Monk a striker: Why? (Forked Thread: 3rd Party Poopers)

[Nahat Anoj]

Why does everyone (ok not everyone obviously, but a good majority from my experience) seem to pigeon-hole the Monk into a Striker?

Monks are highly mobile and lightly armored, which strongly suggests striker to me. Indeed, I've heard it said many times that the monk's job (in 3e, at least) was to dart behind enemy lines and take out enemy wizards. They haven't traditionally been associated with protecting or holding the line, which is what most defenders do. They also don't have a lot of "heal/buff other" abilities that leaders do.

Yes, that initially seems to be a good role for him, but honestly I want the 4e monk to be a defender/controller.

FWIW, I believe monks will have decent secondary controller and secondary leader/defender capabilities. Controller-flavored monks will have thinks like Stunning Fist, while leader/defender-flavored monks might have a way to heal others a little bit or disrupt enemy attacks.

 

[Cadfan]

The other problem with melee based control is that its often just defending in drag.

Lets say I attack an enemy and slow him. Was this control or defense?

Well, as a result of my enemy being slowed, he can't go very far. So he's probably going to stay where he is and attack me. That makes it defense.

What if I daze him? Same thing. Knock him prone? Right.

You get the idea.

 

[Felon]

I think the controller style would be a hard sell, for the same reason why we don't have a martial controller yet - it is hard (not impossible, just hard) to make it plausible. The controller role has to extend beyond a single target creature - controllers potentially effect the entire battle field.

Go check out Mearls' comments in the invoker thread. He states that they are actively swerving controllers away from being defined as "multi-target guy" and "battlefield morpher". They're basically now imagined as the inverse of a leader--a "spoiler", if you will, who hinders the enemies' actions and effectiveness.

And that's certainly something within a monks' purview. Strikes that inflict just about any type of status effect? strikes that slide targets around? Even sweeping that hit multiple targets? Sure, all doable.

But yes, striker works as well. Of course, we may see different takes on the concept, just like we'll be seeing some of the old druid in the shaman and some of the old cleric in the invoker.

 

[Rechan]

I've seen plenty of folks suggesting that monks would make a good martial controller. Of course, that's because some folks really want a martial controller.

I've seen the argument for the monk in every role and every power source.

 

[Rechan]

While I do agree the striker is the best role, just to play devil's advocate...

I think the controller style would be a hard sell, for the same reason why we don't have a martial controller yet - it is hard (not impossible, just hard) to make it plausible. The controller role has to extend beyond a single target creature - controllers potentially effect the entire battle field.

One word: Druid.

The druid has mobility powers (one build gives a boost to speed, has speed-based shifting powers for that build, and coming out of wildshape allows a free shift). The druid also has melee-based control powers. And, the druid has gotten around the squishie/low AC problem by being given a Striker's HP, and a boost to AC when wearing light armor (at least, for one build).

It is very easy to build a hit-and-run "Jump in melee, hit a target and status-effect him, then next round get the hell out and zap him" druid.

If one wanted to make a monk a controller, I would look at the druid's melee and mobility powers, toss on various status effects, and emulate those.

 

[Cadfan]

And that's certainly something within a monks' purview. Strikes that inflict just about any type of status effect? strikes that slide targets around? Even sweeping that hit multiple targets? Sure, all doable.

All doable, but not a controller if you're doing them in melee range.

If you inflict status effects at melee range, then like 90% of the time the upshot of what you're doing is that you're locking an opponent in place and forcing it to fight you. Making you a defender.

Solve that problem without creating an unbalanced character or creating a character that feels contrived, and maybe you can create a melee controller.

 

[Rechan]

Solve that problem without ... or creating a character that feels contrived, and maybe you can create a melee controller.

What does being contrived have to do with it, though? Considering that many see much of 4e combat and powers as very contrived.

 

[Cadfan]

What does being contrived have to do with it, though? Considering that many see much of 4e combat and powers as very contrived.

Yeah, screw them though.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah, screw them though.

Even so, what does contrived have to do with it?

4e is Power = Mechanic. Not fluff. I could describe how my power works any way I like. I could say my Warlock farts in your general direction as my eldrich blast, for all that matter.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Lets say I attack an enemy and slow him. Was this control or defense?

Well, as a result of my enemy being slowed, he can't go very far. So he's probably going to stay where he is and attack me. That makes it defense

As a side effect, maybe. But there's no real incentive for the monster to stay where he is. Why not move closer to a target he's more interested in? It'll save him movement points later on.

By this logic, the rogue who, seeing that the wizard is in danger, runs up to protect him by unleashing a nasty Sneak Attack is also a "defender in drag." By presenting himself as such a threat, he's pulling the monster's aggro. Or what about the cleric whose heals and buffs make it difficult to keep the other PCs down, so the monsters focus on him. Is he not a "defender in drag?" And why isn't a fighter (a guardian fighter, in particular) a "controller in drag?" Is the fighter who uses Tide of Iron to push a monster between two allies being a "leader in drag" by granting his allies combat advantage?

Roles are not lockstep descriptions of what a character does. They are just broad descriptions of general tendencies. They are what you do in a basic sense - how you go about doing it can vary from class to class or even round to round.