# Monk Preview



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

I think the Monk will be a Psionic Striker, focused on intelligence.

They don't get much more mental than Monk:






Serious prediction: Ki striker, Wis primary.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

*Monk Playtest is up*

Psionic Striker!

DEX + STR/WIS as secondary


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

*Playtest: MONK*

Dragon 375: Monk Playtest


----------



## Glyfair (May 11, 2009)

*Hmmm, Monk is Psionic?*

Monk is up here.

I'm not surprised he is a striker.  A bit that he is psionic.

Edit:  And the explanation is in the Design & Development article on the monk.  (The Ki power source turned out to be "untenable."


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Monk is PSIONIC!!!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Monk is up here.
> 
> I'm not surprised he is a striker.  A bit that he is psionic.




my head just almost exploded...


----------



## Glyfair (May 11, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my head just almost exploded...



I can see it.   I just didn't expect it (especially with the known Ki power source to be revealed).


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Focused Expertise: Choose a weapon that you can wield as an implement. +1 bonus to atk rolls with any implement or weapon power you use through that weapon. Bonus increases at the same levels as the other Expertise feats & is not cumulative w/other Expertise feats.

Nice!


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

LOL 3 threads at 2 minutes past, whose will be the master thread.....
Well one is started by staff, but mine has 2 posts 
Who'd have thought PSIONIC, is Ki going the way of the Dodo?


----------



## darjr (May 11, 2009)

Is psionic the new ki?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Well my interest in the Monk skyrocketed being Psionic. Also according to the Design & Development article it appears Ki is no more.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

This is going to anger some people.

Guess this leaves the Ki striker to be the ninja. But then, I was _certain_ the Psionic striker would be the Soul Knife. Maybe he'll be the defender?


----------



## Kez Darksun (May 11, 2009)

I was not expecting the Monk to be Psionic although it greatly pleases me to see confirmation that at least some Psionic character classes will be in the PH3.  It can't arrive soon enough for me.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2009)

darjr said:


> Is psionic the new ki?




THIS

I wonder if WOTC is simply going to fold ki and psionic into one another....


----------



## Ainamacar (May 11, 2009)

I'm glad to see they decided to let you enchant your unarmed strike as a normal magic weapon.  Simple and effective.  But psionic?  I'm not sold -- but according to the accompanying design article "the ki power source proved untenable."


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> Also according to the Design & Development article it appears Ki is no more.



Woah! Well, I'll have to read that after I digest this.

I notice the monk weapons are the same as the old monk weapons.

Unarmed defense - hmm. I'm not sure about this one. It's ONLY cloth, and ONLY grants a +2 to AC.

However, unarmed strikes are now badass.


----------



## darjr (May 11, 2009)

I guess it is... sorta.

Design & Development: The Monk


----------



## Glyfair (May 11, 2009)

darjr said:


> Is psionic the new ki?




No, Ki is no more.  They decided that lumping all those classes together didn't make sense.  More than likely you will see them scattered across other power sources.


----------



## darjr (May 11, 2009)

Wow... so many ninja's!


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE IT'S HERE


Fallen Seraph said:


> Monk is PSIONIC!!!



Wow, did NOT see that one coming!


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

I haven't quite grasped the Full Discipline powers yet. Let's take a look at Drunken Monkey. 

It's an encounter power. Does that mean that you can only use the Full Technique stuff for one round (regardless of what actions you do), right? So you can't use the movement power for multiple rounds?

Powers that say monk weapon - do they require _weapons_, or can you use an unarmed strike? Is an unarmed strike considered an implement?

So where's their striker super damage effect? Centered Flurry of Blows isn't all that, well, amazing a damage effect. 

It'd have been nice if they added various things to the article, like a multi-class feat.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

I'll leave my thread to die....although i was first 

I am not 100% on the full discipline. On the at will powers I get it but how does it work with /e and /d? Can you do your attack technique and your movement technique /e or /d. If you can do them both do they have to be in the same turn? 
Or do you just get to do the attack technique OR the movement technique?


----------



## Moon_Goddess (May 11, 2009)

> Monk Powers
> Your monk powers are called disciplines. They rely on
> your physical training, mental focus, and mastery of
> psionic magic to function.




"Psionic magic" ewwww   Dear WOTC Please please don't utter those words together again.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Well, it's got a 1st level encounter discipline called Drunken Monkey, so I'm sold.  

Really, though, those powers just look so...FUN.  Very easily slides into the secondary controller spot, like the Bard.  And that's just one build!

The Full Discipline keyword is a bit stupid, though, but the mechanic seems awesome.  Will make for some interesting multiclass...


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Monks get Full Discipline powers (a new keyword), that grant them special Standard and Move actions. For instance:

Open the Gate of Battle 
Attack Technique - 2[W] + Dex, and if the target was undamaged it takes an extra 1[W].
Movement Technique - Move your speed + 2. During this movement you do not provoke OAs from the first enemy you move adjacent to.

You can use the techniques in either order: declare you're using the above power, then use the Move tech to get next to a target, then use the Attack tech. 

You can only use 1 Full Discipline power in a round, unless you spend an AP, and then you can switch to a different Full Discipline. You can use the techniques of an at-will power as many times as you want during your turn, and the Techniques of an encounter power once a round. So, for instance, the at-will Dancing Cobra has a Movement Technique that allows you to move your speed + 2, and the at-will Five Storms has one that lets you shift 2 squares. Neat stuff!



Rechan said:


> Powers that say monk weapon - do they require _weapons_, or can you use an unarmed strike? Is an unarmed strike considered an implement?.




Monks use unarmed strikes as implements, much as swordmages use swords. 

Also, unarmed strikes are listed under monk weapons along with clubs, daggers, quarterstaffs, and spears.


----------



## Strych9 (May 11, 2009)

Psionic Striker even...


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Five Storms is going to be a popular AW.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> I am not 100% on the full discipline. On the at will powers I get it but how does it work with /e and /d? Can you do your attack technique and your movement technique /e or /d. If you can do them both do they have to be in the same turn?
> Or do you just get to do the attack technique OR the movement technique?




I'm reading it as you can do both in the same round in any order you want, but you can't use the techniques from other Full Disciplines in that same round.

So if you do the move technique from Crane's Wings, you'll be doing either the attack technique as well, or a Daily, or a multi-classed attack power.


----------



## Bodhiwolff (May 11, 2009)

Full Discipline Sidebar, second paragraph ...
"You can use the techniques of a full discipline power in whatever order you like, and you can choose to use one of the techniques and not the other during the round"

So you can activate an Encounter Full-Discipline power, use the movement technique for your move action, and use the attack technique for your standard action.

You are limited to ONE full-discipline technique per round (unless you spend an action point, per the sidebar's explanation), so you couldn't use the movement technique from one of your at-wills to augment the attack technique from a Full-Disciplkine encounter or daily power.

Basically, a Full-Discipline power gives you both a movement option and an attack option. You can take one, the other, or both. Often the two go stylistically hand-in-glove, and seem like a nifty combination.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 11, 2009)

Oh goody, maybe we will see the "ki" powers folded into the martial power source now?


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Bodhiwolff has it down! These Full Discipline powers are nifty.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Just generally, this is gonna make a big impact on what we expect to see in PHB3. Psionics will more likely then not see a full compliment I am betting, and probably will see Shadow too. 

Also will have a impact on next setting, the chances of Oriental Adventures has been reduced.

Note: It appears the Monk mechanically won't share much with other Psionic classes (according to Design & Development) so can't say much from that.

Spider Technique (Utility, 10) just makes me giddy. Movement Utility Powers like that I adore.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

OK, so the "monk unarmed strike" counts as its own weapon, which can be enchanted with the Enchant Magic Item ritual, and it IS able to be selected for Focused Expertise? Awesome.

Now... if I understand this correctly, only Centered Breath monks can take the new Focused Expertise feat, correct?


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Some of these powers make me feel very "Meh". Especially the level 5 dailies. Several of these powers are a bit less... effective, given how situational they are. (Dance of Swords, lookin' at you). 



			
				Bodhiwolff said:
			
		

> Stuff



Sure, but does it go away after one shot (like all other encounters)?


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 11, 2009)

The Monk is Psionic? The Ki power source is "untenable"? This is a depressing lack of creativity on WotC's part, if you ask me.

I was really looking forward to a proper Ki power source, too...

Can anyone please post a brief summary of _why_ they scratched the Ki power source, for those of us who are really wondering about this but don't have a DDI subscription? Even a short comment about what it was they tried and then discarded would be appreciated.


----------



## Glyfair (May 11, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> The Monk is Psionic? The Ki power source is "untenable"? This is a depressing lack of creativity on WotC's part, if you ask me.



Long story shorter...

They came up with the "full discipline" idea and realized it wouldn't work as a mechanic for all classes that would have been under the ki source.  Also, having all "asian" classes use the ki source would have been as silly as having all western classes use a single power source.

Ki was dwindling to only a couple of classes, so they decided to put those classes into other power sources.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Anyone notice that none of these powers key off the Centered Breath build? Either they didn't include it, or there's no incentive to pick certain powers based on your build (aside from the secondary skill they key off). Which is rather cool, potentially.

Dance of the Stinging Hornet is cool. Powers seem to have increased in nastiness around level 9.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Sure, but does it go away after one shot (like all other encounters)?




I'd say so.


----------



## Ceramicwombat (May 11, 2009)

It's nice that monks use Dex for their attacks. This makes multiclassing with rogue fairly simple. Monk+Rogue=Ninja. I hope there will be a feat that lets you pick a weapon and have it count as a monk weapon (perhaps short sword to stand in for a wakizashi).

I have a friend in my group who will be excited to recreate his monk/cleric of Ilmater from 3.5 as a Monk/Radiant Fist. It fits has old character concept perfectly.

Wizards did a good job of differentiating the feel of the monk powers from those of other striker classes. I can't wait for the next Character Builder update so I can cook up a few monks.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Sure, but does it go away after one shot (like all other encounters)?



eh that is my question, if (during one turn) you do an encounter attack technique but not the move (or vv); can you use the move technique in a latter turn, or is it gone 'cos it they both have to be spent in ne round, obviously doesn't matter for the at will ones..although you can't pick and mix

Aside from my (age related as a poster on another thread pointed out) slowness of getting these new rules- looks like a lot of fun!


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

No, Focused Expertise has no pre-reqs. The playtest article merely mentions that the Centered Breath monk makes use of the feat. Swordmages will be taking it too!


----------



## NMcCoy (May 11, 2009)

Erk, another name collision. Leaf on the Wind is both a Warlord Attack 1 and a Monk Utility 2. >_< And I thought Vexing Flanker was bad...


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

These powers sure do want you to move your speed +2. Which means that most if not all encounters should take place in places wiht lots of open room.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

For those that have Ari's APG have you noticed:
*
Leaf on the Wind  Monk Utility 2* EQUALS *Dancing Pegasus Step Martial Artist Utility 6 *?

And to Rechan: Ari has the Monk getting extra movement square depending on level. This is a different way to give the monk a better move speed (in the DnD tradition) but you don't get it all the time, making it quite tactical.

As with the APG I can see some Elf monks appearing in many campaigns and all over the battlefield...literally!


----------



## Bodhiwolff (May 11, 2009)

I see no reason why we'd change the way we "spend" powers just for Full-Discipline powers.

So I'm fairly sure that if you don't use the Movement technique of a Full-Discipline Encounter power during the round you tap it, then you lose it, 'cause the power is now gone until replenished.

So they provide great options for the rounds where you use that technique, but that's it.

I can imagine certain situations where you need a special maneuver, so you tap the movement ability of a Full-Discipline Power, but don't want to use that attack for that situation.  In that case, you'd just use a basic melee attack or a non Full-Discipline standard action.  But either way, your Full-Discipline power is still spent, so you can't use the attack option in a future round.


----------



## Shroomy (May 11, 2009)

Two paragon paths and a feat, my playtest artificer is jealous....

I'm liking what I'm reading here, there's a lot of interesting powers, even if I did have to read the description of the Full Discipline keyword twice.  The main issue from my 1st read through concerned the monk's unarmed strike.  I like that it is significantly better than the basic PHB unarmed strike and that it counts as an implement.  I also like that you can apply the _enchant magic item_ ritual to it, but that's also my main problem.  To upgrade it, you need to use the ritual, with its attendant costs, so its kind of a disincentive to keep your monk a true unarmed fighter.  There should be some sort of auto-upgrade mechanic; maybe you could then use the ritual to add neat effects, but only if there equivalent to your level or the bonus modifier you already have (I would also discount the ritual cost since you're not getting the full benefit).


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

I was hoping the monk would be cool, but I'm a bit blown away, honestly. They definately have their own style vs other strikers, at least. If nothing else, you have to love powers that say things like "before the attack, jump 10 squares"

  It looks like Monks are going to be super mobile and very good at handling small groups of enemies, but still pretty squishy* and without really high single target damage. 

