Monk Preview

[Plane Sailing]

Interesting that only 4 of those alternatives existed in the original PHB...

I don't know whether any of those have the limitation that the Con based bonus only applies if you have one of the specific base class flavours (like some of the Int based effects in warlock powers might look attractive to wizards until you realise that you only get the Int based effect if you are infernal pact or something)

 

[Felon]

Your "needlessly hemmed in" is "properly focused" in some peoples' eyes. Probably even the designers. The barbarian doesn't need an attack power for his throwing axe, nor does the monk need one for his shuriken. Those are options that the average barbarian or monk will use only when then can't get face-to-face with their enemy and a basic ranged attack usually suffices. If you want the option to attack at range more often then I see that as exactly what the multiclass feats are meant for.

By what virtue does someone decide for every barbarian or monk what they need? If a fellow player is looking through the barbarian just for one lousy ranged encounter power, he's probably the best arbiter of what he needs. Maybe they feel they need a counter to immobilizes, slows, dazes, and similar anti-melee effects; neutralizing the movement of a melee-only character is as crippling as crit-immunity ever was to a rogue in 3e.

When the pool of powers to draw from is small, the "properly focused" argument has merit, but with the size of the pool of 4e powers, "focused" is just putting positive spin on a lack of options--especially considering that a single given power can have both melee and ranged options. In fact, the rogue and ranger both have a balance of melee and ranged options--are they "improperly focused"?

Most feats are passive. Multiclass feats are of the few that give you an active ability. The benefit you receive is access to an ability you would otherwise not have. Adding anything more would make the MC more powerful than other feats.

To act as if there's some metric for feats based on whether they're "active" or "passive" seems rather spurious. Moreover, you are only telling part of the story: you receive access to an ability you would otherwise not have and you lose access to an ability you would otherwise have. You don't just gain, you gain and lose.

A couple examples of synergy:

Rogues benefit from having Combat Advantage over their enemies. Ranged rogues have to go through some work to gain CA regularly. Not many rogue powers attach conditions to an enemy that would grant him CA.

See, this remark is a sign of dated material, as is the "feats aren't that powerful in 4e" assertion. Distant Advantage patched the CA-at-range issue.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't know whether any of those have the limitation that the Con based bonus only applies if you have one of the specific base class flavours (like some of the Int based effects in warlock powers might look attractive to wizards until you realise that you only get the Int based effect if you are infernal pact or something)

They don't. I didn't list any that require a class feature. I even excluded some that put you into a rage as the effect because I don't know the rage rules that well.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What entitles you to decide for every barbarian or monk what they need?

I didn't decide that, the designers did.

If a fellow player is looking through the barbarian just for one lousy ranged encounter power, he's probably a better arbiter of what he needs than you are. Maybe they feel they need a counter to immobilizes, slows, dazes, and similar anti-melee effects; neutralizing the movement of a melee-only character is as crippling as crit-immunity ever was in 3e.

Then within the current rules there are options for that player through multiclassing. What entitles you to say that every class should be able to combat every shortcoming? That kind of attitude of "there's always a counter" led to 3E orb spells that bypassed SR because someone thought spellcasters "needed" to get around that one thing that put a speedbump in their way.

When the pool of powers to draw from is small, the "properly focused" argument has weight, but with the size of the pool of 4e powers, "focused" is just putting positive spin on a lack of options--especially considering that a single given power can have both melee and ranged options. In fact, the rogue and ranger both have a balance of melee and ranged options--are they "improperly focused"?

Well I do always look on the bright side of life....

The designers decided that the focus of rogues and rangers had room for both. Why another striker, the barbarian, doesn't have similar options built in I'm not sure.

To act as if there's some metric for feats based on whether they're "active" or "passive" seems rather spurious. Moreover, you are only telling part of the story: you receive access to an ability you would otherwise not have and you lose access to an ability you would otherwise have. You don't just gain, you gain and lose.

Or sometimes you just gain. In my feat list above you could multiclass from Warlock to Fighter to take the 2nd level utility that gives you 2d6+Con temp hit points over the warlock 2nd level utility that gives you 5+Con temp hit points. A feat for an (on average) improved (equal to or better 83% of the time) version of the warlock power. [Statistically that's a +2 bonus to the warlock version. Seems on par with most 4E feats.]

That's an objective comparison of powers that provide the same benefit to the character. There are subjectively better options depending on what you want to do with your PC.

See, this remark is a sign of dated material, as is the "feats aren't that powerful in 4e" assertion. Distant Advantage patched the CA-at-range issue.

You're right I didn't know about that feat. Have a cookie.

My point still stands that there are synergies that can be had through multiclassing that aren't always available to the base class. And Distant Advantage doesn't leave your opponent with a single action per turn or no actions like Daze and Stun do. It also doesn't give you CA against the enemy artillery that isn't currently flanked by the melee PCs in the party. So that feat is one way to accomplish what you want, multiclassing is another. Which is better? That's subjective to the effect you desire. The reasons can be both mechanical and style-based.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I didn't decide that, the designers did.

This comment reflects the 'designer knows best' issue which seems to run throughout 4e design, but which perhaps doesn't sit well with many people coming to 4e.

