Why not combine the Fighter and Monk Classes?

[Remathilis]

And finally, Assassin and Warlord are not class-worthy archetypes. Anyone can be an assassin - a rogue, a fighter, a mage, even a cleric or druid; they just need to focus their abilities on killing people (for money, pleasure, king and country, etc).

Really, they should bite the bullet and call the class "Ninja" because that's what it is. Death attacks, ninja magic, darts and poisons and garrotes, etc. However, that's a Catch 22 since then it gets tossed with monk into the "OMG Azn!" classes.

Ninja - Oriental = Assassin.

 

[MoonSong]

The Sorcerer and Warlock, OTOH, are just mages who acquire their power in a slightly different way than the vanilla wizard. They may require slightly different mechanics for power acquisition and usage but, at the end of the day, they can work fine as kits/subclasses/themes/whatever.

I'm sorry but that is the same as saying Ranger and barbarian are just flavors of the generic fighter. "I sold my soul for power, as a result I can do amazing things without even having to make an effort, since my benefactor does all of the dirty work for me", "I spent my youth studying the laws of the universe for years and now I can bend them as a result since I know about the loopholes in them" and "I was born with this power, to me there is no difference between the magical and non-magical, because both are equally easy to me" are all very deep differences and go beyond flavor.

I've played lot's of sorcerers and no two of them have ever been the same, they can be bent in many, many ways, there is no such a thing as a "generic sorcerer" at most the default flavor is "draconic bloodline sorcerer", if you are not convinced just check how many bloodlines Pathfinder has made for sorcerers and how many bloodline groups existed by the time complete mage was published, 4e is the blandest in this regard as it only had five or eight flavors of sorcerer (depending on wether you count elementalists as a single flavor or actually four different flavors).

And a sorcerer's bloodline is only a small facet of the sorcerer, because a sorcerer can come from any place in the world, unlike the wizards -because their background necesarily implies they spent a lot of time studying to get their magic, was it by a mentor, finding an ancient tome or the (in)famous wizard school-. Also while a wizard's magic is their work or a tool for their job, a sorcerer's magic is an extension of themselves, as a result a sorcerer can dedicate to anything he or she desires, not only to a reduced career path. (So forcing all sorcerer's to have an specific background and theme is a big no, it wouldn't just do any justice to them)

This difference is key, deprive a wizard of his magics and he becomes nearly useless and extemely vulnerable, but that is hardly a temporal inconvenience, deprive a sorcerer of his and he still has plenty of resources to fight back, but the experience is extremely traumatic for them, because for a wizard a spell is like a hammer or a screwdriver, while for a sorcerer is like his arm or his hand.

Warlocks are similar, they can come from any place on the world and have any possible ocupation, the only thing they have in common is they -or someone in their name- made a pact with an unknown entity, and that's it. Beyond that warlock's are as diverse as their patrons and even more, as potentially anyone can make such pacts. Also warlocks aren't true spellcasters, forcing them to be derived from a true spellcasting class is clunky design.

Also Sorcerer's are the simplest arcane casters, if any class should (and none of them should) be implemented as a speciffic build of another class, is the wizard inside the sorcerer and not the other way around.

 

[Stormonu]

EDIT: just so that people understand where I'm coming from - I literally cannot stand class-based RPGs that have a glut of base classes. D&D 3.5 was getting problematic towards the end of its lifecycle. Pathfinder is getting there. 4E is ridiculous, it has a humongous list of base classes and every little mechanic they felt like testing got its own base class. If Next starts the same way, I am not even going to bother buying the core books.

Sadly, that's one of the downfalls of a class-based system. If classes could be treated as pregen packages of abilities, we'd have a lot less of these arguments and folks could just pick the cluster of abilities that fit their concept. But without the stratified classes and their fixed abilities, it wouldn't be D&D.

<EDIT> In the end, I think the designers are going to have to pick between two evils: Make a few base classes and tons of options to customize the classes, or tons of classes for every occasion but less open to customization. Both will be headaches to character design, but at different points in the decision-making process. Personally, I think I'd prefer the former instead of the latter.

 

[Remathilis]

Sadly, that's one of the downfalls of a class-based system. If classes could be treated as pregen packages of abilities, we'd have a lot less of these arguments and folks could just pick the cluster of abilities that fit their concept. But without the stratified classes and their fixed abilities, it wouldn't be D&D.

<EDIT> In the end, I think the designers are going to have to pick between two evils: Make a few base classes and tons of options to customize the classes, or tons of classes for every occasion but less open to customization. Both will be headaches to character design, but at different points in the decision-making process. Personally, I think I'd prefer the former instead of the latter.

