How effective of a tank is a hill dwarf long death monk with tough [Archive]

Misterwhisper

2019-08-11, 02:23 PM

I dont care too much for stat allocation. And stunning fist all monks get.

And yes it not a mmo but you still think about your role in the party.

The guy who gets hit a lot is not a role.

Unless you have sentinel or something very similar there is nothing going to make the enemy stay on you.

If you are a group of level 11 characters and one is a monk dwarf and I am an intelligent villain I will ignore you and just attack the casters. Other than the use of stunning strike nothing about an undying monk is dangerous.

All your massive defense is going to accomplish is still being there after the rest of your team is dead or giving you a chance to run.

Also it would depend on number of enemies. At one ki per hit that would put you down you could be burned out of ki rather fast.

stoutstien

2019-08-11, 02:28 PM

Any feat affects you when you take it. Tough being retroactive doesn't mean that you don't die just because three levels from now you'll get extra HP.

With that stat allotment he can start with a 16 in dex, Wis, and con. Taking Dex to 18 at lv 4 is just going to be better for a monk wanted to stay on the front lines.
Tough will net 8 extra Hp where the additional ac, attack, saves, and damage all each separately have the potential to prevent that 8 damage alone

Patient defense has a compounding effect with AC and any monk wanting to draw fire is going to be using it alot. At lv four that single AC combined with patient defense reduces incoming attacks chances of hitting by %20.(average +hit of CR 1/2-2). Any single attack at this lv can do 8 damage.

Throne12

2019-08-11, 02:36 PM

The guy who gets hit a lot is not a role.

Unless you have sentinel or something very similar there is nothing going to make the enemy stay on you.

If you are a group of level 11 characters and one is a monk dwarf and I am an intelligent villain I will ignore you and just attack the casters. Other than the use of stunning strike nothing about an undying monk is dangerous.

All your massive defense is going to accomplish is still being there after the rest of your team is dead or giving you a chance to run.

Also it would depend on number of enemies. At one ki per hit that would put you down you could be burned out of ki rather fast.

By that logic why play a fighter or a barbarian they dont have anything extra to make a enemy attack them over the other party members. A monk can get in quicker and start pounding on a enemy while your party can sit back with there ranged spells and arrows. Even if the enemy gets pass you. The enemy has a lot of ground to cover to get to them. Then you have stunning strike when you really need it. Ok so your not doing a lot of damage compared to a other melee guys but that ok when you have a evoker wiz, a EB warlock, and a bard sitting back chucking damage spells.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-11, 02:39 PM

With that stat allotment he can start with a 16 in dex, Wis, and con. Taking Dex to 18 at lv 4 is just going to be better for a monk wanted to stay on the front lines.
Tough will net 8 extra Hp where the additional ac, attack, saves, and damage all each separately have the potential to prevent that 8 damage alone

Patient defense has a compounding effect with AC and any monk wanting to draw fire is going to be using it alot. At lv four that single AC combined with patient defense reduces incoming attacks chances of hitting by %20.(average +hit of CR 1/2-2). Any single attack at this lv can do 8 damage.

That is the issue though. If you are using patient defense and not flurry or something else, why would they attack you?

The monk can easily get to any enemy they want due to their great mobility but too many dms play villains like Velcro mmo enemies.

Monk who can make 2 attacks for meh damage and is hard to kill or walk over and hit that wizard with all their spells?

Misterwhisper

2019-08-11, 02:44 PM

By that logic why play a fighter or a barbarian they dont have anything extra to make a enemy attack them over the other party members. A monk can get in quicker and start pounding on a enemy while your party can sit back with there ranged spells and arrows. Even if the enemy gets pass you. The enemy has a lot of ground to cover to get to them. Then you have stunning strike when you really need it. Ok so your not doing a lot of damage compared to a other melee guys but that ok when you have a evoker wiz, a EB warlock, and a bard sitting back chucking damage spells.

Because a fighter has enough feat space to take things like sentinel or other feats and can do better damage and has better ac if they want it, a barbarian is the same, can do amazing damage and is even harder to kill as a base class.

Monks are not tanks, monks are very a mobile control class thanks to stunning strike, the best control ability in the game.

stoutstien

2019-08-11, 02:49 PM

The guy who gets hit a lot is not a role.

Unless you have sentinel or something very similar there is nothing going to make the enemy stay on you.

If you are a group of level 11 characters and one is a monk dwarf and I am an intelligent villain I will ignore you and just attack the casters. Other than the use of stunning strike nothing about an undying monk is dangerous.

All your massive defense is going to accomplish is still being there after the rest of your team is dead or giving you a chance to run.

Also it would depend on number of enemies. At one ki per hit that would put you down you could be burned out of ki rather fast.

Ignoring a monk is bad idea period. Saying other than stunning strike a monk isn't dangerous is like saying a wizard without spell slots isn't a threat. Unless your Dm is being a giant douche and buffing con saves, not attacking you when you take defending actions, counting your ki pool, and purposely fudging rolls to counter your best feature the monk is just fine as a tank.

