So far we have Fighters : Tempest Fighter
Rangers : Beastmaster
Rogue: ?
Warlord:?
I would say rogue ninja, but that's probably ki and later on.
Maybe a ranged weapon warlord? I'm kinda stumped on that one, maybe there will be no new warlord build.
A ranged rogue "sniper" would be kick arse.
Any other ideas?
As for warlord, i cant see them dual-wielding, i dont know what they'd get.
Cheerleader
I mean Rodney did mention the new multiclassing feat and the powers that were really good for his nimble little wizard, but who knows, those might be just more of the same Str-primary, Dex-secondary blade powers like we already have in the PHB.
A class feature substitiution like "Commading Presence: Imposing Pressence" - When an ally who can see you spends an action point to gain an extra attack, They add your Charisma modifier to the Damage.
And then a series of powers that impose penalties to enemies, and the imposing pressence bonus on the encounters would add your charisma to the penalties.
I personally could see either a int based build that outsmarts his opponents or a swashbuckling build that focuses on using a single off hand weapon for the rogue.
Honestly I'm not too familiar with the Warlord, so I don't really know what options would help fill it out at this point.
Possibly a Warlord build that Debuffs enemies rather than buffing the party?
Meh debuffing the enemies is more of a controller thing then a leader thing.
Warlord Artillerist build, giving warlords some ranged options.
Rogue Trapmaster build, a rogue with Intelligence as a secondary stat, bonus to defenses against traps, as well as a few zone powers.
Also, a WIS-using Warlord Commanding Presence with accompanying powers.
I honestly don't really care at all about either class being able to dual-wield or be effective at a range...
I really hope there's more than one new thing for each class, though, because I'm still hopeful about a two-handed weapon Ranger...
So far we know Ranger gets two builds. Not only does Adventurer's Vault mention the beastmaster a comment was made elsewhere that Rangers would get a two-handed weapon build.
Also with Adventurer's Vault we could see a double-weapon fighter build to ustilize the dual weapons added in Adventurer's Vault.
Not sure what we'd see on the other builds and classes though.
I actually suspect we'll see 2 new builds for each class.
So far we know Ranger gets two builds. Not only does Adventurer's Vault mention the beastmaster a comment was made elsewhere that Rangers would get a two-handed weapon build.
Also with Adventurer's Vault we could see a double-weapon fighter build to ustilize the dual weapons added in Adventurer's Vault.
Not sure what we'd see on the other builds and classes though.
The two-handed weapon build for the ranger could be the beastmaster build.
As for warlords I'm hoping for a Str/Wis build so that elves and dwarves can be good warlords too, where as now they're better off as clerics but that sucks if you want to run a game without gods/divinity.
Rogue could be anything and I'd be happy, so long as it isn't under/overpowered.
a comment was made elsewhere that Rangers would get a two-handed weapon build.
Care to cite this? I can't recall seeing this or hearing anyone mention it before and I'd like to add it to the compilation.*twitches at the ninja ki comment* I won't go off on a tanget. I won't go off on a tangent. I won't go off on a tangent......
I personally could see either a int based build that outsmarts his opponents or a swashbuckling build that focuses on using a single off hand weapon for the rogue.
I hated to type the ninja ki comment but that's what people assume. Swashbuckler type build sounds about right for rogue though.
I hated to type the ninja ki comment but that's what people assume. Swashbuckler type build sounds about right for rogue though.
Oh I just reread what I posted and I think I worded what I said about the swashbuckler path poorly. What I meant was a two-weapon build with only one of the weapons being off handed.
I could also see one that emphasizes even more the acrobatic skills of the Rogue.
For the Warlord, I am imagining a Dexterous variant could be there, and perhaps one where it works in the back, so lots of ranged abilities.
Hmmmmm.... I would like a light and graceful fighter that defends through speed and does more damage per turn, but takes lower AC, something proficient with polearms and rapiers
That thing already exists. It's called a striker.
As for Ki, you people need to get over it. The Ki power source is coming; we already know it's coming, they've told us explicitly. It matters not that you dislike it.
Warlord: Shield only build ("Captain America")
That thing already exists. It's called a striker.
As for Ki, you people need to get over it. The Ki power source is coming; we already know it's coming, they've told us explicitly. It matters not that you dislike it.
