My favorite character class is the monk. At first I was excited for 4th edition. Since first announced, I waited for over a half a year just to find out they weren't releasing the monk class in PHB1. "Well maybe PHB2 then", I thought.
Now it looks like it won't be released in the PHB2, which has a projected date of almost another year from now. I am beginning to lose hope here. I keep checking back every four or so months because I am hoping they will release the Monk. It looks like I might need to stop doing that, because I am just torturing myself
Any insights?
If you are such a fan of the class, perhaps you should try to embody some of those virtues as well? ;)
very clever! Wouldn't it be nice to actually be your favorite character? Anyway, it looks like my fears were right. I have exercised some degree of control, however. I have not, and will not buy even one 4th edition product until the monk appears. I am content with 3.x. Although, like most, I always like to have the newest version of anything.
HAHA,
very clever! Wouldn't it be nice to actually be your favorite character? Anyway, it looks like my fears were right. I have exercised some degree of control, however. I have not, and will not buy even one 4th edition product until the monk appears. I am content with 3.x. Although, like most, I always like to have the newest version of anything.
While I respect your choice.... it seems stupid to me. Why hold out for one class? Especially if you're expecting a reincarnation of the 3.5 monk... The 4e monk will be so different that you'll probably cry about it when it finally comes out.
I just think a year or two of having some fun would outweigh waiting for something that is most likely to be disappointing.
People shouldn't have to use some yokels crappy homebrew to play their favorite class. And if 4th edition is so much like first as so many claim...shouldn't it have the Monk? A class that was quite popular in spite of being less than optimal? Real low class marketing Wizards...
A class that was quite popular in spite of being less than optimal? Real low class marketing Wizards...
Read that statement over again and THINK.
Perhaps...
...Just maybe...
...
That it is in no ways a marketing scheme but in fact a promise on their part to deliver to us classes that do not disappoint. Maybe they want an optimal monk? Maybe they want a fighter, monk, and wizard to all be of the same value to a party?
So yes, it is dumb that they didn't include so many classes into PHB1; but I for one, found it to be a learning experience. To realize that a class isn't defined by it's name, but by what it does.
The TWF Ranger conversion works.
I've tried it.
Up the damage dice, up the proficiency, do whatever it takes to make you imagine that the sheet in front of you actually says monk.
It should have been in the players handbook, not withheld to drive sales of future products. And it would have easily fit to, if Wotc didn't lay it out like My First D&D Book.
People shouldn't have to use some yokels crappy homebrew to play their favorite class. And if 4th edition is so much like first as so many claim...shouldn't it have the Monk? A class that was quite popular in spite of being less than optimal? Real low class marketing Wizards...
Wait... my favorite class is Truenamer. It should be in the PHB! OMG! 4e sucks![/sarcasm]
D&D has always been about homebrewing your own stuff. This has just changed recently when people have gotten lazy, which isn't an excuse because you now have the internet to do it for you! What, exactly, makes an "Official WotC Monk" class any better than "My fun Monk" class made by someone else? Stop the authorism.
Now, I concede that if you play in the RPGA, or similar things, you can't homebrew anything. Otherwise, you're missing half the point of D&D. It is your game. Change it so you like it!
[/rant]
The paladin, for instance, is archetypically a defender of the weak, a slayer of demons/devils/dragons/evil, and a healer. The fighter is a weapons master or an unkillable tank. Yada yada ...
The class build options do work for this to an extent, except a character really can only substitute for a different role (a paladin can be a back-up healer, but not an actual healer).
What is my point? The ranger isn't a monk. The ranger is now a hunter/skirmisher/scout who uses two-weapons for no apparent reason (I know of the legacy/drizzt, but nothing in the class justifies it for me; any justification could be made for the rogue too or be a justification to use a longspear). The monk is an ascetic who is striving for spiritual perfection through physical and mental training.
Not all monk fans just want to punch things in the face. I hope a good number of monk fans are like me and want them to have more mysical abilities; utilities to ignore damage, attacks to disable or inflict ill-statuses in addition to damaging. Sure, a ranger with some cleric multiclassing could work to an extent as a substitute, but then you don't feel like a monk.
If you think classes should be building blocks, then we should go back to Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Magic-User. Want to be a paladin: Fighter/Cleric. Want to be a Swordmage: Fighter/Magic-User. Bard: Thief/Cleric/Magic-User. Warlord: Oh, that one's hard, cause a Fighter/Cleric will use magic, too bad, you can't be that.
I'm not aiming that sarcasm at anyone in particular, just the general atmosphere of telling people who's favorite classes were left out that their opinion doesn't matter.
PS: So that I can add some speculation, cause it's fun, I suspect there will be an Oriental Adventures book. They chose to make the Monk a member of the Ki power source, and since Ki is not stated for PHB2 I suspect it will be in PHB3 or OA. After PHB2, there are still 4 power sources left; they could either do two sources with 4 classes each per book, or 4 sources with two classes each per book (might be more possible, since it might be difficult to make multiple classes for these sources).
I still do not like the notion of a Ki power source. Any class I can think of for it except the monk fits better as a different class; Samurai: Fighter or Warlord or Ranger; Ninja: Rogue; OA Casters: Not ki at all. I don't even feel the Ki power source is necessary, though I do feel there are aspects of the Monk class which are necessary. I believe the Monk should be a Divine Striker (the term "monk" is almost interchangable with "priest" in many cultures, and "monk" specifically refers to someone who lives in a monastery, and monastery is defined as (by Wiktionary): denotes the building, or complex of buildings, that houses a room reserved for prayer (e.g. an oratory) as well as the domestic quarters and workplace(s) of monastics, whether monks or nuns, and whether living in community or alone (hermits)."). Again, I know I'm in the minority here, but whatever.
PPS: Comparing the Monk to the True Namer is comparing apples and oranges. The Monk was a 3E initial class, and it existed in 1E core and 2E expansions. The concept of a true namer has existed in some stories, but I don't know if it ever appeared in D&D before.
I'm not aiming that sarcasm at anyone in particular, just the general atmosphere of telling people who's favorite classes were left out that their opinion doesn't matter.
No one has said your opinions don't matter. They're just trying to say that until WotC is ready to give you the new, and hopefully improved, monk, why not try to use your imagination to come up with your own gnarly monk.
I, personally, never like playing a char straight out, except for the 4e Wizard which I'm currently playing now. My next char is gonna be a very vicious pit fighter, as martial as they come. But am I gonna start as a fighter? Hell no that boy is gonna start as a rogue, and muli-class into fighter, gives him some flare and something to work with besides the same-old same-old.
So, bust out your thinking caps and get to having fun with what we've got for now, before we're all convinced by Wizards to buy the next set of books.