Your right table tops aren't MMO so threat mechanics are only needed if there isn't a good reason to be attack you anyways. Being a mostly naked dwarf calling your mother a ogre lover while potentially shutting down the enemies complete action with a single blow is a pretty big hit me sign

LudicSavant

2019-08-11, 02:56 PM

So AC only gets you so far and if your untouchable the monster will switch to a different target. So a hp tank is where it at.

This is kinda like banking on the notion that people would rather attack the Hulk than Iron Man because he's not wearing a shirt. You're basically relying on enemies not knowing that attacking a turtle is bad, regardless of whether or not they're a turtle due to HP, AC, or something else.

The best tanks do not rely on an enemy making a major tactical error.

To understand how to make a really effective tank in D&D, the first thing you have to realize is that tanking in D&D is designed like tanks in a PvP game, rather than tanks in trinity PvE MMORPG. This should be unsurprising when you think about it; though you may not think of D&D as a PvP game, the enemies are controlled by a human rather than an aggro-counting AI, so the tanking principles of PvP games apply.

So how do you tank in these games? Well, it's about applying pressure and making it tough for enemies to ignore or otherwise deal with you and your party. It's less about people being mind controlled into attacking you, and more about limiting their options or punishing them for making choices you don't like. There are a lot of different routes to this, but some examples from the Long Death Monk include things like the fact that Frightened foes can't move towards you, or that you can Stunning Fist on an opportunity attack, or that you can control a lot of space with your mobility, or that (with the errata) you can auto-succeed on grapples against Stunned creatures (and then drag them far using your mobility).

In such games, your personal durability is largely a tool to help you control space without, well, dying in the process. If you're not leveraging your durability in order to exert pressure on the enemy, you're not tanking, you're turtling and hoping that the DM will take mercy on you by deciding to attack you.

So AC only gets you so far and if your untouchable the monster will switch to a different target. So a hp tank is where it at. Now with +3 hp per lv thanks to dwarf and thought. Then you get death monks abilities touch of death and mastery of death to make you even more unkillable.

Is this a valid tank build

Generally speaking a Long Death Monk will get more out of improving their AC, control, and general synergy with their Monk abilities than investing more in raw max HP.

For example, one of the abilities a Long Death Monk gets is the ability to spend ki in order to get extra death gates. With a higher AC and your ability to regularly generate Disadvantage, it might take several swings for a swarm of foes to take out just one of your ki points at 0 hp. Abilities like Deflect Missiles, Stunning, etc augment this ability further.

By contrast, if you had some 30-odd extra HP but weaker Dex/Wis, you'd only take a couple extra hits total to reach 0, and enemies will chew through those extra death gates much faster. It doesn't have any extra synergy with features like temp HP generation, extra death gates, or the like than it would have with any other character. And doesn't help your ability to actively prevent enemy offense via stunning, etc.

Basically, if you want to be the best Monk tank you can be, think about how you can make your kit synergize to become more than the sum of its parts.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-11, 03:01 PM

Ignoring a monk is bad idea period. Saying other than stunning strike a monk isn't dangerous is like saying a wizard without spell slots isn't a threat. Unless your Dm is being a giant douche and buffing con saves, not attacking you when you take defending actions, counting your ki pool, and purposely fudging rolls to counter your best feature the monk is just fine as a tank.

Your right table tops aren't MMO so threat mechanics are only needed if there isn't a good reason to be attack you anyways. Being a mostly naked dwarf calling your mother a ogre lover while potentially shutting down the enemies complete action with a single blow is a pretty big hit me sign

At level 11 which was brought up earlier, no the wizards without spell slots is not really a threat.

A monk with no ki will be doing 3 normal attacks, but because of wanting to take tough on a dwarf will not even have max dex to get a good ac, can’t step of the wind or patient defense so you are pretty much a sitting duck with ac of a mage in mage armor and the hp of a very flimsy fighter.

stoutstien

2019-08-11, 03:11 PM

Misterwhisper

2019-08-13, 11:09 AM

The question stands. How does anybody know what spell slots/ ki are left? No amount of planning can counter a DM taking advantage of knowing player resource pools. Honestly it's a good idea to make it a habit to not know as the DM.

You don’t have to know what they have left.

Always assume the caster is the biggest threat.
Don’t bother attacking someone taking the dodge action.
Attack as a group if you have the numbers.

It is a good idea not to play npcs like they are morons wanting the pcs to win.

Seriously if you see the person in front of you take the dodge action and go all defense, why would you bother trying to hit the guy, just attack the person that is easiest to hit.

If the group is fighting a dragon, unless it is a really dumb dragon like a young white dragon, it should fight smart and use their breath and flight the best they can.

If they are fighting hobgoblins then the jobs should easily know to charge past the front 2 maybe 3 people and attack the more fragile people.

The first person through can take the dodge action if they want, the rest just swarm the weak people.

