But should make some people happy, since people have been begging for it a lot.
But should make some people happy, since people have been begging for it a lot.
Someone (a lot of someone's, probably) will complain that the playtest monk isn't perfect, and that we shouldn't have to wait until 2010 to get the real version.
As for me, I think this is great!
If he's still lame. I'll just ignore it.
beating enlightenment and serenity into people since 1977.
ah the monk.
beating enlightenment and serenity into people since 1977.
It's not enough to bash in heads- you got to bash in Minds!
Kick! Punch! It's all in the mind
If you wanna test me, I'm sure you'll find
The things I'll teach ya is sure to beat ya
But nevertheless you'll get a lesson from teacher!
...
you know what, my first monk is now a capoeira fighting, rapping, longtooth shifter...
...
you know what, my first monk is now a capoeira fighting, rapping, longtooth shifter...
You may select two of the following four at-wills:
Kick
Punch
Chop
Block
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5qlIP0aRo
It must let you play this guy to interest me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5qlIP0aRo
Now, that! Is funny.
Outside of that (probably pretty solvable) problem, I think the monk is well suited to 4E. The 'action movie' nature of powers in 4E works well with the monk theme.
I'm betting the class will have attacks that key off wisdom, with charisma and constitution as secondary attributes. That would make it an interesting multiclass for avengers. Personally, I hope I'm wrong and they have the class key off constitution (reflecting the physical perfection sought by monks) to give us a second class that works on that stat. We need more dex and constitution classes.
We need more dex and constitution classes.
As Con & Dex are first pick for secondaries in many a class (primary stat = stat on which your attacks are based), I can naught but agree.
I wonder if Diana the acrobat from the old D&D cartoon could be reflavoured as a monk in a hypothetical new one ;P
According to the boxed set of DVDs she was a monk in 3.5
;)
ah the monk.
beating enlightenment and serenity into people since 1977.
Reminds me of a quote from "Kang Civil War", where a Mandalan Mystic Warrior (basically a monk with some spellcasting ability) threatens a teasing companion "Don't make me enlighten you!"
I fear the monk. The central idea of the monk in prior editions was a stun attack. Stunning is very strong in 4E. I'll be curious how they preserve that flavor without making the class too strong.
Outside of that (probably pretty solvable) problem, I think the monk is well suited to 4E. The 'action movie' nature of powers in 4E works well with the monk theme.
I'm betting the class will have attacks that key off wisdom, with charisma and constitution as secondary attributes. That would make it an interesting multiclass for avengers. Personally, I hope I'm wrong and they have the class key off constitution (reflecting the physical perfection sought by monks) to give us a second class that works on that stat. We need more dex and constitution classes.
What makes you think Charisma? That was the one of the two stats that monks could have low in previous editions.
I fear the monk. The central idea of the monk in prior editions was a stun attack. Stunning is very strong in 4E. I'll be curious how they preserve that flavor without making the class too strong.
By making it a high level daily, probably. I can see a number of encounter and daily powers with various status effects building up to a Stun daily (save ends) or encounter (end of next turn) in the upper paragon/lower epic levels.
As far as stat speculating, I'm expecting Wisdom primary, with STR and DEX secondary, with the STR secondary/DEX tertiary being more of a brawler build (secondary defender or more striker), and the DEX secondary/STR tertiary being more 'finesse' (secondary controller).
Either way, by virtue of reflavoring, my first 'monk' is going to be a street brawler.
Because Monk might end up being the sort of Paladin/Barbarian/Swordmage, the guy who uses mystic power to enhance himself. And the other Ki class(es) would be the Druid/Wizard/Cleric type who can throw the mystic energy into people's faces
So I'm wondering just how mystic is the new Monk?
I'm wondering what the monk is going to able to do, are they going to save most of the crazy Ki mystic stuff for another class or is the Monk going to have the Street Fighter powers like Hoduken and Yoga Fire?
Check out the githzerai.
Though it can be hard to separate from the psionic power source that they also use they have a few abilities that should be Ki only.
I'm wondering what the monk is going to able to do, are they going to save most of the crazy Ki mystic stuff for another class or is the Monk going to have the Street Fighter powers like Hoduken and Yoga Fire?
Because Monk might end up being the sort of Paladin/Barbarian/Swordmage, the guy who uses mystic power to enhance himself. And the other Ki class(es) would be the Druid/Wizard/Cleric type who can throw the mystic energy into people's faces
So I'm wondering just how mystic is the new Monk?
We won't know 'til the playtest arrives.
It must let you play this guy to interest me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5qlIP0aRo
holy omgroflmao! Icant wait for the 11th if monks are anything like him !
I notice that a lot of classes from the same power source tend to make use of the same stats. This may end up being a pattern, as noted below:
Strength: Martial
Dexterity: Ki (speculative)
Constitution: Primal
Intelligence: Arcane (except the Sorcerer)
Wisdom: Divine
Charisma: Psionic (speculative)
Martial: Str, Dex
Arcane: Int, Cha, a little Con
Divine: Wis, Str, a little Cha
Primal: Wis, Str
Monks should be like Warlocks in that they get two potential attack stats*. Possibly Dex and Con. I like classes like that.
*I just noticed that stats is spelled the same forwards and backwards.
I'd love to see Dex primary with either Wis or Con as secondary myself.
I'm wondering what the monk is going to able to do, are they going to save most of the crazy Ki mystic stuff for another class or is the Monk going to have the Street Fighter powers like Hoduken and Yoga Fire?
So much stuff come to mind really, depending on how crazy they want to be.
But even without going into the crazy fireball stuff... here's two example...