The problem is the definition of "few" and "ton". Is "few" 4? 8? 12? 2? Likewise what is the limit? 14? 20? 32? 101?

Likewise, how much customization do we want before it isn't even "class" anymore? We could go like Skills & Powers and each class grants a variety of abilities bought against a pool of points. We could make them like the generic classes of Unearthed Arcana and make everything a feat. Likewise, unless a "build/subclass/fnarg" mostly consisting of re-arranging the deckchairs (the difference between 4e's greatsword/sword & board fighters vs. slayer and knight in Essentials) then its pointless; a paladin "build" and a paladin "class" eats up the same amount of space in the book and in the latter case, you can at least give your paladin a theme to make it unique (rather than it BE the theme to make your fighter unique).

There are a LOT of one-note classes in D&D (Cavaliers, Spellthieves, Runepriests) that make good themes or whatnot, but I really think reducing the classes to 1d4 plus a bunch of themes/builds fixes little and weakens the game.

 

[mlund]

Here is the thing.

There are no subclasses and kits in Next.

Correction: There are no sub-classes, kits, or class options in the Caves of Chaos Play-test. There aren't any Rangers or Paladins either. Looking at the wider content of design blogs and interviews they are clearly implementing both those classes/builds. They are also clearly implementing build options / specializations for various classes - highlighted explicitly in addressing fighting / weapon styles for the Fighter class, and in the new podcast by identifying the Cleric Domains as shaping your Build - e.x. weapon and armor proficiency as well as some spell powers all come from domains - so a Nature Domain cleric is a vast difference from a War Domain cleric vs. Sun Domain Cleric, to the point where the only thing AD&D, 3E, or Pathfinder could offer you is a separate class.

That Cleric Domain model is excellent. Combat Styles should do likewise for the Fighter, including Unarmed, Bow, Great Weapon, Shielded, etc.

- Marty Lund

 

[MoonSong]

Likewise, how much customization do we want before it isn't even "class" anymore? We could go like Skills & Powers and each class grants a variety of abilities bought against a pool of points. We could make them like the generic classes of Unearthed Arcana and make everything a feat. Likewise, unless a "build/subclass/fnarg" mostly consisting of re-arranging the deckchairs (the difference between 4e's greatsword/sword & board fighters vs. slayer and knight in Essentials) then its pointless; a paladin "build" and a paladin "class" eats up the same amount of space in the book and in the latter case, you can at least give your paladin a theme to make it unique (rather than it BE the theme to make your fighter unique).

Emphasis mine, not only that, but it opens up more possibilities for multiclassing. If sorcerer is just a wizard subclass, then there is no room for wizards/sorcerers, you cannot multiclass with another subclasss of your own class and if you do, there is no point on having subclasses at all beyond appeasing some close-minded people at the expense of bringing needless complexity to the rest.

 

[Minigiant]

Correction: There are no sub-classes, kits, or class options in the Caves of Chaos Play-test. There aren't any Rangers or Paladins either. Looking at the wider content of design blogs and interviews they are clearly implementing both those classes/builds. They are also clearly implementing build options / specializations for various classes - highlighted explicitly in addressing fighting / weapon styles for the Fighter class, and in the new podcast by identifying the Cleric Domains as shaping your Build - e.x. weapon and armor proficiency as well as some spell powers all come from domains - so a Nature Domain cleric is a vast difference from a War Domain cleric vs. Sun Domain Cleric, to the point where the only thing AD&D, 3E, or Pathfinder could offer you is a separate class.

That Cleric Domain model is excellent. Combat Styles should do likewise for the Fighter, including Unarmed, Bow, Great Weapon, Shielded, etc.

- Marty Lund

It really depends on how far they are willing to go with class builds, themes, .and backgrounds. Replicating many of the legacy or iconic classes will take more that a few short sentences. If they follow anything close to the playtest then their isn't enough resources. Replacing those classes with existing classes will be complicated, unbalancing, and/complex.

It is not impossible to make a monk with the classic 4 classes, a few themes and backgrounds. It more about having the end result worth the trouble while keeping the monk fans happy.

 

[Stormonu]

Emphasis mine, not only that, but it opens up more possibilities for multiclassing. If sorcerer is just a wizard subclass, then there is no room for wizards/sorcerers, you cannot multiclass with another subclasss of your own class and if you do, there is no point on having subclasses at all beyond appeasing some close-minded people at the expense of bringing needless complexity to the rest.