+snip+
I still do not like the notion of a Ki power source. Any class I can think of for it except the monk fits better as a different class; Samurai: Fighter or Warlord or Ranger; Ninja: Rogue; OA Casters: Not ki at all. I don't even feel the Ki power source is necessary...
+snip+
This is going back to the fact that you don't want to substitute or homebrew.
So you define a Samurai as a Ranger/Fighter/Warlord.
What if I countered by saying a samurai in all the fiction I've read and played in RPGs and such, doesn't fit with those builds?
Am I then going to be able to say, "Well, it should be in the first book because..."?
No. I'm going to assume there was a logical reason for it.
If you don't like substituting the Ranger, using the homebrewed classes, or making your own; don't play 4E.
Obviously the Monk class takes precedence over campaign settings, Power Source books, and the like.
So let's take a minute to remember how many times every DnDer has played a Monk from level 1 to 20...
Besides they couldn't give us as many classes as the previous edition ,why? Maybe they could have waited and developed the missing classes intead of rushing them to print by some arbitrary deadline....and then not even delivering the Insider vaporware....slick WizBro, real slick lol. ;)
Is this the level and type of marketing and production we are to continue to expect?
Always about homebrewing? Maybe in its infancy. But certainly not in 2nd or 3e..
Besides they couldn't give us as many classes as the previous edition ,why? Maybe they could have waited and developed the missing classes intead of rushing them to print by some arbitrary deadline....and then not even delivering the Insider vaporware....slick WizBro, real slick lol. ;)
Is this the level and type of marketing and production we are to continue to expect?
I hope so. As opposed to the throw out random, untested crap every month approach we got in 3E.
A few times a year I get bored and come to Wizards to see what they are up to now.
My favorite character class is the monk. At first I was excited for 4th edition. Since first announced, I waited for over a half a year just to find out they weren't releasing the monk class in PHB1. "Well maybe PHB2 then", I thought.
Now it looks like it won't be released in the PHB2, which has a projected date of almost another year from now. I am beginning to lose hope here. I keep checking back every four or so months because I am hoping they will release the Monk. It looks like I might need to stop doing that, because I am just torturing myself
Any insights?
make your own, is it really that hard, all classes are basically the same
Truly, the Monk was mismatched with the other classes in the previous editions and it is not a mystery as to why it is not a priority to bring back.
At least, those 'purists' are not complaining on this. Like Psionic, too.
C'est la vie... How about trying new stuff too, meanwhile?
I still do not like the notion of a Ki power source.
Well we can be glad, then, that you aren't in charge of what WotC is publishing, because there are tons of other people who do want a Ki power source. Also? They've said they're doing one, so tough noogies. The Ki power source won't be 'realistic' martial artists. They'll be fantasy martial artists. And they'll be sweet.
I have no problem with the current selection of classes, as they hit all of the important archetypes. They'll hit less important archetypes in the future.
What is my point? The ranger isn't a monk. The ranger is now a hunter/skirmisher/scout who uses two-weapons for no apparent reason (I know of the legacy/drizzt, but nothing in the class justifies it for me; any justification could be made for the rogue too or be a justification to use a longspear). The monk is an .
you realize they will shake every bit of "ascetic who is striving for spiritual perfection through physical and mental training" just like they shook every bit of "natural guardian, friend to the animals, master of the wild places" out of ranger, right?
While I respect your choice.... it seems stupid to me. Why hold out for one class?
Lets flashforward 8 years, I'm still playing my Eberron games and the 5e PHB, MM and DMG have come out. I've found places for 7 PHBs worth of races and classes in my Eberron game. Am I going to convert to 5e? Of course not!
Now lets say the PHB and MM were an Eberron fans dream, it has psionic classes, druid, artificer, along with the traditional classes. What 4e races the PHB doesn't have, the MM has PC write-ups for most of them. Am I still going to convert? Nope. I want all of the races I've found places for to be playable at least as NPCs (and preferably PCs). So I'll still hold out. It could be I'll never convert to 5e because it never gets that 1 race I want.
That doesn't sound stupid to me at all (although I do place more emphasis on races, I'm sure there are those who place more emphasis on classes over races).
I just think a year or two of having some fun would outweigh waiting for something that is most likely to be disappointing.
This assumes he isn't playing 3.5e. If he enjoys that edition (personally I hate it and am glad I came to D&D late in the edition), why shouldn't he hold out?
What, exactly, makes an "Official WotC Monk" class any better than "My fun Monk" class made by someone else?
Let's see:
* A professional did it.
* Its had extensive playtesting.
* Its going to be compatible with future products that release additional powers for the class.
That doesn't mean all WotC classes will be better then homebrew classes, its just on average they will be. And I'm not experienced enough to know if the homebrew is going to unbalance things in my game.
don't play 4E.
Which is exactly what the OP is doing. Why you have a problem with them expressing disappointment that they're waiting until at least the 3rd year of D&D 4e being published is beyond me.
Maybe they could have waited and developed the missing classes intead of rushing them to print by some arbitrary deadline....
If by arbitrary you mean the deadline they needed to meet to remain a financially successful company, then yes it was quite arbitrary.
What is it about monks that makes everyone in this thread so antagonistic?
Lets flashforward 8 years, I'm still playing my Eberron games and the 5e PHB, MM and DMG have come out. I've found places for 7 PHBs worth of races and classes in my Eberron game. Am I going to convert to 5e? Of course not!
Why not? If 5e is better, then why not convert? "Oh no, I lost some stuff?" I don't think that's exactly tragic, if the game plays better and is more fun on the whole.
Why not? If 5e is better, then why not convert? "Oh no, I lost some stuff?" I don't think that's exactly tragic, if the game plays better and is more fun on the whole.
Because I actually enjoy 4e. I don't see why I should ignore important developments in my game or compromise the story to just play the latest thing.
Same thing goes for sticking with 3.5e over 4e. If the person likes it and have created (or modified) a world to include:
* Illumians
* Sharakim
* Aasimar
* Aarakocra
* Centaur
* Shades
* Wemics
* Yuan-ti
* Spellscales
Then I saw keep playing 3.5e. Its unlikely all of those races will get converted to 4e, so they should enjoy the previous game and not compromise their world just to move onto the next thing.
But really, why would you even switch mid-story? Why not just switch over after your campaign is done?
Why not just switch over after your campaign is done?
Because I have another campaign set in Eberron to play after it.
By the way, you do realize that I was speaking hypothetically don't you. Simply pointing out that there's nothing wrong to stick with an earlier edition if the latest one lacks classes or races you want at this time.
What is it about monks that makes everyone in this thread so antagonistic?