Carebear dming where the pcs know how every enemy will react and that the dm will not pull the trigger against bad tactics is very boring

stoutstien

2019-08-13, 12:04 PM

You don’t have to know what they have left.

Always assume the caster is the biggest threat.
Don’t bother attacking someone taking the dodge action.
Attack as a group if you have the numbers.

It is a good idea not to play npcs like they are morons wanting the pcs to win.

Seriously if you see the person in front of you take the dodge action and go all defense, why would you bother trying to hit the guy, just attack the person that is easiest to hit.
If the group is fighting a dragon, unless it is a really dumb dragon like a young white dragon, it should fight smart and use their breath and flight the best they can.

If they are fighting hobgoblins then the jobs should easily know to charge past the front 2 maybe 3 people and attack the more fragile people.

The first person through can take the dodge action if they want, the rest just swarm the weak people.

Carebear dming where the pcs know how every enemy will react and that the dm will not pull the trigger against bad tactics is very boring

I consider myself the opposite of 'carebear' DMing but if you changing your tactic based on your players action without a in-game que you are kinda purposely limited them to play the game like a video game.

In this case dodge doesn't/shouldn't change enemy actions. It's not like the character is yelling, "I dodge!" The rounds are 6 seconds long in play so it's not like they can stop and ponder what the posed monk is going to do.

Using the 3-4 NPCs rushing past the front players won't change regardless who is in the front due to the limit of reactions bit now the hobgoblins are flanked and over extended. Doesn't sound like a sound tactic for a militaristic unit like hobgoblins form. Orcs sure, but hobgoblins would probably attempt to maneuver around the line and use ranged attacks to pin down the casters. Plus fishing out reactions is a poor tactic flavor wise because you are making everyone think in terms of action economy.

All in all DM how you like but if your believe that DND isn't like and shouldn't be like a MMO, stop forcing your players to meta like it is just to be effective in the style of play they pick. Monks can be effective in the front line for the same reason barbarian are.

Would you run right past Bruce Lee or Andre the giant to get to the guy with a bow?

Jamesps

2019-08-13, 12:26 PM

Long Death monks make the best tanks in the game and it has nothing to do with their hp.

Level 6 you get an ability that prevents most enemies from advancing towards you. You can use it every round (until your opponents make their will save). It costs no resources and should give at least a few rounds of opponents unable to approach the party. The only thing you can do to improve it is pump up your wisdom, so that's what you should do.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-13, 01:03 PM

I consider myself the opposite of 'carebear' DMing but if you changing your tactic based on your players action without a in-game que you are kinda purposely limited them to play the game like a video game.

In this case dodge doesn't/shouldn't change enemy actions. It's not like the character is yelling, "I dodge!" The rounds are 6 seconds long in play so it's not like they can stop and ponder what the posed monk is going to do.

Using the 3-4 NPCs rushing past the front players won't change regardless who is in the front due to the limit of reactions bit now the hobgoblins are flanked and over extended. Doesn't sound like a sound tactic for a militaristic unit like hobgoblins form. Orcs sure, but hobgoblins would probably attempt to maneuver around the line and use ranged attacks to pin down the casters. Plus fishing out reactions is a poor tactic flavor wise because you are making everyone think in terms of action economy.

All in all DM how you like but if your believe that DND isn't like and shouldn't be like a MMO, stop forcing your players to meta like it is just to be effective in the style of play they pick. Monks can be effective in the front line for the same reason barbarian are.

Would you run right past Bruce Lee or Andre the giant to get to the guy with a bow?

Are you saying that taking the dodge action has no visible effect?

Because if it doesn’t then drawing an attack of opportunity means very little because grunt a will just dodge and run by to take a swing and then his buddies can all come by.

Think of it like this:

A guy is standing in front of a target with a machine gun, the guy in front has a riot shield and a club.

Yes you run right by the wall of defense to deal with the bigger threat.

Front line people are only dangerous to what they can reach, archers and casters are threats to everyone.

5e got rid of most tactical rules so new people or lazy people can play quicker.

No multiple aoo
No AoO on anything but movement without a trap feat or class ability
No making them more dangerous usually
No flanking unless optional rules

In other editions people were terrified to provoke because you could get chewed up, now, eh one swing that’s it.

especially in 3.p there were ways to build out there that made it so that you had to be very careful because you may get counter attacked every swing or casting, or moving, or not moving.

Also a big problem is that crits are not that dangerous anymore unless it is a rogue who can sneak attack or a high level barbarian.

When things could hit for x3 or x4 you had to be careful, now it is not even a real x2, it is just add one die.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-13, 01:06 PM

JackPhoenix

2019-08-13, 01:20 PM

In this case dodge doesn't/shouldn't change enemy actions. It's not like the character is yelling, "I dodge!" The rounds are 6 seconds long in play so it's not like they can stop and ponder what the posed monk is going to do.

No, but the character is no longer putting pressure on the enemy and switches to defensive. The monk "focus entirely on avoiding attacks".