  *Their class ability basically gives them the same AC as a rogue wearing leather, and they normal striker HP's. They're insanely evasive and good at moving enemies around and such, but they'll hit the floor fast if anyone manages to pin them down.


----------



## Kez Darksun (May 11, 2009)

Ceramicwombat said:


> It's nice that monks use Dex for their attacks. This makes multiclassing with rogue fairly simple. Monk+Rogue=Ninja. I hope there will be a feat that lets you pick a weapon and have it count as a monk weapon (perhaps short sword to stand in for a wakizashi).
> 
> I have a friend in my group who will be excited to recreate his monk/cleric of Ilmater from 3.5 as a Monk/Radiant Fist. It fits has old character concept perfectly.
> 
> Wizards did a good job of differentiating the feel of the monk powers from those of other striker classes. I can't wait for the next Character Builder update so I can cook up a few monks.




In the Design and Development article, the devs say that while they wanted to focus on the Unarmed Monk as the base Monk, they understand that players also want to be able to use weapons with the Monk and are going to address that via other builds as well as feats/fighting styles.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

While knowing for a fact that there is going to be Psionics in PHB3, and more space for it with the exclusion of Ki, plus hopefully this means more classes for Psionics. One worry I have is how much the Ki flavours Psionics, I really want lots of Pseudoscience in my Psionics. I am hopeful that since it is more one included within Psionics and not built into it from the beginning will mean there is Pseudoscience.

Gah! Makes me want to see even more stuff!


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Man, I just love the idea of using Flurry of Blows to kill adjacent minions.

That being said, minion-loving DMs are going to hate Centered Breath monks.  Dare you put more than one minion against the Monk?  If he hits one, he kills two.


----------



## kenmarable (May 11, 2009)

Bodhiwolff said:


> Full Discipline Sidebar, second paragraph ...
> "You can use the techniques of a full discipline power in whatever order you like, and you can choose to use one of the techniques and not the other during the round"
> 
> So you can activate an Encounter Full-Discipline power, use the movement technique for your move action, and use the attack technique for your standard action.
> ...



And the trend towards embracing more complexity in the newer classes appears to continue with PHB3, and that makes me very happy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

I think you choose one Move action or standard action when you use the encounter...and then it is used not both...although that would only make sense if there were at wills with out full discpline...



> The number of times you can use a full
> discipline power’s techniques during a round
> is determined by the power’s type—at-will or
> encounter—and by the actions you have available
> ...




I will redo the part I am baseing this on



> you can use the
> techniques of an at-will full discipline power as
> many times during a round as you like, provided
> you have enough of the required actions, but
> ...




so maybe it means if you use the move you are stuck with a basic att, but if you use the attack you are stuck with normoal moves...


then again I am medicated and half asleep


----------



## Stalker0 (May 11, 2009)

I like the mechanics overall.

Flurry seems like an interesting striker mechanic (although no where near as good as the sorceror's but who is right?).

The combination of mobility and attacks is very well done with the full discipline idea.

As far as powers go, the at-wills are great (rarely do I like all 4 at wills for a class). The encounter powers are decent, the dailies are generally pretty meh (though I do like the one that increases the ongoing damage with each failed save).

I will say I hope they change a few of the names. I hate the name Centered Breath!

Ultimately here are my big questions:

1) Durability: The monk has a lot of mobility, but is lacking for AC. He can get more through TWF feats, but that appears to be it (though I guess we will see what the monk feats are like).

2) Striker Damage - Does it scale enough at high levels? 


Finally, I think the full discipline description needs a rewrite. I read it twice, and apparently I completely misread how to use it (I thought for encounter powers you only got the move OR the standard, not both).


----------



## drothgery (May 11, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> No, Ki is no more.  They decided that lumping all those classes together didn't make sense.  More than likely you will see them scattered across other power sources.




Though they're not mentioning it here, my bet is that the other side of why the _ki_ power source didn't make sense is that the 'oriental' spellcasters really belonged in the elemental power source if it was there.

Guesses for the OA classes, long-run

ninja - shadow striker
sammauri - paragon path open to any defender
shujenga - elemental leader
wu jen - elemental controller

It's hard to figure what psionic classes will make the cut, or if they decide to come up with something new. I mean, probable role of the 3.5 psionic classes pretty much breaks down as

psychic warrior - defender
psion - controller (a kineticist could be a striker, but my guess is they want to leave that kind of thing to arcane and maybe elemental characters)
wilder - controller (see psion)
soulknife - defender or striker
ardent - leader
divine mind - defender
lurk - striker

If I were to guess what they actually do in PH3, well, with WotC axing the _ki_ power source it makes the two power sources idea more tenable, so...

monk - psionic striker
soulknife - psionic defender (soulknives figure prominently in Kalashtar culture, and putting two classes in the ECS would take up too much space, and there's a surplus of strikers)
[new class] - psionic leader
telepath - psionic controller

hexblade - shadow defender
ninja or assassin - shadow striker
necromancer - shadow leader
shadowcaster or beguiller or illusionist - shadow controller


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

No, you can definitely use both, as long as you have the actions available. So, you could close distance with the Move Tech of a Full Discipline power and then use the Attack Tech, or attack and escape with the Move Tech. 

Elves, razorclaw shifters, and githzerai will make great Centered Breath monks. Interestingly, the 1st page art depicts a githzerai monk (along with another monk of an unknown race - kinda genasi-like)!


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> =I really want lots of Pseudoscience in my Psionics. I am hopeful that since it is more one included within Psionics and not built into it from the beginning will mean there is Pseudoscience.



Gunna have to disagree with you there, FS.


----------



## Cadfan (May 11, 2009)

I am... somewhat disappointed.  I like the monk for what it is, I guess, but I'm overall unhappy.  The class will probably see play in my group, and maybe I'll even be the one to play it.  But I wish things had worked out otherwise.

The death of ki is a major disappointment to me.  I consider D&D's ongoing inability to craft a decent unarmored (or at least minimally armored) guy with a katana to be a major failing.  I had hopes that ki would solve this.

I'm not a fan of making the monk's body into an enchantable object, either.  I see why they did it, I just don't like it.

I assume that nunchaku and the like are a subcategory of "club" or something.  They'd better be, because making monks less typecast as "asian" by deleting all the asian material from the game is... vaguely offensive?

It says "psionic magic" everywhere.

I don't like "Focused Expertise."  Specifically, I don't like that it isn't available for everyone, including Swordmages and Clerics and Paladins.

"Full Disciplines" are written in a confusing manner.  Expect a lot of questions about these.  I still don't get whether you can use an encounter full discipline in both its move and standard action forms in a given round.  The section that seems to say you can only use one of the two pluralizes itself in a weird way.  UPDATE: One of the powers was phrased in a way that clued me in.  You can use both.

I think its incredibly clumsy to make melee touch attacks that function as implement attacks while also making melee weapon attacks that function as weapon attacks.  This doesn't bother me with existing classes that do something similar, as there's generally a firm distinction between the two categories: if a swordmage stabs you, thats a weapon attack.  If he flings a sheet of fire across you and your allies, that's an implement.  The monk doesn't maintain this differentiation, and thematically you're doing the same thing both ways- hitting a dude.

And... there are powers that grant bonuses to other powers that differentiate between melee weapon attacks that you deliver with your hands and melee touch attacks that you... deliver with your hands.  Requiring you to actually know which attacks are which.  Thanks guys.

I'm not feeling the theme on some of these.  Teleportation out of nowhere in the epic tier?  Phasing?  I feel like these should be worked in at lower levels, or built up to in some way, not dropped in out of the blue.  I didn't like this about the 3e monk either.  I guess the "psion-monk" theme makes it a little more plausible, but I still don't like it.  Maybe the powers I'm not seeing weave this in better.

Color me not particularly happy, I guess.  The flavor doesn't seem to come together well.  Individual powers feel isolated and alone, instead of part of a larger context.  The psionics feel like a halfway developed unwelcome intrusion into what I wanted to see.  It seems a bit all over the place, and a bit more high-magic than I would have liked to see.

Maybe the strength based sub path will be more to my tastes, and maybe the unpreviewed powers will integrate things better.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Man, I just love the idea of using Flurry of Blows to kill adjacent minions.
> 
> That being said, minion-loving DMs are going to hate Centered Breath monks.  Dare you put more than one minion against the Monk?  If he hits one, he kills two.



I don't think that's how the power works.

I thought that, you can only HIT one target with the power. Anyone else within your range is just SLID.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Gunna have to disagree with you there, FS.



Lol, np, I know Pseudoscience especially in D&D is not everyone's choice. Though I hope I can just sneak in one class with Pseudoscience flare


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> II don't like "Focused Expertise."  Specifically, I don't like that it isn't available for everyone, including Swordmages and Clerics and Paladins.




It is available to all classes. It has no pre-reqs.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I don't think that's how the power works.
> 
> I thought that, you can only HIT one target with the power. Anyone else within your range is just SLID.




Nope. The trigger is you hit with an attack. The target is one creature. Anyone targeted by the flurry of blows takes damage, and if the target was not the target of the triggering attack you also get to slide them 1 square into a square adjacent to you.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> 1) Durability: The monk has a lot of mobility, but is lacking for AC. He can get more through TWF feats, but that appears to be it (though I guess we will see what the monk feats are like).




  I wouldn't be suprised to see a feat that increases the class AC bonus when wearing cloth. 

  Dex primary, with St or Wis secondary means they'll have good reflex, and decent either in Fort or Will depending on style. 

  Still, they only have 7 surges, no real reason to boost Con, and very little Healing or Temp HP granting power's from what was shown. They do seem pretty good at giving themselves saving throws. 

  Flurry of blows isn't too shabby. It's Wis+implement per target, so it will scale a bit at least. The real advantage is to slap auto-hit damage (and secondary effects) on enemies you weren't even attacking. It's like being able to cleave off of every power you use, with it becoming a super cleave by epic.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

Bodhiwolff said:


> I see no reason why we'd change the way we "spend" powers just for Full-Discipline powers.



Oh I agree with you, even though no other powers before have offered 2 types of actions in any way.
However when they make big changes these things need to be spelt out. When I normally do a /e it is gone, so by this if I do the attack technique of a /e that /e should be gone and I never get to use both types of actions. I know that is wrong but big game changing things (with possible confusions) need really explicit examples/explanations to stop confusion.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> Flurry of blows isn't too shabby. It's Wis+implement per target, so it will scale a bit at least.




I didn't think of that. Do you get to add your implement's (fist's) enhancement bonus to the flurry of blows damage?


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I don't think that's how the power works.
> 
> I thought that, you can only HIT one target with the power. Anyone else within your range is just SLID.




Melee touch, target one creature, does wisdom mod damage.  If the target of the Flurry wasn't part of the attack you made to open it up, it'll take the damage AND be slid.  Or in the case of a minion, knocked back into a glass window, arms flailing.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The death of ki is a major disappointment to me.  I consider D&D's ongoing inability to craft a decent unarmored (or at least minimally armored) guy with a katana to be a major failing.  I had hopes that ki would solve this.



Avenger? 

I do agree that this thing is really hard to parse in some areas. The Centered Breath flurry, the Full Discipline, and agreed on various things like "Does a monk's unarmed strike count as a monk weapon? What about an implement?" It feels like there's a whole lot of juggling going on just figuring out what power uses what weapon or implement or whatnot. 

Some of the powers have me scratching my head. I mean, I don't have a problem with the magic effects, but some just seem a _Little_ silly. A roundhouse kick that does cold damage, because you create wind? ... Kay. Anyhow, looks like they tried to go full wuxia with this (although you're not going FULL wuxia until you can turn plums into deadly projectiles, and shoot scarves that immobilize people). 

Also, Centered breath does suck as a name. 

Going to email your thoughts to WotC, Cadfan? 

I do find some of the powers really fun. Dance of the Stinging Hornet just looks _fun_.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (May 11, 2009)

if Monks = psionics, then since psionics = Dark Sun, PHB 3 = Dark Sun will be the new game world release in 2009 since half-giant psychic warriors can't come from anywhere else, you must agree!!

(This being the D&D/Dark Sun/4th ed verison of the Chewbacca Defence! )
hehe!

so, IMHO, that does sugest Dark Sun is gonna be it for the next setting, BOOOOO YAAAAAH!!!


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Melee touch, target one creature, does wisdom mod damage.



You have to do an Attack, too? Wow. An _extra_ attack, just to do striker damage. Imagine if Warlocks or Rangers had to make an extra attack just to get their Quarry/Curse damage off.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> I didn't think of that. Do you get to add your implement's (fist's) enhancement bonus to the flurry of blows damage?




  Unarmed strikes are implements, so yes you can. 

  Flurry of Blows really plays into the monks unique style. Cleave is a good power, but it comes with an oppourtunity cost--you aren't using a better power like steel serpent strike or villians menace or somesuch. The monk has the option to kill an adjacent minion or finish off a badly wounded opponent once per round, on top of using drunken monkey or whatever that same round.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> You have to do an Attack, too? Wow. An _extra_ attack, just to do striker damage. Imagine if Warlocks or Rangers had to make an extra attack just to get their Quarry/Curse damage off.




