Monk = __________ Striker

[Leatherhead]

This comparison only works if you don't realize what hit points actually represent. You don't need magic to recover hp in 4E, because hit points are not merely physical damage.

This counter only works if you don't realize all the classes in 4th are supposed to be able to do fantastic things beyond the realm of ordinary people.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

No, we don't. A western medieval standard fantasy setting that doesn't include oriental stuff doesn't have a martial unarmed combatant.

The reason for this is that 1) using your hands is dumb when your foes have swords and 2) there are no examples of unarmed combat schools that survive in the west. Sure, there are swordsmanship manuals that have a few elbow and knee techniques that would look familiar to certain Eastern martial artists, but nothing without weapons. Fists were what was used when not even a club or dagger was at hand, and I think that's adequately explained by the standard d3 of damage, assuming it exists in 4E, and what I'm guessing is a lack of any proficiency bonus.

The closest that you get in the west is Greek pankration, but even that's not going to be terribly useful against a hoplite in full panoply, or a griffon for that matter. IMO, psionics or ki is the only thing that makes an unarmed fighting class even remotely plausible when they're facing down enemies in armor, much less dragons whose scales can scarcely be cut by normal weapons.

Why do you keep trying to bring realism into this? You yourself posted "western medieval fantasy". Emphasis on fantasy. If someone wants to play a bruiser type character, more power to 'em. It's a game. Realism based on fighting with fists or with swords doesn't matter here.

Uh, if you're so in love with EQ2's classes, why don't you do a conversion for the house rules section? That response totally came out of left field and didn't answer the quoted post at all, so I'm not sure how to respond to that other than, "Ok..." Regardless, EQ2's classes don't constitute a western tradition of unarmed martial arts.

I merely brought up the EQ2 class because it represents a style of unarmed combat that isn't oriental flavored. It's the pure brute force beat you down style that doesn't need a tradition in the real world to be part of a game. Sheesh. Stop trying to shoehorn in realism crap where it doesn't need to be.

Then you need better people to play with, if they're ruining the game and/or a better DM. The psionics books are better balanced than the majority of the 3.5 splats. Or maybe your DM was looking to run a high powered game and the psionics players understood that while the other ones didn't. Regardless, your experience is next to meaningless here since we don't know the details of your own group to draw our own conclusions.

Psionics has no place in D&D period. It's sci-fi and will never, ever have a place in any game I run and any DM that allows it, will lose me as a player. My experiences with it are from different groups, different players, different dm's, and different campaigns. It's not just one player in one group in one campaign under one dm. It's multiples of all. Each time they came into play, it drastically altered then entire feel of the campaign.

I also don't allow most of the crap published in splatbooks. I'm one of those purist DM's that WotC hates because I'm not good for business. I'm one of the reasons WotC is attempting to redefine core. Because it's not good for business.

What if they changed the power source name to Mind or Mental or something similar. Then it retains the psionic mechanics without the psionic fluff. Also, Psionics have been in D&D since first edition and many many monsters utilize them. How do you deal with those monsters in your game (Githyanki, Illithid etc)?

I didn't use them and renaming psionic abilities and redoing the fluff makes them not psionic anymore. However, it doesn't do anything to remove the cheese from them either.

 

[doctorhook]

I see absolutely no reason why the "bruiser"/"martial artist"/"unarmed warrior" can't simply be a separate fighter (or, alternatively, rogue) build. Between feats and powers, I fully expect this option to be available by the time we see the Martial Power sourcebook.

That said, martial arts do not a monk make. Monks might be "divine", but only in the loosest sense; OTOH, monks share as much divine flavour with paladins and clerics as warlocks do with wizards. Barring the existence of other "oriental" classes, I would expect monks to be divine strikers.

However, I fully expect Monks to belong to a Ki (Qi, Chi) power source. I also expect to see Samurai, Ninja, and possibly the Shugenja as Ki classes. Why? Because in contemporary western fantasy and mythology, these characters are significantly divorced from their real-world inspirations; each bears substantial supernatural power and ability, far beyond mere martial training, and distinct from faithful devotion to the divine. The concept of Ki has taken on a life of its own, and I personally believe it will be its own power source.

(Lastly, I also disagree that Ki and Ki-based classes are necessarily limited by flavour to asian or oriental settings, but more on that in another discussion.)

 

[Nifft]

For the life of me, I can't figure out how this constitutes a controller. Affecting the enemy by knocking them prone, grappling them, moving them, or whatever kind of condition or effect may seem like "control" of a kind, but *every* class has that to some degree or another. Controllers are the ones who do it often, in large groups and at range, usually along with a load of damage to multiple targets. They also shape the battlefield directly.

In this conjecture, the Monk would do exactly half of that. He'd shape the battlefield in his immediate vicinity. He'd be able to do everything that an Arcane Controller could do, except for the ranged bits.

