA and KI step of the wind (disengage)

You are going to get hit. I prefer open hand because you can make trip for free vs a dex save.

Shadow is nice because it's step requires no KI, only a BA.

So based on full HP, you can stay in melee and land 4 attacks at 5th level with a spear/ staff.

But when you are low, save KI to get out.

Mobile feat, is a free disengage vs a lone opponent, no BA and no KI. Now leaving KI for FOB and stunning fist and damage.

I like warlock for hex, AoA, and EB. Even hexblade has the shield spell... love it.

[AttilatheYeon]

I like tanking and healing with my Evokation Wizard.

[Lombra]

Definately go for it. Monks are very versatile, and with their movement can reach to the important enemy, grapple it and take it away from the battle. You could even grab, drag the enemy to an advantageous position and push it down a cliff or in another threat. I'd advise the grappler feat and one level dip in rogue to expertise athletics.

[Quoxis]

I like tanking and healing with my Evokation Wizard.

TANKING and healing? With a single classed wizard? You got some explaining to do.

[Sir cryosin]

Yes you are gimping yourself by playing a monk as not a hit and run skirmisher. A monk works best as a battlefield control (they are the best controls of the game.). A brawler monk is a poor mans fighter/barbarian. Sure people will say you can bonus action dodge but a ki point spent on anything besides stunning strike (the most powerful feature in the game.) is a wasted ki point.

Having played 5 different monk now stunning strike is powerful but it not be all ability. Spending ki for the dodge action is a powerful action

[Dudu]

Monks do excell at skirmishing. The biggest problem with monks as heavy hitters is that they don't really have support for that, like Great Weapon Mastery or Sharpshooter. Or class features such as frenzy (which is good, I don't think frenzy gives enough dmg boost for the price).

That said, your "role" is a difficult question. You can have many. And not all should be in combat. Also, consider your role also out of game mechanics, really. You can be the serious guy, the comic relief guy, the kick the door, the brain, the baddass, the impredicable. That's the biggest difference between a good old table top RPG and a MMORPG one in my opinion.

Also, monks as tanks can work, even if they are not as geared towards this as others may be, they are certainly not weaklings. You could consider some multiclass, though. Also, for the sake of expanding your role coverage, take a good look at backgrounds and feats.

But the golden rule was already said in this thread. You are having fun, you let others have fun as well, so everything is fine. I would rather have an unoptimized, but fun and cooperative monk than some optimized manchild ruined the whole experience, if those are my only two choices.

[Dr.Samurai]

So, if I were to try and play a monk less as skirmisher but more as a toe-to-toe Brawler is that possible? Am I "gimping" myself or, even worse, hindering the party because of my decision to play this particular class against the hit and run type role that I see constantly recommended for it?
It is possible. I wouldn't use strength as your attack stat even as a "brawler", because you'll need your AC to be high. So keep dexterity and wisdom as your primary stats (and don't forget about constitution obviously). Use your ki points on Flurry of Blows (or Dodge if you're getting hammered). But I'd still use Stunning Strike once your reach level 5. Nothing says "brawler" like hitting a guy so hard he can't take an action, and Stunning is great action denial :smallbiggrin:.

While I knew that obviously a fighter would be great at martial combat and taking hits, I wasn't limited in only choosing that. With feats and such available, I could design a character that kind of goes against the stereotypical fighter and be more of a medic. Or at least I thought. I never attempted a concept like that yet.
Here's where I might disagree a bit with others, particularly the "if you're having fun anything is possible!" mentality.

In standard 5e, your concept of a fighter medic simply wouldn't work. There's no way for the fighter to heal another person outside of administering potions. *IF* feats are allowed, then your fighter could grab the Healer feat, and heal someone 1d6+4+level with an Action using a Medic Kit. And so people would say "See? It's possible. There, you're having fun." But remember that you're playing a fighter. It's possible that you're the only one in the party spec'd to handle the frontline. You've got the AC, the hit points, and the attacks to stand toe to toe with the enemy. Your party may be relying on you to do that, as opposed to moving about the battlefield healing people. If you leave the rogue on the frontline to go heal the wizard, it might not go well. You're not necessarily equipped to disengage easily, so you're eating opportunity attacks. And your Action, if used on attacking, can be very strong, because you get multiple attacks, the fighting styles, and your archetypes augment your attacks. And since we're assuming a feat, that feat could go to something like Polearm Master, for more attacks, or Great Weapon Master, for more direct damage. So you could keep holding the line with Sentinel, stopping enemies that try to move past you, or you could advance the frontline by shoving with Shield Master, or you could obliterate an enemy with Great Weapon Master. Or, you could leave the frontline, eat some attacks of opportunity, let the bad guys advance and target where and who they want, and use your Healer feat to heal someone.

And none of this is to say "Don't do it!". It's helpful to have another party member able to heal up the actual party healer if they go down. But playing a "fighter that can heal the healer if he needs to" is different than playing a "fighter medic".