Open Palm Slam
The monk crouches down, centering his Ki energy into his hand, and then deliver a bone crushing push with his open palm to the target's chest.
Attack Roll: to be determined
Damage: to be determined
If the attack hit, the Monk can push the target a # of square equal to his Wisdom Mod. If the target ends adjacent to a wall or other solid object, it slam into it, taking {to be determined amount of damage} and is knocked prone.
Hip Throw
You grab the target and using your body has a lever, throw him toward one of his unsuspecting ally
Attack Roll: to be determined
Damage: to be determined
You slide the target a number of square equal to your Constitution modifier and the target is knocked prone. You can choose to end the target's movement in another enemys' square. If you do so, the second enemy is pushed one square and knocked prone.
And so forth.
They could really go crazy with the power system and martial arts.
Also, I'd like to put my vote in for this kind of monk.
What makes you think Charisma? That was the one of the two stats that monks could have low in previous editions.
Charisma is force of personality. Many iconic monk figures in literature have a signature aspect to their presence. They can intimidate with a look, they seem larger than life, etc...
If I built the monk class, I'd focus on the physical perfection and make it:
* A melee controller
* Use Constitution as the primary attribute.
* I'd have three secondary roles (2 in PHB III, 1 in Ki Power): Charisma/Leader Secondary Role, Dexterity/Striker Secondary Role, Strength/Defender Secondary Role.
* I'd give them 4 at-wills to start with a restriction that once they use an at-will, they can't use it again until the end of their next turn (monks need to do a variety of attacks), with choices including: 1.) Close burst 1 that does light damage with extra damage to marked foes, 2.) Medium damage and knocks a foe prone and pushes them 1 square, 3.) Light damage and immobilize that stuns on a critical hit, 4.) Light damage versus two adjacent foes with switch the position of the foes, 5.) A charge that does not need to be in a direct line, 6.) A flying kick attack that allows them to fly in a straight line as part of the attack, 7.) Two light damage attacks that can be used against the same target, etc...
* I'd give them speed +1 per tier when in cloth or no armor.
* I'd give them a +4 bonus to athletics and acrobatics.
* I'd give them an encounter power minor action that adds stunning (until end of their next turn) to the target if their next attack role hits.
* Push an enemy 1 as a minor action when 3 or more enemies are adjacent (to reduce the chances of them being pinned in...
* If attacking unarmed, they get a +2 bonus to hit (that climbs by 1 at every 5th level) and deal damage that increases as they rise in levels (d10 @ 1st, 2d6 @ 6th, 2d8 @ 11th, 3d6 @ 16th, 3d12 @ 21st, 4d10 @ 26th (to let them avoid using magic weapons or getting those hokey magic weapon equivalent items that monks have had in prior editions).
The primary role would be a striker. A Monk has superior mobility for closing in on a target and taken him out. I would say that the secondary roles would be the controller or defender. Probably Con would be used for controller powers and Dex for defender powers. The old stunning ability in older editions look like controller abilities. Probably many of the Monks powers will apply conditions to a single target.
I wonder what the Wis bonus to AC ability will become in the 4E version. In the past, you can get Wis bonus to AC along with Dex as well. I would suspect that the Wis bonus to AC only applies if you are wearing cloth or no armour and no shield. It would make the Monk's AC even higher than an Avengers if you keep pumping both Dex and Wis. I didn't run the numbers, but this feels too strong. Maybe 1/2 x Wis bonus would be more balanced.
Here's my speculation of possible powers:
The Flury of Blows: Probably will work like Twin Strike, but must be unarmed and only one target. Perhaps at Epic instead of 2[W] damage, it would be 3+ attacks instead of 2.
Jump Kick: One that can be used while charging.
Roundhouse Kick: Close burst that pushes targets hit.
I wonder how they will handle unarmed combat. Most weapons have a proficiency bonus of +2. I suspect that instead of a class feature that gives Monks a proficiency bonus to unarmed attacks, this bonus (and damage) will be incorporated into the Monk's powers. The powers may have the "unarmed" keyword and [Ability]+2 vs. AC in the attack line and have set damage in the Hit line. This will allow powers that attack other defences to use the same attack stat and be unarmed and be balanced.
Monks had higher speed than other classes, so an extra +1 to movement may be one of the class features.
That's my WAG on the 4E Monk. I expect this prediction to be as accurate as my prediction on Hybrid classes was.
It'll be much like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Sptdhpa8A
Other than that, anything else can go. Ultimately, I think they will need to make use of a weapon/implement even if they are merely arm slot items.
It must let you play this guy to interest me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5qlIP0aRo
Maybe it's the 70's porn mustache or the sunglasses, but the star of that clip looks like Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's.
WIS/CON is a bit played out due to its use by many primal classes, so that may be less likely.
Other than that, they'll get a minor action attack for strikeryness, be purely melee fighters, use either wrappings or combat styles as implements, and maaaybe have a class feature that, after every attack, lets them shift a number of squares equal to the amount of enemies they hit.
Also, I want to make This Guy.
Sai = Parrying dagger, kama = hand axe ect.
Monks will probably be 99.99% Unarmed fighters, with a Pact-blade style weapon enchantment for flavour. (If the weapon isn't magical, then using it with your unarmed attacks is fluff, not crunch)
It must let you play this guy to interest me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5qlIP0aRo
wtf? lol.
*I just noticed that stats is spelled the same forwards and backwards.
PALINDROME!
I'm thinking Dex will be primary. It means Wis to AC becomes completely redundant.
I am fond of this idea.
...use either wrappings or combat styles as implements...