More things are locked down to specific classes because "designer knows best", unlike previous editions (especially 3e) which really opened up possibilities. If 3e had never existed, 4e would probably have seemed a natural extension from 1e and 2e classes. 3e let the genie of multiclassing and feat customisation and choices out of the bottle.

 

[Felon]

I didn't decide that, the designers did.

Then within the current rules there are options for that player through multiclassing. What entitles you to say that every class should be able to combat every shortcoming? That kind of attitude of "there's always a counter" led to 3E orb spells that bypassed SR because someone thought spellcasters "needed" to get around that one thing that put a speedbump in their way.

First off, I edited my posts a bit to remove some of "you" pronouns, which can add a needlessly hostile tone.

Regarding the 3e orb spells, 3e had the right idea. Spell resistance blunted a lot of the wizard's heavy-hitting evocation spells, so they created an option that provided some less heavy-hitting conjuration spells that bypassed SR. That's giving players options with give-and-take--do you pick the big nuke, or go for a single-target spell that bypasses a pesky defense? Now, they screwed up that approach with some other conjuration spells like Cone of Flame, which were just as heavy-hitting as the evocation spells, but that's a flaw in the execution, not the idea.

Contrast that with 4e's approach to SR, or DR, or crit-immunity, or the undead's immunity to mind-affecting effects...They took them away, leading to fewer interesting options for both attack powers and monsters to use them against. Undead are just lame radiant-vulenrable immunity-defecient creatures.

However, while monsters lack puissant defenses in 4e, they do have potent and interesting attacks, many of which take away movement. This should lead to some interesting choices for players mulling over their power options: should I take a ranged power just to have something in arsenal for when I'm glued down? By denying them this option, the end result is the player thinking "well, screwed again", rather than "darn, knew I should've picked the ranged attack just in case.."

The designers decided that the focus of rogues and rangers had room for both. Why another striker, the barbarian, doesn't have similar options built in I'm not sure.

The designers simply don't know best a lot of the time. Constant updates to the core rules and patch feats like Weapon/Implement Expertise and Distant Advantage are good proof of that--but at least it shows they can address their glitches. And sometimes they're intentionally leaving a hole to be filled later with a splat book. Bards, for instance, were turned into arcane archers with Arcane Power.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm not sure that the game actually needs encounter powers for barbarians who want to throw weapons and so on.

But I know there are certain types of players who will be angry that they don't exist, and will feel that barbarians somehow can't "really" use heavy thrown weapons if they don't have official powers that let them do special thrown weapon attacks.

And WotC makes money by selling people stuff like that. Demand exists, supply exists, eventually there will be a point where these come up in the publication queue.

So I predict we will eventually have encounter powers for barbarians who want to wield heavy thrown weapons and get special extras, monks who want to throw shuriken and get special extras, and so on.

 

[77IM]

More things are locked down to specific classes because "designer knows best", unlike previous editions (especially 3e) which really opened up possibilities. If 3e had never existed, 4e would probably have seemed a natural extension from 1e and 2e classes. 3e let the genie of multiclassing and feat customisation and choices out of the bottle.

That is very insightful. 3e was very close to having the "best of both worlds" between a class system and a more free-form system, but 4e has taken a step back in this regard. (Not because of the multiclass-as-feats design, but because so many cool abilities, like two-weapon fighting, are intrinsically tied to particular classes.)

The conspiracy-theory explanation is that it will help them sell books: by restricting the classes to fairly specific character types, we have to buy new books to make variant characters. ("Oh, you could make a fighter-mage via multiclassing, but it's easier to just wait until swordmage comes out in a few months...")

The benefit-of-the-doubt explanation is that classes have always been important to D&D and that the designers decided to prioritize making the game really cool for class-oriented characters and worry about multiclassing later (hence the new material on hybrid characters).

-- 77IM

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This comment reflects the 'designer knows best' issue which seems to run throughout 4e design, but which perhaps doesn't sit well with many people coming to 4e.

More things are locked down to specific classes because "designer knows best", unlike previous editions (especially 3e) which really opened up possibilities. If 3e had never existed, 4e would probably have seemed a natural extension from 1e and 2e classes. 3e let the genie of multiclassing and feat customisation and choices out of the bottle.

But that's just what designers do. They have to make assumptions. Why can't Wizards heal (in 3.x)? Why should every Monk get Slow Fall? Why can't a Druid learn Fireball? Why shouldn't Cleric and Paladin spellcaster levels not stack? Why does every Rogue have Sneak Attack? Why do Bards not get a Familiar?

 

[77IM]

But that's just what designers do. They have to make assumptions. Why can't Wizards heal (in 3.x)? Why should every Monk get Slow Fall? Why can't a Druid learn Fireball? Why shouldn't Cleric and Paladin spellcaster levels not stack? Why does every Rogue have Sneak Attack? Why do Bards not get a Familiar?

Plenty of other role-playing games exist and don't have those sorts of restrictions.

In contrast, 4e's "strong" class system sometimes reminds me of Henry Ford's comment about the Model T: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

-- 77IM