This concept would work better on an Archer fighter, in the sense that you're not engaging the frontline in melee, so you're more free to move around and presumably the party isn't expecting you to hold the line. But you're still giving up your action, which I think is costly given the fighter's extra attacks. If you have access to SCAG, the Banneret (Purple Dragon Knight) fighter archetype lets you heal three allies when you use Second Wind. This is much better even though it's slightly less healing, because it's a bonus action, you don't have to move to the person to use it, and you heal yourself at the same time and three allies instead of just one. However, being tied to your Second Wind you'll typically only want to heal others when you need the healing yourself, and it won't be available every encounter.

It may work best on the Rogue (Thief), and so this could simply be a matter of playing a rogue and calling it a fighter.

But the point is that not every concept will work. Is it "wrong"? I don't know, that doesn't seem an interesting question. Can it affect gameplay? Yes. Can that affect enjoyment? Yeah, I think so. If you run off to heal the wizard, and leave the rogue to get trounced, the player playing the rogue might wonder why the fighter keeps leaving the front line. If you run off to heal the rogue, and the enemies charge the wizard on the backline, the player of the wizard might start wondering why the fighter keeps leaving the front line.

So I guess my points are this:

1. Go over your concept with your party if it will really break away from the expectations of the class. Maybe another party member can help fill any gaps that your concept might have, or maybe you'll find that the concepts each of you wants to bring to the table won't gel well.

2. If you have something strange, still come here and ask lol. Don't think, from these answers about having fun, that so long as you like the concept and will enjoy playing it that everything will be okay. One of the things that drew me to 3.5 optimization was trying to eek out all sorts of interesting concepts out of the game rules. Because it isn't enough to want to play a concept. Part of it is making sure you're still a working member of the party. Admittedly, 5e, I think, has things balanced really well. And off the top of my head I don't think there's many concepts that simply can't work. But that doesn't seem right, so maybe I'm not thinking hard enough.

[Fishyninja]

From the preview that I have seen, I do like the concept of that brawler. I'll have to see if my DM will allow, or, heck, maybe I'll try to incorporate into the session I'm DMing. Thank you!
De Nada. Keep me posted, It'll be interesting to see it in action!

[Waterdeep Merch]

One of the best aspects of tabletop roleplaying compared to video games is conceptual flexibility. It's not that the usual roles as you know them can't apply, it's that they aren't your only options.

In, say, WoW, a room filled with enemies is dealt with in a typical manner- tank taunts, DPS hits them, healer keeps them all alive. Deviating from this script too much will result in your party losing, and there are no alternatives in progressing outside of just not playing. Or waiting for an expansion, I suppose.

In D&D, you can try debuffing that room to make all the monsters worthless in combat. Or buffing your party so that you might as well be invincible. Or attack them in a way that they can't defend against all that well. Maybe your team sneaks past them. You might talk your way in. Perhaps you capture someone or something they want and cut a deal.

What's important isn't that you cover stereotypical roles. It's that you have an answer to different scenarios. Tank/DPS/Healer is a possible answer, and don't let anyone tell you it's incorrect. But with some clever ideas and creativity, you can build characters and parties that handle the same problems in a wild variety of different ways.

[solidork]

We had a party that was Open Hand Monk, Arcane Trickster Rogue and a Valor Bard. Everybody just chilled out in melee range unless I was in the back shooting with my bow. We would use Shield, Uncanny Dodge and Patient Defense when we needed to and everything was fine.

[JNAProductions]

Only about a year and half of D&D under my belt, so far enjoying immensely to the point where I just started DMing, but my question revolves around classes and their roles. Prior to D&D, majority of my role playing gaming was from World of Warcraft. There, the only roles I had available were Tank, Melee DPS, Range DPS, and Healer along with the fact each class could only provide a certain type of role(s). Once I was introduced to D&D, I came in with the mindset that D&D wasn't limited by the notion of class roles. While I knew that obviously a fighter would be great at martial combat and taking hits, I wasn't limited in only choosing that. With feats and such available, I could design a character that kind of goes against the stereotypical fighter and be more of a medic. Or at least I thought. I never attempted a concept like that yet.

So, if I were to try and play a monk less as skirmisher but more as a toe-to-toe Brawler is that possible? Am I "gimping" myself or, even worse, hindering the party because of my decision to play this particular class against the hit and run type role that I see constantly recommended for it?

If so, I was wondering if there is a list somewhere depicting the roles each class, and their specialization/archetype, can possibly provide? Including UA if possible as well.

I bolded the important bit.

Are you having fun? And are your friends having fun? Then you're doing it fine. You could have thrown out half the rulebook, use cards instead of dice, and god knows what else, but if you're having a good time, who cares? It's just a game.

[CaptainSarathai]

So, you've gotten good answers for the "having fun" bit, but there are roles in D&D. In 4e, they were even codified. They are:

Defender
Aka "tanks." These have high HP, high AC, and can generally stand and take hits.
It's more than this though. Defenders are important for being "sticky," meaning that they have abilities which punish the enemy for targeting any other member of the party - in other words, they are defending party members.
Paladins, and Fighters, are the quintessential "defender" although they're not the only ones. Barbarians have the HP and damage resistance, and Clerics can get Heavy Armor for high AC, but neither class has much that is innately "sticky."
Sentinel is the quintessential "defender" feat. There's also the Protection fighting style.

