The monk. It will be mystical most likely

[Viktyr Gehrig]

On the subject of the Psion, I really hope they include it as the ONLY psionic class in the game. I think there's room for psionics in D&D, but I think it would best be represented by a single, well-designed class.

I'm actually really hoping that they're both psionic classes, so that we have two classes using the psionics rules, in different ways, at the same time. It's like having Fighter/Rogue/Warlord, Ranger/Druid, and Wizard/Bard/Warlock all in the core-- it shows the diversity of the power source.

 

[Andor]

As a side note on the monk discussion there is one annoying bit of cultural baggage they always insist on sticking into the monk class which is a poor fit for a generic class. To wit: "Monk weapons"

Tonfas, kama, nun-chuks, three-section-staff, etc. These are all agricultural implements adapted to use as weapons.

These are all ties to a culture that used them as weapons because they were not allowed to own actual weapons. Most D&D cultures seem to be closer to medieval England where everyone is in the militia and are required to go practice the longbow after church on Sunday by law.

In China, where the monks had no such restrictions, they did have some oddities like the lajatang and 'meteor hammer' but mostly they trained with mainstream weapons like the spear and sword.

So rather than tying weapons to character classes they should be tied to culture/social class.

Also [pet peeve] the Kama and the sickle are the same damn farm tool being turned into the same damn weapon. One is not exotic because you spelled the name differently, you hear me 3e?!? [/pet peeve]

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Should there be unarmed fighting styles as a valid combat choice?

... Yes. With multiple styles please, some mystical, some not. Some tied to classes and some not. A Theme is a perfectly lovely place to stick a few of these. Or possibly as a background for others or as an alternate weapon proficiency.
a) Yes, Europeans had unarmed fighting styles. Yes, some of them were as developed as Eastern ones. No they were not tied to mystical traditions, for the same reasons that Shao-lin monks did not carry around the bones of 'saints'.

I've been rather blaise about monks through the years, and this above is the core of it. Get fighting styles worked out right in the mechanics, and the monk may end up as something that our group can use in some campaigns. Don't get them worked out, probably not, no matter what thing gets called "monk" in the rules.

 

[Minigiant]

As a side note on the monk discussion there is one annoying bit of cultural baggage they always insist on sticking into the monk class which is a poor fit for a generic class. To wit: "Monk weapons"

Tonfas, kama, nun-chuks, three-section-staff, etc. These are all agricultural implements adapted to use as weapons.

These are all ties to a culture that used them as weapons because they were not allowed to own actual weapons. Most D&D cultures seem to be closer to medieval England where everyone is in the militia and are required to go practice the longbow after church on Sunday by law.

In China, where the monks had no such restrictions, they did have some oddities like the lajatang and 'meteor hammer' but mostly they trained with mainstream weapons like the spear and sword.

So rather than tying weapons to character classes they should be tied to culture/social class.

Also [pet peeve] the Kama and the sickle are the same damn farm tool being turned into the same damn weapon. One is not exotic because you spelled the name differently, you hear me 3e?!? [/pet peeve]

On the monk weapon front, i'll go with this.

Monks get simple melee and missile weapons plus 2 martial, 2 exotic, 1 complex ranged.

That way you can choose the culture of the monk more.

 

[Steely_Dan]

it shows the diversity of the power source.

There are no power sources in 5th Ed (or roles).

 

[Steely_Dan]

Monks get simple melee and missile weapons plus 2 martial, 2 exotic

There are no exotic weapons in 5th Ed.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

There are no power sources in 5th Ed (or roles).

There are no rules that make reference to them yet. There's a difference.

 

[Steely_Dan]

There are no rules that make reference to them yet. There's a difference.

Power Sources didn't really have rules to begin with, except as a prerequisite for some feats and Paragon Paths, right?

And I believe they have stated power sources as in 4th Ed are bye-bye (and roles).

Clerics do not cast/perform etc Prayers anymore for one thing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There are no rules that make reference to them yet. There's a difference.

Power Sources didn't really have rules to begin with, except as a prerequisite for some feats and Paragon Paths, right?

And I believe they have stated power sources as in 4th Ed are bye-bye (and roles).

Clerics do not cast/perform etc Prayers anymore for one thing.

As is usually the case in an argument, the truth is somewhere in the middle. They are not calling specific attention to "power source" as a concept, but each class certainly has a story-based place where their power comes from.

Clerics, for example, still get their power from divine beings.

This time around, it appears they will tie the class to it's "power source" in a much more individual style. Monks will almost certainly gain their power from intense physical, mental, and spiritual discipline. (In other words, a combination of 4e's martial, psionic, and the short-lived ki power sources).

But it is really extremely unlikely that they will neatly place each class under any single power-source label. I for one, thank them for that.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

But it is really extremely unlikely that they will neatly place each class under any single power-source label. I for one, thank them for that.

Can't XP you again yet, but me too. I like the idea that some classes use multiple power sources and cover multiple roles-- but I want these things to be explicit, so that they can have rules that tie them together the way that 4e did.