Again, do you remember the often heated debates on Monks? The outcries of 'it don't belong to euro-based D&D', or 'It's weak sauce weak?' and others.
Now, I know a lot of people get their panties in a bunch at the mention of a Ki power source, but it is a confirmed power source, that harnesses the soul.
I just hope they don't lump all classes with an Asian/Oriental name in the Ki power source, but as we have the Kensei paragon path (martial), I have hope.
Maybe we could see an incarnum/incarnate type class out of it.
There is a recommended ranger variant up on the main site too.
Where is this ranger variant?
Thanks
I just hope they don't lump all classes with an Asian/Oriental name in the Ki power source, but as we have the Kensei paragon path (martial), I have hope.
Maybe we could see an incarnum/incarnate type class out of it.
I second this motion. Though I do remember reading about a class that was going to only be available through DDI a while ago, if the monk turned out to be the only class that uses the ki power source, as I hope it is, it would be great to be the afore mentioned class.
Where is this ranger variant?
Thanks
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a
Reverse the question; why not switch, if it's just missing some bits - that could be houseruled in anyway?
Because I would rather have a professional playtested race that is compatible with future publishing. I don't see the need to jump on the latest bandwagon, just because its the newest one available.
Again, do you remember the often heated debates on Monks? The outcries of 'it don't belong to euro-based D&D', or 'It's weak sauce weak?' and others.
Nope. I'm newish to D&D. All I see is someone ask if anyone knows when a class he likes will be published and everyone starts attacking each other for their likes and choices.
Because I would rather have a professional playtested race that is compatible with future publishing. I don't see the need to jump on the latest bandwagon, just because its the newest one available.
Nope. I'm newish to D&D. All I see is someone ask if anyone knows when a class he likes will be published and everyone starts attacking each other for their likes and choices.
Well, homebrewed can be surprisingly good if done well. One should not fear using acclaimed communauty works.
Now... The problem is also a certain.... How to say it diplomaticaly... People should understand that you don't get always what you want. They should learn to compromise. Understand that what the game needs or is may not be quite what you want... But it may be good or needed.
Understood?
Well, homebrewed can be surprisingly good if done well.
Wait, something is good if its done well? I am shocked! Absolutely shocked! ;)
Although I'm not a good judge at this time of what makes a good homebrew or a bad homebrew. Perhaps in 8 years time I will be (although I think its more likely, I'll be a good judge on what's a good homebrew in 4e and I'll be completely unsure on what makes a good homebrew in 5e).
Now... The problem is also a certain.... How to say it diplomaticaly... People should understand that you don't get always what you want. They should learn to compromise. Understand that what the game needs or is may not be quite what you want... But it may be good or needed.
If the game doesn't have what I want (a 5e version of some races), and yet this other game does have exactly what I want (its called 4e and it does have those races), why should I compromise?
Now sure, if WotC came into my home and burned all my 4e books, then I might have to compromise. But they're not going to, so why don't I just continue with what I'm enjoying?
Similarly, if someone wants to wait for 4e to have an actual monk class, why should he feel the need to switch before then if he's enjoying 3.5e which does have a monk? Everyone saying "you must" or "you're a fool if you don't" or "stop being whiny baby and swap over and homebrew or select a similar class" is simply ridiculous.
This is going back to the fact that you don't want to substitute or homebrew.
If you knew me and my work, you'd know I'm all about homebrewing. Come check us out at The Campaign Builder's Guild; I'm Kapn Krunch there. 4E is new, and I'm finding it very hard to make new classes because each class requires the creation of at least 24 powers, 3 class abilities, and 3 paragon path abilities. Some of those abilities are modular, but the 4E class system is a completely different machine than the 3E system was. In 3E, I created several classes (Knight, Channeler, Psionic Monk, and Templar were my favorite), but most classes lived off one or two unique mechanics.
So you define a Samurai as a Ranger/Fighter/Warlord.
What if I countered by saying a samurai in all the fiction I've read and played in RPGs and such, doesn't fit with those builds?
Then I'd say the Samurai deserves its own class. Please tell me what every Samurai needs to have that wouldn't thematically fit a feat or paragon path? I'd really like to know, cause it might sell me on the need for a Samurai class.
you realize they will shake every bit of "ascetic who is striving for spiritual perfection through physical and mental training" just like they shook every bit of "natural guardian, friend to the animals, master of the wild places" out of ranger, right?
If they do, then I will put all of my energy into building a Divine Striker Monk and not use their Brawler Monk. As it is right now, I suspect this will be the basic structure of the monk:
Strength or Wisdom as attack stats; Dexterity as a secondary stat. Strength will focus on melee strikes and grappling powers, while Wisdom will focus on pressure point and other mystical monk attacks. Dexterity has to be the secondary stat because all light armored classes need Dex or Int as attack or secondary stats to keep their AC high, and the 4E designers have mentioned they do not want to have Wis to AC or other X instead of X stuff (though they mentioned they're making a Weapon Finesse, so I'm going to be currious how they'll do it).
I will be making a Primal Striker Ranger once I see what the Druid and Barbarian are like.
I just hope they don't lump all classes with an Asian/Oriental name in the Ki power source, but as we have the Kensei paragon path (martial), I have hope.
I like Ki. I love it in fact. Ki is my world's term for Psionics, and I've used a psionic monk variant that took the place of the Psychic Warrior in my world. If WotC does something like that to expand on the idea of Ki, then it will be perfectly fine. If "Ki" means "Asian", then there will be issues.
Again, the Monk needs to be a class; there is no other way to do it. The Ranger variant is functioning, but it only really fits the brawler monk and even then. Now, if the fantasy archetype of Ninja and Samurai has to include magical powers, then I will conceed. Even then, I'd rather see English names for Ninja and Samurai; all the other class names are English, and there is a lot in a name (if a Rose was called an ****, then **** wouldn't be a smelly word anymore), that's just how language works. When your average American sees "Samurai" and "Ninja", culture comes along with the name. Paladin and Druid bring along baggage, but they don't bring along as much culture since they're from the same culture.
That was more long-winded then I thought.
I like Ki. I love it in fact. Ki is my world's term for Psionics, and I've used a psionic monk variant that took the place of the Psychic Warrior in my world.
Right on, but as they will both be power sources in 4th Ed, Ki (the soul), Psionics (the mind), how will you implement them in your campaign world?
Again, the Monk needs to be a class; there is no other way to do it. The Ranger variant is functioning, but it only really fits the brawler monk and even then. Now, if the fantasy archetype of Ninja and Samurai has to include magical powers, then I will conceed. Even then, I'd rather see English names for Ninja and Samurai; all the other class names are English, and there is a lot in a name (if a Rose was called an ****, then **** wouldn't be a smelly word anymore), that's just how language works. When your average American sees "Samurai" and "Ninja", culture comes along with the name. Paladin and Druid bring along baggage, but they don't bring along as much culture since they're from the same culture.