Using the 3-4 NPCs rushing past the front players won't change regardless who is in the front due to the limit of reactions bit now the hobgoblins are flanked and over extended. Doesn't sound like a sound tactic for a militaristic unit like hobgoblins form. Orcs sure, but hobgoblins would probably attempt to maneuver around the line and use ranged attacks to pin down the casters. Plus fishing out reactions is a poor tactic flavor wise because you are making everyone think in terms of action economy.

It's kinda the opposite: the orcs would most likely just rush the first target and beat the monk to death (seriously, few extra hit points won't save you if everyone focuses on you, especially as Dodge can be negated easily through shove or grapple), while the savy hobgoblins would keep one guy... who should try to grapple the monk anyway.... to occupy your attention, just in case., and send the rest to deal with actual threats.

All in all DM how you like but if your believe that DND isn't like and shouldn't be like a MMO, stop forcing your players to meta like it is just to be effective in the style of play they pick. Monks can be effective in the front line for the same reason barbarian are.

You mean like the barbarian that does the exact opposite of the monk, and instead of focusing on self-defense, leaves himself open to attacks presents bigger thread by swinging huge weapon around and hitting like ton of bricks, and relies on being about as resilient as ton of bricks too, which isn't obvious like active attempts at self-defense are?

stoutstien

2019-08-13, 01:34 PM

No, but the character is no longer putting pressure on the enemy and switches to defensive. The monk "focus entirely on avoiding attacks".

It's kinda the opposite: the orcs would most likely just rush the first target and beat the monk to death (seriously, few extra hit points won't save you if everyone focuses on you, especially as Dodge can be negated easily through shove or grapple), while the savy hobgoblins would keep one guy... who should try to grapple the monk anyway.... to occupy your attention, just in case., and send the rest to deal with actual threats.

You mean like the barbarian that does the exact opposite of the monk, and instead of focusing on self-defense, leaves himself open to attacks presents bigger thread by swinging huge weapon around and hitting like ton of bricks, and relies on being about as resilient as ton of bricks too, which isn't obvious like active attempts at self-defense are?

I could see intelligent NPCs bypassing dodge with shove/grapple but orcs? 7 int and 11 Wis might take them a while to even consider not trying to axe the monk.

"Focus on avoiding attacks" doesn't mean anything from the NPCs view. Most Martial art stances multi purpose so they wouldn't know if the monk was goin to block or kick them until they test it.

CorporateSlave

2019-08-13, 04:04 PM

I could see intelligent NPCs bypassing dodge with shove/grapple but orcs? 7 int and 11 Wis might take them a while to even consider not trying to axe the monk.

"Focus on avoiding attacks" doesn't mean anything from the NPCs view. Most Martial art stances multi purpose so they wouldn't know if the monk was goin to block or kick them until they test it.

I agree. A DM who purposely avoided attacking my PC every time they Dodged would find me leaving their table very quickly.

Whether the Dodge Action has a visible effect is entirely up to interpretation. The PC may still very well be swinging their sword or fists, but the focus won't be on connecting do harm, but evading and deflecting. It ought to take an enemy some time to realize what is going on, assuming they have some measure of intelligence to begin with. The Dodge Action might even further enrage certain enemies to focus exclusively on the PC who seems to be "toying" with them?

DM's metagaming their NPC's around PC Actions removes agency from the players. You don't have to play the NPC enemies like morons, but a good DM can still play them "realistically" without having to resort to "gotcha" moments all the time. Sure, a wise Ancient Dragon might well realize quickly what's going on after a flurry of claws and tail fail to find their mark and simply breath weapon the PC out of spite. A pack of Goblins or Kobolds might never realize what is making their enemy so hard to hit. Even seasoned soldiers might still focus fire hoping to take down what is clearly a slippery and dangerous enemy.

Player: I run out in front of the the enemy to present an obvious target, then taunt them to draw fire. I'll take the Dodge Action and hope I don't get hammered too badly during my diversion.
DM: Hah! You Dodge? Congrats, it worked everyone runs right past you since you're wasting your Action not attacking them lol!
Player: *well, this is fun* :smallsigh:

JackPhoenix

2019-08-13, 04:08 PM

I could see intelligent NPCs bypassing dodge with shove/grapple but orcs? 7 int and 11 Wis might take them a while to even consider not trying to axe the monk.

Realizing that immobilizing or grabbing an opponent is advantageous doesn't require a genius. It's pretty basic tactic, animals do that. Your average orc may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he still know how to fight. It's why I've stopped reading monsterknows articles after reading his evaluating criteria: the author kinda assume combatants with average intelligence are idiots.

The reason why orcs wouldn't likely do that isn't their low intelligence, it's that they generally fight as individuals to prove their own strength. They'll be competing over who gets to kill the opponent, not trying to provide advantage so others may make the kill.

"Focus on avoiding attacks" doesn't mean anything from the NPCs view. Most Martial art stances multi purpose so they wouldn't know if the monk was goin to block or kick them until they test it.

