Here Comes . . . the Monk!

ZombieRoboNinja · Nov 14, 2012

Obryn said:
Smites will use expertise dice. I'm calling it now.

-O

Yeah. Probably alongside a 3e-style reduced spell progression. Because now that they've found one mechanic that people liked for fighters, they've decided to stretch it everywhere, rather than keep stretching for new systems that would be better fitted to individual classes.

The whole reason Deadly Strike seemed so cool at first glance was because it gave the fighter a source of heavy, reliable damage that was unparalleled by other classes - and that existed in tension with an equally powerful damage mitigation power, also unrivaled. When other classes could beat out the fighter in damage, they did so through their own completely different mechanics. Spellcasters blew daily spells, rogues positioned themselves for sneak attacks, etc. I was excited at that point to see the unique and interesting way other martial classes would stand up to the fighter in damage. Would the ranger have a Quarry mechanic to let him excel at single-target damage? Would the monk use his lightning-fast attacks to build up punishing combo strikes?

Now, not so much. Everyone does weapon+3d10 damage at tenth level, maybe with some variations or preconditions. If you're a rogue, you have to be flanking; if you're a monk, you roll more attacks. /grumpy

Li Shenron · Nov 14, 2012

Remathilis said:
I like the frickin alignment restriction! All WotC needs to do is introduce a "martial artist" specialty (which dovetails with the monk as default) and you can have all the fighter and rogue martial artists you want.

I think sometimes I like alignment restrictions too, but not so much in core classes, and especially if the classes are supposed to be versatile.

Now I don't want you to agree with this, but IMHO a Monk class would be great if it would be versatile by offering different philosophies (in a campaign setting, these could be tied to specific monasteries, but this is perhaps not very feasible in a settings-free core book). Just like Wizards have Traditions, Fighters have Styles etc., Monks could have philosophies roughly inspired by Shaolin temples, Zen buddhism, Taoism, something related to Hinduism, Shinto... and this could be reflected in different mechanics: "ki" for some, meditations for others, even spell-like abilities for someone else. If this was the setup, there really shouldn't be any alignment restriction on the whole class, perhaps on some of its subchoices.

Otherwise if the Monk class is not versatile, it could just become a Fighter's Fighting Style: it already uses the same ED mechanics, and "ki" could be a Specialty with "Lawful" as requirement for its feat.

Remathilis said:
But if you want ki abilities, unarmored AC, and the like, pony up and play a lawful PC.

I really don't get why you believe in this. These are abilities that have absolutely nothing to do with alignment. In very general and simplified terms, "lawful" is someone who believes in authorities, social or universal, and that law & order is important in both society and the cosmos. "Chaotic" is someone who generally doesn't value authority, and favors freedom over law and change over order. These are all ethical or maybe even political ideas, they make sense in terms of connections with the rest of the world.

The dedication and discipline needed to learn martial arts actually require you to actually spend a great deal of time looking at your inner self and practicing/experimenting on your own, and then with your peers. Of course you normally have a "master" to trust blindly, but this is not enough to actually require you to be lawful towards everyone else. We might have a certain image of monks temples in the real world which are very regimented to the point that a non-lawful character may feel it unbearable to live there, just because he would dislike strict hierarchies and invasive rules, but this doesn't have to be the case. There are aspects in real-life or fiction martial arts that suggests a more chaotic approach, such as some elements in Bruce Lee's philosophy of Jeet-Kune-Do, or the Drunken Master fighting style.

Remathilis said:
Bear in mind the monk, sorcerer and warlock aren't as customizable as fighters rogues or clerics. That's fine. You are "specializing" and that limits a few of your choices.

Well but you have to admit that an alignment restriction has never been a very good balancing factor... to some people such limitation is moot (they'll say ok and proceed to roleplay how they want anyway) and to others is a painful restriction to an otherwise perfectly reasonable character concept.

mlund · Nov 14, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
Yeah. Probably alongside a 3e-style reduced spell progression. Because now that they've found one mechanic that people liked for fighters, they've decided to stretch it everywhere, rather than keep stretching for new systems that would be better fitted to individual classes.