In compensation, he'd get supped up mobility, and a second role: Defender or Striker.

How does mobility + martial arts constitute a zone of control, more than a Defender? By having access to more interrupts. The Fighter can Mark one NPC and make it suffer if it decide to attack someone else; perhaps the Monk treats all adjacent targets as Marked. Perhaps the Monk can Shift two squares and attack as an Opportunity power -- in other words, respond to an Opportunity two squares away.

That's off the top of my head, before having read the 4e rules. I'm certain I'll be able to explain it better to you once I have seen those. In the mean time, I hope this helps.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

I'm not for the most part in this conversation. However, I just want to point out something:

The rogue pregen in KotS (cough) moves itself and people around a lot.

Encounter:
Positioning strike: 2d4+4 damage and slide a target 3 squares.
Tumble: Shift 3 squares.
Bait and Switch: 2d4+4 damage, switch places with the target, shift 3 squares.

Daily:
Trick strike: 3d4+4, slide the target 1 square, for the rest of the encounter if you hit the target, you slide them 1 square.

That's some single-target battlefield control right there.

And we've seen an excerpt power from the ranger:

Cold Steel Hurricane Stormwarden Attack 20
You rush into the midst of your enemies and, like a freezing wind, flay them alive.

DailyMartial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Special: Before you attack, shift a number of squares equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), two attacks per target

Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage per attack.

Effect: You regain your second wind if you have already used it during this encounter.

For a striker, he's certainly doing the Monk "I dive in and hit everyone around me!" that many are saying is all too controllerish.

And according to reports, there are rogue abilities that allow the rogue to climb on/garrote someone. Which sounds similar to ye olde armlock/choke maneuver.

 

[Sashi]

I'd love to see the Monk as a martial controller, actually (is there only the wizard as a controller? Every other class seems to have at least two examples [rogue and warlock as strikers, fighter and paladin defenders, War Lord and Cleric leaders] there should be more controllers).

"Controller" appears to mean "Area Attacks". The Monk's speed seems to me to be the perfect source of AoE martial effects! He can also inflict status effects.

Daily: Make a melee attack against every enemy in a burst (3? 4?) of him, and he shifts adjacent to the last target he rolls attack against (he runs around in a flurry of kicks and punches).

Encounter:
Move 8 squares in a straight line, making a melee attack against every enemy in or adjacent to that line.
Make an attack against two targets AND get a trip if the power hits.
Attack a target and stun him, reducing him to only a standard action the next round.

At-Will
Attack VS Fort: 1W & target grants combat advantage until the start of the monk's next turn.
Strike a target and slow him.
Strike a target up to 2 squares away (jump forward, slap, jump back)

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm one of those purist DM's that WotC hates because I'm not good for business. I'm one of the reasons WotC is attempting to redefine core.

Now that is hysterical, and not in a funny ha-ha way.

And I must say I'm very disappointed to see that you've found you’re way onto these boards.



Now, as for the monk:


Martial Controller: As the designers have stated they are not obsessing about filling out the power source/role grid, we may never see a Martial Controller, which, IMO, could be a good thing, as every idea I have seen for one has been really contrived.


Martial Striker: Most logical.


Ki/Chi/Tofu Striker: As much as people hate the idea of the power source, there may very well be an Oriental/Asian Splat-book or something that contains the very same – Ki; with monks, samurai and sohei or what have you.


Psionic Striker: Could totally see this, as psionics is inner power and all of that.


Divine Striker: At first I was resistant to this idea, as monks do not receive power form an external, divine source, but some other posters on this thread have totally turned me around with the ideas of faith and the monks legacy of being part of the triad of cleric-monk-paladin, so now, personally, I would most like to see the monk as a divine striker.

 

[Ferrous]

I don't think that we need monk as a class. If you make an unarmed combat type feat then a Rogue if fine, as they tumble and strike at your "vulnerables". I think that there is a type of Japanophillia prevalent in geek culture. For the record I am a black belt in Aikido and Jujitsu so I don't have any "issues" with martial arts and indeed I have spent a good deal of my life enjoying them. However I also like Boxing and Fencing (I competed at both for my univeristy).

I think much of the Oriental hype is simply ignorance. Every katana is not superior to every other sword for example. Indeed the reason why Japaneese swordsmiths had to be so skilled was the quality of steel they worked with was so poor. Personaly speaking I would say either a woot steel Tulwah or a Toledo steel sword of war is likely to be superior.

Anyway I think there are few if any reasons to give mechanical differences between Oriental and Occidental "stuff" TM.

 

[Imp]

I think much of the Oriental hype is simply ignorance.

It's an RPG though. Hype is the point.

 

[hong]

I think much of the Oriental hype is simply ignorance. Every katana is not superior to every other sword for example.