D&D 4E Seeking opinion of role of 4e monk

[Runestar]

Guideline is not the word you're looking for. A guideline is functionally useless because RPGs require "hard-coded" mechanics to operate. No mechanics, no rules. It would be like saying, "I'm a defender. I protect people, can take punishment and I'm effective in melee." However, if the rules support none of that in game play then you're not a defender. No matter how hard you try. You're like the Mystery Men trying to be super heroes yet never meet the Sphinx.

Well then, what word am I looking for?

Paladins multiclass well with Warlocks because they both use CHA as a primary stat. A defender doesn't HAVE to stand up front. That is a misconception. It's often more effective if they do but they can still be effective when they aren't. Paladins especially.

But then that wouldn't be a defender in the sense of the word, would it? Especially if you mark and then go invis. The enemy cannot locate you, much less attack you, and is thus forced to either do nothing, or attack another PC (at the expense of a lower attack roll and some damage). If anything, you have just given said foe more incentive to want to attack someone else, which seems contrary to your suggested role. The result would be an atypical paladin who can still deal decent damage in combat, but there would be nothing "defender'ish" about him (which we assume is an intentional build design goal).

Clearly you're still new to 4e because everything within your examples is possible and effective. No game can support every design perfectly and maintain a modicum of balance, that's a given. But claiming that a game cannot do what it clearly can only exposes your lack of effort to fully understand the system, nothing more.

I am still fairly unfamiliar with 4e, that much I concede. But I don't get the part where I am purportedly said that the game is unable to achieve so and so. When did I say that?

 

[Gargoyle]

Not really my point. I am simply trying to say that the concept of roles is but a mere guideline on how you might want to play a certain class, rather than a hard-coded limitation on how it must be played. It would simply save people the time and trouble of having to figure out how it works, nothing more. But that would only be one way in which said class might be played. There could well be many others.

For example, the concept of a defender is one who stands at the forefront taking hits on behalf of other PCs. But there is no reason why a ranged paladin of sorts could not be conceptualized, using archery and powers like eyebite and gnome invisibility to turn divine challenge from a "taunt" ability into some sort of ranged attack power.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for such guidelines (considering the disaster the 3e fighter can be without any guidance), but I draw the line when they start constraining what sort of character concepts I can design.

I think we agree on these points much more I first thought.

I do not think roles should be used as straightjackets, but I do see the value of them both for players and class designers.

 

[Insight]

I'm working on a Ki Striker Monk right now.

As a concept, Ki is all about the balance in your soul. If you are in balance, you are strong, quick, and vital. If you are out of balance, you are weak, slow, and feeble. Ki as a power source is about manipulating others' Ki or using your own source of harmony or balance.

In game terms, Ki's balance mostly revolves around whether you are bloodied or not. It's the path of least resistance, although admittedly, other things could also represent being out of balance (taking ongoing damage might be a good example).

The Monk cruises quickly around the battlefield, taking out single foes or putting foes into disadvantageous positions (think prone, dazed, disarmed, pushed, immobile, etc), allowing other melee characters to abuse them. Monks are notoriously difficult to pin down, and while they can use weapons if they choose, Monks tend to be even more dangerous without a weapon.

Each Monk has a certain 'aspect' of their Ki that tends to express itself more often. This 'aspect' comes from the five traditional Chinese elements: Metal, Wood, Fire, Earth, and Water. The 'aspect' you choose gives you certain benefits - but only when you are in balance.

One thing that I've struggled with is how to scale damage. I can't see Monks having something akin to the Warlock's Curse or Hunter's Quarry. Obviously, you can bump the Monk's unarmed damage, but that only makes the Monk's unarmed attack equivalent to a weapon. It doesn't give the Monk something along the lines of Sneak Attack, or the above mentioned abilities.

I'd be happy to post some of my work once it's past the 'alpha' stage. In fact, I'd like to have EN Worlders and others playtest the class once it's ready.

