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

[Felon]

Pfft. People thought the Barbarian was going to be a Defender, too.

There's too much confusion about what the Roles actually are for anyone to give factuality to it.

True, and no truer than with the controller, which is something Mearls indicated earlier in the thread. His expression of the controller being an "anti-leader", a guy who "messes up" the bad guys actions, is something also often attributed to striker attacks. I mention this because in my efforts to build a rogue variant that's a controller, I can't help but notice that many powers already operate very well as controller attacks--perhaps than they do as striker attacks since the difference between 1[W] and 3[W] damage isn't very great when the striker in question is wielding a dagger.

 

[Betote]

In our PFRPG game, the monk has been acting as a controller, focusing on opponents already engaged with the fighter or the barbarian and effectively "debuffing" them with combat maneuvers, stunning fist, etc.

OTOH, in 4e, who knows?

 

[Staffan]

Even in 3e, it was a heavily mixed-up class, granting lots of mobility while at the same time bestowing the flurry ability that encouraged sitting still. It had a bunch of esoteric immunities and great saving throws, but mediocre AC and HP--maybe it was supposed to be a good mage-killer.

I don't think the 3e monk was intended to be a mage-killer - it just turned out that way. There's nothing in the description that says that that's what they're good at, but people noted "Here's a guy who's mobile enough to get past lines of defenders, who has excellent saves, eventually gets spell resistance, and a special attack that targets Fortitude. Sounds like something that would be good at killing mages."

 

[pawsplay]

What I mentioned a moment ago bears repeating: there are two idea of the "Shugenja": the historical one (that Wikipedia describes) and the Rokugan one (that most people think of when talking about D&D). They are very different, and arguments about one being Ki does not necessarily mean anything regarding the other. The historical can work as Ki (it is hardly different than the traditional Monk), but the Rokugan much more closely resembles Arcane, Divine, or the unknown Elemental Power Source.

I don't see any reason the Rokugan type couldn't be done as ki. The whole idea of four elements with void in the middle is still a mystical concept. In a traditional D&D world, command over the elements might be categorized as a kind of a divine or acane magic but there is no reason it has to be. The PHBII gives monks the chance to throw fireballs with their ki. You could certainly say, "Well, gosh, water elemental control, that makes me think of Fey, so Shugenja should be the Fey power source." But I think there is a confusion there about power sources and power mediums. Monks don't have the "punching and kicking" power source, Fighters don't have the "I like swords" power source, Wizards don't have the "fireball" power source. Rokugan style shugenja could not be martial because they are obviously supernatural, but they could be anything else. Ki is, ultimately, a supernatural power, and manipulation of the four elements sound as valid as anything else you might do with ki. In 3.5, ki already turns people invisible or astral, helps them teleport, heals wounds, throws fireballs, and leads to immortality.

To "4e" the shugenja, I would keep the elemental focus, divorce some of their powers from 3e concepts and focus on powers that make sense thematically, and offer the shortsword and naginata as good weapon choices.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think the 3e monk was intended to be a mage-killer - it just turned out that way. There's nothing in the description that says that that's what they're good at, but people noted "Here's a guy who's mobile enough to get past lines of defenders, who has excellent saves, eventually gets spell resistance, and a special attack that targets Fortitude. Sounds like something that would be good at killing mages."

I think monks were intended to use multiple attacks and special attack effects to make up for less overall accuracy and hitting power. Multiple attacks worked somewhat, because you can always roll 20s, but their special attacks are useless against many foes (constructs and undead are immune to stunning strike, whereas giants and enemies with good Fort just can't be stunned). Mobilty was supposed to make up for AC, but they have real problems using that mobility againt large opponents. 3.5 monks can be effective, but they are really easy to screw up, too.

 

[Felon]

I don't think the 3e monk was intended to be a mage-killer - it just turned out that way. There's nothing in the description that says that that's what they're good at, but people noted "Here's a guy who's mobile enough to get past lines of defenders, who has excellent saves, eventually gets spell resistance, and a special attack that targets Fortitude. Sounds like something that would be good at killing mages."

Prior to 4e, what the description says or doesn't say really doesn't mean a lot as to what was intended in the design. Travel back in time to when it was first announced that in 4e the descriptions would tell you what a class's role and how it was designed to fight. There was widespread rancor that a class's description would come out and tell you what it was supposed to be good at. That was supposed to something the player worked out on his own.

I think monks were intended to use multiple attacks and special attack effects to make up for less overall accuracy and hitting power. Multiple attacks worked somewhat, because you can always roll 20s, but their special attacks are useless against many foes (constructs and undead are immune to stunning strike, whereas giants and enemies with good Fort just can't be stunned). Mobilty was supposed to make up for AC, but they have real problems using that mobility againt large opponents. 3.5 monks can be effective, but they are really easy to screw up, too.

Sure, they shined against the likes of mind flayers, hags, evil spellcasters--that sort of thing. They could even laugh off most anything a beholder could do. It was the likes of giants, beasts, and the like that monks wound up getting flattened by.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't see any reason the Rokugan type couldn't be done as ki. The whole idea of four elements with void in the middle is still a mystical concept. In a traditional D&D world, command over the elements might be categorized as a kind of a divine or acane magic but there is no reason it has to be. The PHBII gives monks the chance to throw fireballs with their ki. You could certainly say, "Well, gosh, water elemental control, that makes me think of Fey, so Shugenja should be the Fey power source." But I think there is a confusion there about power sources and power mediums. Monks don't have the "punching and kicking" power source, Fighters don't have the "I like swords" power source, Wizards don't have the "fireball" power source. Rokugan style shugenja could not be martial because they are obviously supernatural, but they could be anything else. Ki is, ultimately, a supernatural power, and manipulation of the four elements sound as valid as anything else you might do with ki. In 3.5, ki already turns people invisible or astral, helps them teleport, heals wounds, throws fireballs, and leads to immortality.