Who dislikes the Ki power source? I dislike people essentially saying it is going to be the eastern power source and that every class remotely related to the east is going to be forced into it even if the class has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of Ki or fits better with a different power source. *takes a deep breath* Whoo always feels good to get that out.Rogue: Unarmed Strike = Lightblade build ("Batman")
Warlord: Shield only build ("Captain America")
No no no, Batman is an artificer build option that focuses on unarmed strikes. God(censored) Batman is the corresponding paragon path, and the epic destiny is the Bat-God(which is when you get exploding shark repellent).:D
For Warlord:
Cheerleader
You're thinking of bards:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0004.html
So the new Beastmastery build for Ranger isn't a PP but a complete redo of the class?
No no no, Batman is an artificer build option that focuses on unarmed strikes.
Rogue who treats unarmed strikes as light blades and gets Alchemy as a bonus feat at first level.
God(censored) Batman is the corresponding paragon path, and the epic destiny is the Bat-God(which is when you get exploding shark repellent).:D
*blows whistle, throws flag*
*walks to midfield*
"We have an Adam West invocation. That's a 15 yard penalty and a revocation of posting rights regarding Batman. Repeat third down."
Rogue who treats unarmed strikes as light blades and gets Alchemy as a bonus feat at first level.
*blows whistle, throws flag*
*walks to midfield*
"We have an Adam West invocation. That's a 15 yard penalty and a revocation of posting rights regarding Batman. Repeat third down."
Oh come on, you know you love the exploding shark!:D
Oh come on, you know you love the exploding shark!:D
Let's put it this way; It's the only part of Adam West's Batman that I don't loathe.
I hated to type the ninja ki comment but that's what people assume.
In many countries (some of which are civilized), associating ninjas and samurai with ki is grounds for an immediate execution.
In many countries (some of which are civilized), associating ninjas and samurai with ki is grounds for an immediate execution.
I can see Ninjas being a non Martial class but I can also see them being Martial. They are just like Rogues but more sneaky stab then sneaky take. Samurai on the other hand HAVE to be Martial. Well not have to but should be for it was all personal skill that made them the way they are, no other worldly power. All or most would be design to do massive damage to a single target so I think they would be strikers.
Let's put it this way; It's the only part of Adam West's Batman that I don't loathe.
Oh I don't know, I don't think that Yvonne Craig's Batgirl has ever been bettered!
For the rogue, I'd like to see something based off the prestige class in Eberron called the extreme explorer - a build that focuses a more on action points to do things (not likely however). I'd also like to see a build that focus' on a whip, much like the dagger focus rogues have already, as it is a weapon that has a coolness factor (Indiana Jones, Castlevania) but has not been represented yet. I can see the whip as being low damage (1d4) but having reach and being able to grab things from a distance.
A ranger build for a single two handed weapon might be neat, great for all those dwarves that focus on axes or hammers.
Were we supposed to get more multi-class feats in Martial Power? If so I'd like them to give a character more of the class benefits.
I don't think everything needs two extra builds. I'd be happier if they included less, but what the included was better quality.
Samurai on the other hand HAVE to be Martial. Well not have to but should be for it was all personal skill that made them the way they are, no other worldly power.
Samurai will more than lickly be a KI Defender/Striker
b)intimidating warlord sounds cool
c)two-handed ranger sounds dumb
d)ranged or rapier type rogue sounds cool
Samurai will more than lickly be a KI Defender/Striker
Highly unlikely. If they even insinuate that Samurai will use a Ki power source, someone is going to contact the media and accuse them of racism. Even minor negative publicity is bad for business and I honestly don't think they'll risk it.
For Warlords, I would like to see a path that supports allys with Ranged Attacks ( Spell or non spell) or an intimidation path that debuffs enemys)
Highly unlikely. If they even insinuate that Samurai will use a Ki power source, someone is going to contact the media and accuse them of racism. Even minor negative publicity is bad for business and I honestly don't think they'll risk it.
Extremely likely. Ki has already been listed as a power source to be used eventually, what better than the Ninja, Monk ( Both of whom had Ki abilitys in last edition, and no one claimed they were racist) and Samurai.
Extremely likely. Ki has already been listed as a power source to be used eventually, what better than the Ninja, Monk ( Both of whom had Ki abilitys in last edition, and no one claimed they were racist) and Samurai.