 

[Cadfan]

Roles haven't been straight jackets so far... each class has powers that slide a little outside of its particular niche.

Oddly enough, power source HAS been a straight jacket, but since power source is mostly fluff, I'm not sure how much I care... I might care, I'm just not sure yet.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One thing that I've struggled with is how to scale damage. I can't see Monks having something akin to the Warlock's Curse or Hunter's Quarry.

I can. Bonus damage based on pressure points and precise striking could scale.

Monks are notoriously difficult to pin down, and while they can use weapons if they choose, Monks tend to be even more dangerous without a weapon.

How does this make sense? Martial arts isn't likely to ever be superior to a weapon, but it lets you do things like throw and disarm someone simultaneously, which you (probably) can't do with (most) weapons.

Some real-life martial artists (or, at least, groups of people commonly believed to be martial artists) frequently used spears, quarterstaves and possibly other weapons. There'd be no reason not to if unarmed is superior.

I think I have a compromise in mind... you can trade in extra "pressure point" damage for throwing, tripping, etc, but you can usually only use such abilities with unarmed attacks.

The Monk cruises quickly around the battlefield

I think we need to keep the amount of "zipping" down. Not only do rogues and rangers not get extra speed, but most real life martial arts styles don't put a premium on fast locomotion.

Obviously, you can bump the Monk's unarmed damage, but that only makes the Monk's unarmed attack equivalent to a weapon. It doesn't give the Monk something along the lines of Sneak Attack, or the above mentioned abilities.

See above

I think there needs to be a discussion about what we want from a monk. How much should they resemble real martial artists? How much ki to give them (eg how realistic)? Are flaming fists okay, or not subtle enough? Should monks be really fast, immune to poison, etc.

If players want to play Bruce Lee, this should not be a problem, and it should fit into the rules. Somehow. In a realistic way, however (eg no fists doing more damage than a greatsword, at least not without some real good explanation.)

 

[Alabast]

I already have my monk in the works. I'll post it here when I'm done. Here's a preview of what they can do:

Certain weapons some new (eg nunchaku), some already existing (quarterstaff, sickle, shuriken eg), will gain the special quality "monk weapon" that allows them to be used with monk powers that have the weapon keyword. Monks will get bonuses with these weapons, like rogues do with shuriken and daggers.

A monks unarmed strike will do more damage (prolly 1d6, upped to 2d6 at 21st level), and will count as a monk weapon for the purposes of powers. Monks gain a +4 proficiency bonus to hit with unarmed strikes, which is what rogues get with daggers. This bonus only applies to powers with the weapon keyword, which generally attack AC. To prevent "Touch of Death"-type attacks that target other defenses from being broken, they don't use and weapon keyword and don't gain the +4 proficiency bonus.

Ki-Focus: Akin to hunter's quarry and warlock's curse. Minor to activate, extra damage, but must be expended before start of next turn.

Key stat: Dex. Builds: Fist Monk (High damage, Str secondary stat), Palm Monk (Inflict conditions, Wis secondary stat).

Strong attack powers that require the target first be grabbed.

More later...

 

[Insight]

I can. Bonus damage based on pressure points and precise striking could scale.

Yeah, that makes some sense. I want to stay away from marking per se, so in order to make the Monk a striker, it needs to have superior damage capability. Some sort of precision based damage, a la Sneak Attack, may fit the bill.

How does this make sense? Martial arts isn't likely to ever be superior to a weapon, but it lets you do things like throw and disarm someone simultaneously, which you (probably) can't do with (most) weapons.

Some real-life martial artists (or, at least, groups of people commonly believed to be martial artists) frequently used spears, quarterstaves and possibly other weapons. There'd be no reason not to if unarmed is superior.

I think I have a compromise in mind... you can trade in extra "pressure point" damage for throwing, tripping, etc, but you can usually only use such abilities with unarmed attacks.