You mean like the words Fighter and Rogue?
You mean like the words Fighter and Rogue?
Yes ...? Are you saying there is culture in the word Fighter? Ask 20 people what a fighter is, and I'm fairly certain most of them are going to say "What ... um ... someone who fights?" Then ask 20 people what a Samurai is, and most will probably say something with "Japan" and "Katana" involved (maybe you'll get "Bushido" or "Honor" mentioned).
Rogue is going to get you more broad ideas from the general masses, but I still detect no culture from it. This is why I mentioned Paladin and Druid, which does have culture attached to them. But since this culture is "Western", it doesn't feel "flavored" to westerners. Like the common smells in your own house, familiar cultures simply aren't recognized as cultures.
Giving "Samurai" and "Ninja" more "generic" names would be better than Japanese names. It would allow the classes to be far more diverse than otherwise possible. For instance, the Swordsage (which translates to Kensai actually) from Tome of Battle could be a Mystic Ninja (shadow hand), a Passive Monk (Setting Sun), a fireball throwing DBZ warrior (Desert Wind), an Iaijutsu Master (Diamond Mind), an iron fist monk (stone dragon), or a ferral barbarian (tiger claw), with all manner of mixtures (my particular favorite was blending the TWFing powers from Desert wind and Tiger Claw).
I could be wrong, it happens all the time; this is just my opinion really. My own Knight class were "Samurai" in my basic setting, but I still called them "Knights". I feel that "Knight" and "Samurai" are cultural equivalents of the same concept. My Knight class had an ancestral weapon and bonus feats like the OA samurai, but it also had 6 abilities over the course of 20 levels that gave them resistances/immunities to things which would cause them to break their code (loyalty, courage, and honor). I also call katanas "war sabers" to make them more generic (I figure we're all speaking English around the table).
---------
Right on, but as they will both be power sources in 4th Ed, Ki (the soul), Psionics (the mind), how will you implement them in your campaign world?
It all really depends on what the Ki classes are like. If I like the Ki classes, I'll either merge the power sources and just have more classes, or actually fit Ki in as its own thing (personally, something feels less fantastic and more sci-fi about psionics; showing the power of words again, calling it Ki changes that for me). If I don't like the Ki classes, I'll adapt the monk to be a Divine or Psionic class and keep doing things as I originally planned.
The notion of a divine monk was a recent one for me, but it is one that fits my setting and makes sense for my world.
The notion of a divine monk was a recent one for me, but it is one that fits my setting and makes sense for my world.
Yeah, awhile back someone warmed me to the idea of the monk being a divine striker.
Yeah, awhile back someone warmed me to the idea of the monk being a divine striker.
I like it too, but we do know there will be a ki power source so we are not getting it
With 4th Edition you're given a vanilla template with which to imprint your own flavour. If you want an ascetic and spiritual warrior then that a look at the rules and get creative. Mix and match until you get something that seems reasonable and fun to play. D&D is first and foremost a creative pursuit; a fact I think many players and GM's forget from time to time. So get creative!
Additionally, I think the Monk is taking so long because Wizards, now a subsidiary of Hasbro, wants to ensure that the product they're creating is marketable. Releasing product all at once floods the market and ensures that nobody buys anything because there is too much to buy. So they're releasing things on a prescribed timetable, giving us time to adjust to any new rules or new methods of gameplay. If, as the OP and some others have expressed, you're waiting for a Wizards sanctioned version of the Monk then you have to allow for the timetable laid down by the company who's providing you the product you're requesting.
It sounds like a 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' analogy but it's more than that. I, personally, am stoked they've got a release plan in the way they do. It gives me a chance to acclimatize to the new rules, muck about with some homebrew or weird rules combinations and generally explore the system, with confidence that something new and worthwhile will be coming down the pipe shortly. Ensuring that a system that has been carefully crafted and produced will stick around for a long time and rack up the dough for it's producers and the fun for it's consumers.
For those saying that 2nd edition and 3rd edition weren't about homebrewing... I'd suggest, since it sounds like they haven't, that they flip open a 2nd edition DM's Guide and take a gander at it. It's full of suggestions to 'just wing it' and fly by the seat of your pants or to overrule whole sections of the game. 3rd Edition wasn't far off with the number of supplements released that contradicted or augmented rules that have been 'set in stone' previously.
4th Edition is in good hands and looks to be shaping up to be a different type of game from 3rd Edition. However, there's nothing stopping supporters or detractors of either system from picking and choosing the bits they like and spitting out the rest to create some sort of horrific conglomerate frankenstein like RPG. Heck, I'd even pay money to see that be played!
Player 1 - "My Gnome Paladin attacks the Silver Dragon!"
DM - "Actually you can't be a Gnome Paladin..."
Player 1 - "Why the heck not?!"
DM - "Uh...says here only humans. Come to think of it, there aren't Silver Dragons in my Monster Manual either. It turns into a Goblin!"
Player 2 - "I kill Player 1 and the Goblin/Silver Dragon with my Laser Beams!!!"
...Heh...Classic
A few times a year I get bored and come to Wizards to see what they are up to now.
My favorite character class is the monk. At first I was excited for 4th edition. Since first announced, I waited for over a half a year just to find out they weren't releasing the monk class in PHB1. "Well maybe PHB2 then", I thought.
Now it looks like it won't be released in the PHB2, which has a projected date of almost another year from now. I am beginning to lose hope here. I keep checking back every four or so months because I am hoping they will release the Monk. It looks like I might need to stop doing that, because I am just torturing myself
Any insights?
Well there are several good home made Monks out there, pretty much any -official- monk will be out probably 2010ish Is my guess. But I would rather they not introduce Ki at all since I figure each source has 4 classes.... and quite frankly Samurai are nothing but Fighters or Rangers, and Ninjas Rogues. I fear they will simply turn Ki into an asian dump. PHB2 comes out in march next year which is not too far away, figure phb3 will be either late 09 or early 10 at the soonist.
Classes though represent archetypes of characters as we know, and such, they can be more or less... generic.
Look at the Fighter and Rogue, by example.... that's about the most generic it can be; as long as war and fighting is known if a cultures, fighters will exist... Rogues need a certain level of civilisation more, an economy, towns, etc... But this is an universal concept.
So, the Monk.... you need a culture who have a concept of the 'art of fighting', and a level of mysticism, philosophy and all too.
Does it have anything to do with the subject at hand? indirectly.... WOTC want, as Szat pointed it, more generic, archetypal classes. It's perhaps an issue.
