D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A - 11/29/12

[Klaus]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...ting_styles,_spell_challenges__multiclassing_

1: What about more fighting styles for the monk?

2: What are you doing to prevent spellcasting classes from outshining others (rogue vs. knock, for instance)?

3: When will we see multiclassing?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Quick version of the answers:

1. No, the monk is already a limited enough concept (with complex enough mechanics) that it doesn't need styles/schemes/whatever.

2. Trying to make sure that spells can't replace other class roles as effectively, or for very long. Example: "Knock" takes a spell slot and makes a loud noise. (Also, the concentration mechanic prevents stacking powerful buffs.)

3. Probably in the new year.

 

[Kinak]

It's nice to know the 3rd answer and the 2nd answer is just about perfect (knock having a drawback that rogues don't is a great fit). But, of course, I'm going to spend all my time talking about the thing I don't agree with

The 1st answer about monks is just strange. Since "fighting styles" at this point are just suggested builds, the more complicated classes should need them more, not less.

And, as much as I'm a simplicity fiend, fighting styles are made for the monk. Almost every classic "monk" story includes fighting styles, often more than one in conflict.

They're also missing an opportunity to bring the monk out of the cold. Sure, the monk can be the mysterious traveller from the East, but they can also be ascetics from the North who wrestle bears or dwarves who've decided to forge themselves rather than steel. Fighting styles are a good excuse to put non-Eastern monks in front of players and GMs.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think all those ideas are cool, but they belong further down the pipeline for the monk. The first iteration of the monk should be focused on the main archetype of the monk, and additional fighting styles are pretty superfluous.

But that doesn't limit what the monk can grow to include later.

Their answer to the question of spells is pretty spot-on, but it'll be a problem if the game doesn't include robust rules for random encounters and adventure-based penalties.

"Oh, no, the Wizard attracted some goblins, guess we have to harvest their bonus XP and heal up to full after the combat like it never happened, since we don't have a rogue. Such a problem."

The issue with using that as a balancing mechanism in earlier e's was that aside from 1e, it was pretty much up to DM whim when you had an encounter anyway, and as the game became more encounter-focused, it pretty much meant that unless it killed you, the encounter was only an excuse to get some extra XP -- the lasting penalties dropped lower and lower as the editions trundled on.

If they're solvin' those problems, though....awesome.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the real issue with the monk is just that most players don't have several archetypes that come to mind when they think 'monk'. Sure, we've seen them use different weapons, and we know at a basic level that some are based on different animals... but they are all pretty much off-shoots of the same exact martial artist archetype.

You say 'Fighter'... and all kinds of archetypes come to mind. The knight, the swashbuckler, the brawler, the solider, the guardsman, the archer, the tactician, etc. etc. Same with the 'Rogue'... the thief, the assassin, the spy, the burglar, the charlatan, the jester, the urchin as so on. Saying you're a Fighter or Rogue does not clue us in to exactly who you are.

But if you say you're a monk? In D&D especially... there's really only ever been one type. The prototypical one. So the need to have official-WotC-designed different 'builds' per se, doesn't seem to be as important in my mind. Now absolutely... the monk can and will probably see individual variations designed by players themselves (if/when the monk is allowed to 'build it yourself' with the maneuver system like the Fighter gets)... but at least in the first Handbook I can certainly see the reasoning for not going overboard with 'martial arts styles'.

But I also wouldn't then be surprised if a book later on did in fact have more monk maneuvers and martial arts styles.

 

[Falling Icicle]

1. I totally disagree with them that monks don't need fighing styles because they are a "narrower" archetype than fighters. If they're so narrow a concept that they can't include a variety of character concepts, why are they a class at all? Further, monks have always distinguished themselves by their signature fighting style, whether it's crane or tiger or drunken brawling. The idea that monks are too complicated to have fighting styles because they have a wisdom bonus to AC and Ki is, IMO, insulting. The 5e monk is far less complicated than even its 3e counterpart.

2. I get so tired of the notion that the existence of the Knock spell makes Rogues "useless." It never has and never will. Picking locks is just one of the many things that rogues can do, and all rogues shouldn't even be assumed to have this ability, any more than all wizards should be assumed to know the Knock spell. It is not and should not be something that only rogues can do. The party shouldn't have to have a rogue in it to get past a locked door. That, and non-rogues have been able to take the skill that enables them to open locks since at least 3.0.