Actually, I seriously doubt that. The Paladin's powers don't come from specialty martial techniques and training, they are of divine magical origin. The Paladin doesn't have to develop extreme martial expertise. All he needs is a stout heart, his vows, and maybe a table leg and someone's going to catch hell.

Yes, I expect to see some sort of Smite progression on damage akin to Deadly Strike. It might not even be dice-based, though. Beyond that I expect some static resistance or immunity progression like the monk and a limited number of divine magic spells - mostly words of power or spells he can cast against the victim of his Smite as a follow-up. It seems kind of appropriate for him to combine some limited, simplified functionality from the Cleric and the Fighter and then have his own unique Smite shtick and a few bolted-on cookies.

Oh, and he'll probably be able to summon a Sacred Cow ... er ... Paladin's Mount, just 'cause.

Now, not so much. Everyone does weapon+3d10 damage at tenth level, maybe with some variations or preconditions. If you're a rogue, you have to be flanking; if you're a monk, you roll more attacks. /grumpy

The thing is, every edition prior to 4th Edition has needed some way for the "hit it with a stick" type characters to make up for the fact that they didn't do 10d6 damage in a 20 foot radius with a single action or just get to tell people "save or die," all the time. Success in that field has been limited.

On top of that, flatter attack math and the objective of speeding combat have made damage escalation more necessary. While the return of Vancian casting means some spells are probably getting reigned in, I think they are better off with a more-carrot, less-stick approach. Bringing the Grogs up to snuff with a simple core mechanic that can be shared across several basic classes and diversified is probably less divisive than putting all the Magicians to the stake.

- Marty Lund

Cybit · Nov 14, 2012

howandwhy99 said:
The biggest problem is this class has built in Skills & Feats when I and many others won't be using those.

After I remove all baked in Skills & Feats from the Monk what is actually being designed here? There's very little left.

EDIT: They desperately need to find other ways of designing games that don't focus on creating uniformity, "powers", or combat. Every bit of it looks like variations on 4e-think.

Mearls openly stated that he thinks the maneuvers are going too far as it is in the L&L, so I am betting they are waiting for feedback on whether it should be a universal mechanic or one that should be limited.

As for 4E-think, I'm staring at the Mythic Adventures playtest for PF, and wondering when they took a sip of the 4E kool-aid. Many of those abilities are refluffed 4E powers. >_<

Cybit · Nov 14, 2012

Twitter comments from  @MikeM earls

"So, the monk was a quick turnaround because it used maneuvers. Don't expect paladin, ranger, or "redactedx3"<redactedx3> to use them via class features."

"It's likely maneuvers will end up something that you can gain via feats, somewhat like you can gain spells via feats."

"Also, regarding monk alignment restrictions - we'll just use feedback to find a direction. Easier to include it and ask for feedback."

"I have to admit whenever we start a new project, I want to give it a name like Project Puppy or Operation Sir Snuggles-A-Lot"

Ok, the last one was just giggle-worthy.</redactedx3>

ZombieRoboNinja · Nov 14, 2012

mlund said:
Beyond that I expect some static resistance or immunity progression like the monk and a limited number of divine magic spells - mostly words of power or spells he can cast against the victim of his Smite as a follow-up. It seems kind of appropriate for him to combine some limited, simplified functionality from the Cleric and the Fighter and then have his own unique Smite shtick and a few bolted-on cookies.

I think it would make a much more interesting class if instead of just stealing chunks of the fighter and cleric and adding a few cookies, they came up with one, unique way of doling out paladin power. Auras would be one way of doing it, and people have brainstormed plenty of others. If I want a fighter/cleric with some cool special abilities I should be able to get that through multiclassing and specialties; the paladin should be its own thing.