Wizard/Sorcerer, Fighter/Ranger, Thief/Bard and such really mostly redundant to me. They seem like they are combos that are 80-90% the same mechanically. If anything, I'd like to see a Class, Theme, Kit, Background scheme rather than a proliferation of mostly redundant classes.

Thus, you could have a Fighter [Class] (Paladin) [Kit/Sublass] Slayer [Theme] Soldier [Background]. And a Fighter (Knight) Cavalier Noble. Or perhaps a Rogue (Bard) Blade Performer. Maybe a Rogue (Thief) Trapspringer Urchin. Or a Mage (Invoker) Bookbound Academic. Possibly a Mage (Warlock) StarPact Thrall. Or a Priest (War) Crusader Wanderer, whose much like a paladin. Or a more classic Priest (Good) Cleric Templeborn.



<EDIT> You could also get campaign specific priests like Priest (Helmite) Champion Mercenary. Or Priest (Druid) AnimalWhisperer Hermit.

Likewise, it might also solve the CS conundrum for the ranger, paladin, barbarian and other "fighter types" - they could explicitely be given CS dice but their kit could express how its used - favored enemy fo rangers, smite for paladins, rage for barbarians, panache for swashbucklers, showmanship for gladiators, ki for samuria, etc.

Likewise for mages, kit could define how you use your magic -Vancian for wizards, pacts for Warlocks, arcane blood for sorcerers, truename, shadow magic, wild magic, whatever system you want to attach to the kit/subclass portion. Same for spheres/gods/spirits/nature or whatnot for priests. Again, you could then attach various subsystems to rogues to have special abilities to make the likes of bards, assassins, charlatans, beguilers, etc.

 

[Tovec]

Wizard/Sorcerer, Fighter/Ranger, Thief/Bard and such really mostly redundant to me. They seem like they are combos that are 80-90% the same mechanically. If anything, I'd like to see a Class, Theme, Kit, Background scheme rather than a proliferation of mostly redundant classes.

I wouldn't. I don't want to have to pick out a dozen little details to make one simple character. A fighter is a fighter, a paladin a paladin. I do not need different themes and backgrounds to define one as the other.

Thus, you could have a Fighter [Class] (Paladin) [Kit/Sublass] Slayer [Theme] Soldier [Background]. And a Fighter (Knight) Cavalier Noble. Or perhaps a Rogue (Bard) Blade Performer. Maybe a Rogue (Thief) Trapspringer Urchin. Or a Mage (Invoker) Bookbound Academic. Possibly a Mage (Warlock) StarPact Thrall. Or a Priest (War) Crusader Wanderer, whose much like a paladin. Or a more classic Priest (Good) Cleric Templeborn.

We already know Themes and Backgrounds are optional. If I want to play a character of nearly any class and not have to use an optional system I am completely out of luck. Not to mention wanting to play a simple Fighter. Not a Fighter (Templar) [slayer] {crusader} or whatever YOU think a fighter is to be a fighter. That is just with a simple class; not including the arguably more complex one of MONK which is what this thread is about.

I would be wholly surprised if the WotC design team produces a product with just 4 classes. I would be stunned and amazed. If I had any money I'd be willing to put it down to say that it wasn't going to happen.

Can we all agree that WotC IS NOT going to abandon all classes except the core four and move on?

<EDIT> You could also get campaign specific priests like Priest (Helmite) Champion Mercenary. Or Priest (Druid) AnimalWhisperer Hermit.

Well they aren't going to replace druid with a cleric. They might make a nature-y cleric but they won't replace the druid class with a subclass of cleric. I say this not because I don't think they are close (I don't but that isn't why I'm saying it), I am saying it because WHICH druid do they choose to be a cleric? I do agree with the rest of the campaign specific clerics stuff, they have said that much.

Likewise, it might also solve the CS conundrum for the ranger, paladin, barbarian and other "fighter types" - they could explicitely be given CS dice but their kit could express how its used - favored enemy fo rangers, smite for paladins, rage for barbarians, panache for swashbucklers, showmanship for gladiators, ki for samuria, etc.

Here is something else I hope that is optional, but hasn't been said to be optional so far. However, if I understand what CS looks like right now, isn't it more of a system meant to give fighters more options relating to combat maneuvers? I mean it is supposed to be able to protect them if they stand in a doorway and get wailed on but it doesn't seem to cover them using sword and board vs. greatsword vs. 2 daggers vs. charging on a horse. I may have missed something if it does. CS seemed to be more of a combat system to give them options as opposed to defining how they fight in the first place. For example, CS wouldn't define the armor they are wearing or their proficiencies, but it would be similar to being how well (or effectively) they do a trip attempt.