If by "better" you mean "more racist," then you're right.
b) intimidating warlord sounds cool
I don't get this "intimidating" warlord idea. What is it? It just sounds like a CHA-based Warlord to me, and we already have that...
c) two-handed ranger sounds dumb
Why? I mean, it makes perfect sense. I mean, if we're going to have a martial striker that uses two-handed weapons, why not the Ranger? The ranger is already the fighting style master, so why not add another fighting style options?
d) ranged or rapier type rogue sounds cool
"Rapier-type"? How is that different from what we have now?
These questions aren't necessarely directed towards you. Just to anybody who shares the opinion, as I've seen them a couple of times. Your post just put them all in one convenient place. :P
If by "better" you mean "more racist," then you're right.
Awesome_Dude, how does making Samurai a class that uses internal spiritual energy to do supernatural maneuvers make it racist? Please explain. If anything WotC doing so seems to fit the popculture and mythological ideas about the class.I'm sorry, but agreeing with the folk lore and traditional beliefs of a people is not racist against that people.
To simplify, Saying that (Shaolin) Monks, Ninja, and Samurai use Ki to fuel their powers is only racist if saying that Catholic Priests transubstantiate the Wine and Bread into the Blood and Body of Christ is religious discrimination against Catholics.
As soon as 5000 years of recorded Asian history STOP SUPPORTING the concept that mighty warriors use Ki/Chi/Spiritual Power to preform feats of superhuman skill and strength, you might just have a prayer of having a good argument.
Samurai have never, at any point, been associated with ki or soul energy. Further, making ninja, monks and samurai into ki-using classes is racial segregation (the power source being a dumping ground for everything AZN). You can't characterize an entire race as using a separate energy source and expect anyone sensible to believe you're not being incredibly racist.
Also, Rogues can already turn invisible and jump ridiculous distances. There's your ninja.
I don't get this "intimidating" warlord idea. What is it? It just sounds like a CHA-based Warlord to me, and we already have that...
The concept of an Intimidating Warlord is basically the flip side of the Inspiring Warlord.
Both are Charisma based, but while the Inspiring Warlord focuses on buffing the party, the Intimidating Warlord focuses on debuffing the enemies.
Basically, a Tactical Warlord is a Leader with some Defender-like things.
The Intimidation Warlord would be a Leader with some Controller-like things.
Just as a Warlord will never fully replace a fighter/paladin, and Intimidating warlord would never replace a Wizard. However, the Intimidating Warlord would have some control functions, like Fear effects, Demoralizing effects (attack penalties, Defense Penalties, Etc), and the like.
You can't characterize an entire race as using a separate energy source and expect anyone sensible to believe you're not being incredibly racist.
Except they're (WotC) not characterizing an entire race as using a separate energy source, so the point is completely moot.
Oh, and a rogue build coming is possibly the "thug," as the D&D Compendium had a "Thug Weapon Talent" listed on the Rogue page a few months back before it got removed.
Samurai have never, at any point, been associated with ki or soul energy. Further, making ninja, monks and samurai into ki-using classes is racial segregation (the power source being a dumping ground for everything AZN). You can't characterize an entire race as using a separate energy source and expect anyone sensible to believe you're not being incredibly racist.
Also, Rogues can already turn invisible and jump ridiculous distances. There's your ninja.
Right. I guess I should be offended by WotC to even suggesting such a racist thing... Damn, I just don't feel it. I guess most catholics should be cry religious persecution since the cleric was based off of that religion. Europeans should be up in arms too since the barbarian class was basically modelled after them.
I am offended though. I'm offended by the fact that someone played the racist card so friviously. There are more important things in the world that need the racist card pulled out on. A fantasy game basing some concepts off of culturally iconic concepts is not one of those things.
Samurai have never, at any point, been associated with ki or soul energy. Further, making ninja, monks and samurai into ki-using classes is racial segregation (the power source being a dumping ground for everything AZN). You can't characterize an entire race as using a separate energy source and expect anyone sensible to believe you're not being incredibly racist.
Also, Rogues can already turn invisible and jump ridiculous distances. There's your ninja.
Well, they have been in anime and manga. One might argue that Knights having the power to heal people and being innately lawful good is incredibly insulting to the countless people brutalized by Europeans in the Middle Ages. I think it's important to remember that 4E and Real Life History are so far removed that it's silly to think of them as remotely comparable.
Ninja in 4E are closer to Naruto than history.
I guess most catholics should be cry religious persecution since the cleric was based off of that religion. Europeans should be up in arms too since the barbarian class was basically modelled after them.