Nope, no Attack.  Just Target -->  Effect.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

No, flurry of blows doesn't require an attack roll. You only have to hit with an attack to trigger it, then it's free damage. I'm curious if you get to add your implement's (fist's) enhancement bonus to the damage though!


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

I get it now, thanks folks.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> You have to do an Attack, too? Wow. An extra attack, just to do striker damage. Imagine if Warlocks or Rangers had to make an extra attack just to get their Quarry/Curse damage off.




  Err...no. The Trigger for Flurry of Blows is to hit with _any_ attack. At that point, the Monk can auto-hit any one adjacent opponent for extra damage using flurry of blows. At paragon, he hits two opponents, and at Epic he can auto-damage all adjacent opponents after landing any sort of attack on anybody. Like most striker powers it is limited to once per round.



> Please give an in-play example.




  Ok, 1st level monk moves adjacent to two goblins, a goblin sharpshooter and a goblin warrior. For simplicities sake, we say he hits the warrior with a basic attack for 10 damage. At this point he can automatically do 3 damage (Wis mod) to either the Goblin Warrior or the Goblin sharpshooter. If he chooses to damage the sharpshooter, he can also slide that goblin 1 square as long as it end adjacent to him (Centered Breath Style)

  If it was a goblin warrior and a goblin cutter, he could hit the warrior with any normal attack, and then auto-kill the cutter using flurry of blows.


----------



## Cadfan (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Avenger?



Everyone keeps telling me that, but... no.  For the same reason the Swordmage isn't an adequate substitute.  


> Going to email your thoughts to WotC, Cadfan?



Yeah, but I'll spend more time thinking about it first.


> I do find some of the powers really fun. Dance of the Stinging Hornet just looks _fun_.



I agree.

But it also annoys the crap out of me.

Why?  Because you get it at level 13.  There's no earlier level version.  And there's no later level version.  So if that's a cool thing you liked doing, you have to either accept having one of your encounter powers remain behind par as you level up, or you have to give it up and learn something else.  I hate orphan powers like that.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

You attack an enemy with an attack power, and hit.

This now lets you use Flurry of Blows, which is a free action, targets anyone in your melee reach, and has the effect of doing your wisdom modifier in damage.

If you use this on a target that wasn't included in the original attack power, it also slides them to any square adjacent to you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


why don't they have 22nd level utlities?
and
Why don't the at wills scale???


also I again point out the line form the artical



> but you can use the techniques of an encounter full discipline power once during a round.



so no move and standard....one or the other...(I guss I will still add I think...then go to bed)


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Okay, this is confusing me. I still don't understand how this power works.
> 
> It triggers on a target you HIT. So, you use a power, you HIT the target.
> 
> ...




Monk vs 2 goblins.

Monk hits goblin A. This triggers flurry of blows. Flurry of blows can target 1 creature. 

If you target goblin A you do damage = to Wis + enhancement bonus. If you target goblin B you do the same damage and slide them 1 square into a square adjacent to you.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> You have to do an Attack, too? Wow. An _extra_ attack, just to do striker damage. Imagine if Warlocks or Rangers had to make an extra attack just to get their Quarry/Curse damage off.






Rechan said:


> Okay, this is confusing me. I still don't understand how this power works.
> 
> It triggers on a target you HIT. So, you use a power, you HIT the target.
> 
> ...




Monk A has Bad Guy B and Minion C adjacent to him.

Monk A attacks B with Crane’s Wings and pushes the target one square away

_Because he has hit with an attack he satisfies the trigger for flurry_

Monk A does flurry on C (he couldn't do it on B even if he wanted cos he pushed him out of melee reach) doing the WIS mod damage AND sliding him 1 square (because he was not the target of the triggering attack- Crane's Wing) EDIT: except he is dead cos he is a minion, ooops no slide 

Make sense?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

This is only one Build so the Level 22 Utilities may be of the other Build?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> This is only one Build so the Level 22 Utilities may be of the other Build?




Ok haalf asleep and medicated I know there is a problem here...but I can not get the words right...there have to be powers of every level for every build...ok I think that made sense....


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> There's no earlier level version.  And there's no later level version.  So if that's a cool thing you liked doing, you have to either accept having one of your encounter powers remain behind par as you level up, or you have to give it up and learn something else.  I hate orphan powers like that.




That's how it is for every single class, though.  Everyone makes tough choices as they level.

I think the main "cool things" are coming from the At-Wills.  Maybe they need to be a bit more...cool, or something?


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> This is only one Build so the Level 22 Utilities may be of the other Build?




  The powers don't seem to be build dependent other than being Wisdom based. I suspect it's an oversight.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

Comments after reading through the article beginning-to-end:


They look like a TON of fun.
They're Psionic Strikers. Interesting.
DEX is their primary stat, with WIS or STR being secondary (this article covers the WIS half)
They're stuck in cloth armor to get a +2 bonus to AC. So, yes, they can wear cloth just fine, but it's not easily "breakable" like the Avenger class feature (and there's no feat to enhance it, at least in this article). For monks, it's the same as wearing leather.
The at-will powers are very cool, and seem pretty well-balanced.
Monks are good against groups of enemies and are good at minion clearing, esp. with flurry of blows. They seem more like damaging controllers (IE damage-focused wizard) than strikers in this regard. Of course, they do also have some painful powers they can use on their targets 
Monks are VERY mobile.
Basically every round, Monks get something special they can do with their move action rather than just a straight movement. It's tied into whatever power they use. Sweet!
Humans and Elves seem like the best choices offhand... Elves have some more mobility, Humans a bit more flexibility. The at-wills are really cool (and somewhat situational), so having an extra one is a definite plus. Razorclaw Shifter would also be a solid choice. Haven't seen the DEX/STR build, of course, so it's hard to judge which races would mesh well for that.
DEX seems way more important than WIS (with only the occasional bonus based on your WIS bonus).
No "Off-stat" races (non-DEX races) seem to have racial features that make them stand out as a good option (optimization-wise) despite the lower DEX, but I'm not an expert at seeing those things.



chaotix42 said:


> No, Focused Expertise has no pre-reqs. The playtest article merely mentions that the Centered Breath monk makes use of the feat. Swordmages will be taking it too!



Interesting. Well, although it IS technically straight power creep, it really is how the expertise feats should have been anyway. I like it


----------



## Cadfan (May 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> That's how it is for every single class, though. Everyone makes tough choices as they level.
> 
> I think the main "cool things" are coming from the At-Wills. Maybe they need to be a bit more...cool, or something?



Not entirely.  For example, if your thing is whirlwind attacks and you're playing a fighter, there are versions of this sort of power at multiple levels.  Individual ones obviously get selected and then retrained when they become obsolete, but the overall power remains.  Same with powers that create firey explosions or shoot lighting for the wizard- the individual power might fall by the wayside, but you learn new ways to create firey explosions or shoot lightning.

Most classes do have one or two orphan powers, but they're not actually that common.  And yes, the other ones annoy me also.  The way to avoid a "why did I forget how to do that" feel is to make sure that a class's powers are well integrated with one another and that themes continue across multiple levels instead of just occuring once and then being forgotten.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!why don't they have 22nd level utlities? and Why don't the at wills scale???



Ooops, waiting for the updated PDF!







> also I again point out the line form the artical
> *"but you can use the techniques of an encounter full discipline power once during a round. "*
> so no move and standard....one or the other...(I guss I will still add I think...then go to bed)



I dunno, it says *the techniques* rather than *A technique*
EDIT: and this 







> You can use the
> techniques of a full discipline power in whatever
> order you like, and you can choose to use one of
> the techniques and not the other during a par-
> ticular round.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

It's just less tax for certain builds so I'm down with it.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Not entirely.  For example, if your thing is whirlwind attacks and you're playing a fighter, there are versions of this sort of power at multiple levels.  Individual ones obviously get selected and then retrained when they become obsolete, but the overall power remains.  Same with powers that create firey explosions or shoot lighting for the wizard- the individual power might fall by the wayside, but you learn new ways to create firey explosions or shoot lightning.
> 
> Most classes do have one or two orphan powers, but they're not actually that common.  And yes, the other ones annoy me also.  The way to avoid a "why did I forget how to do that" feel is to make sure that a class's powers are well integrated with one another and that themes continue across multiple levels instead of just occuring once and then being forgotten.




Good points.  It seems like the movement techniques manage to stay quite similar (the Development article mentioned they're basically in 4 categories), at least, although that's small consolation since they're not as flashy as the attacks.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Ooops, waiting for the updated PDF!I dunno, it says *the techniques* rather than *A technique*




Yeah, it specifically mentions that you can choose to use only one of the FD techniques in a round if you want, which presumes you can do both in the same round.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 11, 2009)

Right.  Basically, each Monk Full Discipline (which really should be simplified to just Discipline) is essentially two powers in one - a Standard Action attack, and a Move Action.  You can choose to use one or both when you use the power.  The only caveat is that you can't use more than one Discipline per round - ie, no mixing the Move Action of one with the Standard Action of another.  However, if you spend an AP you don't get screwed; you can use a second Full Discipline power.

The Full Discipline sidebar really needs clarification.  I had to read it a couple of times to understand it.

I absolutely _love_ the Monk, and I really want to try one.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

LightPhoenix said:


> Right.  Basically, each Monk Full Discipline (which really should be simplified to just Discipline)




Well, psionic powers seem to be called Disciplines already! I dunno what problems it would cause changing it to just Discipline... probably nothing. 



> I absolutely _love_ the Monk, and I really want to try one.




Agreed!

So, monks get +1 to Fort, Ref, and Will, and the Wis-based build gets an extra scaling bonus to Fort. Seems like monks are going to have some huge NADs, eh?


----------



## Dionysos (May 11, 2009)

I personally love the "psionic magic" stuff. It was always weird to me that when a cleric, wizard or druid set you on fire with his eyes it was magical but when a psion did, it wasn't for some reason. Gods, ambient mystical energy and lifeblood of the earth are magic. Psychic phenomena, well those are TOTALLY different!

Magic in 4e, as in the dictionary, means "supernatural power". Cool.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Why is it there are so many strikers, and those seem to be the most popular and fun classes? Hmf. I think it leads to a desire for an ALL STRIKER PARTY WOO.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Why is it there are so many strikers, and those seem to be the most popular and fun classes? Hmf. I think it leads to a desire for an ALL STRIKER PARTY WOO.




People like to move around and do damage.

Also, probably the easiest role to design for.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

Humans, Elves, and Razorclaw Shifters seem like the way to go. Humans are even, arguably, the best option (or at least close to it) if versatility's your thing, given that there's actually a choice to be made between at-wills, as opposed to one being a good "default option" with others fitting in various situations 

PP-wise: Moonstalker (the shifter PP) seems to mesh really, really well with monks  Mechanically, that is. Adroit Explorer also works quite well, but it's awesome for any class. Twilight Guardian doesn't key off of dex though, so that's not much of an option for Elves.

I think the Full Discipline description is fine; it was quite clear to me. An in-play example might be a good idea, though.

On Dance of the Stinging Hornet: awesome concept for a power!  Breaking the grab will be an interesting situation, though. DEX is of course going to be quite high, so them doing an Acrobatics vs Reflex to escape probably wouldn't work incredibly well. Athletics vs Fortitude might succeed with some better regularity though as there's not much reason to pump CON and this version doesn't have the STR monk in it. Should be fine anyway, but it does seem like it's a power sliiightly better suited for the STR monk, yet in the WIS preview. EDIT: Nevermind, Centered gets a +fort bonus, forgot about that...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Dionysos said:


> I personally love the "psionic magic" stuff. It was always weird to me that when a cleric, wizard or druid set you on fire with his eyes it was magical but when a psion did, it wasn't for some reason. Gods, ambient mystical energy and lifeblood of the earth are magic. Psychic phenomena, well those are TOTALLY different!
> 
> Magic in 4e, as in the dictionary, means "supernatural power". Cool.



While I agree on the supernatural part. Psionics is definitely supernatural, I never really viewed it as magic. 

In that I always preferred it being more in the vein of Pseudoscience, it is complete nonsense but in this world the act of tapping into your brain and being able to shift molecules about, change gravity, etc, etc actually works. That it can be in this world scientifically measured. It is the difference between the stuff they do on Fringe and say... Buffy (also modern but has magic).

While I don't expect it to be the dominant idea (since most people don't like this kind of stuff in their D&D) I am hopeful of some reference, homage to this kind of idea. Perhaps a class which has this specific focus.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 11, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Long story shorter...
> 
> They came up with the "full discipline" idea and realized it wouldn't work as a mechanic for all classes that would have been under the ki source.  Also, having all "asian" classes use the ki source would have been as silly as having all western classes use a single power source.
> 
> Ki was dwindling to only a couple of classes, so they decided to put those classes into other power sources.



Thanks for the explanation.

