Here Comes . . . the Monk!

[Flobby]

I for one love the this monk. Love the use of expertise dice but agree that something different should be done for the rogue...

 

[lkj]

I think I could be quite happy with the current structure of the rogue and its use of expertise dice. Just a couple of additions:

1) Make the rogue maneuvers more exclusive and distinctly rogue like
2) Give sneak attack some more kick. Something between the original and what we have now

I like the look of the monk so far but want to see it in play.

In general, I like the use of the expertise dice mechanic for martial classes. It's simple. It's exceedingly flexible. It allows for substantial differentiation among classes (through exclusive maneuvers) while using a single unifying mechanic. It's also very friendly to house rule customization-- something I like very much. Very much indeed.

In short, if developed properly, I think expertise dice will be great. I don't see it being big problem for capturing old school flavor either. It's simply a unifying mechanism for expressing D&D flavor. The monks abilities look very much like the abilities I'm familiar with through various editions-- just packed into a more straightforward mechanic. Sure, there will need to be some refinement (more substantially so with the rogue). But the details of the implementation at this stage are less important to me than the general direction.

Anyway, just my opinion.

AD

 

[Li Shenron]

My issue is that I think Alignment should be fluff.

In the current ruleset, alignment is practically fluff. It's harder to play a campaign where alignment has a heavy role, with the current ruleset, rather than the opposite i.e. an alignment-light campaign.

But I think that you are right that at least in class description alignment should be fluff, which means that there should be a mention like "Monks are generally Lawful" in the class description.

Definitely NOT a tag like this "you cannot progress in this class unless you're Lawful". This is plain WRONG, and it's a known fact that a lot of players just hate alignment restrictions, why do they have to pick on these players?

And actually I think the whole idea specifically that Monks are Lawful is WRONG. It might be true that being lawful helps with self-discipline, but they are NOT the same thing!

Alignment is social, it doesn't make sense outside relationships. Law VS Chaos is either about society or the universe as a whole. This can have an effect on the relationship with yourself (thus self-discipline) but it's just not the same.

It's perfectly possible for someone to be totally disciplined when it comes to training yourself, and then harboring very "chaotic" feelings towards society even to point of desiring to take the authorities down. Just think of how many terrorist groups are extremely disciplined in their trainings but their overall purpose is not at all "lawful".

 

[Li Shenron]

More expertise dice. I'm out.

Indeed... used to be a truly COOL unique Fighter's schtik, now it's a standard mechanic for non-spellcasters.

It's now practically the defining mechanic of 5e...
- AD&D was THAC0
- 3ed was BAB
- 4ed was AEDU
- 5ed is ED

If it makes so much sense to implement Monk's abilities via Expertise Dice, why don't they make "Monk" a Fighter's Fighting Style (and "ki" a theme/specialty)?

 

[Someone]

If it makes so much sense to implement Monk's abilities via Expertise Dice, why don't they make "Monk" a Fighter's Fighting Style (and "ki" a theme/specialty)?

It's part of the D&D tradition. Have good ideas, then be afraid to develop them fully except at the end of the edition cycle in a splatbook that divides the fanbase.

 

[Falling Icicle]

And actually I think the whole idea specifically that Monks are Lawful is WRONG. It might be true that being lawful helps with self-discipline, but they are NOT the same thing!

Alignment is social, it doesn't make sense outside relationships. Law VS Chaos is either about society or the universe as a whole. This can have an effect on the relationship with yourself (thus self-discipline) but it's just not the same.

It's perfectly possible for someone to be totally disciplined when it comes to training yourself, and then harboring very "chaotic" feelings towards society even to point of desiring to take the authorities down. Just think of how many terrorist groups are extremely disciplined in their trainings but their overall purpose is not at all "lawful".

Yeah, disicplined and lawful are not the same thing at all. I've been arguing these kinds of points about alignment restrictions for years. Barbarians are another example. They couldn't be lawful, even though many tribal societies have strong laws and traditions. It's just ridiculous.

And even if that is the norm, I can always think of a way to explain why my character is different. This is why I hate alignment restrictions so much. They are a barrier to roleplaying and good storytelling.

 

[Jhaelen]

Having just read "The Church" supplement for Ars Magica I'm feeling an irritating disconnect when looking over the D&D Monk. The class has absolutely nothing to do with the Monastic Orders of the (European) Middle Ages. Why don't they just call the class Martial Artist?

I know the D&D Monk has pretty much always been like this mechanically but at least in 1e it still had a thematic link to the religious.

 

[Connorsrpg]

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?

 

[Li Shenron]

And even if that is the norm, I can always think of a way to explain why my character is different. This is why I hate alignment restrictions so much. They are a barrier to roleplaying and good storytelling.

Absolutely agree.

I've always thought that alignment is supposed to help the player make a consistent character. I don't necessarily even want alignment in all my games, for example if we're playing an old-school dungeon crawl with high lethality, it's not even important to choose between good and evil.

IOW alignment is a TOOL for the players, it's not that players must become a tool for their alignment.

With this in mind, it's totally fine to have alignment suggestions in a class description, just like we have equipment suggestions. But binding restrictions? No thanks!

Except perhaps for those very few cases when the entire class concept is built around alignment. If the Paladin concept is "champion of Good" then obviously it should be good. But if the Paladin concept is "champion of an ethos" then even the Paladin shouldn't be restricted. I really don't think a Monk's concept is or has ever been "champion of Law".

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Here's the thing for me, I think expertise dice are not bringing out the theme or flavour of the Fighter particularly well. As a master of arms and armour, it doesn't really matter what equipment the Fighter picks, because expertise dice outweigh any damage benefit from a heavy weapon, and there are no maneuvers, yet, that require a polearm (like a sweep) or a bludgeoning weapon (like a dazing attack). I am no fan of AEDU, but at least the powers were interesting, even if I didn't like the resource management style.

Expertise dice also fail dismally to bring out any feeling or theme of the Rogue. Part of this is because they are sticking to the rigid progression, and part of this is because the dice themselves limit maneuver design - things that only need one dice need to involve the size of the dice in some way, and because the dice get quite large you have to seriously limit what bonuses can be applied to, to keep flattened math (though they are failing at this already with some maneuvers).

Finally, the monk, I think, has actually done a good job with them. Why is that? Simply because the monk always had an ascending dice mechanic, which was unarmed damage. Notably here, they've not based unarmed damage off of your expertise dice size, which is a shame, because your flurry of blows attacks can be d8 or d10 when your main attack is at d6 - a little jarring. They've also got multiple dice maneuvers, which don't necessarily need to worry about how large the dice are because the number of available dice follows a certain progression. Unite the unarmed damage with the ability to spend dice for other effects and I think the monk might actually suit expertise dice - it brings out the style, theme and flavour quite nicely.

So my conclusion is that the mechanic has finally found a home, and perhaps now we can try something different for Fighters and Rogues please?