Wrappings, sure, I guess. Combat styles...wtf? "Hai guyz, look @ this +2 Shining Sunstar Combat Style this kobold was carrying around!"
Also, I want to make This Guy.
This, plz.
Proof: Githzerai are Iconic Monks.
Githzerai get DEX/WIS
Therefore: Monks use Dex, Wis, and one other. I'm guessing CON.
Strength: Martial
Dexterity: Ki (speculative)
Constitution: Primal
Intelligence: Arcane (except the Sorcerer)
Wisdom: Divine
Charisma: Psionic (speculative)
Yeah. Arcane is Int, except the Sorcerer. And Bard. And Warlock. Which leave us with the Wizard, unless you play in Forgotten or Eberron
I'm thinking Dex will be primary. It means Wis to AC becomes completely redundant. Also, it's easier to imagine a monk who's unwise or weak than is is to imagine one who's slow.
I dont agree. David's Carradine Kung Fu character is the epitome of monks, imo, and he is slow as hell. His Master is even slower. And the 102302301230 monks that use Tai-Chi every morning move slow as well.
Some of them are fast, some arent. But all of them are introspective and meditative.
I like Dex and Wisdom for monks. However, often that means that the better monks are races that "shouldnt" have monks. Like elves or razorclaw shifters. Con + Wisdom will make every dwarf that is not currently a Druid choose the Monk Career :p
Yeah. Arcane is Int, except the Sorcerer. And Bard. And Warlock. Which leave us with the Wizard, unless you play in Forgotten or Eberron
Lawl, what I was thinking, but at the time too lazy to say. =D
Lawl, what I was thinking, but at the time too lazy to say. =D
And that's without even considering that nearly half the martial characters dont use strength as primary (rogues and archer rangers), a couple of the Divine ones use STR for half the powers (paladin and melee cleric), and primal characters dont use Con AT ALL as primary (druids and shamans use WIS, Barbarians and Wardens use STR).
This makes the "there is a conecttion between stats and powersources" a bit lackluster, to say the least.
Yeah. Arcane is Int, except the Sorcerer. And Bard. And Warlock. Which leave us with the Wizard, unless you play in Forgotten or Eberron
This is taking both primary and secondary stats into account. Bard and Fey/Dark Warlock have Charisma as primary, but also have Intelligence as a secondary. Sorcerer is the one arcane class that doesn't use INT at all.
But it may be a tenuous connection, and there may not be any common stats between classes of other power sources.
Hmm. Speaking of implements, will a monk necessarily be an unarmed fighter? What about all the monk weapons, kamas, sai, 'chucks, staff, etc?
I think that half the powers will be unarmed powers and the other half will be weapon powers using monk weapons only (like Rogue powers using rogue weapons only). The powers will be split like the Druid powers where half are beast form and half are not. It will allow players to build a character using primarily unarmed combat or primarily monk weapons.
However, you are forgetting the other three roles and wanting the Monk to do EVERYTHING kind of like he did in 3.0 and 3.5. That is a bad idea. Like reaaaaaaaallly bad. Like hiroshima bad. Did I mention it was not a good idea?
Someone made reference to the Buddha archetype of the monastic individual, and I think that this is more in-line with a Ki Leader. Other people have made references to Yoga-fire and Haddoken(sp?). I'm not sure about throwing spirit energy around like pancake batter, but a wiseman who taps into the spiritual ley lines of the battlefield would make a convincing Ki Controller. I'm having some difficulty imagining a Ki striker that doesn't just read a s a tweaked ki defender without doing things like palm-smite or throwing fireballs, but that comes off as a bit tacky to me. Perhaps a Ninja type, who primarily uses ki to conceal himself, avoid attacks, and travel quickly around the battlefield?
give me your thoughts!
I like Dex and Wisdom for monks. However, often that means that the better monks are races that "shouldnt" have monks. Like elves or razorclaw shifters. Con + Wisdom will make every dwarf that is not currently a Druid choose the Monk Career :p
I would think that there are other classes that would be better than the monk for dwarves and elves that these races would not always choose a monk over other classes.
ah the monk.
beating enlightenment and serenity into people since 1977.
That is totally going into my signature. I am also looking forward to this.
I would think that there are other classes that would be better than the monk for dwarves and elves that these races would not always choose a monk over other classes.
anyone who chooses their class based on their races favored stats or vice versa probably should go play WoW and leave real roleplaying games for people with more creativity than that.
Honestly, I think 'real roleplayers' need to get over themselves. Your good aligned vampiric drow doesn't make you any more special than the other thousand of you.
anyone who chooses their class based on their races favored stats or vice versa probably should go play WoW and leave real roleplaying games for people with more creativity than that.
Because we all know that playing something suboptimal = creativity! And choosing not to play the race that naturally fits a class means that you are "really roleplaying"!
I'm gonna guess that Monks are Martial Controllers. Tis the only role that the Martial class doesn't have.
Oh lord, give let brains rain from the sky....
anyone who chooses their class based on their races favored stats or vice versa probably should go play WoW and leave real roleplaying games for people with more creativity than that.
Maybe, but I still dont see a lot of "creative roleplayers" playing Goliath wizards and Devas Fighter Multiclass with Rogue, you know... ;)
Even the Player Handbook, when talking about "favourite classes" of the races, allways name the ones the race are more suited for (stat wise). I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Eladrin Soldiers fluffwise (you know, they even have a feat for it...) Yet the Eladrins in PHB favor "wizards and warlords". Not Fighters.
I'm gonna guess that Monks are Martial Controllers. Tis the only role that the Martial class doesn't have.
Looks like someone forgot to read page 54 of the PHB.
Looks like someone forgot to read page 54 of the PHB.