How hard did you try to miss my point?
How hard did you try to miss my point?
I understand your point. Assuming you mean Samurai were a secular hereditary martial class that had nothing particularly to do with religion, let alone the Force (which is what Ki is closer to than genuine Taoism or Buddhism). I'm just noting that I don't think Samurai in D&D are Samurai by what historians mean them.
Samurai have never, at any point, been associated with ki or soul energy.
While the warriors known as Samurai may not have been directly associated Ki, the literature discussing their Kenjutsu often talks heavily about controlling and using Ki.
Further, making ninja, monks and samurai into ki-using classes is racial segregation (the power source being a dumping ground for everything AZN). You can't characterize an entire race as using a separate energy source and expect anyone sensible to believe you're not being incredibly racist.
The only way that could be close to true would be if there were classes specifically designed to be eastern (non-warrior) mystics and then have them be Ki classes, but that does not seem to have been implied to be forth coming anywhere.
Also, Rogues can already turn invisible and jump ridiculous distances. There's your ninja.
Okay where is the Rogue's ability breath fire, summon/control/turn into toads/snails/snakes, split into a dozen copies, poison with a touch, or turn into a puddle of water? (And just so you know all those powers were attributed to ninja before the first Europeans got to Japan.)
How hard did you try to miss my point?
Actually, I was trying real hard not to tell you to put a bandaid on a piece of anatomy.
Aside from that, why don't you think about it? A barbarian, which has its root in European history, depicts a strong, but uncivilized and uncivilized person incapable of cultural evolution (as a group). That stereotype tends to be a bigger slap in the face than a cultural concept that allows a person to harness his internal powers to achieve great feats.
But then, I guess you intentionally missed the point of my post that your use of the racist card is unproductive at best.
I understand your point. Assuming you mean Samurai were a secular hereditary martial class that had nothing particularly to do with religion, let alone the Force (which is what Ki is closer to than genuine Taoism or Buddhism). I'm just noting that I don't think Samurai in D&D are Samurai by what historians mean them.
Samurai don't have much about them that can be made into a class. They were way too diverse (just like warriors from every culture).
While the warriors known as Samurai may not have been directly associated Ki, the literature discussing their Kenjutsu often talks heavily about controlling and using Ki.
But mythical samurai were doing the same mythical warriors from other cultures were doing.
The only way that could be close to true would be if there were classes specifically designed to be eastern (non-warrior) mystics and then have them be Ki classes, but that does not seem to have been implied to be forth coming anywhere.
How likely do you think it is that it will happen?
Okay where is the Rogue's ability breath fire, summon/control/turn into toads/snails/snakes, split into a dozen copies, poison with a touch, or turn into a puddle of water?
Equipment. Why does everything have to be a class power? Or if it does, Wizards do some of that stuff (the stuff that isn't massively overpowered anyways).
(And just so you know all those powers were attributed to ninja before the first Europeans got to Japan.)
I wouldn't mind seeing sources.
Aside from that, why don't you think about it? A barbarian, which has its root in European history, depicts a strong, but uncivilized and uncivilized person incapable of cultural evolution (as a group). That stereotype tends to be a bigger slap in the face than a cultural concept that allows a person to harness his internal powers to achieve great feats.
But then, I guess you intentionally missed the point of my post that your use of the racist card is unproductive at best.
Like I said, you missed my point in such an epic manner that I could write a best-seller novel about it. Some Europeans were barbarians, but D&D isn't stereotyping them as uncivilized warriors. Making a Samurai/Monk/Ninja class that uses ki is taking an entire race of people and stereotyping their warriors as ki-users, effectively making the Ki power source a dumping ground for AZN stuff.
Maybe you don't see it, but you sound like one of those angry bloggers who think they have the most awesome and rational view on things, and that "racism" is just a liberal buzzword. In which case, I'll instruct you to post your response in your LiveJournal instead of disrupting the community.
Samurai don't have much about them that can be made into a class. They were way too diverse (just like warriors from every culture).
Samurai doesn't = warrior. It's very much a social definition. The majority of warriors in Japan weren't samurai.
Samurai doesn't = warrior. It's very much a social definition.
Yeah, sorry. Brainfart. You could represent a samurai by using any class.
The majority of warriors in Japan weren't samurai.
Another reason why it's stereotyping.