Yes ...? Are you saying there is culture in the word Fighter? Ask 20 people what a fighter is, and I'm fairly certain most of them are going to say "What ... um ... someone who fights?" Then ask 20 people what a Samurai is, and most will probably say something with "Japan" and "Katana" involved (maybe you'll get "Bushido" or "Honor" mentioned).
No, my point wasn't that there was no specific culture attached, as just as with Knight or Druid or Assassin, the words do conjure images of culture and specific stuff. My point was more that with both Rogue and Fighter, in D&D terms you have essentially the equivalents of Ninja and Samurai, or at the very least, the basis for them. Want a samurai in the current set of rules? Then play a fighter who has a "war sabre" or longsword. Want a ninja? Dress your rogue in black and arm them with a ninja-to and shurikens - heck, you get the bonuses with the shurikens already! Want a druid? Play a cleric of Melora. That's essentially all a druid is, a priest(ess) of the forces of nature. Druidism is a religion (but wait, there's the cultural attachments again!).
Sorry if my post sounded a little short. I can see though so much scope in Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric, and a mixture thereof, that fits pretty much every permutation of character that one can think of. Someone posted that they missed having alchemist as a class, and the response came back that you can just rename the wizard abilities and hey presto, you've got an alchemist... it's the same with the other classes as far as I'm concerned. Rogue/Ranger, Fighter/Warlock, Paladin/Warlord, heck, there are so many! Want a contemplative monk? You can do it under the current ruleset. You don't need to wait for Wizards to release it - because essentially they already have!
Having played 4th edition only 3 times, I am amazed at the scope that exists simply within the "basic" set. I am playing a longtooth shifter Paladin/Ranger combo and it's awesome. Do I need a specific class for that? Nope, it's already do-able, indeed, done. And that's only my first character! I'm so looking forward to DMing too, because of the amount of options available for DMs. Sure there's been a reduction in the amount of "stuff" to draw from. Personally I think that's a good thing - to force us to imagine the possibilities within what's available now.
So to the original poster, if you're still following this thread (!), while I respect that you want your favourite class and it's 3.5 or earlier specifics, can I encourage you to search for a solution within the current rules, or even try something different. Chances are, like someone said earlier, you'll wait with baited breath for the PHB2 or PHB3 version, and it will be remarkably different to what you're looking for! Not worse, just different.
As to more classes and waiting for them, let's don't and say we did, and just get on with playing now...
Cheers!
What is my point? The ranger isn't a monk. The ranger is now a hunter/skirmisher/scout who uses two-weapons for no apparent reason (I know of the legacy/drizzt, but nothing in the class justifies it for me; any justification could be made for the rogue too or be a justification to use a longspear). The monk is an ascetic who is striving for spiritual perfection through physical and mental training.
The ranger, as-is, isn't a monk. But with a few modifications it can easily become a monk class. It's not perfect, by any means, but it will do in a pinch.
Not all monk fans just want to punch things in the face. I hope a good number of monk fans are like me and want them to have more mysical abilities; utilities to ignore damage, attacks to disable or inflict ill-statuses in addition to damaging.
Indeed, though I wonder how much of that stuff they'll be able to work in, given the way Roles are defined. I'd like to see different setups within the Monk class, sort of like Warlock Pacts, which would offer various features and bonuses. In particular, I'd like to see variations for the bonus Striker damage - perhaps ongoing damage on unarmed strikes for one path, and bonus damage when attacking a grappled opponent for instance.
If you think classes should be building blocks
Classes should be building blocks where appropriate and/or necessary. Using them as such with modifications where possible certainly beats the heck out of griping about missing classes.
I'm not aiming that sarcasm at anyone in particular, just the general atmosphere of telling people who's favorite classes were left out that their opinion doesn't matter.
For the record, my favourite classes are Monk and Druid. My favourite basic race is the Gnome, too. I got kinda gypped all-around, but I take it in stride.
I still do not like the notion of a Ki power source.
I'm indifferent to it. Power sources don't really seem to matter at the moment, which is too bad as it offers a potential dynamic - creatures being vulnerable/strong against certain power sources; magic items keyed to certain power sources; feats keyed to power source. Even if that potential was exploited, new power sources should optionally be linked to one of the big three, IMO.
the shoei(maybe), the samurai and the monk.
the samurai is not necessary, it was nothing more than a fighter with nifty abilities, and to this day I still hear that the str dual wield is worthless....., and the other is the monk.
i dont see a 4e samurai ever, just make it a version of the fighter and ddi it.
make the monk a divine striker.
the ninja was martial and did not use ki at all, i know nobody mentioned that, i figured that I'd put that in anyway
Power sources don't really seem to matter at the moment, which is too bad as it offers a potential dynamic - creatures being vulnerable/strong against certain power sources; magic items keyed to certain power sources; feats keyed to power source.
Totally.
Well, one thing you can do with power sources is limit them, such as "Okay, guys, in this campaign there is no Divine power source."
Therefore flavouring the setting in a way (oh, no, no gods!).
you realize they will shake every bit of "ascetic who is striving for spiritual perfection through physical and mental training" just like they shook every bit of "natural guardian, friend to the animals, master of the wild places" out of ranger, right?
Thank GOD........Monks should be Warriors first then...............fasting, buddist self burning, non-violence loving, hermits of a "greater" good .....dead last.
This monk will be all booty kicking........then make up your pretentious fluff later....if your hippy retarded mind needs it.
REMEMBER there are as many selfish...( I want all the secrets to be the best and to kill the fastest) martial arts out there as the "self improvement, don't use unless you have to" ones.
I know what monk I want to be on MY team.
there was about 3 martial classes in 3.x that you could say used Ki.
the shoei(maybe), the samurai and the monk.
the samurai is not necessary, it was nothing more than a fighter with nifty abilities, and to this day I still hear that the str dual wield is worthless....., and the other is the monk.
i dont see a 4e samurai ever, just make it a version of the fighter and ddi it.
make the monk a divine striker.
the ninja was martial and did not use ki at all, i know nobody mentioned that, i figured that I'd put that in anyway
Hey, you are forgetting three Ki classes from 3.X! The totemist, the incarnate, and the soulborn!(although totemist is sort of a combination of Primal and Ki)
you realize they will shake every bit of "ascetic who is striving for spiritual perfection through physical and mental training" just like they shook every bit of "natural guardian, friend to the animals, master of the wild places" out of ranger, right?
Hmm.. lets see the definition of a ranger:
From Dictionary.com
1. forest ranger. (any of the officers employed by the government to supervise the care and preservation of forests, esp. public forests.)
2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.
3. (initial capital letter) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups. Compare commando (def. 1).