Or every other piece of information on the Ki power source.
Because we all know that playing something suboptimal = creativity! And choosing not to play the race that naturally fits a class means that you are "really roleplaying"!
Granted with acknowledgment of sarcasm. However, you must also accept that telling someone that they're wrong or stupid for playing a Dwarven Wizard or Eladrin Fighter makes you, to borrow a profanity from Stephen Fry, a Mother 
ing stack. anyone who chooses their class based on their races favored stats or vice versa probably should go play WoW and leave real roleplaying games for people with more creativity than that.
That's only wrong when your sole criteria for choosing a class is your race's stat bonuses. This is also true for the opposite, selecting a race whose stat bonuses are your class's primary and secondary stats.
Even still, a lot of people just want to play the game and not have to create a wondrous character, so they choose their favorite class or race and choose class/race that compliments their first choice. It isn't a sin to do this but I'm sure most would say the player should look into the fluff a bit and make a more informed choice (even if the outcome is the same).
EDIT: As for the Monk, I cannot wait! I'm really interested to see how WotC pulls off the class and, more generally, the power source!
That's only wrong when your sole criteria for choosing a class is your race's stat bonuses. This is also true for the opposite, selecting a race whose stat bonuses are your class's primary and secondary stats.
Even still, a lot of people just want to play the game and not have to create a wondrous character, so they choose their favorite class or race and choose class/race that compliments their first choice. It isn't a sin to do this but I'm sure most would say the player should look into the fluff a bit and make a more informed choice (even if the outcome is the same).
EDIT: As for the Monk, I cannot wait! I'm really interested to see how WotC pulls off the class and, more generally, the power source!
thank you for responding with something other than blind and useless sarcasm. I suppose I did make that more of a declarative statement, rather than a statement of opinion. I also made it far more insulting than I originally felt about it. When I build a character, I take a feeling I have, like, what kind of person I want to be, and look for racial background that fits that, then look for a class that fits with the personality. It's just how I think.
I've been in campaigns where min/maxing has literally given a single player the capacity to slay everything it comes across with reckless abandon while being supposedly equally powerful to characters who couldn't manage to hit with a basic attack, let alone some of the more complicated things....not cool.
Oh lord, give let brains rain from the sky....
That's the last thing we need!
Then the zombies will be well fed!
And, yeah Zippo, you really came off as a grade-A [Explitative Deleted] in that first post. I choose my first 4e character precisely that way. I wanted to play a Warlord. Eladrin seemed to be the most interesting race that fit the TacLord's stats.
So I made him. and created his personality afterwards through roleplaying.
I wonder if they'll give us a hint of future races in the Monk preview by listing the races that tend to gravitate towards monk.
This.
They have to! And it has to include Githzerai. ;)
Or perhaps, something similar with what they did with the Barbarians Rage abilities.
I originally thought it would be cool to make Con-based attacks, but very often these things are stylized to fit certain race selections, and certain obvious choices for monk (Githzerai, Deva maybe) would miss out.
Making the good race choices:
Githzerai, Elf, and Razorclaw for Dex Monks
Longtooth and brute races like Warforged make good Str Monks
Half-Orcs and Bugbears make good balanced Monks
This way players could make a brawler/iron fist type monk or a ninja/acrobat type monk
brute races like Warforged make good Str Monks
And this is why I'm hoping Neither STR nor CON is an attack stat. these races get enough love already.
And this is why I'm hoping Neither STR nor CON is an attack stat. these races get enough love already.
There are 7 Str classes
There is 1 Con class
There are 2 Dex classes
There are 2 Int classes
There are 5 Wis classes
There are 4 Cha classes
I don't think Con is overdone (at least not as an attack stat), and just because we have too many Str classes does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, they should solve the problem by making more Int, Dex and Con classes not by forcing classes that should be Str into some other stat.
There are 7 Str classes
There is 1 Con class
There are 2 Dex classes
There are 2 Int classes
There are 5 Wis classes
There are 4 Cha classes
I don't think Con is overdone (at least not as an attack stat), and just because we have too many Str classes does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, they should solve the problem by making more Int, Dex and Con classes not by forcing classes that should be Str into some other stat.
Not taking primary and secondary stats into account, we have:
Fighter: STR, DEX, CON, WIS
Rogue: STR, DEX, CHA
Ranger: STR, DEX, WIS
Warlord: STR, INT, CHA
Cleric: STR, WIS, CHA
Paladin: STR, WIS, CHA
Wizard: DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA(with Illusionist)
Warlock: CON, INT, CHA
Swordmage: STR, CON, INT
Avenger: DEX, INT, WIS
Invoker: CON, INT, WIS
Bard: CON, INT, WIS(new Arcane Power build), CHA
Sorcerer: STR, DEX, CHA
Druid: DEX, CON, WIS
Shaman: CON, INT, WIS
Barbarian: STR, CON, CHA
Warden: STR, CON, WIS
Strength: 10
Dexterity: 7
Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 8
Wisdom: 11
Charisma: 9
So DEX is currently a bit underutilized. Monk will probably have a build that has DEX in it, though, as will some of the other Ki classes (whatever they turn out to be).
I would like to see half Dex based attacks and half Str based attacks (like Ranger, Paly, Cleric and Starlock) with Wis as the kicker stat
I hope they do not make many more duel attack stat classes. I find it is limiting, almost feels a bit like 3.5 were you're options for character advancement within your class is very limiting. I want four options for my next daily, not a pick between two because I focused on one attack stat. With the large number of classes in 4.0 we don't need to split those classes up with duel primary stats. The difference between the "mystic" and the "brawler" monks can be two separate ki classes.