So, basically, they took the route that almost no one wanted (lumping everything "asian" into the ki power source), it didn't work out for obvious reasons (I've argued countless times that lumping Wu Jen, Shugenja, or even the Ninja into Ki is pointless), and thus they chose to scrap it entirely rather than come up with a set of new ideas to actually make it work and create something that adds to the game. Somewhere in there they arbitrarily decided to fuse a mechanic into an entire power source for no good reason. And now we have the Monk as part of the Psionic power source, diluting and confusing both the classic idea of the Monk/Ki-user/barehand-fighter class and the entire idea of what Psionics means.

I still remain entirely unimpressed by all of this. I guess I may as well hold final judgement until the class is actually released in the PHB 3, though. I will continue to mourn the loss of all the great potential the Ki power source had, though.


----------



## Dionysos (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> While I agree on the supernatural part. Psionics is definitely supernatural, I never really viewed it as magic.
> 
> In that I always preferred it being more in the vein of Pseudoscience, it is complete nonsense but in this world the act of tapping into your brain and being able to shift molecules about, change gravity, etc, etc actually works. That it can be in this world scientifically measured. It is the difference between the stuff they do on Fringe and say... Buffy (also modern but has magic).




I actually saw psionics more or less like that too. I also see what Wizards do as the same sort of thing in essence; in their case, using intensive techniques learned through laborious study for manipulating fundamental universal energies. To me, Wizards are similar to quantum physicists who are able to directly manipulate the energies involved.

I guess the fact that there is a theoretical basis for the phenomena does not make it non-magical to me. Certainly, anybody can agree that divine magic in D&D has a theoretical basis. Also, because gods exist and can be interacted with, it is likely that the energies involved could be "measured in this world", given the assuptions of the power source.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

I really don't get the feeling loss from the demise of the Ki power source. Power Sources have little in game effect (they do have some) and what is the difference of Ki from Psionic (and from magic as well)?. If someone wants to explain to me a definition of Ki and psionic that is universal and different from magic in anything apart from somantics, please fork a thread and enlighten me.

Psionic: internal magic, ki umm: a different sort of internal magic, arcane magic: umm magic from somewhere else (I dunno), divine magic: gods and primal magic: nture I get but over all the whole power source thing for me is pretty meh, as in I can't get het up about it.

EDIT: and it is so fluff based just call the monk a Ki striker and you are sorted in your campaign.


----------



## Vendark (May 11, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> So, basically, they took the route that almost no one wanted (lumping everything "asian" into the ki power source), it didn't work out for obvious reasons (I've argued countless times that lumping Wu Jen, Shugenja, or even the Ninja into Ki is pointless), and thus they chose to scrap it entirely rather than come up with a set of new ideas to actually make it work and create something that adds to the game. Somewhere in there they arbitrarily decided to fuse a mechanic into an entire power source for no good reason. And now we have the Monk as part of the Psionic power source, diluting and confusing both the classic idea of the Monk/Ki-user/barehand-fighter class and the entire idea of what Psionics means.
> 
> I still remain entirely unimpressed by all of this. I guess I may as well hold final judgement until the class is actually released in the PHB 3, though. I will continue to mourn the loss of all the great potential the Ki power source had, though.




+1

The monk looks like a cool class, but I was excited to see what new ideas the ki power source was going to bring into the game. Very disappointed that they choked on the opportunity.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

True, well it is more I just hope, that WoTC just doesn't go, "its Arcane but with the MIND!!!" If you get my drift. I am hopeful they can since Primal has for example a very different vibe and feel. So I am hoping for Psionics one way they can get this across is a much more upfront Pseudoscience angle (in at least some class, paragon path, etc.)

*Shifty eyes and whispers* Plus I am really gunning for them to eventually do a Pseudoscience setting. So Psionics having that vibe would be helpful.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> True, well it is more I just hope, that WoTC just doesn't go, "its Arcane but with the MIND!!!" If you get my drift. I am hopeful they can since Primal has for example a very different vibe and feel. So I am hoping for Psionics one way they can get this across is a much more upfront Pseudoscience angle (in at least some class, paragon path, etc.)



And here I am hoping they go in the opposite direction. I can't stand the pseudoscience stuff. 

I don't _like_ gravity in my fantasy. Or molecules. Or anything found in a science textbook.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

I like it since it takes concepts we have from science and turns it on their head and makes them work in completely bonkers ways. Like sound and light waves travelling through space, they figured there had to be a medium to travel through. Thus Aether and thus are born the concept of Aether-ships travelling through space using propellers or corkscrew props.

Though... This is heading off-topic, so shall shut my yap about it for now


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> *Shifty eyes and whispers* Plus I am really gunning for them to eventually do a Pseudoscience setting. So Psionics having that vibe would be helpful.




I think that'd be a great idea for a third-party company to do. But I can all but guarantee you that it won't happen from WotC. I just don't think there'd be even remotely a wide enough audience.


----------



## Dionysos (May 11, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> True, well it is more I just hope, that WoTC just doesn't go, "its Arcane but with the MIND!!!" If you get my drift. I am hopeful they can since Primal has for example a very different vibe and feel. So I am hoping for Psionics one way they can get this across is a much more upfront Pseudoscience angle (in at least some class, paragon path, etc.)
> 
> *Shifty eyes and whispers* Plus I am really gunning for them to eventually do a Pseudoscience setting. So Psionics having that vibe would be helpful.




Yeah, I see what you are saying. I am pretty confident that the Psionic source will be very flavorful. They haven't failed me yet on that.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I think that'd be a great idea for a third-party company to do. But I can all but guarantee you that it won't happen from WotC. I just don't think there'd be even remotely a wide enough audience.



Yeah, but I like to dream 

But like I said, enough from me and Pseudoscience, Shoo! Shoo! Back to Monk discussion!


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 11, 2009)

Vendark said:


> The monk looks like a cool class, but I was excited to see what new ideas the ki power source was going to bring into the game. Very disappointed that they choked on the opportunity.




While I can certainly understand your disappointment, I don't think there's any real lost opportunity here. A cool class idea is a cool class idea. If someone at WotC comes up with one, they're not going to reject it because "Hey, this would've been a cool _ki_ class, but we didn't create that, so I'll just chuck the idea." What they'll say is, "This would've been a cool _ki_ class, but since we don't have that, I should probably make it [insert other power source here]."

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any concept that could have been lumped under _ki_ that can't also fit under one of the other power sources.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I can certainly understand your disappointment, I don't think there's any real lost opportunity here. A cool class idea is a cool class idea. If someone at WotC comes up with one, they're not going to reject it because "Hey, this would've been a cool _ki_ class, but we didn't create that, so I'll just chuck the idea." What they'll say is, "This would've been a cool _ki_ class, but since we don't have that, I should probably make it [insert other power source here]."
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can't think of any concept that could have been lumped under _ki_ that can't also fit under one of the other power sources.



*Nods* They even say as much in the Design & Development with the example of the Samurai.

I really am glad to see WoTC being flexible and adaptive and willing to change things.


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

So Ari, what do you think of the new monk? 

As a sidenote, the Monk being a Psi Striker doesn't rule out future Psi striker classes. After all, we have two Martial and two Arcane strikers.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> As a sidenote, the Monk being a Psi Striker doesn't rule out future Psi striker classes. After all, we have two Martial and two Arcane strikers.



I think it is possible we may even see 5 Psionic classes in PHB3. If they did a full grouping of Psionics normally and then also the Monk.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So Ari, what do you think of the new monk?




Truth be told, I haven't looked over the class yet. I just read the Design and Development article so far. 

But it certainly sounds interesting, based on what I'm seeing. Maybe a tad complex, but that's a good thing. I _like_ the idea of some classes being more complex than others.


----------



## Vendark (May 11, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I can certainly understand your disappointment, I don't think there's any real lost opportunity here. A cool class idea is a cool class idea. If someone at WotC comes up with one, they're not going to reject it because "Hey, this would've been a cool _ki_ class, but we didn't create that, so I'll just chuck the idea." What they'll say is, "This would've been a cool _ki_ class, but since we don't have that, I should probably make it [insert other power source here]."




I'm not so sure. Which came first, the idea for the warden or the idea for a separate primal power source? If they hadn't decided to make primal its own power source, is there an impetus to come up with the warden at all?

I know they say they aren't trying to fill the grid, but I think each new power source forces them to at least think about the grid, and I think that can generate good ideas that might not have come about otherwise. I was excited to see what cool ideas ki was going to generate, and I'm somewhat disillusioned to find that the answer was apparently "None."


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 11, 2009)

I'm happy with the decision on the Monk since they realized that grouping all Asian classes into one power source was a stupid idea.  And I as an Asian like the fact that they aren't going to ghettoize all Asian concepts into one area.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 11, 2009)

I don't think flurry of blows gets implement damage, as its static damage and magic only usually adds to damage rolls (similar to the warlord power).

As far as ki vs psionic, I could absolutely care less. Psionic works for the monk and its a good way to take care of the issue of (well fighters are really trained warriors, why don't they do all of the "crazy" stuff?) .


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 11, 2009)

I noticed that none of the at-will powers do double damage at 21st level, I wonder if this was intentional or an oversight.


----------



## Vendark (May 11, 2009)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm happy with the decision on the Monk since they realized that grouping all Asian classes into one power source was a stupid idea. And I as an Asian like the fact that they aren't going to ghettoize all Asian concepts into one area.




It didn't have to have anything to do with grouping Asian classes together. It could have been the opposite of that: coming up with new classes to show that "ki" doesn't have to be exclusively Asian in flavor. Missed opportunity.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 11, 2009)

You know what I find interesting? Actually the halfling looks like it might be a pretty good monk.

Unlike in 3e, the halfling gets the full 1d8 of damage, has dex as a primary, and whose bonus against OAs is very useful with such a mobile class.

While elf looks to be the primary match (both stats are good, speed bonus is huge, and of course elven accuracy), I think both human and halflings would work well.

One thing I would consider for the class is to give them defensive mobility as a bonus feat as there entire class is designed to move around people. It would help to balance out the lower AC compared to many other strikers


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

Vendark said:


> I'm not so sure. Which came first, the idea for the warden or the idea for a separate primal power source? If they hadn't decided to make primal its own power source, is there an impetus to come up with the warden at all?



Probably the Warden, because the designers had to look at the 3e druid and go, "Well, he does so much. So lets split his weapon-using ass-beating schtick into one class, his healing thing into another class, and his shapeshifting spellcasting into a third class." 

3 of the 4 primal classes really are just three versions of the Druid, because the old druid was carrying a lot of baggage.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2009)

Ki was a stupid idea from the start, and I'm glad they're axing it.  Psionic magic comes from inner manifested power.  Ki was...well, inner manifested power, but I guess it was _asian_ inner manifested power.  Glad to see they realized what a bad idea that was.

Do you know what a ninja is?  It's a rogue.  That's what a ninja is.  Seriously, it's a freaking rogue.  Samurai?  Fighter.  There's no reason to give them alternate power sources.

Monk as psionic is a good fit.  I can see it either as psionic or as martial, and they went with psionic, so uh, yeah.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The death of ki is a major disappointment to me.  I consider D&D's ongoing inability to craft a decent unarmored (or at least minimally armored) guy with a katana to be a major failing.  I had hopes that ki would solve this.



Well, taking a look at the Design & Development article gives us the following...


> The concept of the monk drawing energy from within was a good match for psionics. When we looked at classes like the shugenja, the wu jen, the ninja, and the samurai, we came to similar conclusions in matching them to other power sources. In some cases, like the samurai, we're more excited about using an approach similar to the _Dragon_ articles on gladiators and assassins.



Something like the Samurai article promised (though not specifically the samurai, but a different "subclass" certainly) might offer the option to you later.



> *Mike:* Monks and weapons were a bone of contention at various points of the process. In the end, we decided to focus on the unarmed monk as the standard character, give you mechanics that make unarmed basic attacks viable, and leave the door open for future builds that focus on weapons. *The fighting style feats allow you to blend a weapon with your unarmed fighting.* I like the idea of a monk that combines a scimitar with kicks and strikes.



Emphasis mine. And to elaborate on what that might mean, here's another clip...







> *Stephen:* ... We'll also use fighting style feats to provide options to those players who want to focus on using weapons instead of barehand attacks. You might see a feat like Bladed Wind Style that would grant bonus damage when you score a critical hit using a scimitar (and make scimitar a monk weapon), or Shielding Whirlwind Style that provides a shield bonus to AC when using a quarterstaff.



The aforementioned feat means even monks might offer what you're looking for 

Overall, I wouldn't quite give up hope yet, Cadfan


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

On Flurry of Blows. In the Design and Development article, one will find the following:


			
				Steven Schubert said:
			
		

> The monk gains Flurry of Blows, which adds a flat damage amount to his primary target but it plays a bit differently. The monk can choose to apply the flurry damage to any adjacent creature, even if that creature wasn't hit by the triggering attack. In fact, if the flurry hits a different target, it gets even better, *gaining either a slide effect or** a damage boost.*



Emphasis mine.

