Monk = __________ Striker

[Ondo]

From the Monk description in Races & Classes: "What others accomplish with magic and steel, monks can do with only their bodies and minds."

That seems to rule out Divine as a power source. And we know it's not a Martial Striker.

 

[TheNovaLord]

No monks, ki, psionic or need for unarmed...(.people wouldnt have invented weapons)

they are the 3.5 books i have not bought any of
the class/type never fit well for me in D&D

although if FR is the base setting then as that caters for everything im sure they will be along soon.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

No monks, ki, psionic or need for unarmed...(.people wouldnt have invented weapons) they are the 3.5 books i have not bought any of the class/type never fit well for me in D&D although if FR is the base setting then as that caters for everything im sure they will be along soon.

There definitely is a need for an unarmed combatant. The issue is whether or not the power source for the fluff will fit into the campaign setting. I plan to steal ideas for a bruiser/brawler type class from EQ2.

 

[Gort]

There definitely is a need for an unarmed combatant.

In western medieval fantasy? No there isn't. While there are instances of unarmed combat being used (Beowulf wrestling Grendel, for instance) it was never the first choice for anyone - everyone knew full well that an unarmed person loses instantly to an armed person.

I'm all for some unarmed combat options for players for those "swords are no use here!" moments, but the idea of a character who uses unarmed combat as his main weapon is blatantly ridiculous. The only way unarmed combat could equal armed combat is if the unarmed combatant was some sort of magical creature, like a Monk.

In short, I think the monk should be "Qi" powered, like the Samurai, Ninja and Shugenja, thus making it easy to remove any Asian influences by simply removing that power source from your own campaign.

Not sure where your burning hatred for psionics comes from, but I don't like them either. Not as much as you do, but they always just seemed like another type of arcane magic to me.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

In western medieval fantasy? No there isn't. While there are instances of unarmed combat being used (Beowulf wrestling Grendel, for instance) it was never the first choice for anyone - everyone knew full well that an unarmed person loses instantly to an armed person.

I'm all for some unarmed combat options for players for those "swords are no use here!" moments, but the idea of a character who uses unarmed combat as his main weapon is blatantly ridiculous. The only way unarmed combat could equal armed combat is if the unarmed combatant was some sort of magical creature, like a Monk.

Bruisers are the "evil monk" in EQ2. They have what D&D gamers would call supernatural and/or extraordinary abilities. Many of which would fit right in with 4th edition class design. The bruiser's power source could be martial, from simply being that bad ass or primal, drawing on some power that makes them a force of nature.

In short, I think the monk should be "Qi" powered, like the Samurai, Ninja and Shugenja, thus making it easy to remove any Asian influences by simply removing that power source from your own campaign.

I'd rather just have an oriental style sourcebook. Doesn't even have to be a campaign setting, but it could be created like one in many ways.

Not sure where your burning hatred for psionics comes from, but I don't like them either. Not as much as you do, but they always just seemed like another type of arcane magic to me.

I hate psionics due to a number of idotic power gaming munchtards ruining campaigns in which the DM let them play. I've yet to be in a campaign where the psionic character wasn't broken, wasn't overpowered, and didn't steal the limelight every single combat.

 

[Arivendel]

this could be fixed through the use of Incarnum as a power source, no need for Qi, since incarnum and essensia already has most of the same fluff but has a more refined system... if such a system was used it would need some rework but surely no more rework than whats already being done for psionics so i dont see it being any more difficult to implement

 

[Gort]

Bruisers are the "evil monk" in EQ2.

So they're just an alignment-swapped monk. They're still totally full of oriental flavour, since fighting unarmed as a primary option is entirely out of place in a western medieval fantasy game.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

So they're just an alignment-swapped monk. They're still totally full of oriental flavour, since fighting unarmed as a primary option is entirely out of place in a western medieval fantasy game.

No, they're not oriental flavoured. They're straight up fisticuffs with "magic" damage added to some attacks. I would make the bruiser with no magic for D&D though. The reason I said they're the "evil monk" is because that's the only way you can play a bruiser. Be evil. Monks are good aligned in EQ2.

 

[Fifth Element]

Divine: The power of belief.

Belief in what? In D&D, you know that deities are real. Belief doesn't enter into it.

 

[Darkthorne]

due to a number of idotic power gaming munchtards ruining campaigns in which the DM let them play.

It seems the problem is who you play with and what the DM allows. EHP fixed most of the concerns with the Psi balance. While you had more versatility with the psi powers however almost all the powers had additional saves attached to them there magical counterparts (wall of energy vs Wall of fire I'm looking at you). And when played correctly you do not outshine the rest of the group. As for the OP's concern I can see monks being PSI with Ki/Psi = mental power source so no big stretch for me there.