The thing is, every edition prior to 4th Edition has needed some way for the "hit it with a stick" type characters to make up for the fact that they didn't do 10d6 damage in a 20 foot radius with a single action or just get to tell people "save or die," all the time. Success in that field has been limited.

On top of that, flatter attack math and the objective of speeding combat have made damage escalation more necessary. While the return of Vancian casting means some spells are probably getting reigned in, I think they are better off with a more-carrot, less-stick approach.

Yes, which is why rogues need Sneak Attack, rangers need Quarry, monks need Flurry of Blows, etc. But that doesn't mean all those things have to share exactly the same mechanics.

For example: maybe monks could do a few quick attacks per round, with a "combo finisher" move if they all hit. Rangers do escalating damage for each consecutive round they target the same enemy. Paladins use up some of their divine energy to smite enemies, unless those enemies are attacking their allies or innocents (or are demons/undead/etc). Warlords get a bonus to damage for each ally that has struck their target since their last turn. Barbarians work themselves into a rage as they take hits in combat.

Some of those effects COULD be squeezed into the expertise dice system, but why? Expertise dice are great for expressing the combat versatility required of a fighter (every six seconds he has to pick the best possible option to keep himself and his friends alive for the NEXT six seconds), but they don't do anything to model the pre-planning and opportunism of the rogue, the focus and skill of the ranger, the mystical power of the monk, the tactics of the warlord, the rage of the barbarian, the divine inspiration of the paladin, and so on.

ZombieRoboNinja · Nov 14, 2012

Cybit said:
Twitter comments from @MikeMearls

I'd XP you if I could - thanks for the catch.

"So, the monk was a quick turnaround because it used maneuvers. Don't expect paladin, ranger, or "redactedx3" to use them via class features."

That makes me happy, although I feel like a maneuver-based redactedx3 could work well.

"It's likely maneuvers will end up something that you can gain via feats, somewhat like you can gain spells via feats."

And I guess you just get 1d4 die to use it with? I guess that's fine, especially since all the damage-dealing ones are class-specific. (He also mentioned in his feed that Parry will be fighter-specific again, which is good.)

Chris_Nightwing · Nov 14, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
Some of those effects COULD be squeezed into the expertise dice system, but why? Expertise dice are great for expressing the combat versatility required of a fighter (every six seconds he has to pick the best possible option to keep himself and his friends alive for the NEXT six seconds), but they don't do anything to model the pre-planning and opportunism of the rogue, the focus and skill of the ranger, the mystical power of the monk, the tactics of the warlord, the rage of the barbarian, the divine inspiration of the paladin, and so on.

I mentioned this upthread, but to me the expertise dice system suits the monk far more than the fighter. The monk has always had an increasing unarmed damage and an increased number of attacks, which expertise dice capture rather well. I'm also impressed with the maneuvers that become magical because again, they suit the monk's style. I think the fighter that needs something that works equally well every round, but I don't think dice are the way to do it. I wonder if we might bring back stances?

Neonchameleon · Nov 15, 2012

steeldragons said:
<EMPHASIS mine>

Thank you! Why is this so tough for people to wrap their heads around?

It's not hard to get heads around. What's hard to wrap heads around is the idea that this arbitrary and pointless restriction put in as an outright throwback adds anything to the game rather than simply harming it by restricting character concepts to no purpose. Its only purpose is to restrict the range of possible characters someone might play - taking out anyone based on almost all of Jackie Chan's characters, taking out even most of Bruce Lee's characters, certainly taking out the Monkey King or any followers of the Monkey King, taking out the cast of Kung Fu Hustle, almost certainly taking out The Bride and most of the rest of the cast of Kill Bill including her teacher, certainly taking out Lu Tze and the rest of the genre of wandering "little bald wrinkly smiling men". Apparently none of these should be playable as PCs using Monk rules.

And all for what? I just don't see the upside.