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

[Runestar]

I picture him as some sort of melee defender/controller hybrid. He will have powers that let him shift enemies around and debuff them (trip, stun etc). Basically a sort of proactive defense, where you force enemies to want to deal with you first, or end up somewhere they would rather not be, like pushed into a pit or over a cliff. His defenses come more in the form of high AC (and perhaps this AC can get higher when enemies miss him) and counters which allow him to negate/redirect attacks rather than more hp or healing surges. But he will also have a decent skill list to rival that of the rogue or ranger.

 

[Gargoyle]

Striker. But honestly, if I were to design a 4e monk, I wouldn't limit myself to one class. A defender and controller, like the above posts suggest, would be fun too, all using the ki power source.

The interesting part of that is "how does having Ki as your power source cause these monk style classes to behave differently from the other power sources...and how could you design such classes to mesh with the existing classes?"

Ki Striker = closest to 3e monk (the mage killer)
Ki Controller = martial artist that can take on large groups (minion killer)
Ki Defender = martial artist who may not be as tough as a chainmail wearing fighter, but who can trip, grapple, and dodge attacks to serve in the defender role.

I really don't like the idea of just cloning 3E classes in 4E, so I think the role of the monk could be one of many cool possibilities, and several classes could be the way to do it.

 

[Gargoyle]

I picture him as some sort of melee defender/controller hybrid.

I dislike the idea of hybrids, and hope that the classes in the PHBII aren't trying to fill more than one role. IMO, if you have more than one role, you're trying to cram too much into one class. The whole idea of roles in 4e is to make certain classes aren't too good at everything or no good at anything.

 

[Runestar]

I dislike the idea of hybrids, and hope that the classes in the PHBII aren't trying to fill more than one role. IMO, if you have more than one role, you're trying to cram too much into one class. The whole idea of roles in 4e is to make certain classes aren't too good at everything or no good at anything.

Problem with pure roles is the problem of attempting to differentiate them from existing PHB classes. Lets say the monk is a striker. What is to make him stand out from a rogue or ranger, other than powers with different names, if he ends up playing the same? Likewise, there are already 2, and soon 3 defenders. How might the monk be any different?

I disagree with the theory that a hybrid class may cram too much into one class. To cite an example, the 4e elf cleric archer archetype. It works fairly well as a leader/striker hybrid. You can still heal well, and deal decent damage, though not as much as a properly optimized striker or leader.

This is also a reason why I somewhat despise the idea of roles. They are there simply to idiot-proof the game by allowing new players to quickly get into the feel of how a certain class may be played, but it should not become a straitjacket as to how it must be played (just because a fighter is a defender does not mean that it cannot be built as an effective striker), nor should it needlessly impede the design of future classes (ie: the class must fit into one of the pre-existing role definitions and not be allowed to deviate).

My idea of hybrids would that they might not be as effective as a class fully devoted to one of its dual-roles, so it would be more useful as that 5th PC you use to round out your party's existing capabilities, sorta like the bard or warmage in a 3e game. But the advantage would that they allow you a unique playing experience which cannot be replicated using the current available classes (because as you said, a defender will always be a defender). In the end, you would not necessarily be any stronger or weaker, just different.

 

[Gargoyle]

Problem with pure roles is the problem of attempting to differentiate them from existing PHB classes. Lets say the monk is a striker. What is to make him stand out from a rogue or ranger, other than powers with different names, if he ends up playing the same? Likewise, there are already 2, and soon 3 defenders. How might the monk be any different?

The paladin and fighter seem different enough from each other, as are the ranger and rogue. I don't think it takes too much imagination to create new powers that feel different yet have the same goal.

I disagree with the theory that a hybrid class may cram too much into one class. To cite an example, the 4e elf cleric archer archetype. It works fairly well as a leader/striker hybrid. You can still heal well, and deal decent damage, though not as much as a properly optimized striker or leader.

Well, that's not a hybrid class, and it demonstrates that you don't need a hybrid class to play a character with versatility using just the PHB.

This is also a reason why I somewhat despise the idea of roles. They are there simply to idiot-proof the game by allowing new players to quickly get into the feel of how a certain class may be played, but it should not become a straitjacket as to how it must be played (just because a fighter is a defender does not mean that it cannot be built as an effective striker), nor should it needlessly impede the design of future classes (ie: the class must fit into one of the pre-existing role definitions and not be allowed to deviate).

Idiot proof sounds pretty harsh. I want a game that's designed not just for experienced players, but also for newbs and casual players. My friends aren't idiots, but some of them make choices for roleplaying reasons, or they just don't see the point of spending hours min/maxing. I like it when they can't make choices that drag the rest of the group down in combat and result in TPKs.

I realize of course, that some people don't want a game that is "idiot proof" and like that there are strategic challenges in building effective characters. I'm just not one of those people.

My idea of hybrids would that they might not be as effective as a class fully devoted to one of its dual-roles, so it would be more useful as that 5th PC you use to round out your party's existing capabilities, sorta like the bard or warmage in a 3e game. But the advantage would that they allow you a unique playing experience which cannot be replicated using the current available classes (because as you said, a defender will always be a defender). In the end, you would not necessarily be any stronger or weaker, just different.

I think hybrids are pretty much inevitable, to be honest, whether I like the idea or not. If WotC doesn't create them, there will be plenty of third party hybrid classes out there, and some of them will probably be brilliantly designed and fun.

I just don't think that the few good ones will be worth the poorly designed ones. I guess my point is game design needs to be more idiot proofed in 4e, not necessarily game play. Roles help that IMO. By focusing classes into specific roles, it's much simpler to create a balanced fun class because you can compare them directly to existing classes.

I can hope that if the druid or monk is a hybrid in PHB II, they will be well designed hybrids and provide examples for other WotC and third party designers. I'm just not too optimistic about it.

 

[Runestar]

I realize of course, that some people don't want a game that is "idiot proof" and like that there are strategic challenges in building effective characters. I'm just not one of those people.

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.

 

[Zhure]

I was thinking - a dangerous habit - that a controller monk would be ideal, filling in the dearth of controllers. Then I started pondering how one could reskin a wizard to be a monk...

Intelligence as a primary stat represents the character's training and knowledge being more important to his effects than his physicality. Thus a frail old man is an excellent kung fu master.

Take staff mastery, staff is a monk-like weapon and the extra defense is useful.
Thunderwave becomes some kind of foot stomp or hand clap.
Magic Missile becomes some sort of ranged ki strike, still a force effect.
Cloud of Daggers becomes Cloud of Shuriken... weak, since you'd not get proficiency and the ability to sustain the effect seems weird.
Scorching Burst, Ray of Frost all become Dragonball-Z like effects.

I'll put some more ponder into it.
Z

 

[underfoot007]

Before the game was released, a designer was asked if the monk would be a martial striker. He replied that the question was "half right" or words to that effect. Now, since then the Ki power source was confirmed to exist, and I find it hard to believe that the Monk won't fall into the Ki source if they have a Ki source. So the 50% that would be right would be striker, which makes more sense than the alternative (Monk being neither striker nor Ki).

under "power sources" box in the phb page 54, ".......monks harness the power of thier soul energy (or KI),..........

so the monk will be a Ki Striker.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

The line between character types is not always obvious. The classic D&D monk is probably a striker -- high mobility, mediocre hit points, and a bunch of peculiar attacks. However, a traditional 'soft' style martial artist, who focuses on trips, throws, grapples, and punishing people who attack near him, would probably function more like a defender than a striker.

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.