I think this means Centered Mind will get the flurry of blows we see here, and for the STR monk, instead of a slide it's just even more damage (probably STR mod?). So, DEX/WIS = Striker/Controller, DEX/STR = Striker/Striker?


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

I'm certainly interested in seeing a spear-using monk. Mm, reach. 

Although, I kinda am wondering how you would do "I pick up improvised weapons" ala Jackie Chan. Lifting up a sewer grate and using it like a shield, etc etc.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 11, 2009)

Monks have thievery, stealth and perception as class skills. They also have reason to boost their wisdom. They might end up as better trap specialists than rogues oddly enough.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2009)

Mighty Monk Merge (since there were 4 threads about it at once)


----------



## No Name (May 11, 2009)

There's something I'm not sure I understand.

When I use a full discipline power, can I use both techniques in the same round, or must I choose between them?

This is how I think it works.

If I use Dancing Cobra, I can do both the move technique and the standard technique in that round, in any order. Since it's at At-Will, I can do the move technique twice (dropping my standard to a move).

If I use Drunken Monkey, I can still do both move and standard techniques in the same round, but I can't use the move technique twice because it's an Encounter power.

I do get the part about not mixing powers - so no Dancing Cobra move with Drunken Monkey attack.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (May 11, 2009)

No Name said:


> There's something I'm not sure I understand.
> 
> When I use a full discipline power, can I use both techniques in the same round, or must I choose between them?
> 
> ...



Correct. As far as the last example, though, it IS possible if you wanted to burn an Action Point on it (though you'd still be left with a standard action that can't be spent on the Drunken Monkey attack again).


----------



## Mentat55 (May 11, 2009)

I like it.  While the monk's power source is psionic, the flavor of the powers (descriptions, names, even mechanics) screams wuxia to me.  I like the extreme mobility -- something the 3rd edition monk had, but pretty much lost because you wanted to full attack and flurry.  This monk seems really slippery.    

The extra damage mechanic is actually pretty close to what I expected for a monk -- a free action extra attack (in this case, auto-damage) after you hit with another attack.  It is unclear to me right now whether the extra damage is really enough to make it the monk a good striker -- but I guess as you reach levels where you can hit two targets, or all adjacent targets, you'll get an interesting blend of striker and controller.  And the Str build might be harder hitting, a la the difference between the Brutal Scoundrel and Artful Dodger.

I am continually impressed with how the designers come up with different ways to express a role.  I still need to give the monk a try in-game (I think I might fire up an NPC shortly for one of my play-by-post games).

The Full Discipline keyword needs to be explained much more clearly -- as it stands right now, the way I read it is that when you use an encounter Full Disciple power, you can use either the move action or the standard action, not both.  But stricter wording and perhaps a very clear example would be much more helpful.


----------



## vagabundo (May 11, 2009)

I have to say - and I really wasn't expecting it - that this _might_ turn out to be my favourite class in 4e.

I wasnt even really looking forward to the article, but this is how the Monk should have always been, a bad ass. 

Damn, now I'm itching to play again - that seven year itch - but noone in my group will DM...


----------



## Rechan (May 11, 2009)

I do think that you could, for instance, use the Drunken Monkey movement technique twice (A double move; one move action, and trading your standard for a move action). You could only do this on the turn you use the Drunken Monkey encounter power.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I do think that you could, for instance, use the Drunken Monkey movement technique twice (A double move; one move action, and trading your standard for a move action). You could only do this on the turn you use the Drunken Monkey encounter power.






> The number of times you can use a full
> discipline power’s techniques during a round
> is determined by the power’s type—at-will or
> encounter—and by the actions you have available
> ...




As it says on page 4, and quoted above, I do not think so, but it seems odd that you cannot. As the above it quoted, it does not even seem like you can do a double move technique on an encounter power. It does see clear you can use an at-will Full technique power's movement multiple times a round.


----------



## No Name (May 11, 2009)

Thanks for the replies.

Glad to see I didn't fail my reading comprehension check.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 11, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Mighty Monk Merge (since there were 4 threads about it at once)




Have you got the power description for that?


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 11, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Mighty Monk Merge



Thanks, the name of my first monk character +++YOINK+++


----------



## Baumi (May 11, 2009)

Halfing Monks rule now (Dex-Bonus, same damage, bonus vs. Opportunity Attacks,..)! 

I also like that they don't need armor (besides Cloth) and the Full Techniques look interesting (Combo Maneuvers). 

But I do think that they lack in damage, especially for a striker. If compared to a sorcerer (Bonus damage also from a secondary attribute) he lacks the increasing damage per tier (Sorcerer also damages multible enemies). Also his powers itself have low damage and the [W] doesn't seem to be higher than d8. It might be migrated by the advantage that he need only to hit one enemy and all flurry attacks hit automatically, but I would have to try it to be sure about that.

Toughness is also a problem for them. The AC should be ok (like a Rogue), but they don't have more then average Striker HP which is a problem because they perform best when surrounded by enemies.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2009)

Didn't the old Wizardry series classify monks as explicitly psionic or am I misremembering it in my old age 

I can see why WOTC got rid of "ki". In 3.5, ki was a powersource that allowed the designers to grant supernatural effects but now?

I'm not sure what the difference would exist that would make "ki" unique from BOTH the "Martial" and "Psionic" powersource


----------



## Keefe the Thief (May 11, 2009)

Yes and no - monks could use psionic magic in Wizardry, but it was "wizardly" magic, as in slinging spells around. A little Rolemaster-y, adding spell-lists to martial classes, really.

But yeah, i keep getting a Wiz 7 vibe from 4e, what with Draconians, Monks and stuff. Keep it coming.


----------



## armorclass10 (May 11, 2009)

Very interesting indeed. I have a player who is using GG's version of the Monk. We will sit down and decide what he wants to do. Switch to the playtest or keep the GG version, my guess is the GG version. IMO it's an older school feeling monk (we are old school guys), but then again I haven't read the whole playtest just yet....

But in all honesty I like the GG version better so far, just the old schooler in me...it harks back to the early days.

I can also see the look in my player's eyes when I mention the words psionic and Monk in same sentence.....it's just a word but we are grognards, and I just know they won't like the word psionic next to a monk LOL.

I have to admit I have been waiting forever for this.


----------



## webrunner (May 11, 2009)

Vendark said:


> I'm not so sure. Which came first, the idea for the warden or the idea for a separate primal power source? If they hadn't decided to make primal its own power source, is there an impetus to come up with the warden at all?
> 
> I know they say they aren't trying to fill the grid, but I think each new power source forces them to at least think about the grid, and I think that can generate good ideas that might not have come about otherwise. I was excited to see what cool ideas ki was going to generate, and I'm somewhat disillusioned to find that the answer was apparently "None."




It almost seems to me that they're trying heavily *not* to fill the grid, which is really just as bad: they're still letting the grid define what classes they make.  We might have a Martial Controller (trapper?) if they weren't.


Edit: Anyone think it's odd they gave us four at-wills?  The Centered Breath monk is dancing cobras and five storms.. but the other two seem to also be at home with the same concepts, so I wonder what the other monk build will be like.

And do you think you'll be able to take "weapon proficiency: monk unarmed strike" with say, two-blade ranger or tempest fighter?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2009)

Broadly speaking, what do the monk at-wills do?


----------



## Blizzardb (May 11, 2009)

Monk at-wills are "packages" of attack and movement actions, called Full Disciplines (some Encounter Powers also are Full Disciplines). You can combine only the attack or movement with another action, but you can't combine two Full Disciplines without spending an AP.

Monk at-will attacks offer knockback, push, burst 1 attack and extra damage. Their movement components offer mobility, jump, shifting and swapping places with others.


----------



## Shroomy (May 11, 2009)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I noticed that none of the at-will powers do double damage at 21st level, I wonder if this was intentional or an oversight.




I think it may be intentional.  At 21st level, a monk's _flurry of blows_ effectively becomes a close burst 1 that deals auto-damage, and by that point, the auto-damage is probably equivalent or better than the extra average damage of an additional d6 or d8.  I do think that there is an oversight in the power though, since it has the Implement keyword but doesn't deal Wis Modifier + Implement damage.


----------



## beverson (May 11, 2009)

Just kind of thinking out loud here, but having read the design and dev article I didn't get "Ki is dead and gone", but rather "the Monk is no longer Ki"...perhaps there will still be a Ki power source after all?  (just my interpretation of the article)


----------



## Amadeus Windfall (May 11, 2009)

beverson said:


> Just kind of thinking out loud here, but having read the design and dev article I didn't get "Ki is dead and gone", but rather "the Monk is no longer Ki"...perhaps there will still be a Ki power source after all?  (just my interpretation of the article)






			
				The Design and Development article said:
			
		

> the _ki_ power source proved untenable




Combining that with that they've decided the most ki-ish thing in D&D won't use that power source, and nor will other things that might be lumped in there like samurai, it seems pretty safe to say ki is dead.


----------



## FireLance (May 11, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> I think it may be intentional.  At 21st level, a monk's _flurry of blows_ effectively becomes a close burst 1 that deals auto-damage, and by that point, the auto-damage is probably equivalent or better than the extra average damage of an additional d6 or d8.  I do think that there is an oversight in the power though, since it has the Implement keyword but doesn't deal Wis Modifier + Implement damage.



I'd say _flurry of blows_ is actually the equivalent of the extra damage abilities that most other strikers have. The actual extra damage dealt improves more slowly than a rogue's sneak attack or a ranger's quarry, but the number of targets it can affect increases by tier.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> Broadly speaking, what do the monk at-wills do?




*Dancing Cobra*  Does normal damage, plus extra if the enemy makes an OA on you this turn. Move component=speed+2.

*Dragons Tail* Lower damage, knocks prone. Move component=swap places with adjacent ally or prone enemy. 

*Cranes Wing* Normal damage plus push. Move Component=jump check with +5 bonus and no limit on distance. 

*Five Storms* close burst 1, lower damage, move component=shift 2 squares. 

  All the at-wills look really solid, which makes Human monks pretty tempting.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I don't think flurry of blows gets implement damage, as its static damage and magic only usually adds to damage rolls (similar to the warlord power).




Ahhh, I knew it didn't sound right to add the enhancement bonus to flurry of blows.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Y'know, this Full Discipline thing, I LIKE it, I really do...but it's a simple enough mechanic that it could work for every class.  It would've made everyone's at-wills a lot cooler.


----------



## Stoat (May 11, 2009)

Have we made it 8 pages without anyone mentioning the return of Dragon's Tail Cut?


----------



## jonshaft (May 11, 2009)

What if the monk's implement was a focus item like prayer beads or a talisman of some kind? Wouldn't this simplify the monk's unarmed enchantment issue as well as allowing for bonus magic item fun to be applied? It could allow for increased unarmed strike capability without having to dust the monk's knuckles with residium which can make for difficulty at the dinner table.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (May 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Y'know, this Full Discipline thing, I LIKE it, I really do...but it's a simple enough mechanic that it could work for every class.  It would've made everyone's at-wills a lot cooler.



I like the fact that different classes have different mechanics.  It helps add contrast among the classes, especially for those who think that the power framework has made all classes look the same.

I also agree with those who like the increased complexity of these later, more exotic classes.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 11, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Broadly speaking, what do the monk at-wills do?




They are two powers rolled into one.

They have a standard action attack and a special move action. When you use a monk at-will you can use one, the other, or both actions in the same turn. You can't mix-and-match any powers that are tagged "full discipline" in the same turn without an action point (no using five storms to shift, then crane's wings to push). However, you can combine a full discipline and a normal power (melee basic attack + shift from five storms, or dragon's tail knock prone + normally shifting 1 square).


----------



## Pseudopsyche (May 11, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I don't think flurry of blows gets implement damage, as its static damage and magic only usually adds to damage rolls (similar to the warlord power).



Hmm, so what does the Implement keyword in Centered Flurry of Blows signify?  It's true that this power phrases the damage in an unusual way, but I suspect that the monk still gets to add her enhancement bonus to damage.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (May 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> Have we made it 8 pages without anyone mentioning the return of Dragon's Tail Cut?




It doesn´t matter anymore.~admin: don't make fun of other peoples positions, thanks. ~


----------



## Ruined (May 11, 2009)

I like the class writeup for the most part. The only thing that bugs me is the unwieldy keyword 'Full Discipline'. I've never had a problem with 4e's joined words like Feywild, but this one sounds particularly clunky. Maybe if the powers weren't called Disciplines themselves...  

Have they used Focus as a keyword anywhere so far?


----------



## vagabundo (May 11, 2009)

jonshaft said:


> What if the monk's implement was a focus item like prayer beads or a talisman of some kind? Wouldn't this simplify the monk's unarmed enchantment issue as well as allowing for bonus magic item fun to be applied? It could allow for increased unarmed strike capability without having to* dust the monk's knuckles with residium *which can make for difficulty at the dinner table.




I really like this image.. I imagine he has a little pouch, like climbers chalk, and "dusts up" before every fight.