And they have 6 seconds to see the monk isn't doing anything threatening, no counterattacks, no taking advantages of any openings, just avoiding attacks. Especially if the monk is unarmed and has to actively keep out of the reach of any armed opponent. Sure, he'll still get an opportunity attack if the enemy is reckless while moving away, but he's not putting his foe under any serious pressure.

stoutstien

2019-08-13, 04:25 PM

Realizing that immobilizing or grabbing an opponent is advantageous doesn't require a genius. It's pretty basic tactic, animals do that. Your average orc may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he still know how to fight. It's why I've stopped reading monsterknows articles after reading his evaluating criteria: the author kinda assume combatants with average intelligence are idiots.

The reason why orcs wouldn't likely do that isn't their low intelligence, it's that they generally fight as individuals to prove their own strength. They'll be competing over who gets to kill the opponent, not trying to provide advantage so others may make the kill.

And they have 6 seconds to see the monk isn't doing anything threatening, no counterattacks, no taking advantages of any openings, just avoiding attacks. Especially if the monk is unarmed and has to actively keep out of the reach of any armed opponent. Sure, he'll still get an opportunity attack if the enemy is reckless while moving away, but he's not putting his foe under any serious pressure.

Have to agree to disagree on this one.

zinycor

2019-08-13, 04:36 PM

In regards totaking the dodge action, My characters also insult the opponent whenever they take the dodge action, in order to provoke them to attack.

Zalabim

2019-08-13, 06:12 PM

The other side of the issue is that means the DM never tells the players that the monster took a Dodge action, and this presumably applies to many other kinds of actions. People just blindly assume that actions like Dash, Dodge, Ready, and Help are unnoticeable and never question that others may have the opposite (and better) stance. It is better to allow the players more information and better for the opposition to react to the player's actions instead of behaving like pre-programmed robots. Maybe you think the players will just pay close attention to which monsters attacked and count how far they moved and figure out which ones must have dashed and which ones may be dodging that way? And so the players shouldn't tell the DM exactly what they're doing either, and isn't all this worse?

zinycor

2019-08-13, 06:39 PM

And they have 6 seconds to see the monk isn't doing anything threatening, no counterattacks, no taking advantages of any openings, just avoiding attacks. Especially if the monk is unarmed and has to actively keep out of the reach of any armed opponent. Sure, he'll still get an opportunity attack if the enemy is reckless while moving away, but he's not putting his foe under any serious pressure.

In regards to monks, since monks can dodge as a bonus action, monsters wouldn't see the monk not attacking, most likely they would see the monk attacking from a defensive stance.

Nhorianscum

2019-08-13, 08:12 PM

So AC only gets you so far and if your untouchable the monster will switch to a different target. So a hp tank is where it at. Now with +3 hp per lv thanks to dwarf and thought. Then you get death monks abilities touch of death and mastery of death to make you even more unkillable.

Is this a valid tank build or should I just pack it up and go with one or the holy 3 pally, fighter, and barbarian.

If by tank you mean "spam the unholy hell out of hour of reaping/stunning strike"

Yes. You dramatically reduce damage to the party and are bad at dieing.

If you mean anything else. No. You are a monk.

Kane0

2019-08-13, 08:18 PM

Yeah I reckon Dwarven Long Death monk should be fine, the Tough and Dwarven Fortitude feats are pretty much icing.

Monster Manuel

2019-08-13, 08:50 PM

At level 11 which was brought up earlier, no the wizards without spell slots is not really a threat.

A monk with no ki will be doing 3 normal attacks, but because of wanting to take tough on a dwarf will not even have max dex to get a good ac, can’t step of the wind or patient defense so you are pretty much a sitting duck with ac of a mage in mage armor and the hp of a very flimsy fighter.

I mean, neither the Wizard with no spell slots, or the monk with no Ki are going to be having their best day ever, but neither one is completely neutered, either.

Let's assume a lvl 11 Enchnatment Wizard. They can still use their action to charm their attackers into incapacitation, their reaction to make their attackers hit someone else, and sling firebolts for 3d10 or a shocking grasp for 3d8 every round with their cantrips. They have to be in close range to use any of their non-spell enchantment abilities, so something has already gone horribly wrong, but they're still able to have an impact on the fight.

Same with the tanky monk who is out of Ki. With the stats the OP laid out, their monk is easily sitting on an 18 dex, 16 wis, with one ASI reserved for toughness. An AC of 17, barring any magic gear, and throwing 3 punches doing 1d8+4 at +8 to hit? No, he won't be nearly the biggest threat on the field, but he's not nothing.

And honestly? The monk who's looking too tired to do any of his fancy tricks, and is just throwing basic punches sounds like EXACTLY the kind of target that a shrewd enemy is going to go after. Easy pickings. The predator weeds out the weak and injured. Maybe the extra HP from the Tough feat comes in handy in this scenario, where the weakened (but not completely incapacitated) monk gets beat on by the enemy thugs. Effectively, Tanking, allowing the caster to fall back and pelt the enemy with firebolts.