Like I said, you missed my point in such an epic manner that I could write a best-seller novel about it. Some Europeans were barbarians, but D&D isn't stereotyping them as uncivilized warriors. Making a Samurai/Monk/Ninja class that uses ki is taking an entire race of people and stereotyping their warriors as ki-users, effectively making the Ki power source a dumping ground for AZN stuff.
Maybe you don't see it, but you sound like one of those angry bloggers who think they have the most awesome and rational view on things, and that "racism" is just a liberal buzzword. In which case, I'll instruct you to post your response in your LiveJournal instead of disrupting the community.
Right, the fact that barbarians in previous editions were the only class to be illiterate in no way singles out that group as uncivilized. I think you're deluded and pigeon holed yourself into your views. Racism is not a term that should be used friviously just because you don't like the concept of a power source.
I like your argument though. The asian archetype is racist; however, other archetypes based off of other cultures are not racist because... Exactly what are the differences? Your argument that a power source should be excluded on racist grounds only works if you argue that other "offensive" concepts be excluded from the game. I'll ignore your argument of trying to stereotype me into a group (which I don't belong to) in an attempt to discredit a person without any foundation.
By the way, I do agree that a Ki source is going to be redundant. I just don't like stupid arguments especially those that play the racist card with double standards. It is wrong on so many different levels.
HOWEVER if Wotc trys making shukenja and Wu-jen Ki source, well that race card might be able to be pulled then...however hard it is for me to be mad about a game...I have to admit that would raise my eyebrow.
On the other hand if Elemental and Ki came in the same PHB and had a bunch of Oreantal classes...well then I would feel beter
By the way, I do agree that a Ki source is going to be redundant.
yea If Ki wasn't a confirmed power source I would have been fine with Martial Samari and Divine Monk
I would be very happy with the Samari being a Ki Leader, well Ninja and Monk were ki strikers...I don't see it being racest becuse in an orentaal setting there would still be fighters (Asha-garu) and Rougs, and Warlords, and Clerics...
HOWEVER if Wotc trys making shukenja and Wu-jen Ki source, well that race card might be able to be pulled then...however hard it is for me to be mad about a game...I have to admit that would raise my eyebrow.
On the other hand if Elemental and Ki came in the same PHB and had a bunch of Oreantal classes...well then I would feel beter
I would be very unhappy if a Samurai class was a leader. Those guys should be replacing fighters, not clerics.
Overall I am kind of unimpressed by the idea of a Samurai class, simply because I don't really see what they would do differently other than having Katanas and a Ki power source. It's sort of like many of the martial controller ideas, something that exists to fill out a grid.
Right, the fact that barbarians in previous editions were the only class to be illiterate in no way singles out that group as uncivilized.
Barbarian means uncivilized person. The fact that the word was used to describe Northern Europeans does not mean that the two were equivalent. There is also the fact that they don't get their power from their beard or filth.
Racism is not a term that should be used friviously just because you don't like the concept of a power source.
I use it when it applies.
I like your argument though. The asian archetype is racist; however, other archetypes based off of other cultures are not racist because... Exactly what are the differences?
If you actually made the Bräu power source and then made a German Wrestler class that used it, do you then see it? It's the same, except now we're stereotyping Germans as drinkers by making an exclusively German class that gets its power from booze.
Your argument that a power source should be excluded on racist grounds only works if you argue that other "offensive" concepts be excluded from the game.
No, my argument is that the Monk is pretty much the only class that makes sense utilizing it and doing so without sounding racist. And even then, you're stereotyping unarmed martial artists (a smaller but arguably more dangerous group than Asians).
Incarnate (Leader)
Warblade (defender)
Swordsage (controller) that could be renamed Blade-mystic so it won't get confused with Swordmage.
So that all other Ki classes become culturally neutral.
With the other power sources having:
Ninja (Shadow Striker) absorbing both Shadowdancer and Assassin
Wu Jen (Elemental Controller)
So that the other culturally specific classes end up elsewhere
There's a very good reason why I want the other Ki classes to be:
Incarnate (Leader)
Warblade (defender)
Swordsage (controller) that could be renamed Blade-mystic so it won't get confused with Swordmage.
There have also been pretty cool suggestions about Ki possibly being fused with Incarnum.
There have also been pretty cool suggestions about Ki possibly being fused with Incarnum.