Since it seems all the rage I'll post my main stat hopes for the monk. I am not the most familiar with past editions, so I usually attribute the monk class to be like real world martial artists and Shaolin Monks, rather than whatever has been the iconic dnd monk of the past. Dex primary, with Con and Wis secondary. IRL Str is important as well, but a person's Dex and Con are much more important (so what if your strong, you still need to block, dodge and be able to take a hit)... and monks are also seen as very wise... hence those three stats.
I want four options for my next daily, not a pick between two because I focused on one attack stat. With the large number of classes in 4.0 we don't need to split those classes up with duel primary stats.
This is still a problem for Cleric and Paladin because they lack Divine Power, but I don't think it's that big of an issue for Warlock or Ranger.
The more material that comes out, the less of a problem that is.
What you're not realizing is that V classes give you more options, with a V class I'm not stuck picking between the races that have a bonus to that one stat; If I make a Paladin I have 18 races to choose from, I make a Warden and I only have 9 to choose from.
You don't have to pick only one stat for your attacks, but you do only get to pick one race.
And a Fireball. If I can't Hadouken someone to the face, I will be sad.
If I make a Paladin I have 18 races to choose from, I make a Warden and I only have 9 to choose from.
Maybe its just me, but I dont understand this at all. You always have the same number of choices for race. Now some people will factor in the stat mods as a higher priority that just wanting to play a certain race. This will limit what choices that those people think are good, but there is no reason to completely discount any certain race/class combination.
What you're not realizing is that V classes give you more options, with a V class I'm not stuck picking between the races that have a bonus to that one stat; If I make a Paladin I have 18 races to choose from, I make a Warden and I only have 9 to choose from.
You don't have to pick only one stat for your attacks, but you do only get to pick one race.
But then you are stuck with that race for your entire career, so it doesnt mean much. You are still pigeonholed into a particular path as you level up within the class because of your ability scores.
Now I'm psyched.
I can see a DEX or WIS being a primary stat, but I'd hope it's DEX. CON would me an interesting third choice.
I had a Str/wis melee build, a Dex/wis ranged build, and a Strength/Dex mobility build that lost the Wis-kickers, but could grab powers from either list.
Maybe its just me, but I dont understand this at all. You always have the same number of choices for race. Now some people will factor in the stat mods as a higher priority that just wanting to play a certain race. This will limit what choices that those people think are good, but there is no reason to completely discount any certain race/class combination.
Right, and there is no reason to completely discount any power just because it uses a different attack stat. So whether your a person who cares about attack stats or not the V classes are no more limiting than any other class.
But then you are stuck with that race for your entire career, so it doesnt mean much. You are still pigeonholed into a particular path as you level up within the class because of your ability scores.
Not really sure I follow your logic?
Not really sure I follow your logic?
The complaint was that dual attack stat classes diminish your options because you get screwed out of half of your options if you choose to boost only one of the main attack stats along with the secondary stat. You argued that dual attack classes actually give you more options because there are a greater variety of races that match up because of all the class-related stats.
All i'm saying is that the supposed flexibility in racial choice doesn't really give you more flexibility when it comes to building a specific character. You are still sort of screwed out of options if you want to focus on one attack stat while having a good secondary stat as well, no matter what 'extra' racial option you got at level 1.
All i'm saying is that the supposed flexibility in racial choice doesn't really give you more flexibility when it comes to building a specific character.
How so? I would think that having more racial cohesion would make it easier to build a specific character concept seeing how race is more telling of who your character is than powers are.
Or is it more of a Min/Max issue.
If it's just a matter of rather having half as many race options than having half as many power options for the sake of Min/Max, then I get it, but for me it the other way around because power choice is easier to get around.
You basically have a few extra min/maxed options at level 1 but are still hosed out of half of your options for the other 29 levels unless you ignore your secondary ability score. This is a choice that no single attack stat class has to deal with.
Playing races that dont have a +2 in the main attack stat of the class you want to play is far less of a nerf than not being able to pick up half of your class's powers because you are maxing out 2 other stats (other attack stat + secondary). You have a few more options if you are looking to totally min/max your attack and secondary stat, but you are still SoL for half of the class's powers if you choose to boost your primary and secondary stat they way the single attack stat classes do.
You basically have a few extra min/maxed options at level 1 but are still hosed out of half of your options for the other 29 levels unless you ignore your secondary ability score. This is a choice that no single attack stat class has to deal with.
Well if don't care about having a race that boosts your main attack stat then take a race that boosts your secondary attack stat, problem solved.
Well if don't care about having a race that boosts your main attack stat then take a race that boosts your secondary attack stat, problem solved.
That solves nothing because you can only routinely boost 2 stats at a time as you level up. You have to either choose to boost 2 attack stats and ditch the secondary stat as you level or ditch all of the powers that rely on the secondary attack stat so that you can keep the secondary attribute high. Its lame because no single-attack stat class is forced into this corner.
For instance, imagine that all Con based Star Pact powers, instead of using Int as a kicker, used Charisma for secondary effects. Charisma Star Pact powers would use Con for secondary effects.
That way, you're only using 2 stats, and still have the full bonuses for your intended build. You can ALSO pick up powers from all the OTHER builds, but you won't be as good at them as you are at your own pact.
What if there was a double attack stat class or build, that didn't have a secondary stat? (or used the other stat)
For instance, imagine that all Con based Star Pact powers, instead of using Int as a kicker, used Charisma for secondary effects. Charisma Star Pact powers would use Con for secondary effects.
That way, you're only using 2 stats, and still have the full bonuses for your intended build. You can ALSO pick up powers from all the OTHER builds, but you won't be as good at them as you are at your own pact.