Striker
Strikers are your single-target "DPS" guys. They're your skirmishers, lightly armored but hard-hitting.
Obviously, the Rogue, Ranger, and Barbarian are your stereotypical "striker" classes, with the Rogue getting boosted 'Sneak Attack' damage, and the Barbarian getting his Rage and consistent Advantage.
Again, like 'defender' is not just high AC and HP, 'striker' does not just mean high, bursty, damage. It also means mobility, and the ability to put that damage where it needs to go.
A Paladin can Smite for huge damage, but he can't do every turn, and he can't leap over the horde of skeletons to get to the Liche commanding them. This is why the Paladin is less of a Striker.
The ideal feat for strikers is Mobile as it lets them not only move faster, but also get away from enemies and apply that damage where it needs to be.

Controller
Where the striker deals with 1 target, the controller deals with the entire fight. Controllers are all about locking down enemies: debuffing people, applying area effects, positioning targets, etc.
Wizards and Sorcerers are controllers.
A controller can have a high DPR, but probably because he just Fireballed 20 Goblins, rather than dealing huge damage to that lone dragon.
Controllers don't necessarily have high kill-counts, but a well-played controller silently ensures that everyone else does. Often, Controllers win the fight for the rest of the party.

Leader
Leaders don't necessarily lead the party. Instead, they are like a Controller, but for the party. They provide buffs, healing, and can sometimes position the party or move enemies around for the party to whack away at.
Bards and Clerics are definitely Leaders. They hand out buffs, keep the party fighting longer, and keep the party hitting at full capacity.
Like Controllers, the Leader probably doesn't score the final blow on a target all that often. In fact, there are some "Cobtroller-esque" abilities which allow you to sacrifice your own attack so that a nearby ally can make an attack of their own.
---

After those 4 roles, you also have some "party roles." These would be the 'Face' and the 'Skill Monkey.'

Faces are the guys with all the Charisma and Charisma-skills. What makes a truly great face, though, are the rest of the social skills, spells, and abilities. The face is your party's smooth-talker, or "fixer." They've got spells like Charm and Friends, maybe even Command or Suggestion.

Skill Monkeys are flexible characters who can take a wide and strange variety of skills, and use this ability to take the skills that the rest of the party can't cover. Rogues and Bards are amazing skill monkeys, for abilities like 'Jack of All Trades' of 'Expertise.' With a Skill Monkey, there are few challenges that the party can't overcome with a little teamwork.
---

The great thing about 5e is that there is a lot of overlap in what you can do with your character. The "roles" aren't as strict and obvious - instead, they're more of a sliding scale. A Paladin for example is a mix of Defender, Leader, and Striker. If you start to emphasize a part of that, then you'll become more specialized. A paladin who chooses to wear Light Armor and takes the Mobile feat could very well be quite a Striker. Or, the Paladin could focus on their Aura ability, and providing buffs and healing, and play more like a leader.

[AttilatheYeon]

TANKING and healing? With a single classed wizard? You got some explaining to do.

I use polymorph and mirror image to tank, and i use polymorph on allies about to die to "heal". Works pretty well in tier 2. Not sure bout tier 3 and above yet.

[JellyPooga]

Monks do excell at skirmishing.

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious...but why?

Yes they have bonus speed, which is invaluable to a skirmisher but their access to Dash/Disengage as a Bonus Action is limited by their Ki points and whilst Stunning Strike alows for a certain degree of skirmishing potential (stunned foes can't make OA's), it's also reliant on a) Ki points, b) hitting said foe and c) that foe failing a Con Save...that's a lot of "if". I appreciate that they do kind of feel like they should be skirmishers, but I don't actually see an awful lot of support for it in their Class Features. Evasion, Immunity to charmed/frightened, extra (melee only) attacks, resistance to all but Force damage...these are the features of someone that is trying to stay put, not run around the place. Admittedly, that last one isn't until 18th level, but the point remains that with the exception of their Unarmoured Speed Bonus, Monks have very little in the way of skirmishing ability unless they're also willing to sacrifice their potential to actively contribute to the combat by spending valuable Ki on something a Rogue can do all day, every day.

So my question is this; what is it that makes Monks "excel" at skirmishing? From where I'm standing, it doesn't look like they're particularly well suited to it given their general lack of ability with regards to ranged combat; the skirmishers weapon of choice.

[zeek0]

A beauty of 5e is that it's rather hard to gimp yourself or your team. Sure, you can be marginally less effective at combat, but it's mostly wide open.

You should play to your strengths (no healer fighters), but don't worry about themes or playing styles the are off-beat. Fun is the final arbiter.

[Herobizkit]

Assuming feats, taking Healer at 1 and Mobile at 4 makes you a poor man's skirmisher/healing Rogue and saves your Ki for those juicy extra attacks.

Also keep in mind that most everyone is "terrible" at level 1. Levels 3-5 are when you really start seeing what your character can actually do besides survive. Monk 1 is bland but functional - you're effectively a better two-weapon fighter who doesn't need armor to excel.