Without a weapon, the Monk is quicker and more precise. But I agree that many martial arts feature weapon use. Note that the vast majority of these martial arts teach unarmed first, and then integrate weapon use into the style. Of course you have the outliers like Kyudo and Kendo, but honestly, there are a LOT more styles that don't teach weapons than the ones that do.

So the question becomes how to make unarmed attacks a viable option without making them the only option and without making them worthless compared to a weapon. A tradeoff of some kind. I suppose a tradeoff accuracy for damage isn't necessarily a bad one. Also, the precision strikes mentioned above might only work with unarmed attacks (or maybe you could take a feat that let the Monk use precision with one weapon per feat, something along those lines).

I think we need to keep the amount of "zipping" down. Not only do rogues and rangers not get extra speed, but most real life martial arts styles don't put a premium on fast locomotion.

My Monk gains a +1 bonus to base speed at each tier. There are some powers that increase speed, but those are encounters or dailies. I suppose a level 30 Elf Monk with Boots of Striding and Springing is going to have a base speed around 12.

The movement bonus can mitigate the lack of "BOOM" damage, but it has to be a balance.

I think there needs to be a discussion about what we want from a monk. How much should they resemble real martial artists? How much ki to give them (eg how realistic)? Are flaming fists okay, or not subtle enough? Should monks be really fast, immune to poison, etc.

If players want to play Bruce Lee, this should not be a problem, and it should fit into the rules. Somehow. In a realistic way, however (eg no fists doing more damage than a greatsword, at least not without some real good explanation.)

Well, the other thing to consider is that the Ki power source can have classes other than Monk. Some things that are attributed to 'martial arts' can find their ways into other classes.

In my version of the Monk, Ki expresses itself as one of the classic Chinese elements. If you choose the Fire aspect, you can have flaming fists (but you lose out on the other choices). That may not seem very "Monk"-y to some people, so this aspect of the class may be on the chopping block, especially if I add that precision based damage bonus. Decisions decisions.

 

[Cadfan]

So the question becomes how to make unarmed attacks a viable option without making them the only option and without making them worthless compared to a weapon. A tradeoff of some kind. I suppose a tradeoff accuracy for damage isn't necessarily a bad one. Also, the precision strikes mentioned above might only work with unarmed attacks (or maybe you could take a feat that let the Monk use precision with one weapon per feat, something along those lines).

The simplest and most obvious way to do this is to copy the fighter. Give the monk access to a suite of 5 or 6 weapon types. Make the powers at level 3, 13, and 23 have special benefits if (or only work if) you use a particular weapon type, with different benefits for each weapon type.

So, maybe you could declare that an unarmed strike is a 1d6 weapon for the monk, create stats for nunchaku, sais, etc, and you've already got the quarterstaff as a bo. Great. Now write up some special monk flavored powers that use these weapons, and you're good to go.

Personally, I like the high-flavor route, so I'd go a little further. Instead of having merely associated weapons like the fighter, I'd have a martial arts style for each weapon. That way I can get a little more flavor into the weapon specific powers- instead of being restricted to things that the weapon could logically do, I'd have a restriction to things the style could logically do, and the style would use the weapon. It broadens the options. You know, like they did in Tome of Battle. Nothing intrinsically links the scimitar to fire powers, but creating the link in terms of flavor justified a broader, more flavorful Desert Wind school. I think the book was better for it.

 

[Stogoe]

Certain weapons some new (eg nunchaku), some already existing (quarterstaff, sickle, shuriken eg), will gain the special quality "monk weapon" that allows them to be used with monk powers that have the weapon keyword. Monks will get bonuses with these weapons, like rogues do with shuriken and daggers.

I don't think you need to give them a special quality. Just go the path of the rogue - allow their striker damage to apply only when using unarmed attacks, q-staff, shuriken, etc.

EDIT: I also like Cadfan's idea of splitting the monk up by weapon/school a la the Warlock, and giving weapon-specific bonuses to powers a la the Fighter.

 

[fba827]

monk = ki striker is my opinion. Is my opinion worth anything? Not really. But you did ask