It's not going to happen. Wizards has said in the past they follow two distinct character building concepts, the A shaped concept and the V shaped concept.
A being one primary with two secondaries such as rogue, fighter, etc.
V being two primaries with one secondary such as ranger, paladin, etc.
I think a class using only two stats entirely is just kind of odd, and I would not understand why they would tread from the patterns they've been using to pursue a bad character design.
Monk is going to be some combination of CONDEXWIS, preferrably (by me) to be DEX with WIS/CON secondaries. We don't need anymore WIS or STR primary characters at the time being, we need some more dex characters to balance out the board.
When I build a character, I take a feeling I have, like, what kind of person I want to be, and look for racial background that fits that, then look for a class that fits with the personality. It's just how I think.
Fine, it's up to you. However, I dont see how making your noble warrior from fey origin with a touch of magic as a Figther Eladrin Multiclassed with Warlock (which is a suboptimal choice probably) instead of a Tactical Warlord Multiclassed with Wizard (which is a much better one statwise) any better roleplayer. Both are the same concept, both have the same background. Actually, I could write the same background for *both* of them and *roleplay* them exactly in the same way. Just one of them would suck, and the other would be nice.
I've been in campaigns where min/maxing has literally given a single player the capacity to slay everything it comes across with reckless abandon while being supposedly equally powerful to characters who couldn't manage to hit with a basic attack, let alone some of the more complicated things....not cool.
And do you feel the one who is doing wrong is the character who made intelligent decisions with his feats and powers? Or the other ones who aren't able to make a character who can manage to hit with a basic attack?
You basically have a few extra min/maxed options at level 1 but are still hosed out of half of your options for the other 29 levels unless you ignore your secondary ability score. This is a choice that no single attack stat class has to deal with.
But A shaped classes limit your power selection in the same way, a few powers at every level are going to use a different kicker stat than the one you've been boosting or require a class feature you don't have.
Granted, with A shaped classes' power choice limitation it's to a lesser extent than V shaped's, but when you combine that with A shaped classes' llimited race choice it balances them out IMO. And seeing how V shaped classes are in the minority, I really don't agree with anyone who says WotC should stop making them.
I have never seen any pattern of V classes performing weaker than A classes, so why should they stop making them?
I think V classes are great for Role-Players who want to approach a class in a different way and/or with a different race, and IME they have never gimped anyones more so than A shaped classes can.
.... Now for a change in subject; I think a big part of the Monk is going to be it's multiclass feat, will it allow us to make unarmed Barbarians and other classes?
Whith the exception of the PH1 base Warlock feat, all the Striker MC grant the striker mechanic. If, as I suspect, the "striker mechanic" is Flurry of Blows (At-will attack, minor 1/round, D6-no stat- damage) then the MC feat would likely grant 2 minor action implement attacks per encounter, and use of monk implements.
That would suck; I would want a feat that allows weapon using classes to make unarmed attacks with effectiveness close to to the weapons they normally use, I don't know how, I don't care how, I just know what I want.
D10 dmg, +3 prof, with use of Monk Item to add enhancement, would that be so hard?
Power Source: Ki. This seems rather obvious at this point. Maybe this release will shut up all the claims that Monk will be Martial, Psionic, or Divine.
Role: Striker. The developers have hinted before that the Monk will be a Striker, but then again they also said Sorcerer would be a Controller. I could see a case being made for Monk as a Defender, but Striker seems to be most likely.
Key Stats: Dexterity, Wisdom, Strength. DEX and WIS are rather obvious, since the Githzerai has these stats and they fit well for a Monk. The third stat isn't quite as set in stone. Strength and Constitution have an equal chance of being Monk stats, but I personally think STR fits better.
Other notes:
- The monk class will likely focus on unarmed combat techniques. Monk weapons may have Unarmed in addition to another weapon type, like Unarmed/Flail for the nunchaku and Unarmed/Light Blade for the sai. Monks will probably gain the ability to do extra damage with unarmed strikes (1d8 instead of 1d4), and their weapon properties will be determined by their implement (beads or ki wraps would work here).
- Two possible builds for the monk:
- "Hard" style focusing on strikes and conditions inflicted by pressure point attacks. DEX/STR, has Defender as a secondary focus.
- "Soft" style focusing on throws and evasive maneuvers. May be inspired by the Setting Sun discipline from Tome of Battle. DEX/WIS, has Controller as a secondary focus.
Let's see how much of this turns out to be right.
The playtest article should be coming out tomorrow, so here's a few final guesses for what the Monk will look like.
Power Source: Ki. This seems rather obvious at this point. Maybe this release will shut up all the claims that Monk will be Martial, Psionic, or Divine.
Role: Striker. The developers have hinted before that the Monk will be a Striker, but then again they also said Sorcerer would be a Controller. I could see a case being made for Monk as a Defender, but Striker seems to be most likely.
Key Stats: Dexterity, Wisdom, Strength. DEX and WIS are rather obvious, since the Githzerai has these stats and they fit well for a Monk. The third stat isn't quite as set in stone. Strength and Constitution have an equal chance of being Monk stats, but I personally think STR fits better.
Other notes:
- The monk class will likely focus on unarmed combat techniques. Monk weapons may have Unarmed in addition to another weapon type, like Unarmed/Flail for the nunchaku and Unarmed/Light Blade for the sai. Monks will probably gain the ability to do extra damage with unarmed strikes (1d8 instead of 1d4), and their weapon properties will be determined by their implement (beads or ki wraps would work here).
