Here Comes . . . the Monk!

[Obryn]

I'm growing warm to the idea expertise dice for martial PCs. I still think the damage/cool stuff abilties of paladins and rangers can be handled via smite/favored enemy and spells, but for monks, fighters, rogues, and perhaps warlords its fine.

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

-O

 

[steeldragons]

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

Do the same to druids, paladins (esp), barbarians and assassins WotC!
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.

<emphasis mine>

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

 

[Gadget]

I realize that this is a first blush, but is seems kind of blah and flavourless to me. I think they are tyring to hard to service all previous incarnations of the monk and not making a unique and flavorful class. I guess I was expecting a little less generic martial artist and a little more monetarist mysticism.

As for for ED, I foresee ED being the 'feats' of this edition: a cool idea that caught on and was overused by bearing the burden of almost every new mechanical innovation designed throughout the edition's publication cycle.

 

[gyor]

Initial thoughts: I like it. I dunno if its balanced (yet) but I like it.

I'm growing warm to the idea expertise dice for martial PCs. I still think the damage/cool stuff abilties of paladins and rangers can be handled via smite/favored enemy and spells, but for monks, fighters, rogues, and perhaps warlords its fine.

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

Do the same to druids, paladins (esp), barbarians and assassins WotC!

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.

Just no, there are way too many people who hate class alignment restrictions and they don't make sense. They confuse a skill set with moral out look.

Dollars to donuts WOTC will dump class alignment restrictions, they're just too unpopular.

 

[Obryn]

<emphasis mine>

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

Because alignment restrictions are just fluff, and making them into mechanics is ultimately pretty silly? When you pick "Lawful" what does it really mean? I mean, rebelling against legal authority and circumventing laws prohibiting weapons are what martial arts were all about! You can say monks are "disciplined" in the flavor text, and that handles it adequately, in my mind.

Mind you, I find the monk's restriction pretty inoffensive given how easy it is to ignore. I'd certainly never enforce it. IMO, the whole alignment system is one of D&D's biggest flaws.

-O

 

[Stalker0]

Because alignment restrictions are just fluff, and making them into mechanics is ultimately pretty silly?

-O

I would disagree that turning fluff into mechanics is silly...in fact that is what the majority of mechanics do. Most mechanics exist to craft the imagined schema we have for things (aka the fluff) and craft it into a form of reality.

Now that said, the problem I have with alignment restrictions is I feel that their fluff doesn't match the general audience. As people have said, they can see monks as lawful or even chaotic.

Now poll people and ask if fighters should cast spells (not powers, but truly magical spells). The general answer would likely be no. Hence, fighter mechanics do not use magical spells.

But for alignments there is not the same consensus, and when it doubt, leave the flavor open. If people want to have lawful only monks in their game, they can restrict it. But why force a game to remove a restriction that many don't agree with in the first place?

 

[Magil]

Wow, I was quite excited when a player posted on our website the Monk was up. i immediately headed here and read this thread...way to get myself down.

Are we just becoming very negative here. Impatient maybe? Lawful alignments for one class a deal breaker? Anything to do with one class a deal breaker? Comparing Expertise dice to Power Choice in 4E in a snide way when they are poles apart? I think everyone should head on over to Monte Cook's site and read his recent Blog post about what it means to be a playtester.

Anyway, I am happy with Expertise dice representing 'martial powers'.

I am not fond of most alignment restrictions either...so I just may ignore them (without taking swipes at the designers too).

I also agree Martial Artist would be a better class, with Monk as the 'School/Dojo/Scheme' choice within the class. But that is just me - I had better try the class out before I end up hating the very first iteration of it in the playtest?

Sometimes, I think the negativity is deserved. I remember the 4E monk, and this is one sad imitation. The only maneuver that seems interesting or powerful is Iron Root Defense--all of the other new ones have at least one major problem, generally involving being too limited or too random. Step of the Wind, for example, the other automatic maneuver aside from flurry of blows, is way too random for me--why is my movement now subject to the whim of the dice? I'm fine with it when jumping/swimming/climbing, but this is a bit silly. Ki is uninspiring and poorly implemented. Ditto for the passive immunities. Maneuvers are learned much too slowly. I just can't find much positive to say about the monk.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

 

[Roland55]

I like this monk. It's a great example of what can be done with expertise dice.

Moreover, it's a less front-loaded class. I notice that there are no sub-classes for the monk, which definitely makes it feel simpler.

I've always had a liking for the monk. Something about the concept just strikes me as fun.

Just as true for the new monk as for any of the old ones.

Guess I'm just a sucker for "ki."

 

[GX.Sigma]

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

What feats?

I think the solution for class skills is to have them as a line at the top of the class section, along with weapon proficiencies. That way, the default is that you get 1 class skill and 4 background skills, but if you're not using skills, you can just ignore that line.