I wouldn't build a character around that concept...personally, I would rather use the ASI on something other than some extra HP. But, this is 5e...it's hard for ANY character to be entirely helpless, ever.

Nhorianscum

2019-08-13, 09:49 PM

I mean, neither the Wizard with no spell slots, or the monk with no Ki are going to be having their best day ever, but neither one is completely neutered, either.

Let's assume a lvl 11 Enchnatment Wizard. They can still use their action to charm their attackers into incapacitation, their reaction to make their attackers hit someone else, and sling firebolts for 3d10 or a shocking grasp for 3d8 every round with their cantrips. They have to be in close range to use any of their non-spell enchantment abilities, so something has already gone horribly wrong, but they're still able to have an impact on the fight.

Same with the tanky monk who is out of Ki. With the stats the OP laid out, their monk is easily sitting on an 18 dex, 16 wis, with one ASI reserved for toughness. An AC of 17, barring any magic gear, and throwing 3 punches doing 1d8+4 at +8 to hit? No, he won't be nearly the biggest threat on the field, but he's not nothing.

And honestly? The monk who's looking too tired to do any of his fancy tricks, and is just throwing basic punches sounds like EXACTLY the kind of target that a shrewd enemy is going to go after. Easy pickings. The predator weeds out the weak and injured. Maybe the extra HP from the Tough feat comes in handy in this scenario, where the weakened (but not completely incapacitated) monk gets beat on by the enemy thugs. Effectively, Tanking, allowing the caster to fall back and pelt the enemy with firebolts.

I wouldn't build a character around that concept...personally, I would rather use the ASI on something other than some extra HP. But, this is 5e...it's hard for ANY character to be entirely helpless, ever.

It takes 0 ki to spam the AOE fear effect that like stunning strike and flurry of blows has no armor restriction.

Bjarkmundur

2019-08-14, 03:04 AM

This thread got all kinds of weird. Are we really discouraging a player to run with a fun idea he had? If we are, I think we have to check our priorities. Metagaming a charOp are fun in their own right, but should never get in the way of other fun aspects of the game, such as creative character building.

Even if his DM might share your opinions, there are tons of ways to make a character more effective as a frontline. Many of them are backstory and personality related, such as a traumatic event that changes the character's life forever because he couldn't protect the backline of a previous party, making him specialize in positioning himself directly in the path of his enemies. This is something a DM is likely to respect when deciding how the enemy directs his attacks during combat encounters. One of the DMs responsibilities is fantasy fulfillment, so if a not-so-tanky character wants nothing more than to tank big hits, potions and magic items are sure to find their way into the game to help fulfill that fantasy.

In 4e the 'designated healer' once decided to roll up a rogue. His reason was "an enemy can't deal damage if he's dead". I simply started including more medium hit point monsters in combat encounters instead of the standard one high-hit point creature + multiple single hit point line up. This made the strong consistent single-target damage of the rogue more effective, and made this new party composition work without a hitch (sortof).

If you take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595088-Hit-Points-Are-a-Resource-Spend-Them)thread, I think this tank will be a whole lot of fun, and can get very effective as long as you specify to your DM that you are blocking enemy movements. Remember that most fights are all-out brawls, the camera takes 6 seconds to pan around the battlefield and just barely manages to showcase each creatures main attacks. When the camera is not focusing on a character, there are still things like footwork, jabs, feinting, dodging minor attacks and generally maintaining field of influence. Just take a look at a boxing or MMA match, there are only a few actionable maneuvers, rest is just footwork and jabs. This means that if your character actively tries to hinder enemies from getting to the backline your DM is likely to respect that in most cases of un-tactical opponents. Player Intent, in many ways, substitutes a lot of mechanics.

"I utilize my already broad frame to make myself take up even more space on the battlefield in an attempt to discourage less mobile enemies to attempt to pass me, and let out a challenging shout and snarl menacingly at the group of orcs running towards the party"

This immediately sets of some kind of primal instinct in most DMs, especially when role-playing orcs, of 'must smash dwarf'

We should also encourage OP, since I'd love to see a tank monk in my game, and I think most DMs have just about seen every variation of Barbarian tank there is.

Then there's of course the whole imagery of a zen dwarf that has to continuously fight is stubborn instincts as a dwarf. That's hilarious.

DevilMcam

2019-08-14, 05:16 AM

Adding my little grain of salt here :

Is this a cool concept : Yes
Is this an effective "Tank" : I don't really think so, but i've seen worse, why would you ask?

