The monk. It will be mystical most likely

[GreyICE]

I liked the 4E monk with his Movement/Attack powers that gave him unprecedented mobility and really insane attacks.

I wish he had a LITTLE more single-target stuff, but there's no question that the monk could just do things like vault over the ogre, land in the group of archers, and become a whirling wall of fists.

 

[Andor]

There are really three seperate things being conflated here:

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

2) Should there be a mystical warrior class akin to Shao-lin Monks or Sohei?

3) Some rather confused notions about the 'historical purity' of D&D's vaguely-sorta-kinda european vibe.

My thoughts on these matters.

1) 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'.

2) Why not? We already have paladins and combat clerics. D&D theology/cosmology has never been nailed down enough to preclude the idea, so it only seems logical someone would have wanted to blend magic and buttkicking.

3) I'll try not to turn this into a rant.
a) D&D is not set on Earth in the past. It is a different world with multiple intelligent races and different geography, ecology, theology, and physics.
b) D&D society is not a good match for any historical culture or region on earth. Anywhere. Ever.
c) Crusaders and Shao-lin Monks along with Samurai, Ninjas, Chevaliers, Shamans, Witch-Doctors, Hassishim/Assassins, Mongol horsemen and Rabbis all lived right here, on Earth, at the same time.
d) Marco Polo, whose journeys would take a day or two on dragon-back or an instant for a teleporter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Monks, presented as a culture-neutral, spiritually-inclined warrior fueled by inner power are fine. Most published versions of the class have not lived up to this.

In other words, if you get a player who only
wants to play a certain class, they're going to whine and bitch and complain and whine until they get it. The ranger's player? STILL keeps trying to talk me into letting him play a drow ninja even though I've told him no every time for the past 5 months.

I don't get this.

First, this problem player is not who we should be thinking about when we're talking about game design. D&D should be built with the assumption that its players are generally decent people, and are not muchkins/rules lawyers/various other destructive things.

Second, if the player is really this way, then he will have the same complaint regardless of whether the class is legally available or not. If it isn't, he'll find it in some third part product or convert it from another edition or write it himself and then complain he can't use it.

So the argument that having opt-out rules doesn't work because players complain too much doesn't hold water for me.

Good luck dealing with those players.

 

[IanB]

I just wish they'd switch from 'ki' to 'chi'.

 

[Vael]

3) I'll try not to turn this into a rant.
a) D&D is not set on Earth in the past. It is a different world with multiple intelligent races and different geography, ecology, theology, and physics.
b) D&D society is not a good match for any historical culture or region on earth. Anywhere. Ever.
c) Crusaders and Shao-lin Monks along with Samurai, Ninjas, Chevaliers, Shamans, Witch-Doctors, Hassishim/Assassins, Mongol horsemen and Rabbis all lived right here, on Earth, at the same time.
d) Marco Polo, whose journeys would take a day or two on dragon-back or an instant for a teleporter.

This alone deserves some XP.

 

[Minigiant]

I just wish they'd switch from 'ki' to 'chi'.

Ks are cooler

 

[Pheonix0114]

All I know is that if Monks aren't there then I have some Desert Dwarves who discouraged weapons and armor as a liability and gain "mystical energy" from a mildly poisonous flowering plant to find a new home for. And the elves that fight with only their bodies because "it is more graceful and sophisticated".

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm not sure I even want the monk to be explicitly unarmed. I like monks to use staves, sickles, small swords, spears, or the like without it being obviously inferior to their unarmed strike.

I think unarmed combat would best be served as a theme (certainly a suggested one for the monk, but not attached).

Mysticism or Ki or Psionic (though I don't really equate the latter with the monk) could be a matter of level, or a matter of fluff, but the class should allow people to opt-in on the level of "magic" involved in their monk. You should also be able to opt-in on the level of "asian-ness".

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.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I just wish they'd switch from 'ki' to 'chi'.

I hope neither is explicitly tied to the monk, thank god power sources have gone bye-bye.

 

[Steely_Dan]

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 totally agree, and I hope it's core, otherwise, it will once again feel tacked on. Psionics is in 5h Ed, as evidenced from the Grey Ooze.