4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, esp. in jungle terrain.
5. a person who ranges or roves.
6. (esp. in Texas) a member of the state police.
7. British. a keeper of a royal forest or park.
From the dictionary on my MacBook:
1 A keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside
2 a member of a body of armed men, in particular
- a mounted soldier
- a commando or highly trained infantryman
3 a person or thing that wanders or rangers over a particular area or domain
Now, I know in past incarnations of D&D rangers had some mystical mumbo-jumbo dealing with nature and animals, but the new version is actually much more accurate to what a ranger is.
So, I doubt they will ring that much out of the monk. I'm sure the character will still be focused on physical and mental training. I hope they have a drunken master paragon path though..
So, the Monk.... you need a culture who have a concept of the 'art of fighting', and a level of mysticism, philosophy and all too.
Not really ... all you need is someone who wants to fight with their bare hands.
Not really ... all you need is someone who wants to fight with their bare hands.
A Monk is more than a common brawler. Martial arts are more than 'you punch there!'.
it's discipline, focus, training, etc...
A Monk is more than a common brawler. Martial arts are more than 'you punch there!'.
it's discipline, focus, training, etc...
A monk *can* be a common brawler, or he *can* be a disciplined martial artist, but he doesn't have to be either. Your monk can be Bruce Lee, Kwai Chang Kane, or Mike Tyson. It all depends on how you play him, what abilities you choose, and how you flavor them when you use them.
Just because it says Monk on the character sheet does not mean the character has ever even seen a monastery. That's one option, but not the only option.
Thank GOD........Monks should be Warriors first then...............fasting, buddist self burning, non-violence loving, hermits of a "greater" good .....dead last.
This monk will be all booty kicking........then make up your pretentious fluff later....if your hippy retarded mind needs it.
REMEMBER there are as many selfish...( I want all the secrets to be the best and to kill the fastest) martial arts out there as the "self improvement, don't use unless you have to" ones.
I know what monk I want to be on MY team.
Martial Artist =/= Monk
Fighter = Martial Artist (ask a boxer or fencer how much focus and training their art requires)
Monk = A monastic who lives in a monastery, worshiping and praying.
I won't say anything about Budhist and Shaloin monks specifically, as I'm not Chinese, Tibettan, or Budhist.
As for power sources, I'm very pleased with the power source mechanic as a whole. My new thinking on Ki is that if we get something like ToB with a Swordsage/Swordsaint class (again, translates to Kensai) as a Ki class, and other things that could be made more generic and not bring along any culture that may or may not be present in someone's campaign setting, I will be happy. If it's just "Ki means Asian", I won't be.
Hmm.. lets see the definition of a ranger:
You know, you are quite right about what "ranger" means in our real and quite un-fantastic world. The definition of a "paladin" is:
A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
A strong supporter or defender of a cause: “the paladin of plain speaking” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.
Interesting, nothing about god or divine power.
I believe the real world non-mystical ranger should be modeled with a rogue, especially now that a rogue has no attack penalty compared to a fighter (aside from the fighter's attack bonus with their chosen type, though a rogue with a dagger has the same bonus). I really have no chance of convincing many people of this belief, but I hope a few people can at least acknowledge the rationalism I'm employing.
It is this thought that has lead me to accept the possibility of a Samurai and Ninja class being made if they follow mythic and fantastic interpretations of the archetypes and not the realities.
First, I do believe that the ranger variant is a poor substitute for the monk. One of the most impressive aspects of 4e is that each character class has a unique feel to it. By throwing together a "monk overlay" on top of the ranger, you have only created an odd ranger, not a unique character class.
Second, the Ki power source. I suspect that the monk is not the only one who would make use of it (though I highly suspect it would end up going to OA types). Because these are fantasy variants of oriental types, I can definitely see leveraging Ki to give these characters a different feel. (Sure, the monk could use Ki but I could see a ninja doing the same thing.) I think ki will be used mainly to control positioning of enemies (and possibly friends). It might also increase mobility.
Third, what character classes would I see in a 4e OA? And how would I see them as being presented differently than the classes in the PH?
- Monk (striker) -- I definitely see the monk fulfilling the role of a striker (more similar in ways to the rogue than the ranger). The focus on the class would be mobility (with short area shifts leading to strikes being a favorite). He'd have to use the power source (not necessarily just ki) not just for martial effects but to leverage prolonged effects such as stunning. In this respect, he has an aspect of a leader, setting up enemies in a way to give allies an advantage.
- Samurai (leader) -- I don't see the samurai as being just another fighter. In fact, I could see him being closer to the warlord, inspiring troops as he rushes into combat. His use of ki will allow him to pull enemies toward him into marking range.
- Ninja (striker) -- I can definitely see the ninja making strong use of ki. So much about the Ninja screams mobility that a power source that works with movement could be a great boon. My guess is that the ki energy would be internal. It could be that the ninja could use ki to more effectively set up a sneak attack, move over difficult terrain, short shifts for a quick escape, etc.
- Wu Jen (controller) -- This is one where I don't think ki is a good fit. I'm not sure if the power source would be divine or arcane but it would be more of those types of power. I suspect arcane since the elemental effects common with Wu Jen make that nice fit.
- Kensai (defender) -- This would be a sword master. Perhaps the ki power could be justified here. Since I've linked ki with movement, it would make sense that the kensai could use this to block or turn melee attacks while countering with enhanced attacks or faster movement. This could be used to justify less armor while still maintaining some fighter-like abilities.
- Shujenka (leader) -- While obviously a cleric-like class (and probably using a divine source instead of ki), I see the shujenka as one that improves other character's defenses instead of offensive attacks (although, to be effective, the shujenka would probably need some of that as well). The biggest difficult would be in distinguishing the shujenka from the actual cleric.
Anyway, in a perfect world (i.e. one that I controlled with an iron fist... errr... sorry, just slipped out), that is how I would create the character classes for a new OA. I actually looked at the original (1st edition) OA for the basis of this post. However, I didn't include the Bushi (which seemed like a samurai without a master) or the Yakuza (which didn't seem like much at all except thug).
I'm sure this list will be critically viewed but please keep in mind that this is simply an off-the-cuff list and not a fully thought out work. Still, I think it would be a good starting point for a new OA. Obviously, though, classes would only be a minor part (if done right). What makes OA interesting would be the culture that is so different fom our Western culture. While these classes are tied, to some large degree, to that culture that is only a part of it.
Martial Artist =/= Monk
Fighter = Martial Artist (ask a boxer or fencer how much focus and training their art requires)
Monk = A monastic who lives in a monastery, worshiping and praying.