First the concept of Tank comes from Videogames which have very different mechanics:
-one of them being healing.
In DnD healing is usually very inneficient. In videogames the damage intake is very high so you need someone to soak up the damage (while reducig them a great deal) while someone is healing it back up.
In DnD there is the rest mechanic : as long as you are not dead at the end of the day you are good to go.
also because of how the encounters are designed, dealing damage is usually worth much more than reducing them
-Second very different mechanic is threat/aggro.
In videogames you have taunts, that forces ennemies to attack you.
DnD Has some of them but they are very few. Insulting your opponents is free, but really is up to the DM.
If you really want to get hit, you have to be dangerous.
-Third different mechanic : Distances in videogames most ranges are shorter and character are slower compared to the space a character takes. This means that being big and just being there has a much bigger impact on the battlefield

In videogames tanks rely mostly on these 3 factors to reduce the damages the team will have to deal with as a whole (including the damage they take themselves). And this doesn't work well in DnD.

However there is a Fourth mechanic that videogames tanks use that works well in DnD.
this is Crowd control.
Crown control (CC for the friends) is what Tanks in PvP games use to accomplish their goal, by reducing the options the ennemy have. Hour of reaping works in the cathegory but is not especially strong and availlable quite late.

In summary : to be an effective tank you need 2 think.
1. Hitting you must be a bad option (which patient defense more or less succeed to)
2. Hitting you must be the best availlable option to the ennemy (and unfortunantely hour of reaping isn't really enough to succeed on that and frightened doesn't par well with the dodge action).

TLDR :
Would this build be near unkillable ? Oh Yeah it will
Would this build be a good tank ?You will be a better tank that someone that doesn't try to be one. but Does your group really need someone to take hits in their place, and would it bring greater success than kicking butts firsts and falling back on crowd control when needed? I'm not sure.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-14, 06:51 AM

Are people still missing the fact that Hour of Reaping is a friendly fire ability?

It screws over your own team too.

stoutstien

2019-08-14, 07:11 AM

Are people still missing the fact that Hour of Reaping is a friendly fire ability?

It screws over your own team too.
Monks have good initiative and high mobility to get in and use it before friendlies get in the mix. Also fear resistance/immunity isn't hard to
Come by for players if they wanted to uses the ablity in close spaces.

One tactic is tight spaces is to run past the enemies then use it to cause them to be frightened. giving out blanket disadvantage is going to go over for your allies.

Bjarkmundur

2019-08-14, 09:25 AM

How about magic initiate (druid) for Absorb Elements, Entangle, Earth Tremor or Charm Person?

firelistener

2019-08-14, 10:40 AM

"Tanking" when I DM usually takes the form of a character doing everything they can to get close to an enemy and either damage it or apply some kind of control. Most often, it's a barbarian or fighter aiming to set up Attacks of Opportunity and grapple or debuff an enemy. The other characters, meanwhile, will take Disengage, Hide, and Dodge actions to make themselves less of a target. "Tanking" is not something you can usually do with just 1 PC's actions, but instead is a team effort.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-14, 11:03 AM

Monks have good initiative and high mobility to get in and use it before friendlies get in the mix. Also fear resistance/immunity isn't hard to
Come by for players if they wanted to uses the ablity in close spaces.

One tactic is tight spaces is to run past the enemies then use it to cause them to be frightened. giving out blanket disadvantage is going to go over for your allies.

It doesn’t do anything to casters who would just throw a save spell or one with no attack roll.

Nhorianscum

2019-08-14, 11:32 AM

It doesn’t do anything to casters who would just throw a save spell or one with no attack roll.

If only monks had an oft discussed feature that was really useful for harassing enemy casters.

Drawing a blank here... starts with an S...

Misterwhisper

2019-08-14, 11:57 AM

If only monks had an oft discussed feature that was really useful for harassing enemy casters.

Drawing a blank here... starts with an S...

Yeah and it can’t be used if you just frightened everyone.

stoutstien

2019-08-14, 12:09 PM

Yeah and it can’t be used if you just frightened everyone.

Sounds like the monk is doing a good job of deterring the enemy and reducing tactical options. Also can SS on AOO.

Kinda want to see your reaction to a wizard or rogue character built for the front lines.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-14, 12:16 PM

Sounds like the monk is doing a good job of deterring the enemy and reducing tactical options. Also can SS on AOO.

Kinda want to see your reaction to a wizard or rogue character built for the front lines.

Monks are controllers not tanks.

The enemy wants to hit a tank, monks may you want to stay away from them.

A rogue can be a front liner fine but that does not make them a tank.
Rogues are easier to play as archers than melee but it can be done with the right subclasses.
I played an up close Velcro type of rogue from level 1 to 16, it would have been much easier if I just used a bow but it worked fine.
In the whole campaign I think I used disengage to move away from my target maybe twice.

Wizard can be built for front line by why would you bother.
An abjuration wizard is just as good standing at the back casting like any other wizard and enjoying their nice shield.
Same with bladesinger, dance for the massive defense, cast when you have resources, melee if you need to be slim.

Same thing with hexblade, nothing wrong with just having your shield and medium armor and casting EB a lot.

Just because you can build for it doesn’t mean you have to.

zinycor

2019-08-14, 12:34 PM

Just because you can build for it doesn’t mean you have to.

You also don't have to to play DnD.

stoutstien

2019-08-14, 12:36 PM

Monks are controllers not tanks.

