The Monk -- a Martial Controller

[Quartz]

Since we're discussing monks, I'm not sure about this Ki power source. Surely it's just a version of psychic? I'd make the monk a psychic striker with a secondary role as defender.

 

[Nifft]

LOL it's not that... it's that it's hard to imagine a martial Monk. What is the Ki power source for if not for Monks?

No idea. But that's not my problem -- unless you can get me some pre-release data on this Ki power source, it's useless to me.

Yes I did read the design goals, but while I do think you have a lots of things done right, I don't think the design is really coming together.

Well, it's not exactly done yet. (That said, I'm going to stop arguing if it's possible to do, and get back to doing it.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[generalhenry]

PHB p 54

monks use Ki

 

[Nifft]

Since we're discussing monks, I'm not sure about this Ki power source. Surely it's just a version of psychic? I'd make the monk a psychic striker with a secondary role as defender.

I hope Psychic isn't just Arcane with different Implements. But I don't know how they are can get away from Implements without messing up their economy.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

PHB p 54

monks use Ki

Once again, get me details on exactly what "Ki" means in terms of mechanics, or it's 100% useless to me.

Thanks, -- N

 

[generalhenry]

unless you can get me some pre-release data on this Ki power source, it's useless to me.

Power sources are pure flavor.

Having Ki as the power source just means you get to bend physics more than a martial character would be able too.

Well, it's not exactly done yet. (That said, I'm going to stop arguing if it's possible to do, and get back to doing it.)

Well I'd say the at wills are ok, but the class features need work.

 

[WOLead]

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.

 

[jeff0]

This is a cool design. When I first started reading it, it sounded way overpowered. But then once all of the monk's limitations started to sink in, it seems fairly balanced.

I especially like how the stances interact with Quivering Palm. In that Quivering Palm is really tough to set up (given that it takes a move action), but that you can coerce your enemy to stand still long enough to use it by switching to a more offensive stance.

I definitely think the at-wills need to have an "unarmed" or "monk weapon only" limitation though. They should be balanced against the best weapons a monk is going to be using. Flurry of Blows with a flail would be way too good. Likewise, if you opt for the "monk weapons only" limitation, then unarmed strike needs to be improved considerably to make it comparable to a spear power-wise (maybe +3 proficiency, 1d6 damage, to the spear's +2 proficiency, 1d8 damage). Either that or have a mix of "monk weapon" and "unarmed" abilities, where the unarmed ones compensate for the lesser damage.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of monks Marking, though I'm not sure I could say why.

 

[generalhenry]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16159216#post16159216

 

[Nifft]

This is a cool design. When I first started reading it, it sounded way overpowered. But then once all of the monk's limitations started to sink in, it seems fairly balanced.

Thanks, and I do hope it balances out.

I especially like how the stances interact with Quivering Palm. In that Quivering Palm is really tough to set up (given that it takes a move action), but that you can coerce your enemy to stand still long enough to use it by switching to a more offensive stance.

Exactly. You need to attack an enemy (to Mark it), and then you need to hit it again while it's Marked and while you still have a Move action left. So you can use your Mark as a "threat", since an enemy knows it can't tank you unless it wants to be Quivered.

I definitely think the at-wills need to have an "unarmed" or "monk weapon only" limitation though.

"Unarmed" would screw stuff up. Either the Monk would start to progressively suck more at level 5 (where magic weapons are expected), or he'd need to get free bonus goodies equal to a magic weapon (in which case he'd have a bunch of extra money).

Monk melee weapons would be: unarmed, light blades, spears, staff.
Monk ranged weapons would be: dagger, javelin, shuriken.

Best Monk weapon would be either the longspear or the katar, though the rapier looks nice too.

(A Monk with a rapier sounds silly, but no more silly than a knight in fullplate with a rapier.)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthrea...16#post16159216

He's going the Implement + Weapon route, which I don't want to force on people.

Cheers, -- N