Likewise for mages, kit could define how you use your magic -Vancian for wizards, pacts for Warlocks, arcane blood for sorcerers, truename, shadow magic, wild magic, whatever system you want to attach to the kit/subclass portion. Same for spheres/gods/spirits/nature or whatnot for priests. Again, you could then attach various subsystems to rogues to have special abilities to make the likes of bards, assassins, charlatans, beguilers, etc.

It entirely depends on how they do "kits" but so far themes and backgrounds are capable and designed to give you minor changes between others of the same class. They AREN'T meant to replace an entire class. If you listed to the PA podcast #2 you hear mearls talking about a cleric of shadow being able to sneak like a rogue, but he never says that a cleric of shadows IS a rogue. Nor is he saying a rogue is only limited to sneaking. That is what is at stake here. When you start defining a class as only one or two sets of things and say that another class can cover that so it is okay to remove that class then it is a slippery slope. At what point do you decide a rogue is a wizard because wizards can sneak better and have open/close or knock? At what point do you decide the fighter is a cleric because both stand on the front lines and get hit? (A point I believe I made back on page 1.)

 

[MoonSong]

Wizard/Sorcerer, Fighter/Ranger, Thief/Bard and such really mostly redundant to me. They seem like they are combos that are 80-90% the same mechanically. If anything, I'd like to see a Class, Theme, Kit, Background scheme rather than a proliferation of mostly redundant classes.

Thus, you could have a Fighter [Class] (Paladin) [Kit/Sublass] Slayer [Theme] Soldier [Background]. And a Fighter (Knight) Cavalier Noble. Or perhaps a Rogue (Bard) Blade Performer. Maybe a Rogue (Thief) Trapspringer Urchin. Or a Mage (Invoker) Bookbound Academic. Possibly a Mage (Warlock) StarPact Thrall. Or a Priest (War) Crusader Wanderer, whose much like a paladin. Or a more classic Priest (Good) Cleric Templeborn.



<EDIT> You could also get campaign specific priests like Priest (Helmite) Champion Mercenary. Or Priest (Druid) AnimalWhisperer Hermit.

Likewise, it might also solve the CS conundrum for the ranger, paladin, barbarian and other "fighter types" - they could explicitely be given CS dice but their kit could express how its used - favored enemy fo rangers, smite for paladins, rage for barbarians, panache for swashbucklers, showmanship for gladiators, ki for samuria, etc.

Likewise for mages, kit could define how you use your magic -Vancian for wizards, pacts for Warlocks, arcane blood for sorcerers, truename, shadow magic, wild magic, whatever system you want to attach to the kit/subclass portion. Same for spheres/gods/spirits/nature or whatnot for priests. Again, you could then attach various subsystems to rogues to have special abilities to make the likes of bards, assassins, charlatans, beguilers, etc.

You said it: MOSTLY REDUNDANT instead of FULLY REDUNDANT, the other 10-20% that doesn't overlap (and I think that the non-overlapping parts are at least a 30% or more) is what makes multiclassing worth -from a mechanical point of view, because there are more reasons to multiclass than simple optimmization/munchkinism- and what actually makes the classes unique. Rogue-bard is one of my favorite MC combos (along with fighter-bard) and I can tell you they really doesn't share as much as you'd think

What bard and a rogue have in common in 3.x and 4e:
- More trained skills/skill points than average, some overlap in class skills
- Medium BAB (3.x)
- Good Reflex save/defense
- Some weapon proficiencies
- Light armor proficiency /cloth and leather proficiency
And that is pretty much it.

What the bard has that the rogue lacks:
- Access to knowledge skills as class skills. (automatic arcana trainning on 4e)
- Good Will save/defense
- Proficiency with shields
- Better weapon proficiencies
- Better armor proficiencies (4e)
- Bardic music (3.x)
- Party support abilities (4e)
- Spellcasting (3.x) / Arcane powers (4e)
- Overall versatility (4e)

What the rogue has that the bard lacks
- All thieving skills as class skills/thievery as class skill
- More skill points/ more trained skills
- Hand crossbow proficiency (3.x)
- Single target damage potential (sneak attack)
- Trapfinding/trapsense (3.x)
- Battlefield Mobility abilities

I don't think those differences can be contained inside the rogue's scheme as we know it, as it only contains skills and a trait, and I cannot think of a way to make them fit into a 3-4 feat package and even there it isn't satisfactory, since you don't get full bardness until you reach a high enough level and you ares consuming an important customization resource to get a stereotipical run-of-the-mill bard.

And if you think Ranger/Fighter doesn't make any sense, I have a one word answer to it: Drizzit.