----------



## deadsmurf (May 11, 2009)

Does it bother anyone else that Religion isn't on the monk's class skill list?
It really bothers me.  Especially with a Paragon path that requires it in the article.
I mean not all monks are religious, but many are, and usually quite learned.

I'm also not a fan of the fact that the weapon enhancements on a monk's fists will almost always be lower than the rest of the party because you can't find magic fists as treasure, and have to spend the actual money to enchant them.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 11, 2009)

I read the design article. I have no problem with ki disappearing. Psionics and Ki were always internally focused magic to me any way (except for the external gems and a few other things). I glanced at the playtest. It looks interesting.

I really don't like that some classes can buy AC (armor, and then take feats to increase damage or do other things) but that a class like this may need to take a feat to boost AC. I'm no "balance" expert, but it seems to me that this class could pale at higher levels partly because of this. This is also an advantage in finding magic weapons, as opposed to applying rituals to your body. I can imagine, however, how a monk could practice and internally focus his body/mind to recreate the effect of a magic item somehow. I'll have to think about this.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2009)

Ruined said:


> I like the class writeup for the most part. The only thing that bugs me is the unwieldy keyword 'Full Discipline'. I've never had a problem with 4e's joined words like Feywild, but this one sounds particularly clunky. Maybe if the powers weren't called Disciplines themselves...
> 
> Have they used Focus as a keyword anywhere so far?




My hunch is just like martial powers are known as "exploits", psionic powers are going to be known as disciplines.


----------



## jasin (May 11, 2009)

Vendark said:


> It didn't have to have anything to do with grouping Asian classes together. It could have been the opposite of that: coming up with new classes to show that "ki" doesn't have to be exclusively Asian in flavor. Missed opportunity.



What class would be ki-powered, but not Asian in flavour?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2009)

deadsmurf said:


> I'm also not a fan of the fact that the weapon enhancements on a monk's fists will almost always be lower than the rest of the party because you can't find magic fists as treasure, and have to spend the actual money to enchant them.




I agree here - it means that a monks magic weapons will typically be up to five levels below that of other party members - that's quite a lot!


----------



## Nymrohd (May 11, 2009)

I like disciplines for psionics. It has an AD&D feel to it (and I liked AD&D psionic flavor even if the rules were . . . challenged). I think the Full Discipline keyword has a good effect but is a poor keyword as far as the phrase is concerned, and the sidebar explaining it should be rewritten for greater clarity.


----------



## jasin (May 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Probably the Warden, because the designers had to look at the 3e druid and go, "Well, he does so much. So lets split his weapon-using ass-beating schtick into one class, his healing thing into another class, and his shapeshifting spellcasting into a third class."



I've never seen anyone say that the 3E druid had a weapon-using schtick before. Sure, they had shillelagh and flame blade, but everyone I know considered that just something to fill time until they finally got wild shape.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 11, 2009)

jasin said:


> What class would be ki-powered, but not Asian in flavour?




Many people thought incarnum could be translated into ki (since they are both based on the power of souls). That alone could allow for several classes and certainly was not Asian in flavor. And yeah, apart from monk and sohei, none of the other Asian classes were really related to Ki to begin with.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 11, 2009)

jasin said:


> I've never seen anyone say that the 3E druid had a weapon-using schtick before. Sure, they had shillelagh and flame blade, but everyone I know considered that just something to fill time until they finally got wild shape.




Yup the warden has his own schtick. And frankly the shaman did not get the druid's healing, he had his own healing to begin with. Shamans have been there for a long time. Druids simply lost certain aspects or had them diminished, they did not give them away.


----------



## Mentat55 (May 11, 2009)

I could imagine a feat:

Living Weapon
Prerequisite: Monk
Benefit: You gain the ability to use the Enchant Item ritual, but only for the purposes of enchanting your monk unarmed strike.  Your level is considered 4 higher for purposes of this ritual.


----------



## FDM (May 11, 2009)

DarwinofMind said:


> "Psionic magic" ewwww   Dear WOTC Please please don't utter those words together again.




In what way are psionics not magic? I'm not getting this here.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 11, 2009)

I am not sure, but if _Enchant Magic Item_ works, couldn't _Transfer Enchantment_ not also work? I think that will be something that playtesting will - at a minimum - add. 

A further option would be some items similar to the Bard instruments - something that's normally not a implement/weapon, but grants similar benefits. For example, a Headband of Martial Arts (a homebrew item my group used for the 3.x Monk), Sandals of Tiger Leap or Monks Belt. Of course, they would then also give unique, monk-flavored abilities and not just your run-of-the-mill magic weapon enchantment.

I suspect that the lack of damage increases in the at-willl is an error, or at least something that will not survive play-testing. 


Overall, I like it.
In a way, the Monk reminds me of the Barbarian - a class that adds its own "mini-subsystem" to its power mechanics that no one else gets, and helps to differentiate classes - without destroying the whole game balance concept behind the system. 

Another example how much there is still to explore in the game system, even if it initially seems very straight-jacketed.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> In what way are psionics not magic? I'm not getting this here.




  I can see people preferring the term "Psionics", but Psionic Magic isn't any different then saying Divine Magic, or Primal Magic.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Hmm, so what does the Implement keyword in Centered Flurry of Blows signify?  It's true that this power phrases the damage in an unusual way, but I suspect that the monk still gets to add her enhancement bonus to damage.



 I think it will allow you to add properties as well



Ruined said:


> I like the class writeup for the most part. The only thing that bugs me is the unwieldy keyword 'Full Discipline'. I've never had a problem with 4e's joined words like Feywild, but this one sounds particularly clunky. Maybe if the powers weren't called Disciplines themselves...
> 
> Have they used Focus as a keyword anywhere so far?



   how did they miss, and if I am not mistaken noone else had said yet, STYLE...it would have been a better key word



deadsmurf said:


> I'm also not a fan of the fact that the weapon enhancements on a monk's fists will almost always be lower than the rest of the party because you can't find magic fists as treasure, and have to spend the actual money to enchant them.






Plane Sailing said:


> I agree here - it means that a monks magic weapons will typically be up to five levels below that of other party members - that's quite a lot!




you guys are both missing it then. Adventures Vault has a rit to transfer enchantments...find a +2 Flaming longsword at level 4...just transfer it to the fist, and if the fist was already +1 then now the long sword is +1 and can be sold or disenchanted...everyone wins an no one is behind the party.

     If no one has the rit caster (like in my saterday game) then just pay 200 gp 175 for the scroll and 25 for the components...Heck my warlord walks around with 3 scrolls of transfer and 75gp of resdium just so I can durring short rest transfer things.



> *Transfer Enchantment*
> _With great care and concentration, you carefully strip
> magical power from one object to imbue it in another._
> Level: 4 Component         Cost: 25 gp
> ...


----------



## darjr (May 11, 2009)

I really like the idea of some magical piece of kit for unarmed attacks.

Like a silken scarf, confusing and distracting, hiding the killing punch. Or weighted wrist bands. Or straps of dragon hide wrapped around their arms, that would work kinda like a weight lifters belt. Or a small bar of precious metal held hidden within clenched fists. An ornate counter weight strapped to their backs to give them more centrifugal force doing spin kicks.

Maybe some of those things could add a bit of AC as well.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 11, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ki was a stupid idea from the start, and I'm glad they're axing it.  Psionic magic comes from inner manifested power.  Ki was...well, inner manifested power, but I guess it was _asian_ inner manifested power.  Glad to see they realized what a bad idea that was.
> 
> Do you know what a ninja is?  It's a rogue.  That's what a ninja is.  Seriously, it's a freaking rogue.  Samurai?  Fighter.  There's no reason to give them alternate power sources.
> 
> Monk as psionic is a good fit.  I can see it either as psionic or as martial, and they went with psionic, so uh, yeah.




You hit the nail right in the head here Cirno (and God knows we don't agree very often)

I remember that Rolemaster used to offer the following explanation (paraphrased from what I remember, bear with me):

Arcane is magic distilled from the universe

Divine is magic channeled from the deities

Psionics is magic squeezed out of your own being

In D&D 4E you could extrapolate that to say that Primal is magic channeled from the living things in the world and Martial...

...

...Martial is magic channeled from your own badassery?  




Keefe the Thief said:


> It doesn´t matter anymore. _"Waaah, Dragons´ Tail Cut!!!1!"_ threads were only ways of saying _"me fear that Anime will touch unborn D&D edition and corrupt forever into Naruto °° "_.




Well, to be fair, in my group we find it very entertaining when, while describing the effect of the power used, the character shouts the name of the power*.

"Rain! Of! Blooooows! Swosh! swish! Snicker-snack!"

Don't know if this has Naruto-fied our D&D experience, but it's a lot of fun

*With encounter and daily powers only, by preference



deadsmurf said:


> Does it bother anyone else that Religion isn't on the monk's class skill list?
> It really bothers me.  Especially with a Paragon path that requires it in the article.
> I mean not all monks are religious, but many are, and usually quite learned.




Agreed, lets send an email to WotC



deadsmurf said:


> I'm also not a fan of the fact that the weapon enhancements on a monk's fists will almost always be lower than the rest of the party because you can't find magic fists as treasure, and have to spend the actual money to enchant them.




Here I disagree... it is quite simple to add a "scroll with a secret technique that imbues your fists with lightning and crumbles after reading" to the treasure parcels


----------



## Nymrohd (May 11, 2009)

How do you explain all these wierd implements as treasure though? Unless you fight NPC monks regularly that is.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> How do you explain all these wierd implements as treasure though? Unless you fight NPC monks regularly that is.




the same way I explain rods, and fullblades and excution axes and totems...

 If the party cares I go out of my way to make sure there are explnations, if thye dont then i guess this orc killed a monk last week...


----------



## Somebloke (May 11, 2009)

So...the best races for monks will be elves, half-orcs and shifters....


I think I need a lie-down.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 11, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> How do you explain all these wierd implements as treasure though? Unless you fight NPC monks regularly that is.



Narrative Needs. 

You only need to explain them once about every 5 levels or so. Treasure Parcels don't have to be found on a dead body, they can be a gift from someone, or an agreed payment upon rendered services. I think you should be able to fill a campaign with 6 of such opportunities (and the "dead body" thing is not out, either.)


----------



## Piratecat (May 11, 2009)

Somebloke said:


> So...the best races for monks will be elves, half-orcs and shifters....



What would your preference be?

Humans, of course, and githzerai (which are still great.) I think elves and half-orcs are fine for monks. Ability score bonuses aside, I'm sort of at a lost for thematically better races.


----------



## 77IM (May 11, 2009)

I don't miss the Ki power source.  It was always a one-class pony.

But I wish they had made monks Martial instead of Psionic.  Psionics developed a very distinct flavor over the course of 3e (it featured crystals and bending spoons and some pretty freaky stuff involving ectoplasm) and I don't think monks fit with that very well.

A Martial power source fits better with the source material for monks (they are even called MARTIAL artists).  In the kung-fu and wuxia genres, martial artists use their extreme training to perform feats bordering on the supernatural.  I know some people would not like the idea of a Martial character flinging fireballs, but I'm fine with it, especially at mid to high levels, and in a fantasy setting.  At least, it seems to fit better than Psionic to me.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 11, 2009)

Vendark said:


> I'm not so sure. Which came first, the idea for the warden or the idea for a separate primal power source? If they hadn't decided to make primal its own power source, is there an impetus to come up with the warden at all?"



Now that I'm playing a warden, I have to say that they are pure gold. They really get the feel of the defender of the woods and their powers are amazing. I was never a Fighter-type, and I don't think that I could play any other defender, now.


----------



## OchreJelly (May 11, 2009)

Stoat said:


> Have we made it 8 pages without anyone mentioning the return of Dragon's Tail Cut?




I was gonna post the same thing but you beat me.

Personally, I would prefer to see "Feather Me Yon Oaf!" be a power name, but I can't have everything.  Given all the crazy power names out there, I think peeps have gotten used to it (or not) and moved on.

And on that note, I fully expect the pseudosciencey naming to come back.  Telekinesis is already a term used in the game (see Beholder).  I'm sure there are others in monster abilities...

And the "psionic magic" thing never bothered me.  In fact, beyond power points wasn't it mechanically the same in 3E?  I.e., dispel magic worked on psionic effects as well as magic effects?


----------



## Moon_Goddess (May 11, 2009)

FDM said:


> In what way are psionics not magic? I'm not getting this here.



Becuase when you look at it that way then, Arcane is magic, Divine is magic, Primial is magic, Psi is magic, Shadow is magic, 

Everything but Martial is magic, what makes martial the one power source that gets to be different?

I don't want all the power sources to be the same... I know in my campaign it won't be.


Otherwise you could simply say all power sources are "untenable" and just have 2 power source Martial or Magic everything falls into those 2.


----------



## Somebloke (May 11, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> What would your preference be?
> 
> Humans, of course, and githzerai (which are still great.) I think elves and half-orcs are fine for monks. Ability score bonuses aside, I'm sort of at a lost for thematically better races.



