Monk a striker: Why? (Forked Thread: 3rd Party Poopers)

Wonka

First Post
Forked from: 3rd Party Poopers

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
(Just because there's no monk class in the core rules doesn't mean I'll let in a 3PP monk product. It not only has to be balanced, it has to avoid pigeon-holing, excessive use of ki, has to be a striker, etc.)

(Emphasis mine)

Why does everyone (ok not everyone obviously, but a good majority from my experience) seem to pigeon-hole the Monk into a Striker? Yes, that initially seems to be a good role for him, but honestly I want the 4e monk to be a defender/controller. It fits more in line with the idea of a monk to me. They dont go out of their way to hurt people, but use their skills in defense. See the tibetian (sp?) monks for example. Not saying the monk wouldnt make a good striker, just curious as to why he seems to be lumped there more often than not, in my experience. So I open this discussion. Sorry if this has been hashed over before, I've not seen a topic here before on this :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Felon

First Post
Forked from: 3rd Party Poopers



(Emphasis mine)

Why does everyone (ok not everyone obviously, but a good majority from my experience) seem to pigeon-hole the Monk into a Striker? Yes, that initially seems to be a good role for him, but honestly I want the 4e monk to be a defender/controller. It fits more in line with the idea of a monk to me. They dont go out of their way to hurt people, but use their skills in defense. See the tibetian (sp?) monks for example. Not saying the monk wouldnt make a good striker, just curious as to why he seems to be lumped there more often than not, in my experience. So I open this discussion. Sorry if this has been hashed over before, I've not seen a topic here before on this :)
As you say, it's not everyone who thinks that, and one post doesn't really represent anyone but the one guy who wrote it. I've seen plenty of folks suggesting that monks would make a good martial controller. Of course, that's because some folks really want a martial controller.
 

Cadfan

First Post
I think you'd actually like a Striker monk once you see it. :)

As for your actual question,

First, WOTC has suggested that the monk will be a Striker. But don't let that get you down if you're really committed to other types of monks- there are expected to be four classes in the "ki" power source. Not all of your eggs are in one basket here. We know almost nothing about these other classes.

Second, look at some of the things you've mentioned. Like using your skills for defense. Who's defense? Well, the monk's defense. That's Striker behavior right there- having low armor class (because you haven't got fancy armor like everyone else) but having abilities that retaliate when you're attacked.

Imagine a power,

Counterthrow
Ki, Melee, Immediate Interrupt
You must be unarmed.
Trigger: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Attack: Wisdom v Fortitude
Hit: Negate the triggering attack. The triggering enemy becomes prone.

That's your iconic "dodge the enemy's blow, grab their arm, and throw them" move. Its (mostly, there's overlap) a Striker power, because it accomodates your low armor class, and defends you personally. For it to be a defender power, it really should do something to help out a friend.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Why does everyone (ok not everyone obviously, but a good majority from my experience) seem to pigeon-hole the Monk into a Striker? Yes, that initially seems to be a good role for him, but honestly I want the 4e monk to be a defender/controller. It fits more in line with the idea of a monk to me. They dont go out of their way to hurt people, but use their skills in defense. See the tibetian (sp?) monks for example. Not saying the monk wouldnt make a good striker, just curious as to why he seems to be lumped there more often than not, in my experience. So I open this discussion. Sorry if this has been hashed over before, I've not seen a topic here before on this :)

I would propose that the best role for a monk is to have 4 role-based versions, each invoking a different martial arts style. Something like a bear style or mantis style (from Invincible Shaolin) would be defender. Others like tae kwon do might be strikers. Aikido maybe a controller. Get the picture? The role the monk takes on would depend on the style of combat he wants to have.

For what it's worth, I think 4e's combat system would work well in a martial arts/kung fu genre game. I remember thinking about that while watching Kung Fu Panda. I'm less enamored of 4e for general fantasy.
 

fba827

Adventurer
well there was also a Q&A session where someone asked if the Monk would be a martial striker, and the response was "well you're half right, but i'm not saying which half."

Add that to another statement about how they didn't have any immediate plans for more martial classes unless some new concept came to them, so it seems that it is the martial half of the above quote that was the incorrect guess.