- Two possible builds for the monk:
- "Hard" style focusing on strikes and conditions inflicted by pressure point attacks. DEX/STR, has Defender as a secondary focus.
- "Soft" style focusing on throws and evasive maneuvers. May be inspired by the Setting Sun discipline from Tome of Battle. DEX/WIS, has Controller as a secondary focus.
Let's see how much of this turns out to be right.
I would bet in PHB 3, the Samuria will be the Ki defender.
I would bet in PHB 3, the Samuria will be the Ki defender.
What is a Samuria?
Uh. for those who have the sub to DDI, the playtest is out now. And guess what... It's not Ki.
psionics XD
Focused Expertise
Benefit: Choose a weapon that you can wield
as an implement. You gain a +1 bonus to attack
rolls with any implement or weapon power you use
through that weapon. The bonus increases to +2 at
15th level and +3 at 25th level.
Special: You can take this feat more than once.
Each time you take this feat, choose a different
weapon that you can wield as an implement. This
bonus is not cumulative with the one provided by
Implement Expertise or Weapon Expertise.
OMG!
Focused Expertise
Cool, that fixes Swordmages as well.
Cool, that fixes Swordmages as well.
Not really...
Since you have to be something to have something that allows you to qualify for something.
I think that sums it up without breaking any of the rules.
Not really...
Since you have to be something to have something that allows you to qualify for something.
I think that sums it up without breaking any of the rules.
Eh? All I meant is that with this feat Swordmages don't have to spend two feat slots on Expertise any more.
Expertise is still a broken, horrible idea to begin with, but let's not get into that discussion here.
Eh? All I meant is that with this feat Swordmages don't have to spend two feat slots on Expertise any more.
Expertise is still a broken, horrible idea to begin with, but let's not get into that discussion here.
Swordmage can't take this feat. Might want to read what I wrote above.
Could that all change after the playtest.. probably but as it stands it is what I wrote.
Swordmage can't take this feat.
Why not? There are no prerequisites for the feat as written.
It should be a Monk feat, but it isn't. It doesn't stack with Implement or Weapon Expertise, etc than either of those two feats.
I think you left out a word or two there
- what did you mean with "etc than either of those two feats?"They just called it "a new feat," so I interpreted that to mean that it was there as yet another fix, this time for the 2-feat tax weapon/implement users needed. I don't see why it should be a Monk feat.
I figured it doesn't stack because you can take just that instead of Weapon and Implement Expertise, bringing you on par with the Weapon- or Implement-only classes.
Psi striker
I so totally win. You have no idea how much I win. Like I win it all. All of it! Mine! The Intarnets are mine!
The playtest article should be coming out tomorrow, so here's a few final guesses for what the Monk will look like.
Power Source: Ki. This seems rather obvious at this point. Maybe this release will shut up all the claims that Monk will be Martial, Psionic, or Divine.
haha. This made my day.
Swordmage can't take this feat. Might want to read what I wrote above.
Could that all change after the playtest.. probably but as it stands it is what I wrote.
What you wrote makes no sense in the english language.
And the feat as written has no prerequisites except "choose a weapon that you can wield as an implement." Meet Mr. Swordmage and his Longsword.
They just called it "a new feat," so I interpreted that to mean that it was there as yet another fix, this time for the 2-feat tax weapon/implement users needed. I don't see why it should be a Monk feat.
Exactly. Except it only fixes classes like Monk and Swordmage who combine weapon and implement in one item. Paladins are still screwed unless they have that special sword - but they don't really have that many Implement powers anyway, do they?
Oh and BTW: it also allows for example Sorcerers to take this feat with Dagger and gain the bonus on their Basic Melee Attack. :P
Oh and BTW: it also allows for example Sorcerers to take this feat with Dagger and gain the bonus on their Basic Melee Attack. :P
Gnarly.
Exactly. Except it only fixes classes like Monk and Swordmage who combine weapon and implement in one item. Paladins are still screwed unless they have that special sword - but they don't really have that many Implement powers anyway, do they?
Oh and BTW: it also allows for example Sorcerers to take this feat with Dagger and gain the bonus on their Basic Melee Attack. :P
It also lets other arcane classes do the same if they first take the Arcane Implement Proficiency feat from ArP and choose sorcerer daggers.
any class can do it if it wants to hybrid sorcerer
; or hybrid another arcane class and take the feat.An eladrin Paladin hybrid warlock or mc warlock with a pact-sword can do it.
I will speculate that the Monk is a defender type. Especially if they build the stunning attack physics into it.
The striker requirements were in the 3.5 monk, but they largely go against what the Monk is supposed to be: an introspective traveler trained in self defense.
I think a ninja-type class will fulfill the striker role more fittingly. Both Rogue and Ranger classes have parallels to ninja archetypes of lightly armored stealthy attack-and-run types.
I know that Divine classes almost uniformly cover Wisdom in some form, but I have a hard time thinking of Ki-powered classes as anything but Wisdom based. I think the debate, though, is moot. We aren't the game's designers, we have no real say in what gets built into the system.
I will speculate that the Monk is a defender type. Especially if they build the stunning attack physics into it.
The striker requirements were in the 3.5 monk, but they largely go against what the Monk is supposed to be: an introspective traveler trained in self defense.
I think a ninja-type class will fulfill the striker role more fittingly. Both Rogue and Ranger classes have parallels to ninja archetypes of lightly armored stealthy attack-and-run types.
Um. The Monk is a Striker with the psionic power source (and the Ki power source has been dropped by the developers, at least for the foreseeable future). Am I missing the context of your post here?
Um. The Monk is a Striker with the psionic power source (and the Ki power source has been dropped by the developers, at least for the foreseeable future). Am I missing the context of your post here?