 Hmmm....devas or dwarves, I suppose. As well as humans. Devas especially seem perfect.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 11, 2009)

Mentat55 said:


> I could imagine a feat:
> 
> Living Weapon
> Prerequisite: Monk
> Benefit: You gain the ability to use the Enchant Item ritual, but only for the purposes of enchanting your monk unarmed strike.  Your level is considered 4 higher for purposes of this ritual.



Actually, the article states that "monk unarmed strikes" (MUS) can be enchanted.  It's kind of neat from a flavor perspective, in my opinion.  The monk basically spends a lot of time and resources training his body to do these supernatual things.

Now, with your level limit, you bring up an interesting point - is there a level limit on your MUS?  That is, ignoring money concerns, can a level 1 monk get a level 10 enchant on their MUS?  I feel like it should be "no," but by RAW it's not impossible.

EDIT - Making my post a little more clear.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 11, 2009)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> Actually, the article states that monks can enchant their "monk unarmed strikes" (MUS) automatically.




Where is that mentioned? I completely missed that if that's the case.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 11, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Where is that mentioned? I completely missed that if that's the case.



It's on page 67:



> The Enchant Magic Item ritual ... can be used to turn your monk unarmed strike into a magic weapon.  For example, through that ritual, you could have a +1 flaming monk unarmed strike.



I may have been unclear when I said "automatically."  What I meant was, they didn't need to pick up a feat to enchant their fists, not that they automatically get a free enchant.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## jasin (May 11, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Many people thought incarnum could be translated into ki (since they are both based on the power of souls). That alone could allow for several classes and certainly was not Asian in flavor.



Incarnum had flavour?

In any case, it seems to me that the first thing to do if you want to show that the concept of ki isn't necessarily tied to Asian trappings is to stop using a real world Asian word for it.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2009)

I like how the "new" psionic definition fits perfectly though with past editions.

The perfect monk is the psionically powered Githzerai race....


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> Incarnum had flavour?




  It was very...blue. Does that count as flavor?


----------



## Errantocracy (May 11, 2009)

jasin said:


> Incarnum had flavour?
> 
> In any case, it seems to me that the first thing to do if you want to show that the concept of ki isn't necessarily tied to Asian trappings is to stop using a real world Asian word for it.




About what I was going to say, so I'm glad I waited to get to the end of the thread to say it.

Ki (Japanese, coming from chi in Chinese) means "power" more or less; it's the same character used to mean healthy or electricity, and has nothing to do with the soul. Saying that your power source is energy is about as bad as saying your power source is power. Of course, this is an "Asian" word for power, so perhaps this suggests that for ki users, their power source is Asian power?

If we take a step back and look, we can see that Martial power source comes from the body, and the Psionic power source comes from the mind. Ki could, arguable, come from either - since both are already taken, though, it doesn't leave much room for ki. Other than, of course, as the resting place of all classes Asian. Other than being a bit silly, this also means that many DMs might think that ki has no place in their campaign, and simply disallow all associated classes.

I appreciate the argument made in regard to a power source inspiring new classes, since the Warden is probably the result of this process and is awesome. However, I think that any non-Asian ki class you could think of could probably appear under Psionics instead. Ki would only inspire more Asian classes, like the samurai as a ki defender. And really, the samurai is nothing more than a fighter with a different set of clothes.

That said, I disagree completely with whoever claimed that a ninja is exactly a rogue. The ninja, especially in modern parlance, is strongly associated with supernatural powers (as in, does not belong in the martial classes), and a distinct fighting style and flavour. Though I tend to dislike the idea of including classes with "Asian" (generally Japanese) names (like the aforementioned samurai) I think the ninja is now common enough in western culture to appear beside wizards and clerics.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 11, 2009)

With the correct amount and type of drugs, of course.


----------



## Hellzon (May 11, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> What would your preference be?
> 
> Humans, of course, and githzerai (which are still great.) I think elves and half-orcs are fine for monks. Ability score bonuses aside, I'm sort of at a lost for thematically better races.




Maybe dwarves, but yeah, I agree with you. I even recall seeing elven monks in 3.x illustrations, so that's nothing new. *Eladrin* is another possibility, but they're a decent fit. (Dex bonus, teleporty, not shabby.)

My iconic monk is a Gith(zerai)*, and that's a splendid fit, so all is well. 

(BTW: Githzerai in the article cover, and they're good fits for the class, as well as iconic. Can we say the Githzerai is all but guaranteed as a PHB3 race?)



77IM said:


> I don't miss the Ki power source.  It was always a one-class pony.
> 
> But I wish they had made monks Martial instead of Psionic.  Psionics developed a very distinct flavor over the course of 3e (it featured crystals and bending spoons and some pretty freaky stuff involving ectoplasm) and I don't think monks fit with that very well.




Well, the playtest has nothing about crystals and ectoplasm.

They mentioned in the development article that there are differences within sources. They mention how a Wizard studies all his life and totes a book around, while a Warlock makes a bad deal with Satan/Cthulhu/David Bowie. And let's not mention the Swordmage and Artificer (also Arcane).

I think the monk can get along with the Psion**, Psiwarrior** and whatever else WOTC adds to the PHB3 without being loaded with new age crystals.

*)Githyanki were sort of psionic before, weren't they? They turned into warrior-wizards in 4E, it seems.
**) Good guesses, I know nothing.


----------



## Obryn (May 11, 2009)

(1) I think Psionic makes absolutely perfect sense instead of "ki."  Just flavor-wise, I don't see a big distinction between D&D-style Ki and D&D-style psionics.  Two thumbs up; it's one of those things I wish I would have thought of myself.

(2) Once again, the WotC devs show why they're actually paid for this kind of stuff.  I think the Full Discipline idea is kind of brilliant; it gives the Monk a shtick that just hasn't been seen in 4e, as of yet.  I'm impressed that they are able to still come up with new stuff, and am happy that the idea well hasn't run dry yet.

(3) Overall, I really like the class.  I think it's a great concept, and I'm glad they've given us a good chance to playtest it before it's finalized.  I hope WotC takes community feedback into account.

-O


----------



## Stalker0 (May 11, 2009)

Hellzon said:


> They mention how a Wizard studies all his life and totes a book around, while a Warlock makes a bad deal with Satan/Cthulhu/David Bowie.





I now want to see the thread, "Tell us about when you made a dark pact with David Bowie"


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I now want to see the thread, "Tell us about when you made a dark pact with David Bowie"




You remind me of the babe.  

Also known as, the movie that taught women everywhere the powers of the _package pants_.



Side note: I found Incarnum *mechanics* to be fun, but the actual flavor for everything that wasn't Totemist related to be lacking.  Totemist would be more fitting in primal, anyways.


----------



## Hellzon (May 11, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I now want to see the thread, "Tell us about when you made a *dark pact* with David Bowie"




*Fey* pact, silly.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> (2) Once again, the WotC devs show why they're actually paid for this kind of stuff. I think the Full Discipline idea is kind of brilliant; it gives the Monk a shtick that just hasn't been seen in 4e, as of yet. I'm impressed that they are able to still come up with new stuff, and am happy that the idea well hasn't run dry yet.




  The more I look at the Full Disciplines, the more intriguing it is. Somebody else said it in another thread, but it effectively gives the monk a ton of utility powers relative to other classes. 

  A power like Crane's Wings isn't just a great at-will attack power, it actually gives the monk the ability to superjump at-will outside of combat, or even make two consecutive boosted jumps a round. 

  While it would probably be a rare event, you can even burn an encounter attack power just for the mobility effect. The ability to plow through difficult terrain at a higher than normal rate of movement and gain a defensive bonus to OA's with Drunken Monkey is nothing to sneeze at, and that's just the movement portion of the power.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> or even make two consecutive boosted jumps a round.




I think you can only use one Full Discipline technique once per round?  So the move action, then the standard, or vice versa, with a minor thrown in somewhere.

I dunno.  That sidebar makes my head hurt.

I'd also ditto that Incarnum was great fun as far as mechanics go, but the fluff was meh.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 11, 2009)

so if lets say my elf has Danceing Cobra can I always (atwill) move my speed+2 so then when doing over land count as speed 9???


----------



## Caliber (May 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> I think you can only use one Full Discipline technique once per round?  So the move action, then the standard, or vice versa, with a minor thrown in somewhere.
> 
> I dunno.  That sidebar makes my head hurt.
> 
> I'd also ditto that Incarnum was great fun as far as mechanics go, but the fluff was meh.




If the Full Discipline tech is At-Will, you can use it At-Will. Essentially, the wording is funny because they don't want anyone to blow one of the Encounter Fill Discipline powers, then try to double move using the move tech. 

As an aside, wasn't there a book in the 3E era that explicitly said/implicitly implied that "Ki" was just another expression of the same force that powered Psionics? I want to say maybe Complete Adventurer, around where the Ninja was discussed? Did I totally make this sidebar up in my head?


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> I think you can only use one Full Discipline technique once per round?  So the move action, then the standard, or vice versa, with a minor thrown in somewhere.
> 
> I dunno.  That sidebar makes my head hurt.




You can use the techniques of an encounter power once a round. You can use the techniques of an at-will power as many times as you want during a round.

So, you could use the Move Techniques of an at-will power twice in a round, or even more if you have ways to get extra move actions! You could even use the Techniques outside of your turn, like if a warlord used Knight's Move on you to grant you a move action on his turn.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 11, 2009)

> I think you can only use one Full Discipline technique once per round? So the move action, then the standard, or vice versa, with a minor thrown in somewhere.




  There is a stipulation with Encounter Powers that each tecnique can only be used once. With the at-will Full Discipline techniques you are free to divy them up however you wish until you run out of actions, as long as you aren't using more than one discipline per round.


----------



## Caliber (May 11, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so if lets say my elf has Danceing Cobra can I always (atwill) move my speed+2 so then when doing over land count as speed 9???




Indeed you can! Which corresponds pretty closely to what I was about to ask: for overland travel purposes, what if my Monk with the Jumping ability (something Crane?) wants to use that overland? Distance jumped isn't limited by his movement so you could possibly get some good additional movement out of it (particularly at higher levels, or with some resources invested into Jumping). Also, nothing says Wire-Fu/Wuxia like a guy traveling around the country side leaping from tree to tree, branch to branch, gliding gracefully over the serene lakes.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Caliber, that is _sweet_.


----------



## ryryguy (May 11, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I agree here - it means that a monks magic weapons will typically be up to five levels below that of other party members - that's quite a lot!




Maybe the monk's "treasure wishlist" item will be, "Enough raw residuum to give me +1 flaming fists"...

Giving out raw residuum actually would ease this problem, as long as the party doesn't squabble over it.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 11, 2009)

Obryn said:


> (1) I think Psionic makes absolutely perfect sense instead of "ki."  Just flavor-wise, I don't see a big distinction between D&D-style Ki and D&D-style psionics.  Two thumbs up; it's one of those things I wish I would have thought of myself.



I hope that the Ki-flavour bleeds back into the Psionic power source a bit - late 3.5 dialled up the pseudoscience-y psionics up quite a bit.

With the monk, it could go towards more of a "mind-over-matter" & "meditation"-style esotericism, at least for some classes (the Psion can stay all meditation + pseudoscience) - as even classes within a power source can have some spread (like... compare an Infernal Warlock with a Sorcerer).

They can totally keep the New Age Crystals, some incense, meditation and all that... just... dial down the snot... eh.... ectoplasm, okay?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Thanks to everyone who put me on the true path, so to speak.  

Me thinks those at-will movement techniques are...ah...insanely good, then.  That Crane one, for sure.  There's a Barbarian encounter utility that's just like that, only worse.  Take THAT, Barbarians.

I suppose all that movement is supposed to make up for the relatively low damage/awkward weapon/implement issues?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Pseudoscience for the WIN! *coughs* Sorry, sorry 

Hmm... How long did it take for them to release info discussing the fluff for Primal? If we got something similar for Psionics be nice.

Hmm... I wonder how well Two-Weapon Feats and Powers will work with the Monk, specifically with unarmed (since it counts as a weapon for them and all). Also, grrr... I wish they were proficient in Spiked Gauntlets.


----------



## Herschel (May 11, 2009)

Does it bug anyone else a little bit that Psionics were always powers of the mind and now they call it Psionic Magic (with magic being wielded through powers of the mind) yet the PRIMARY is a physical skill with DEX and one of the two builds SECONDARY is also a physical trait with STR? I have a hard time imagining a psionic character with mental dump stats.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Does it bug anyone else a little bit that Psionics were always powers of the mind and now they call it Psionic Magic (with magic being wielded through powers of the mind) yet the PRIMARY is a physical skill with DEX and one of the two builds SECONDARY is also a physical trait with STR? I have a hard time imagining a psionic character with mental dump stats.



My bets are the Monk is the odd-man out when it comes to stats. Mainly because of in the Design & Development article they stated:


> Sometimes, a power source defines parts of a character. In other cases, the class's legacy in the game defines most of it. In this case, psionic defines the monk's place in the world and story, but its legacy as a mobile, unarmed warrior defines its mechanics.