The enemy wants to hit a tank, monks may you want to stay away from them.

A rogue can be a front liner fine but that does not make them a tank.
Rogues are easier to play as archers than melee but it can be done with the right subclasses.
I played an up close Velcro type of rogue from level 1 to 16, it would have been much easier if I just used a bow but it worked fine.
In the whole campaign I think I used disengage to move away from my target maybe twice.

Wizard can be built for front line by why would you bother.
An abjuration wizard is just as good standing at the back casting like any other wizard and enjoying their nice shield.
Same with bladesinger, dance for the massive defense, cast when you have resources, melee if you need to be slim.

Same thing with hexblade, nothing wrong with just having your shield and medium armor and casting EB a lot.

Just because you can build for it doesn’t mean you have to.

Because a players want to and the game supports it. In the same way monks can be built to be a mobile striker didn't mean the have too

Tanking isn't a feature, class or subclass but rather a mindset. Sure there are something we can look at and see how they are designed to impede the enemy like spirit guardians but others like monks are a lot of smaller pieces that can stack in so many different ways.
Mobility, control, good saves, good defensive options, and autonomous of needing support doesn't make them the best at drawing the enemy but that array of options give them the tools to do it.

Nhorianscum

2019-08-14, 02:24 PM

Yeah and it can’t be used if you just frightened everyone.

So what you're saying is...

Mission accomplished!

Misterwhisper

2019-08-14, 02:30 PM

So what you're saying is...

Mission accomplished!

I was talking about you can’t stunning strike and use the fear effect at the same time.

Also both are control abilities not tank abilities.

Nhorianscum

2019-08-14, 02:41 PM

I was talking about you can’t stunning strike and use the fear effect at the same time.

Also both are control abilities not tank abilities.

Oh no, the abilities used in totally different situations cannot be used in the same situation. This is a valid point that destroys my entire argument.

Ah yes. The well defined distinction between abilities that control things to reduce damage and the abilities that control things to reduce damage. Scholars have debated this for decades and the consensus seems to be "who ****ing cares about this semantic nonsense?"

JackPhoenix

2019-08-14, 02:53 PM

I was talking about you can’t stunning strike and use the fear effect at the same time.

Also both are control abilities not tank abilities.

The division between control and tanking is artificial, with little practical value. If the enemy is unable to attack, you don't need to tank the incoming damage. If there's no damage coming to anyone on your side, your job as a tank was fulfilled.

The idea that the tank's job is to take damage is false and based on MMOs, which require it, due to enemies having too many HP to take down quickly and lack of hard CC effects. Tank's job is to prevent anyone (including himself) on his side from being killed or recieving any damage, by any means possible.

Misterwhisper

2019-08-14, 03:05 PM

The division between control and tanking is artificial, with little practical value. If the enemy is unable to attack, you don't need to tank the incoming damage. If there's no damage coming to anyone on your side, your job as a tank was fulfilled.

The idea that the tank's job is to take damage is false and based on MMOs, which require it, due to enemies having too many HP to take down quickly and lack of hard CC effects. Tank's job is to prevent anyone (including himself) on his side from being killed or recieving any damage, by any means possible.

To me tanking is making the enemy have to deal with you directly or they pay dearly for it like a barbarian with PAM.

Control is making it where the enemy can’t attack or attacks much less effectively, like stunts, blindness, etc.

Monk is probably the best controller/shutdown class in the game as long as they have ki.

That does not make them tanks.

I hate the term tanking, because in 5e they pretty much got rid of it.

stoutstien

2019-08-14, 03:19 PM

To me tanking is making the enemy have to deal with you directly or they pay dearly for it like a barbarian with PAM.

Control is making it where the enemy can’t attack or attacks much less effectively, like stunts, blindness, etc.

Monk is probably the best controller/shutdown class in the game as long as they have ki.

That does not make them tanks.

I hate the term tanking, because in 5e they pretty much got rid of it.

So if I said monks are good at controlling tanking enemies and reducing incoming damagetanking while simultaneously have decent to good defensive capacities tanking that would be fine?

Pam is just damage I don't see how it relates to this.

Yakmala

2019-08-14, 04:19 PM

Personal opinion, Monks are not tanks. They are skirmishers. Even a Long Death Monk, which is very hard to kill, shouldn't be standing toe to toe in melee combat.

Monks get in, do their damage, maybe get in a Stunning Strike, and then get out. The Mobile feat is your friend.

As for tanking, as others have mentioned, 5E is not an MMO. If you make yourself too hard to hit, enemies are going to start ignoring you and go after the party members they can actually damage.

So, tanking is 5E is about convincing the enemy they should be focusing on you.

Your best bet is probably a Barbarian with GWM and Sentinel.

Reckless Attack: "Hey, this guy is really easy to hit! I like when my attacks hit!"
GWM: "Ouch! This guy's attacks really hurt! I can't keep ignoring him!"
Sentinel: "Every time I try to run away or hit the guy next to him, he hurts me. I might as well just fight him."