So it will either be PHB3 (so 2010) or later.
I had heard it was slated for PHB2, where does it say it isn't?
Well considering the PHB2 is just Primal, Divine and Arcane classes it is highly doubtful it would be in.
There is a Monk class in the 3rd party book; Advanced Player's Guide called the Martial Artist.
APG is 4e?
Yes it is for 4E..
And as for the monk.. i would honestly be happy if they didn't ad it back in.. just give me some decent hand to hand combat feats (at the moment i house rule the hand to hand combat feats form SWSE into 4th ed.. Rangers make awesome monks with them..)
Well considering the PHB2 is just Primal, Divine and Arcane classes it is highly doubtful it would be in.
In addition there is no class in the PHBII that starts with the letter M.
Obvioulsy the main frustration is the fact that the more mainstream races and classes i.e. Gnome, Half-Orc, Bard, Monk, and Druid along with more familiar play styles were not included in the initial release.
Anyway, hopefully they will release a playtest class for the monk in a Dragon Magazine.
I suggest this monk class created by Jonstryder , it looks to be interesting, at the same time not too powerful.
Also, as far as missing classes in general, I'd check the Class compendium in the Multiclass forum. More likely than not, going to find a class either in the works there, or already finished.
Though, it might be cool to have another effective unarmed combatant (perhaps as an alternate build of another class), so that the monk can focus primarily upon its acquired niche of 'mystical martial artist' without having to be the sole 'token unarmed class'.
Though, it might be cool to have another effective unarmed combatant (perhaps as an alternate build of another class), so that the monk can focus primarily upon its acquired niche of 'mystical martial artist' without having to be the sole 'token unarmed class'.
I'm hoping the monk will basically have a 'mystical' build and a 'beatdown' build. From there, it's just a matter of refluffing the 'beatdown' build away from, say, Bruce Lee and more towards Mike Tyson if you don't want the whole martial artsy fluff.
I'm hoping the monk will basically have a 'mystical' build and a 'beatdown' build. From there, it's just a matter of refluffing the 'beatdown' build away from, say, Bruce Lee and more towards Mike Tyson if you don't want the whole martial artsy fluff.
Streets of Rage vs Double Dragon build options would be sweet.
Anyway, hopefully they will release a playtest class for the monk in a Dragon Magazine.
Given how much interpretation the concept of monk possesses, I think that Monk should definitely be a playtested class. Do they make it a mystical guru, or a schlub who hits you with his fists?
Given how much interpretation the concept of monk possesses, I think that Monk should definitely be a playtested class. Do they make it a mystical guru, or a schlub who hits you with his fists?
Ideally, it should be able to do either with a minimum of refluffing required. I only used the 3rd Edition monk as a basis for a number of back-alley brawlers (multi'd out after about 3rd or 4th level before all the mystical stuff crept in).
Cause the next campaign I am planning really wants monk to be out.
They're still trying to get the wings to stay glued onto the pig...
Since there isn't a Divine class that fills the defender role as of right now, and the Cleric is a Leader, seeing the monk as the Divine fist is not too far off base. Also, if 1/2 orcs end up being a STR/WIS race, it will breath new life into the 1/2 orc Monk charcter that has always been such a hoot in 3e.
I personally think a good Monk substitute is a TWF Ranger, stating that the weapons he uses are his fists, having different weapons account for different fighting styles. The amount of armor he wears can be the type of defense he uses.
Same goes for fighter if you want more of a defender.
Of course, if you want a completely original thing, looks like you'll be waiting for 2010. I really wish they did PHB2 to be Primal, Shadow, and Ki just to have a bunch more stuff, and cover new arcane and divine classes in Arcane Power and Divine Power, respectively.
I'm not sure if it would work, but I'd like to see the 4e monk as a Divine Defender class. The spiritual fighter, who calls on inner power to do near (or beyond) supernatural things. Any fighter can be an unarmed fighter. Sure you might not cause as much damage with your fists, but the fighter and the barbarian can both work as back-alley brawlers.
Since there isn't a Divine class that fills the defender role as of right now, and the Cleric is a Leader, seeing the monk as the Divine fist is not too far off base. Also, if 1/2 orcs end up being a STR/WIS race, it will breath new life into the 1/2 orc Monk charcter that has always been such a hoot in 3e.
1. We already know the monk will be Ki source, and since the 'conversion' for them uses the Ranger as a base, I'm reasonably certain they'll be Strikers.
2. Paladins are Divine Defenders.
Ideally, it should be able to do either with a minimum of refluffing required. I only used the 3rd Edition monk as a basis for a number of back-alley brawlers (multi'd out after about 3rd or 4th level before all the mystical stuff crept in).
Based on what we've seen so far, each class will represent ONE concept, and not be a bathroom sink of options.
Barbarians are specifically primally charged, and not just an angry thug. Rangers are not divinely powered. Paladins are not just Knights with Detect Evil: they wield Radiant power as much (and often) as the Cleric. Fighters are armoured melee fighters PERIOD. Rogues only use light blades: no ballista sneak attack.
As I see it, this leaves WotC with the ability to create one class for each concept of a character class. If we get the "Ki" Monk first, we're sure to see to see the "Street Fighter" as a separate class later.
Rogues only use light blades: no ballista sneak attack.
.....*begins working on designing a light blade ballista*
Since it is the power of the soul, I could see Incarnum creeping in there.
Rogues only use light blades: no ballista sneak attack.
Also, no 'I steal his pants' power.
2. Paladins are Divine Defenders.
Oops! My bad. I thought Paladins were Leaders.
Based on what we've seen so far, each class will represent ONE concept, and not be a bathroom sink of options.
Barbarians are specifically primally charged, and not just an angry thug.
Fixable by removing the 'energy damage' keywords and making the class Martial.
Rangers are not divinely powered.
Multiclassing.
Paladins are not just Knights with Detect Evil: they wield Radiant power as much (and often) as the Cleric.
Since Paladins are no longer alignment-restricted (and Detect Evil is out), this opens up their possibilities quite a bit.
Fighters are armoured melee fighters PERIOD. Rogues only use light blades: no ballista sneak attack.
These, I admit, I can't argue much.
As I see it, this leaves WotC with the ability to create one class for each concept of a character class. If we get the "Ki" Monk first, we're sure to see to see the "Street Fighter" as a separate class later.
I don't think that's necessary, or even particularly desirable. Flavor is mutable; it should only take minor tweaking to turn the Ki Monk into a brawler, whether or not that's WotC's intention.
Any sword can be described as a "katana" at different length, width, curve, etc.
Any class can be flavored into something else:
Continuing in the Katana-style:
Samurai could be Fighters, they could be Rangers, and Warlords; or they could create a Samurai class completely unique, but limited because of the confines of needing to be different.
People clamor that a Ranger makes a poor Monk. I think, if I change the wording, reflavor the concept, and maybe add a different dilettante power, that the Monk would fit perfectly.
Besides, what if I imagine a Monk that wields solely spears and staves with Divine power? The Monk class in the works is probably solely a hand-hand class. I'll be upset if I think only that the class name and flavoring are the be-all end-all of the game. Thus I widen my imagination and allow for different concepts to emerge from seemingly unsuitable sources.
Funny, looking at the new edition, I see Paladins as fitting into Samarai...
Hm... Is that so?
Any flaws to it, can merely just get changed and such, otherwise looked to be a decent class overall.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1051738