I think that is exactly what they should do, ki being the power of the soul, similar to Incarnum, and less focus on the Asian feel.
Barbarian means uncivilized person. The fact that the word was used to describe Northern Europeans does not mean that the two were equivalent. There is also the fact that they don't get their power from their beard or filth.
You're still ignoring the fact that the class is predominately based off the concept of the Northren European barbarian.
I use it when it applies.
Right, but then everytime someone asks you to clarify how it is racist, you just say that it is obviously racist. That is a substandard answer that you would expect from... well, a racist. Ironic isn't it.
If you actually made the Bräu power source and then made a German Wrestler class that used it, do you then see it? It's the same, except now we're stereotyping Germans as drinkers by making an exclusively German class that gets its power from booze.
Touche. You're example is, well maybe just a little more, just as off the wall as mine. However, my example dealt with classes that actually exist and how they could be (abietly a stretch just like your asian assertion) considered offensive to certain groups. Your example deals with a class that will never exist except maybe in a satire based game though.
No, my argument is that the Monk is pretty much the only class that makes sense utilizing it and doing so without sounding racist. And even then, you're stereotyping unarmed martial artists (a smaller but arguably more dangerous group than Asians).
Which monks? Based off of your point of view, I'm sure the Shinto priests, which are called monks, would be very upset that they were grouped with a bunch martial artist. European monks might be offended too. They are after all more of a religious group. Maybe you should argue that anything oriental be left out of DnD; that way no Asians can be offended by the game. Then again since noone is probably qualified to make a power source, maybe we should start banning barbarian (possibly offensive to Barbars, North Europeans and anyone not Greek), any knightly concepts (offensive to any European that once belonged to the serf class), clerics (since Catholics and other Christians might get offended that a concept based off of their history is being used to worship fake gods) and any other concept that can offend anyone. Actually, the cleric example is probably a more legitimate point to complain about than your racism stance against Asians.
Like I said before, if you want to play the racism card, you should be fair to every group out there. You either draw the line at one end of the spectrum or the other end of the spectrum, not where it is most convient for you.
Highly unlikely. If they even insinuate that Samurai will use a Ki power source, someone is going to contact the media and accuse them of racism. Even minor negative publicity is bad for business and I honestly don't think they'll risk it.
I don't think the media will care; unless, there was absolutely nothing to report about that day. Even then, there are better things (i.e. stuff that people would actually care about even alittle) to waste news space on.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with the Ki source; although, I can see it being redundant. But then, one can argue that rogue and ranger are redundant and should be combined into one class. They are martial strikers after all. Wizards is trying to make money by making classes that fit certain roles but are different in flavor and spreading them across a lot of books. I can see them catering to the "Oriental Adventure" fans out there by making a couple of classes that they would like to see.
I can see the Samurai, along with the knight (or cavalier from 1st edition), making a comeback as a class. Fighters are cool but are somewhat limited in representing the archetype of the nobleborn warrior (at least not without sacrificing alot of feats); more so with the samurai since samurai were required to learn the arts in addition to war. I don't buy the argument that samurai are too limiting of a concept to base a class. We have a paladin after all and that is just as limiting of a concept as the samurai (and more limiting than the knight), at least in my opinion.
I suspect Samurai will be like the Kensai and be a fighter Paragon Path and not a full class. Samurai as a concept really don't have a ton of options but seem much more a focused warrior type. Also not ALL Asian-themed options are going to be ki as seen by the fact we already have in the first PHB an Asian-themed paragon path (kensai).
Barbarian is actually a Greek term applied first to the Mongol hordes that would invade Greece because their guttural language sounded like a lot of 'bar bar' type talk to the Greeks. It was later applied to any 'uncivilized person' by a culture and the Romans applied it to the Celts, Nords, Gauls, and other Western and Northern European cultures.
I could see the ninja as a full class or possibly a paragon path for the Rogue. It depends on how they want to do it. The ninja would have enough odd powers available as a full class to warrant inclusion in ki.
Do keep in mind 4e is trying to get away from culture-specific notions in campaigns so ki will be a PHB option not an OA book. Also there's no reason the campaign world would call a ninja a ninja just because the class name is that so that players can easily identify the general 'feel' of the class. This is also my argument AGAINST a full samurai class, as it is it is too close to a fighter or warlord other than cultural feel. The DMG already talks about how to redescribe powers to turn the existing classes into a Wuxia-themed campaign.