And, toss in the fact that monk is the main example when people talk about what "ki" should be ...

you end up with a ki striker.

all based on initial wotc design team q&as. of course, who knows what will change between concept to publication. if i could find the original sources for those quotes i'd link it, but i can't find it right now.
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I would guess that the traditional D&D monk would thematically fit with a striker in that their specialty is great mobility and extra damage (flurry of blows, increased damage for unarmed attacks).

They have never been very tough (worse AC unless heavily optimised with ability buffs, poorer hp) which doesn't seem to suit the defender role so much, don't look anything like leaders and I think people still struggle with thinking exactly what a non magical controller would really look like, so striker seems like the most natural choice.

I've not got an opinion on the matter myself, but I'm guessing that is a reason why it is often assumed to be a striker.

Cheers
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I think the controller style would be a hard sell, for the same reason why we don't have a martial controller yet - it is hard (not impossible, just hard) to make it plausible. The controller role has to extend beyond a single target creature - controllers potentially effect the entire battle field.

The monk is viewed as a hands-on combatant. He has to get his hands on the beast in order to control it. That makes controlling an entire battlefield a bit hard to justify.

Lightly armored, highly mobile, mostly melee - right there, the thing is screaming "striker!" You could manage a defender easily enough, but affecting areas of ground, rather than individuals is a bit odd for the basic martial artist description.
 
Last edited:

The primary function of the four roles are:

Defender--Engaging the enemy
Striker--Mobility and damage dealing
Leader--Buff the party
Controller--Hassle the enemies

Above all else, Monks are about mobility. Hence, they are Strikers.
 
Last edited:

Christian

Explorer
Despite some grumbling to the contrary, WOTC seems to be trying to carry over as much of the basic traditional flavor to the new ruleset. And in my experience, the successful monk in 3E focused on staying out of toe-to-toe melee with the front-line monsters, instead zipping around the battlefield to engage vulnerable targets, most especially spellcasters. And battlefield mobility + focused damage on specific high-value foes = striker, without a doubt. You could make a martial artist class with a different role--but it wouldn't be a traditional D&D monk by any stretch of the imagination.
 

Forked from: 3rd Party Poopers



(Emphasis mine)

Note that what I said in that thread was my opinion. Someone else might love a martial controller monk.

Why does everyone (ok not everyone obviously, but a good majority from my experience) seem to pigeon-hole the Monk into a Striker?

They do tend to be lightly armored and have no healing abilities (other than maybe healing themselves). That pretty much removes them from the defender and leader categories. It's possible, if given some interesting way of boosting AC, to make them defenders, but then they'd have as many hit points as a fighter (IMO, this is bad for flavor reasons) and I never want to see a "Wisdom bonus to AC" class again.

So, that leaves striker, controller and "really different" defender.

The first makes sense thematically. A martial artist could choose between doing high damage (eg an at-will called Fists of Iron) or a "controlling" effect (eg grapple, disarm, etc). The former would also suit a class with an ability like Flying Kick. (Bonus damage on a charge, I suppose this would be an encounter ability.)

So why not controller? Because controllers tend to have lots of ranged abilities and lots of multi-target abilities.

Yes, that initially seems to be a good role for him, but honestly I want the 4e monk to be a defender/controller. It fits more in line with the idea of a monk to me. They dont go out of their way to hurt people, but use their skills in defense. See the tibetian (sp?) monks for example. Not saying the monk wouldnt make a good striker, just curious as to why he seems to be lumped there more often than not, in my experience. So I open this discussion. Sorry if this has been hashed over before, I've not seen a topic here before on this :)

Trying to get all martial arts styles into one class would be literally impossible, but you could get close. At best, you'd have "sub-roles". Note that a lot of core classes have sub-roles. The warlord is a leader, but has lots of "defender" powers like Viper Strike (makes it difficult for an opponent to shift). The paladin is a defender with a "leader" subrole. The druid appears to be a controller with a choice between two subroles.

I don't think it's a big deal making a Tibetan monk with a striker class. I would suggest not taking a high-damage ability and instead focus on stunning, grappling, or whatever style Tibetan monks use. On the other hand, the class should also be able to replicate Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris (the real-life guy) and other such styles just by using different builds.

But that's just me. I suspect I'll be disappointed with WotC's monk class, whenever it comes out. For instance, it'll probably be heavy on ki, and unless they do a sparkling job I'll probably hate it's flavor. I generally avoid splatbooks anyway; they make the game more complicated, just like many 3PPs.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top