And I totally disagree that Knock should be worse than a rogue at picking locks. Knock costs a daily resource. It can only be used a limited number of times (especially now that wizards are only getting up to 2 spells of each level per day). Something that is limited use should be superior to something that can be used at-will. There should be a point to a rogue/wizard multiclass learning the knock spell, IMO.

[Edit] And why is it that so many people freak out over niche protection, rogues, and the knock spell, when fighters can just bash down the door or smash open the locked treasure chest? And that doesn't even cost a daily resource. Heck, if the fighter has an adamantine weapon, it's practically effortless unless you're up against the most legendary of doors. But nobody ever complains about the "overpowered" fighter "stealing the rogue's spotlight" with his smashing powers. But if a wizard spends a daily spell slot or the money to buy a wand of knock to bypass the same obstacle, the sky is falling and rogues are now "useless."

 

[mlund]

If they're so narrow a concept that they can't include a variety of character concepts, why are they a class at all?

That's kind of been my bone of contention with the "Monk" all along - except my reaction is "You're right. Don't make the Monk a class. He's just there because one guy wanted to be Kwai Chang Caine. Give me a Martial Artist template instead."

But hey, they promised the PHB classes in the CORE, so if you have to have the traditional, hyper-specific monk, you've got a niche class to deal with.

Further, monks have always distinguished themselves by their signature fighting style, whether it's crane or tiger or drunken brawling.

Um, if you can find me Crane, Tiger, or Drunken Brawling mechanics in AD&D I'd be seriously impressed.

I also think the author was inferring that "Fighting Style" meant access to exclusive maneuvers, features, or bonuses for picking a specific package as opposed to making a custom selection pell-mell. Nothing in the current rules keeps you from making a Fighting Style just like the Fighter's Styles or the Rogue's Schemes. You just don't get +2 to unarmed damage for having your Maneuvers all pre-schemed by taking the "Order of the Stone Fists" package.

- Marty Lund

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think they've struck a pretty fine balance at the moment when it comes to wizard spells like Knock and Stoneskin. It has mostly to do with the extremely limited number of spell slots in the current playtest: Stoneskin is a crazy powerful buff, but preparing it has a high opportunity cost. Even a lower-level buff like Knock would be taking up some potentially vital firepower from a tenth-level wizard. (Unlike in 3e, where there were so many spell slots that a high-level wizard could have Knock and Spider Climb prepared and not even notice the impact on his combat effectiveness.) And the concentration thing is big too - one big buff at a time per wizard solves a lot of potential problems.

As for monks styles, I don't see why adding them would make the class MORE complicated. Don't add new stuff; replace existing stuff as appropriate. There could be a Bruce Lee-style monk who got basically nonmagical "ki powers" and special abilities that add to things like evasion, mobility, and damage instead of healing and immunities. Mearls already actually suggested in the last L&L that they may go this way to some degree, and I'd rather see cohesive styles than the 3.5e route where you made arbitrary choices between, say, Deflect Arrows and Improved Grapple.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Um, if you can find me Crane, Tiger, or Drunken Brawling mechanics in AD&D I'd be seriously impressed.

I was talking about monks/martial artists in general, not necessarily those that have appeared before in DnD.

I think they should call the class "Martial Artist" and have "Monk" be a background. After all, there are monks that aren't martial artists and martial artists that are not monks.

 

[mlund]

I think they should call the class "Martial Artist" and have "Monk" be a background. After all, there are monks that aren't martial artists and martial artists that are not monks.

Of course, but that's apparently "NOT REAL D&D!" to some folks that Wizards wants to attract with a "traditional" (ie - the wacky Kung Fu TV series monk from Dave Arneson's home game) Monk that recalls the AD&D PHB. I think it's pretty much established at this point that if you try and make any PHB1 class other than the Warlord or Assassin into a sub-class or build of anything else you'll have your face ripped off by a dozen hunger-crazed weasels.

I guess there's always Feng Shui to play if you want a diversity of Martial Artists.

- Marty Lund