This.
http://www.hulu.com/monk
I would just like to point out here, that 3.5 ninja had a Ki pool and Ki abilities (going invisible and stuff like that), so I find that that, and in light of the fact that they mentioned the Ki powers of a ninja as being part of the feel in one of the Converting your Character articles, that the ninja will likely fall under the Ki power source.
In the article they are discussing recreating the abilities of 3.X classes in 4th. So they mention the ki abilities because they were part of the class in 3.x, not because they will be part of the class in 4th(unlike the ranger entry where it mentioned that the animal companions will be coming out in Martial power). Ninja could be ki, it could be something else, or it could not even be a class at all.
- The Ninja will be a striker; like the rogue there is pretty much no other way to describe them.
- The Monk is more difficult. They've said the monk will be martial or a striker, and now that we know the Monk is ki that means the monk is a striker. But there are some controller aspects to some Monks (stunning fist, fireballs, and what-not). Looking at what the Rogue can do, though, the Monk should fit right in as a striker. Which means we have two strikers, which is annoying to me (look back at my ranger opinions).
- Samurai are very broad. You're going to want the samurai class to fill the role of the lone dualist, the wartime soldier, and possibly other archetypes. I suspect the dualist is the more important one, as that is the role such characters fall into most in modern fiction. I see them as a defender, though a light armored defender potentially utilizing Str or Cha for attack powers and Dex for secondary abilities.
- I'm not sure how well Sohei were really recieved. They did have a Ki frenzy ability, but they also had divine magic. They're defenders of temple grounds and monasteries, said to be more martial monks, so I don't expect to see them return in this fashion. Remember, in Chinese/Japanese thinking, Ki infuses everything; the farmer uses his ki to till his field just as much as a warrior uses ki to swing a sword.
I don't see Incarnum users coming back as Ki, but who knows.
Shugenja are priests, and Wu-Jen are hedge wizards. Neither are ki.
Which is why I said that they wouldn't be ki-based during my descriptions.
This.
Monk character class =/= Monk lifestyle.
Monk character class =/= Monk lifestyle.
Then the class should be called "Martial Artist" and it can cover the brawlers and the monks.
Then the class should be called "Martial Artist" and it can cover the brawlers and the monks.
Or, people can realize that a class name is meaningless, fluff is mutable, and use the framework of mechanics to make whatever kind of character they want.
Monk character class =/= Monk lifestyle.
Or, people can realize that a class name is meaningless, fluff is mutable, and use the framework of mechanics to make whatever kind of character they want.
Then there is no need to call it a monk. What the class is called may not matter to you, but it certainly does for many of us. I imagine a new player would not look right past the name and straight to the mechanics, as you suggest. And class name shapes a large part of a class's identity from a RP standpoint. I don't see a reason to go with the philosophy of "well, we're calling it one thing, but we really mean another, but y'all know what we're talking about..."
Then there is no need to call it a monk. What the class is called may not matter to you, but it certainly does for many of us. I imagine a new player would not look right past the name and straight to the mechanics, as you suggest. "
Heck, long-time players do that. That is, however, a problem with the player, not with the layout of the system.
First, there has already been speculation that the OA will not be published in the new edition, the Ki source instead being put in a PHB, or perhaps a focus of an actual setting or even a quasi-setting where the Ki powered classes are part of a secluded society that can be infused into any campaign.
As far as it goes, there will be no Oriental Adventures.
Second, the Monistary Monk is only one aspect of what this class can be, and I suggest that one watch the Kung Fu series, old 70's show or the new PTEN network update, to see how a Wandering Monk can be done. The stupidest thing that the previous edition did with the Monk was the awful Lawful Alignment Restriction. We already had the 'Stick in the Butt" Paladin, we didn't need to hamper the Monk in the same way. The new Monk needs to be expanded to incompass more than the solitary priest in the ole' Library.
Third, Martial Artist is to generic and to close to the Martial power source.
Second, the Monistary Monk is only one aspect of what this class can be, and I suggest that one watch the Kung Fu series, old 70's show or the new PTEN network update, to see how a Wandering Monk can be done. The stupidest thing that the previous edition did with the Monk was the awful Lawful Alignment Restriction. We already had the 'Stick in the Butt" Paladin, we didn't need to hamper the Monk in the same way. The new Monk needs to be expanded to incompass more than the solitary priest in the ole' Library.
Third, Martial Artist is to generic and to close to the Martial power source.
To the first quoted point, agreed. I houseruled that (and the multiclass restriction) out of Monks very early on.
To the second quoted point, I still think the Monk should be martial. And, of course, unless I get sold on the concept, it will be.
Third, Martial Artist is to generic and to close to the Martial power source.
Which is exactly why the monk needs to be something more than "I punch you in the face."
I'm done here. I've gotten my point across as best I can be. Otherwise it's just like talking politics; you're either preaching to the choir or you're talking to a wall. Thanks for the fun discussion folks, I really liked throwing a couple of those zingers out there.
Enjoy your brawler monks that have nothing to do with religion and are as wild and chaotic as they want to be. One of my players will enjoy that class as well, and use it to further annoy our gaming group with his un-monk-like behavior. He'll continue to use only one facet of the class's power (just like in 3E when he never utilized the ranger's animal companion, spells, tracking, stealth, heck, anything except the TWFing feats he could have gotten as a fighter).
If classes are just building blocks and the flavor of classes doesn't exist, then that's your game. That sounds like the makings of a class-less system, which would be fine if that was the case. I don't believe that way, but I'll never convince anyone.
I hope the monk is good when it comes out, that's all I can really do right now.
Shugenja are priests, and Wu-Jen are hedge wizards. Neither are ki.
And both can be done within the current rules. As can most of the other "Asian" classes that people are suggesting.
And both can be done within the current rules. As can most of the other "Asian" classes that people are suggesting.
But as we know for certain that there will be a Ki power source, there will be classes that use the Ki power source. Monk will be one of them, a Ki Striker. As will Samurai, I'm betting (Ki Defender).
But as we know for certain that there will be a Ki power source, there will be classes that use the Ki power source. Monk will be one of them, a Ki Striker. As will Samurai, I'm betting (Ki Defender).
I understand that there is a Ki power source, and this question is not directed at you in particular, so anyone feel free to answer:
In what way is anything to do with a samurai, even remotely Ki based? Fighting with a sword? Shouldn't the fighter be Ki based then?
I understand that there is a Ki power source, and this question is not directed at you in particular, so anyone feel free to answer:
In what way is anything to do with a samurai, even remotely Ki based? Fighting with a sword? Shouldn't the fighter be Ki based then?
The only thing I can think of ki is basically asian in origin is it not. Maybe the whole power source will reflected asian classes like the monk, samurai, sohei, etc etc
Heck, long-time players do that. That is, however, a problem with the player, not with the layout of the system.
Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Bad terminology is hardly a problem with the player.
The only thing I can think of ki is basically asian in origin is it not. Maybe the whole power source will reflected asian classes like the monk, samurai, sohei, etc etc
While I think you are right, I think that would be absolutly horrible. Such stereotyping is very silly. I was hoping for more of an incarnum spin on ki (at least in flavour). Having an asian specific power source is just daft.
While I think you are right, I think that would be absolutly horrible. Such stereotyping is very silly. I was hoping for more of an incarnum spin on ki (at least in flavour). Having an asian specific power source is just daft.
I would not like it either. I would enjoy a 4e Asian flavored book that has some martial, divine, arcane, ki, shadow powered classes
The only thing I can think of ki is basically asian in origin is it not. Maybe the whole power source will reflected asian classes like the monk, samurai, sohei, etc etc
Having such an idea that ki = asian is bordering on, if not crossing that border, racist.
What's next, shadow = blacks and divine = whites? Because I'm sure THAT would go over real well..
Not to mention the fact that there is nothing that I've read/seen a samurai do in fiction be anything remotely powered by the power of the soul (which Ki is supposedly to be)
Seriously though, I doubt WotC will make Ki azn classes only. They listen to the forums.
Having such an idea that ki = asian is bordering on, if not crossing that border, racist.
now now. Someone asked how in the world a samurai would be a ki-based character and that was the only thing I could think of. And its hardly racist. and I said I didn't like it
Seriously though, there will not be an OA, and the quasi setting is only hopeful wishes. More than likely, it will be the focus of PHB3 or more likely PHB4 (Psionic being the focus for PHB3, along with Shadow maybe?)
Expeditious Retreat Publishing. Check 'em out!;)
I still think the Monk should be martial. And, of course, unless I get sold on the concept, it will be.
Well, as it has all but been confirmed as being Ki, it won't be.
I doubt we'll see anymore martial classes for a long while, if at all.
Besides they couldn't give us as many classes as the previous edition ,why?
Because classes take up more space, since every class (except spellcasters) have way more to do now.
WizBro
Everytime you type WizBro, your brain dies a little.
Well, as it has all but been confirmed as being Ki, it won't be.
I doubt we'll see anymore martial classes for a long while, if at all.
The nice thing about the whole power-source thing is that, mechanically, it's meaningless. I would have no problem with someone looking at, say, the cleric and re-imagining it in to an Arcane, rather than Divine, healer. By the same token, if someone's playing a Monk and doesn't want it all mystic-ish, it won't affect anything to say the character is simply Martial rather than Ki.
Enjoy your brawler monks that have nothing to do with religion and are as wild and chaotic as they want to be.
Wild and chaotic wandering monks are a staple of Chinese novels and kung fu movies. It's foolish to limit the class in that manner.
I remember that being a big thing in 3.5. Tempest Stormwind even spearheaded a huge "truenaming" project, making psionics more "palatable" to those who had problems with its flavor.
Reflavor to taste was a big saying too. And it should be. I remember someone even taking Power Attack and reflavoring it to something befitting a more careful swordsman (something along the lines of waiting until using a little rashness wouldn't cost much, and would in fact be incredibly beneficial).
I agree with the others that a name does bring immediate images to mind, but it certainly is something that should be worked past so that people can realize the potential for creativity that is inherent to D&D.
The nice thing about the whole power-source thing is that, mechanically, it's meaningless. By the same token, if someone's playing a Monk and doesn't want it all mystic-ish, it won't affect anything to say the character is simply Martial rather than Ki.
Yeah, I agree, the only thing you can really do with power sources, at the moment, is limit them in a campaign, thus enforcing a certain flavour/vibe.
'Hey, guys, in this campaign setting there is no divine power source, therefore no clerics or paladins.'
Yeah, I agree, the only thing you can really do with power sources, at the moment, is limit them in a campaign, thus enforcing a certain flavour/vibe.
'Hey, guys, in this campaign setting there is no divine power source, therefore no clerics or paladins.'
Actually you can also use fonts of power from the DMG to make abilities from certain power sources more powerful, as power sources do serve as keywords.
Actually you can also use fonts of power from the DMG to make abilities from certain power sources more powerful, as power sources do serve as keywords.
Ah, yes, totally – forgot about that (good catch). I suspect/hope that they might do more with power sources (crunch-wise) in the future.
Does it need more playtesting?
I have a doubt. Monk class doesn´t use armour. In 3th Ed they had AC (armor class) bonus but with the 4th ed...they will have a reflex bonus save but ...a armour bonus? We have a fighter without armour (ranger class uses light armour at least...).
Does it need more playtesting?
The unofficial monk-alike that Andy Collins posted up got a flat AC bonus when wearing no or cloth armor. I suspect we'll get that as a class feature that will scale by tier, but it's pure speculation.
I have a doubt. Monk class doesn´t use armour. In 3th Ed they had AC (armor class) bonus but with the 4th ed...they will have a reflex bonus save but ...a armour bonus? We have a fighter without armour (ranger class uses light armour at least...).
Does it need more playtesting?
As precedent, the Swordmage gets an inate bonus to AC under certain circumstances, so the monk would not be the first class that got one if they went in that direction.
I expect it's been doing a Foucalt's Pendulum-like swing between various concepts, and has to settle down before it can be solidified and tested.
In the meantime, I got to play Goodman Games' Monk from their upcoming Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and Song (I may be slightly off on the name) at Gen Con and it was pretty darn good. The Druids, Barbarians, and Bards were also well done. It's coming out in October and may present a decent alternative for people who are chomping at the bit for the classes WotC left out.
You got the name right.
You got the name right.
That's good, I'm terrible with names. Checking your site it says you've done work for Goodman, so I have to wonder if you're one of the people who worked on the book who sat down and played with our group.
I'm afraid I've been bringing up the book anywhere the missing classes have been lamented within ear- or eyeshot of me. It's ashame they didn't have it ready for GenCon like they'd apparently intended.
That's good, I'm terrible with names. Checking your site it says you've done work for Goodman, so I have to wonder if you're one of the people who worked on the book who sat down and played with our group.
I'm afraid I've been bringing up the book anywhere the missing classes have been lamented within ear- or eyeshot of me. It's ashame they didn't have it ready for GenCon like they'd apparently intended.
I might have been. I would have been the short stocky guy with the goatee. Bring it up as much as you want, anywhere and everywhere. We'd love for as many people as possible to buy the book (and the subsequent entries in the series). I've worked on 3 books for Goodman. I was an editor on Eldritch and wrote this book, as well as one that hasn't been announced yet.