Nifft said:
See "Design Goals". Monks do have Striker stuff in them. But shutting down a single target is certainly the domain of the Controller: look at the Orb Wizard. That's what he does all day, every day.
Why is it so hard to imagine a Martial Controller?
Look at the weapons which benefit from Wisdom. Dropping spears would be inaccurate and mechanically insane.
What edition of D&D had Monks who couldn't use daggers?
Dabbling in Defender and Striker is part of the design goal. He should be inferior to both true Strikers and true Defenders, and so far, I think he is.
Discussed in Design Goals: I don't want to give away a class feature worth more than actual weapons. With the proficiency bonus and powers which work with unarmed strike, he's still the best naked fighter in the world.
Secondly, I do NOT want to encourage a high-level character to fight unarmed, because magical weapon prices are non-trivial. Casters need implements and warriors need weapons. The enhancement bonuses really matter. I'm not giving that away until I see a decent analysis of the high-level economy.
That's what a Striker would want.
Why would you power this up? Burst attacks which target only enemies are really, really strong. Daily and Encounter powers are the right place for such things, not At-Wills.
Cheers, -- N
1)Eh, I was going by the blurb in the PHB.
"Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at the
same time. They favor offense over defense, using powers
that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler
powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes." Lacking the defense of long range targeting at a crowd, due to the need of attacking in the middle of the enemy crowd to be most effective.
2)Nah, just when I think of Monk its usually tied with Asian, which goes with Ki. Martial works though.
3)How do spears benefit from Wisdom specifically? Though yeah, D&D in the past haven't excluded them before.
4)For Dabbling, he takes one key feature that make one Defender the Fighter uses to make enemies target him specifically all the time. The other, he matches the extra damage from Rangers and Warlocks perfectly. It seems to me to being too much as it literally matches a Core Defender way of making an enemy to attack him and matching the extra damage a Warlock or a Ranger, at the same time. A lesser version of both, or a possible option of choosing between the two maybe.
Edit: Oh I see, the restriction of just against one monster was meant to do weaken the Mark from the Fighter's version. And doesn't have the rider of OAs depending the the Marked's actions. Just a Fighter doesn't have too many multi-hit powers I thought? Calling it Mark threw me off, and thinking it was the very same thing as a Fighter's Mark.
Trading one move action to match the extra damage from a Warlock and Ranger still doesn't seem right to me at the moment though.
5)True, I can see your reasoning behind that. Leaving your original class feature for Unarmed combat would be best, and look into adding in possible hand worn weapons instead for enhancement bonus and possible damage increase. Possibly things like Steel Knuckles, Fighting Gloves, and ect.
6)True, it was meant mix between Striker(evading damage) and a possible Defender want(Enemy doesn't disappear) when trying to contain an enemy taking potshots the back lines.
7)Right, missed that one. It should Fury of Blows target all creatures in the Burst, not just enemies. It was done to prevent it from beating a Rangers Twin Strike, the pure striker class. More attacks, sure, but less against one enemy and maybe even hit allies.