To "4e" the shugenja, I would keep the elemental focus, divorce some of their powers from 3e concepts and focus on powers that make sense thematically, and offer the shortsword and naginata as good weapon choices.

I really don't see your logic here at all. Seriously, I don't. That first paragraph makes me more confused than anything else. It almost seems like you are deliberately trying to confuse the boundaries of "power source" so that anything will fit under any power source, but I don't really think that is what you are intending... Might as well argue against what few bits of data I can pull out...

I don't see "elemental" as having anything to do with the concept of ki at all. Elemental powers that directly refer to a structured system of four or five elements will almost certainly belong to the Elemental Power Source, since that is all that one has. Certainly, Ki may have a few Fire, Cold, Lightning, Thunder, Radiant, or Necrotic powers, just like Arcane or Divine, but just like those other power sources I don't think it will build such powers under the assumptions of a structured system of elements.

Also, certainly some kinds of "mysticism" are a part of the Ki Power Source, but that does not mean the Ki Power Source will or should be some kind of catch-all for everything mystical. Just like Divine is built around religion and channelling the power of the gods, and Primal is built around totems, spirits, and transformation, Ki will be built around a specific subset of the wider concept of mysticism. As people at WotC have mentioned, Ki will be partially inspired by Wuxia and fantastic martial arts, and that is almost entirely unrelated to the elemental magic that Rokugan Shugenja use.

Besides, Fighters may not be from the "I like swords" power source, but the Martial power source really isn't very far off. Most Martial classes are built around using weapons very well, and little else. Similarly, most Arcane classes are built around throwing around fireballs (and other spells) very well, and little else. Power Sources tend to be very focused. It is because of that focus that a distinction between Ki and Martial is even possible, let alone the distinction between Divine and Primal, or Arcane, Shadow, and Elemental. If Power Sources were broader in focus, then it would be incredibly difficult to justify having more than an extremely limited number.

 

[pawsplay]

Besides, Fighters may not be from the "I like swords" power source, but the Martial power source really isn't very far off. Most Martial classes are built around using weapons very well, and little else. Similarly, most Arcane classes are built around throwing around fireballs (and other spells) very well, and little else. Power Sources tend to be very focused. It is because of that focus that a distinction between Ki and Martial is even possible, let alone the distinction between Divine and Primal, or Arcane, Shadow, and Elemental. If Power Sources were broader in focus, then it would be incredibly difficult to justify having more than an extremely limited number.

Yet Fighters and Rogues are both Martial. Wizards and Bards (at least in 3e) are both Arcane. Your argument breaks down because although there is a narrow focus to each power source, not everything under that power source looks exactly the same. Bards don't throw fireballs, for instance. I find it difficult to consider Barbarians and Druids simply variations on a theme.

The elemental magic of the shugenja is probably partially inspired by the Book of Five Rings by Musashi, from which Lot5R takes its name. Those books are named Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, and No-thing. Traditional Chinese medicine usually posits five elements, rather than four, but the idea of elemental forces and natural balance are a part of Chinese medicine, martial arts, geomancy, feng shui, etc.

I don't see how there is a conceptual problem with ki, on the one hand, empowering a fist to break solid stone, and on the other, being used to manipulate elemental fire or wind. Martial arts cinema and mythology is full of elemental effects, including hurling fire, wind, "iron" body techniques, and so forth. Maybe it is difficult for you to visualize what I am talking about, but I don't see any obstacle to a ki-based elementalist, just as there are wizards, psions, clerics, and druids who all influence the elements.

Saying "That is magic, no ki" is just a personal prejudice. Ki can be used for magic. I don't know that 4e will take that direction, but it seems like a natural fit to me. If the monk's abiliities were not overtly supernatural, the monk would just be Martial.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see how there is a conceptual problem with ki, on the one hand, empowering a fist to break solid stone, and on the other, being used to manipulate elemental fire or wind. Martial arts cinema and mythology is full of elemental effects, including hurling fire, wind, "iron" body techniques, and so forth. Maybe it is difficult for you to visualize what I am talking about, but I don't see any obstacle to a ki-based elementalist, just as there are wizards, psions, clerics, and druids who all influence the elements.

In my mind, the division comes between "manipulation" and "creation."

Arcane wizardy magic creates something from nothing -- a fireball where there was none, a magic force where there is none.

Ki would seem to be more about changing what there already is around. The bending from Avatar might fit more under this category -- I punch and fire shoots out. I kick and water flows along with me. But without heat, moisture, or whatever, I can't really use my power.

It's a narrow and perhaps academic fluff distinction, in the end.

Magic could make something from nothing (a shower of stones from the heavens), but ki would change what already exists (erupting the earth at your feet into a shower of stone).

Ultimately, kind of the same mechanics, but that's more about 4e's level of abstraction, I guess.

 

[pawsplay]

Ki would seem to be more about changing what there already is around. The bending from Avatar might fit more under this category -- I punch and fire shoots out. I kick and water flows along with me. But without heat, moisture, or whatever, I can't really use my power.

Hm, I wonder if the Avatar writers are L5R fans? Anyway, ki, after all, is the energy that flows in everything, but what you are saying makes thematic sense. In the end it doesn't make that much of a difference.... the ki master manipulates fire and hurls it, the wizard manipulates arcane energy and transforms it into fire. They are much the same. As I noted above, the very concept of ki is closely tied to the idea of supernatural energy.