I'd like a link to whatever article you got that information from, and preferably not a D&Di since I don't subscribe.
I'd like a link to whatever article you got that information from, and preferably not a D&Di since I don't subscribe.
Here is the article about the Monk:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090511
Here is the article about no-more Ki:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/2009May
However both require DDI subscription.
I'd like a link to whatever article you got that information from, and preferably not a D&Di since I don't subscribe.
Sorry, the only place it's available is DDI at the moment. It's from the playtest version of the monk, released to DDI subscribers. There's also an article from the developers, basically saying that the Ki power source proved untenable, and Monk was changed over to psionic.
What you wrote makes no sense in the english language.
And the feat as written has no prerequisites except "choose a weapon that you can wield as an implement." Meet Mr. Swordmage and his Longsword.
LOL
Critical thinking skills need to improve.
Talking about what appears in articles of Dragon breaks the EULA of it. Sorry I obey the rules.
In that text of what is written, it is a class only feat. Will that change? Probably but as it is written it is class only.
I think you left out a word or two there
They just called it "a new feat," so I interpreted that to mean that it was there as yet another fix, this time for the 2-feat tax weapon/implement users needed. I don't see why it should be a Monk feat.
I figured it doesn't stack because you can take just that instead of Weapon and Implement Expertise, bringing you on par with the Weapon- or Implement-only classes.
You might want to read the word choices before " a new feat".
LOL
Critical thinking skills need to improve.
Talking about what appears in articles of Dragon breaks the EULA of it. Sorry I obey the rules.
In that text of what is written, it is a class only feat. Will that change? Probably but as it is written it is class only.
I'm looking at the feat right now and I don't see any reason why it would be a monk only. It doesn't list monk as a prereq. Are you perhaps misreading the sentence before the feat saying, "the sample monk uses the following feat" as "only monks of this discipline can take the following feat"?You might want to read the word choices before " a new feat".
You mean, "The centered breath monk uses?" Yeah, that just totally devastates the argument.
Here's what the article says. First, it provides the Centered Breath Build, which includes the line "Suggested Feat: Focused Expertise"
Then, it goes on to say "New Feat: The Centered Breath monk uses a new feat: Focused Expertise." I assume that's because, in the past, preview classes have recommended feats that were unpublished (IIRC, it was the Invoker that referenced an unpublished feat, but I could be wrong). So, this time - since it's a playtest - they include the feat so you can actually playtest it.
Edit: the feat text was removed by the ORC_Yawgmoth, which is (of course) fine. I overstepped my bounds (and am suitably chastised). However, suffice it to say, there is no Prerequisite line in the feat.
There are no prerequisites, period. This is not, at this time, a class feat. It may become a class feat in the final form, but right now? It's not.
How can I do this still under the EULA...
Under the New Feat listing
A ___ ____ ____ uses a new feat. _____ _____
Then the next section it tells what it is.
If it isn't class only it wouldn't have the first two words before the class.
Now I will conclude this could be changed when the book comes out. But currently how it is written and using critical thinking it is only class.
How can I do this still under the EULA...
Under the New Feat listing
A ___ ____ ____ uses a new feat. _____ _____
Then the next section it tells what it is.
If it isn't class only it wouldn't have the first two words before the class.
Now I will conclude this could be changed when the book comes out. But currently how it is written and using critical thinking it is only class.
You are aware that right above that sentence is an example centered breath monk that takes the feat right? It is saying that the example centered breath monk took a feat that is presented below. It is specifying that it is talking about the example character immediatly above the feat. I don't know how I can explain that in terms more simple than that.
Now I will conclude this could be changed when the book comes out. But currently how it is written and using critical thinking it is only class.
I don't think "critical thinking" means what you think it means. ;)
In fact, the only kind of thinking you need to puzzle out the meaning of the text in question is grammatical. And several of us have now explained the grammar of it to you in detail.
In conclusion: you're wrong, plain and simple. Take it like a man.
The feat in question here has the same mechanics as them for the most part other than blending the two. This is useful for more than just the monk and I don't see why they'd restrict it.
Also the full feat will be in a PH not a X Power, or Dragon article so there's no reason to restrict it to a class or power source unless it's at an Epic level like the Bard Implement Expertise feat in Arcane Power.
As for sources you'd need a DDi subscription (ooh a whole 5$ for one month and you get the monk playtest, and a full copy of the CB, though if you wait until next month you'd get the monk playtest included in the CB) to see the current one. I'm sure we could probably get confirmation though I believe Mike Mearls has already confirmed it over on enWorld (look for the thread about shadow and elemental power sources for a link to the thread).
Basically though they said that Ki wasn't coherent enough to be a full power source without falling into the Asian-theme trap. The monk worked well as a psionic class for the whole 'mind over body/mind over matter' theme that isn't strictly an Asian monk theme in RL.
It is also a striker, based around moving before or after an attack, as part of the attack (with things like leaps, speed bonuses, shifting more than 1 square). They even have a class feature that gives them free extra damage when they hit, once per round. The build they gave in the playtest is a striker with a bit of controller secondary.
I don't think "critical thinking" means what you think it means. ;)
In fact, the only kind of thinking you need to puzzle out the meaning of the text in question is grammatical. And several of us have now explained the grammar of it to you in detail.
In conclusion: you're wrong, plain and simple. Take it like a man.
seconded.
I'm looking forward to what monk-specific feats there will be though. Maybe some that give you a weapongroup for your unarmed strike? Or maybe a paragon feat that lets one full discipline power be used in the same action (instead of two).. I think I'll playtest that with the class and see how it goes.