You're still ignoring the fact that the class is predominately based off the concept of the Northren European barbarian.
Correction: It was based on a small group of people who do actually came unglued in the heat of battle (called berserks) and were, like Northern Europeans referred to as Barbarians (or would be, had there been a record of a Roman meeting a berserk). Besides, they weren't given a specific, Nordic power source for the purpose of segregating them from the others.
BTW, Barbarians are Primal in 4E so their anger will probably be more represented as a manifestation of the forces of nature (like the Druid) than just getting really upset. This is just a friendly head-up from one of the people who saw the charging Dragonborn Barbarian on fire.
Right, but then everytime someone asks you to clarify how it is racist, you just say that it is obviously racist. That is a substandard answer that you would expect from... well, a racist. Ironic isn't it.
I originally thought it was obvious. It clearly isn't, so now I'm trying my best to explain.
Touche. You're example is, well maybe just a little more, just as off the wall as mine. However, my example dealt with classes that actually exist and how they could be (abietly a stretch just like your asian assertion) considered offensive to certain groups. Your example deals with a class that will never exist except maybe in a satire based game though.
I'm just showing how this can hit closer to home. A lot of Germans find it really offensive that people assume that they're heavy drinkers. Think of this from a normal Japanese dude's perspective. To him, samurai may be great warriors (though it was technically a social title; Japanese people, like others, don't always know all the dirty little details about their own national history) who relied on their own strength and mettle to fight. Then some gaming company overseas decides to lump his idea of the samurai in with some dudes who meditated and beat people up in equal measures and another group who were looked down upon by some samurai (even though other samurai actually were ninjas too) and in fact made a living of killing honorable people through no superior force (not to mention that the average Japanese person also knows that ninjas weren't always meditants or magicians).
And note how there's also a pattern. They're all Asian classes using a power source based around an admittetly international concept but with an Asian name.
Which monks?
The Monks of D&D which WotC promised to update.
Based off of your point of view, I'm sure the Shinto priests, which are called monks, would be very upset that they were grouped with a bunch martial artist.
That's too bad, because all those groups use identical titles. The word "monk" means:
1. (in Christianity) a man who has withdrawn from the world for religious reasons, esp. as a member of an order of cenobites living according to a particular rule and under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
2. (in any religion) a man who is a member of a monastic order: a Buddhist monk.
They're all monks. However, the Monk class name would refer to a martial artist. Everybody can call themselves a monk, but not everybody can call themselves a Monk.
In other words, you're committing the equivocation logical fallacy. An example of said: A car mechanic is good (talented), but it doesn't mean he's good (a decent man).
European monks might be offended too. They are after all more of a religious group.
They're monks too. They're just monks of a different kind. Some of them might also be Monks.
Maybe you should argue that anything oriental be left out of DnD; that way no Asians can be offended by the game.
No, I'll just argue that if you use Asian classes, call a spade a spade. A Samurai has no reason to be anything but martial, a Ninja should either be martial or arcane (if you want them mystical ninjas) and monks should either be martial or divine.
Then again since noone is probably qualified to make a power source, maybe we should start banning barbarian (possibly offensive to Barbars, North Europeans and anyone not Greek), any knightly concepts (offensive to any European that once belonged to the serf class), clerics (since Catholics and other Christians might get offended that a concept based off of their history is being used to worship fake gods) and any other concept that can offend anyone. Actually, the cleric example is probably a more legitimate point to complain about than your racism stance against Asians.
Dude, don't make straw man arguments. By your logic, since people are suggesting a separate power source for Asians, you should also make a new power source for every other ethnic group (or continents?). And why stop there?
Kind of defeats the purpose of using power sources in the first place.
I don't think the media will care; unless, there was absolutely nothing to report about that day. Even then, there are better things (i.e. stuff that people would actually care about even alittle) to waste news space on.
Articles get out, and news of a decently large corporation (and a subsidiary of Hasbro, no less) showing racist tendencies should get out just enough for the shareholders to get really ******.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with the Ki source; although, I can see it being redundant. But then, one can argue that rogue and ranger are redundant and should be combined into one class. They are martial strikers after all. Wizards is trying to make money by making classes that fit certain roles but are different in flavor and spreading them across a lot of books. I can see them catering to the "Oriental Adventure" fans out there by making a couple of classes that they would like to see.
