Full Discipline Classes

Kingreaper · Apr 8, 2010

I'm really enamoured with the Monk's Full discipline mechanic, and have been trying to think of ways it could work for other roles, and possibly power sources.

My thoughts so far:

A monk has Standard and Move. It's a striker, it moves into position, and does damage.

A Controller might have standard and minor. It's movements are less considered, but the standard carries an attack, and the minor allows the addition of riders.

A Defender could have the Standard, possibly some move or minor, and an opportunity/immediate action. Making its punishing mechanic tied not to the class, but to the power it used on its turn. [add a rule that a full discipline power must be entered on your own turn most likely]

A Leader could have any mix of on-turn actions, possibly all three. Standard=attack. Move=ally positioning, or ally attack. Minor=temporary hitpoints/healing.

Has anyone else had any thoughts on different approaches to full discipline?

On a related note: Would a Ki focus seem unsuitable for a martial class? (ie. a Samurai) Or could it be reasonably fitting?

eriktheguy · Apr 8, 2010

Ki focus: I would design your samurai as a psychic class. WotC did a good job flavoring the monk as though it were martial while building it as a psychic class. The monk can use any weapon it wants, but it counts as an implement. Many magic weapons have properties that function when used as implements.
A samurai could use any proficient weapon as its implement, and you could allow it to choose a specialized focus in the same way that a wizard chooses from a set of implements.
Depending on the century Samurai preferred yari (spear), and also used katana (longsword) a wakizashi (short sword) a yumi (long bow) or in older days, a naginata (great spear).
You could give each samurai a certain bonus mechanic based on their favored implement. Ex: spear grants bonus when charging, bow grants bonus with ranged implement powers, katana grants bonus with melee implement powers. naginata grants bonus when opponents move adjacent or charge.

Alternatively you could build them as a martial class. If you make them martial, have them use weapons, not implements or ki-focuses. The problem with martial implement users is that few existing martial feats work for them.

Full disciplines: I think that giving the controllers a standard and a minor is a brilliant idea! Consider the wizards prismatic powers, a standard to cast and then minor actions for rider effects.
Controllers could also have two standards under a full discipline, giving them two options for one power. Controllers and leaders could have multiple minor powers under each discipline,
The idea for basing defender mechanics on which full discipline they used is also great! Keep in mind that dailies are not full disciplines, so defenders need to choose a full discipline without actually performing the standard actions sometimes to get their defensive mechanic.

Psychic: Full disciplines
Divine: Devoted Prayers
Martial: Focused Exploits
Arcane: Irreducible Spells
Primal: Primordial Evocations

Kingreaper · Apr 8, 2010

Good point about the lack of feat-support for implement wielding martial. That'd add a lot of work to the design process.

I do like your thoughts on the different weapons. Samurai could be Cha primary, secondary depending on weapons. Dex for katana+wazakashi, Wis for the spears, strength for two-handed Katana use. Not sure which longbow could be. Possibly a choice, as it could be teamed with any of the melee weapons?

For the Defender: maybe choosing a full discipline is technically counted as a free action on your turn? Not using one of the actions per se, so if you use a daily you can still pick an at-will full-discipline (or even burn an encounter one)

eriktheguy · Apr 8, 2010

What role did you have in mind for the Samurai?

I'm pretty sure you can select a full discipline each turn even without using any of the actions associated with it. Don't quote me on it though.

Kingreaper · Apr 8, 2010

I was thinking Controller or Defender for Samurai. Striker would fit, but is taken.

With the bow-use, controller is more probable. Borrowing from the 3.5 Samurai's Kaia Shout concept, with the Samurai being very much a combination of scaring his enemies, and calling them out. Minor actions would generally be the shout, standard an attack, though it could switch around sometimes.

ON the full discipline issue, I can't remember the exact wording tbh, just thinking of possible loopholes. Will have to pull out the PHB3 again in a bit.

circadianwolf · Apr 8, 2010

*sigh* You realize that making a samurai a separate class is simply exoticism/Orientalism at its most obvious? (Granted, the entire "Oriental Adventures", not to mention Al-Qadim, was that as well, but . . . it was for that very reason horrible.)

Ignoring that, full disciplines are a great concept and I'd love to see them used with another class. I don't think monks have move actions b/c they're strikers, though, just b/c they're intended to be highly mobile (which, granted, does tend to be associated with strikers, but doesn't have to be, and can also be associated with other roles). Really like the minor action power buff for controllers though (especially since they're likely to have other uses for their minor actions, thus necessitating a choice).

Kingreaper · Apr 8, 2010

circadianwolf said:
*sigh* You realize that making a samurai a separate class is simply exoticism/Orientalism at its most obvious?

So is making Assassin a seperate class. But, ooh, look, an assassin isn't just another type of rogue.

What would YOU call a weapon-using "shout out and call the enemy to you/scare them/whatever" class?

I could follow the idea of Battlemind, and go with Shoutmouth, but that doesn't give a good image.

Samurai conjures a good image. Knight also conjures a good image, but that image is too close to the standard Guardian Fighter look, and would be a definite defender, when I feel more like working on a controller at the moment.

The Knight as a Full Discipline Defender, that could be cool...

circadianwolf · Apr 8, 2010

So is making Assassin a seperate class. But, ooh, look, an assassin isn't just another type of rogue.

a. I never said I agreed with assassin as a separate class.
b. I think it's pretty clear that "assassin" has been extremely genericized from its racialized roots, to the point where most people don't know the word's origin (or think it's cool b/c they learned about it from Assassin's Creed), whereas "samurai" remains extremely racialized.
c. This discussion is out of place here, though, so I'll leave it here.

What would YOU call a weapon-using "shout out and call the enemy to you/scare them/whatever" class?

This, on the other hand, is a much more relevant question, and I think the fact that calling it a samurai engenders such discussions as above (the Orientalized discussion of weapon choices, where the specific names matter, etc.) demonstrates "samurai" is a bad name if that description is all you're looking to signify.

Incidentally, I'd call it a paladin, with healing swapped out of for additional "come and get me"-ness.

Mentat55 · Apr 8, 2010

Could we also maybe create isolated Full Discipline powers for existing classes? For example, awhile ago someone mentioned that Sure Strike would be a viable choice if it could be used in place of a melee basic attack, or as an opportunity attack.

What if we had (for example) a Fighter at-will that was relatively weak as a standard action attack, but by using it and engaging the full discipline, it gave him an opportunity action that was situationally better than a normal opportunity attack + Combat Superiority? Or something along these lines.

Just thinking that the full discipline mechanic doesn't need to be applied wholesale to a entire class, it could be slotted into existing classes.