And I'm saying that the very idea that they'd risk it is ludicrous. In fact, a case could be made for it being illegal. A corporation is legally required to expand and make money for its shareholders, and knowingly risking risking negative publicity (and thus losing possibilities for expansion) in order to pander to a small group of people could be grounds for investigation and prosecution.
We have a paladin after all and that is just as limiting of a concept as the samurai (and more limiting than the knight), at least in my opinion.
90% of the Paladin's powers are smites and more powerful smites.
Mind you, this is stark contrast to how I view the tempest fighter, but that's mostly due to the fighter being a different role, and thus (hopefully) showing off his two-weapon fighting in a different way. But who knows, I could be wrong and they could come up with a really neat way of having the rogue TWF without infringing upon the ranger any. I will say that I would really like to see a single weapon ranger (1h or 2h, doesn't matter).
Finally, people, this isn't a thread about Ki classes or racism so take it somewhere else. Honestly, if any of you see Awesome_Dude's last post and just have to respond, start a new thread or PM him. Please just drop it here folks.
Rogues, right now, can be good "realistic" ninja, but they can't be the ninjas of legend and cinema - the ones who could walk through walls, turn invisible, teleport through shadows, etc.
They can turn invisible. Otherwise it's either a matter of designing new powers or multi-classing. There's no reason to design a class that is basically 10% new stuff.
They can turn invisible. Otherwise it's either a matter of designing new powers or multi-classing. There's no reason to design a class that is basically 10% new stuff.
I'm talking full-on invisibility, not just stealthiness.
I'm talking full-on invisibility, not just stealthiness.
So am I. Rogues can turn invisible.
I'm talking full-on invisibility, not just stealthiness.
Rogues do get full-on invisibility. In fact they have at least two powers which grant full-on invisibility.
Hide In Plain Sight Rogue Utility 16
...
You are invisible until you leave your current square. No other action that you perform makes you visible.
Hide From The Light Rogue Utility 22
...
You are invisible until the end of the encounter or until you end the effect by moving more than 3 squares in a turn or by making any attack other than a basic attack or an at-will attack.
EDIT:
They also get powers which let them double dump in mid-air and run up walls (Cloud Jump and Nimble Climb respectively).
I don't know much about ki historically, but it sounds a lot like the concept of "Chi", the chinese image of the universal energy we all can tap into, and to through tai-chi, yoga and most chinese martial arts (including ju-jitsu (samurai), ninjitsu (ninja) and various types of kung-fu (the image of the monk). Assuming by ki they are reffering to this, then it seems pretty accurate (although chi doesn't allow one to be superhuman, those who practice it can seem superhuman to others).
Chi & ki are just alternate spellings/transliterations (so is Qi actually. valid in scrabble even) they are refer to the same concept.
Of course, there's the issue of the concept possibly stepping on the monk's toes. But then again, fighters (and possibly rogues) will be getting two-weapon fighting builds, so there's a precedent for a combat style not being unique to one specific class.
This type of build might also help to tide Monk fans over until the official class is released, since it probably won't be out until PHB3.
i wouldnt want to see a two-weapon rogue because its pretty easy to make one now. i do want to see a few two weapon powers for the rogue. maybe even one specifically for a hand ranged/melee wielder.
You *do* realize you are contradicting yourself here, don't you? All of these "build names" people keep throwing about are not real classes or subclasses... they are just definitions. So if you want to add some Rogue exploits that work off of dual-wieldling... you technically *are* adding in a "two-weapon rogue" as a possible build, becuase you now have the exploits available to make it a viable selection.
I myself believe we *may* see a swashbucklery two-weapon build for the rogue for a specific reason... the Adventurer's Vault includes a new weapon called a "parrying dagger", which specifically says in it's description that it applies to the Rogue Weapon Talent. Now usually a parrying dagger (or a main gauche or whatever you might want to call it) is used in conjunction with a rapier or fencing weapon, and since there's been all this argument on the boards about whether wielding a dagger in the off-hand gives you the +1 to hit with your main hand holding a different weapon... I would tend to believe they wouldn't bother introducing a traditional off-hand fencing weapon that specifically mentions being used for the Rogue unless they already had rules in mind for it.
Now it's quite possible they made the parrying dagger specifically for the tempest fighters out there, and they mentioned the rogue weapon talent just *in case* the rogues wanted to use it... but that seems a little dodgy to me. I guess we'll have to wait and see.