So, more because of what the Monk has been over the years and not the fact that it is now Psionic played a larger role with stats and such.


----------



## darjr (May 11, 2009)

A monk with a bag of residuum, used for enhancing his fists and feet just before combat. Like a free soloing rock climber drying their hands with powder. Or a bare knuckle boxer sticking his glue covered fists into broken glass before a fight.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 11, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I agree here - it means that a monks magic weapons will typically be up to five levels below that of other party members - that's quite a lot!





Actually the DMG mentions that you can give out item levels as treasure parcels. An example is that after slaying a cold monster, the fighter's +1 sword spontaneously becomes a +1 cold sword or a +2 cold sword.

You can easily do the same thing with a monk's hands. On the WotC boards someone had a nice piece of example fluff: "you have finally mastered the ____ technique. Your unarmed strikes are now +2 vicious!"


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Now that I think about it, the Barb also felt/feels quite a bit different from the other Primal classes, once we could compare it.

And considering how much I loved the other Primal classes, this gives me high hopes for Psionics.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 11, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Does it bug anyone else a little bit that Psionics were always powers of the mind and now they call it Psionic Magic (with magic being wielded through powers of the mind) yet the PRIMARY is a physical skill with DEX and one of the two builds SECONDARY is also a physical trait with STR? I have a hard time imagining a psionic character with mental dump stats.



No.  It's a little like battle clerics or avenging paladins.  For both builds the primary ability is Str, but the divine source is all about channelling the power of the gods.  Sure, both battle clerics and avenging paladins have to have at least one mental stat (Wis or Cha) be pretty good, but it seems to me that if their powers come from faith then that would be better represented by using Wis or Cha.(1)

The source describes how they get their powers.  So monks intensely train their bodies and their minds to unlock the power within.(2)  I think it's this training that matters most.  How they actually express that power in combat relies on Dex.

(1)  I actually am working on Cha-based paladins and Wis-based clerics, but I'm still not opposed to the idea of a traditionally "mental" source not relying on a mental stat.

(2)  As an aside, I'd say that all the physical training monks do is just one way to unlock the power of their mind.  It's a way to practice discipline and focus - the l33t kung fu is just a side benefit.


----------



## jdcash (May 11, 2009)

I initially was not really excited about this playtest, but am very intrigued now. 

It seems to me that there is an opportunity to expand the concept of tattoos from the AV2 excerpt to aid in the enchantment of monk unarmed strike. It also allows an easy way to tell the story of the enchantment.

A monk multiclass feat HAS to be on the way before release of PHB3.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2009)

While I didn't dislike the pseudo science psionics, I perfered the style of inner manifested power coming from either pure inner mental capabilities or meditation techniques.  I mean, they're called manifesting levels, after all ;p.

Now, I can't see the mechanics, but a few people have mentioned enchanting the monk's body itself, and I'm wondering how this could play with multiclassing.  Maybe the unarmed katana guy isn't his own class, but instead a fighter/monk multiclasser or hybrid class?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 11, 2009)

Yay! I'm glad Ki is dead. It screamed a bit "ASIAN STEREOTYPE" to me. I'm cool with it as psionics -- monks and psi have had some pretty big overlap in the past, flavor-wise: meditation, a little "wise men on mountaintops," etc. This also means that the "soulknife" can just be a monk build! 

Which might mean...

Samurai = Martial
Ninja = Shadow (AKA: Assassin)
Sohei = Martial
Shugenja = Elemental or Divine
Wu Jen = Eleental or Arcane
Shamans already covered as Primal

Yeah, I can dig that. 

The class looks solid, too. I'm glad he's a bouncing bunny rabbit of punching glee, and the "flurry of blows" finally works like it probably should've, and I'm still happy to see they're masters of the saving throws. 

And I can finally make a RAW-legal monk/barbarian who rips enemies apart with his BARE EFFING HANDS. 

That'll be fun to play as a hybrid or possibly as a multiclass.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 11, 2009)

Sohei could easily be an avenger built to be honest. Wis/Str built? Shugenja and Wu Jen are Elemental/Divine and Elemental/Primal in flavor imo.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> and I'm still happy to see they're masters of the saving throws.




Surely you mean defenses.


----------



## Cadfan (May 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Samurai = Martial
> Ninja = Shadow (AKA: Assassin)
> Sohei = Martial
> Shugenja = Elemental or Divine
> ...



More realistically, most of those will cease to exist as independent classes.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 11, 2009)

Yeah monks are likely to have great NADs.


----------



## cdrcjsn (May 11, 2009)

ryryguy said:


> Maybe the monk's "treasure wishlist" item will be, "Enough raw residuum to give me +1 flaming fists"...
> 
> Giving out raw residuum actually would ease this problem, as long as the party doesn't squabble over it.




Sounds like a quest!

The party needs to hunt down and capture a rust monster so they can feed it unneeded magic items so they can harvest the pure residuum at full value...


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 11, 2009)

Refined Bean said:
			
		

> Surely you mean defenses.




Those too! Some of those playtest powers are all: "You get to make a save!" 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> More realistically, most of those will cease to exist as independent classes.




Possibly, but monsters and classes move paper, and a lot of these concepts have enough unique hooks that you can make plenty of space in the design for them. I can't say I'll be shocked if we don't get sohei or whatever, but WotC is not looking to make the number of classes small, so if they have a reason, a solid hook, and a book to fit in, it'll see publication somewhere. Most of these are just waiting for the reason. 



			
				Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Sohei could easily be an avenger built to be honest. Wis/Str built? Shugenja and Wu Jen are Elemental/Divine and Elemental/Primal in flavor imo.




Sohei are, flavor-wise, defenders, though. I think they'd be closer to paladins, but mobile, nimble defenders, something like the monk's mobility with the paladin's divine-smite flavor and maybe an altered state of rage-like ability for the marking or somesuch.

Shugenja are, flavor-wise, divine/elemental, and their spell list in 3e tended to be striker-y. Wu Jen were arcane/elemenental, and likewise, their spell list was about dealing damage. 

I have a little pet theory that the elemental classes will fall along role lines (at least a little), however.

Earth = Defender
Water = Leader
Air = Controller
Fire = Striker


----------



## yesnomu (May 11, 2009)

It'd be hard to distinguish an Earth Defender from the Warden, and a Fire Striker from the Sorcerer, though. A Water-themed class would be pretty awesome.

On-topic: Monk looks cool! I'll add to the people wondering about its damage output (FoB ought to improve over tiers like the Sorc, I think), but I'm really interested to see them in play now. Throw it onto the pile!


----------



## RefinedBean (May 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Those too! Some of those playtest powers are all: "You get to make a save!"




Heh, I had to reread the article; you're quite right, a good amount of powers granting saving throws.

Warden|Monk hybrid = Unstoppable!  (maybe)


----------



## webrunner (May 12, 2009)

Dynamic Monk Unarmed Strikes: Your hands transform into weapons!

Adamantine Monk Unarmed Strikes: The Immortal Adamantine Fist!

Cloaked Monk Unarmed Strikes: People think you have no hands.

Paired weapon:  You get an extra hand to wield in your off hand


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 12, 2009)

Stoat said:


> Have we made it 8 pages without anyone mentioning the return of Dragon's Tail Cut?



LOL that is great they got that in there, shows they have a sense of humour. However it is a great name for a monk power, NOT a fighter power, so it ended up for the best.


deadsmurf said:


> Does it bother anyone else that Religion isn't on the monk's class skill list?



Nope I am glad (for most monks) religion is gone, my monks are focused on their bodies not on histroy/religion/arcana etc...that is for not-cloistered people who pray and learn, i.e. NOCs







> I'm also not a fan of the fact that the weapon enhancements on a monk's fists will almost always be lower than the rest of the party because you can't find magic fists as treasure, and have to spend the actual money to enchant them.



That is so a non problem, transfer magic enchantment ritual sorts that out. I always give the PCs something that is thematically good (for the baddie) as treasure, they then transfer the enchantment to their equipment. Cost a tiny bit more but not much.
And I like the idea of the monk unlocking a enhancement bonus as one of the treasure parcels...great!







Herschel said:


> Does it bug anyone else a little bit that Psionics were always powers of the mind and now they call it Psionic Magic (with magic being wielded through powers of the mind) yet the PRIMARY is a physical skill with DEX and one of the two builds SECONDARY is also a physical trait with STR? I have a hard time imagining a psionic character with mental dump stats.



Umm isn't the monk WIS primary? Only the secondary stats are physical, which makes sense. Your mind is what gives you power over your body but you still improve your body through exercises etc.


----------



## Cadfan (May 12, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> That is so a non problem, transfer magic enchantment ritual sorts that out.



Doesn't apply to monks.  The Unarmed Combatant entry doesn't say that a monk's unarmed attack counts as a weapon for the purpose of rituals, it says that it counts as a weapon for the purpose of the specific ritual Enchant Magic Item.  This is going in the list for my eventual feedback response.


----------



## Grydan (May 12, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Umm isn't the monk WIS primary? Only the secondary stats are physical, which makes sense. Your mind is what gives you power over your body but you still improve your body through exercises etc.




No, DEX is primary for all monks, according to the article.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 12, 2009)

whoops back to reading for me, I read it late last night, obviously hasn't stuck in my head properly til lunch time today, as to the rituals that is just common sense that both will apply.


----------



## Ethalias (May 12, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Umm isn't the monk WIS primary? Only the secondary stats are physical, which makes sense. Your mind is what gives you power over your body but you still improve your body through exercises etc.




Nope, Dex primary, Wis is secondary along with strength for another build (as yet unpublished). 

I like it a lot. I like that the powers don't seem tied to one build through bonuses but just use stat mods for secondary benefits, meaning one can choose to be balanced down the line in terms of power selection and even statpoint distribution.

Surprised at how infrequently Githzerai have been mentioned.. I for one also thought the chances of them being a PH3 race have shot up.  I know nothing of Dark Sun; are Githzerai any more prominant in that setting? Githyanki are if I've picked that up right..

I have no problem with Monks being Psionic, especially as they've avoiding going to far in that direction for the sake of it.  It seems like a convenient and most applicable catagory (given Ki's disappearance, which personally I welcome).

The only issue that struck me is that of the enchanting of a monks fists.. I remembered the transfer enchantment ritual, and there are lots of good story ways to work around it (as demonstrated by the ever-creative ENWorld crowd) but despite that it still doesn't sit easily with me.  Instinctively I prefer the idea of some form of object, though I have no suggestions as to what.. But it strikes me as a little fiddly having to go through rituals to make the treasure applicable to a character every time.

Still, that withstanding, I'm very happy.

(Phew! Sorry to ramble, someone should put me back in my box!)


----------



## Hawke (May 12, 2009)

Weights of the Flaming Fist +1
These heavy weights appear to be made out of an unknown stone and have runes inscribed on them describing a training routine. As the monk makes the motions described  the runes slowly wear and the understanding of the Form of the Flaming Fist solidifies in the Monk's mind. 

After an hour of training, the Monk's fists are now treated as Flaming +1 and any other magical enhancement is lost. The weights no longer bear the runes and cannot be used again.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 12, 2009)

I'm betting the the other Monastic Tradition will be called Iron Fist.  Vaguely inspired by the "Hard" traditions of martial arts as opposed to the "Soft" traditions that the Centered Breath is.

Also it's obvious that the Centered Breath tradition is the build with the minor in Controller.  I think that since the "Iron Fist" is the strength build, it's going to be more of a pure striker.  I wouldn't be surprised if they do higher damage output against single targets, since they aren't minoring in Controller.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 12, 2009)

I find it amusing that we were all speculating that the Monk would be psionic back in the start of 4e until the PHB came out and disproved it.  But now they've reversed that decision.


----------



## FireLance (May 12, 2009)

Ethalias said:


> Instinctively I prefer the idea of some form of object, though I have no suggestions as to what.. But it strikes me as a little fiddly having to go through rituals to make the treasure applicable to a character every time.



Well, martial arts exponents in the source literature are always chasing after manuals that describe secret techniques and skills, so perhaps it could be a book or scroll of some kind? In a way, this also ties in neatly with the 4e idea of ritual scrolls which anyone can use to cast a ritual. However, instead of a generic enchant item ritual, it applies a specific weapon enchantment to a monk's unarmed strike. Ideally, of course, a monk would never lose any of these enhancements, and can switch between them either as a minor action (the same as any other weapon user) or during a minor rest (spent practicing the katas of the new technique/enhancement he wants to adopt).


----------



## darjr (May 12, 2009)

Hawke said:


> Weights of the Flaming Fist +1




Arrggg! Gotta come back and give you XP... but...

yoink!

That is really cool.


----------



## Mentat55 (May 12, 2009)

Can anyone identify the race of the monk in the front, on the first page of the playtest article?  The one to the right and back is clearly a female githzerai.  Is the lead one supposed to be an earthsoul genasi, or a funny looking deva?


----------



## Lojaan (May 12, 2009)

I'd say earthsoul genasi most definitely.

I'm so loving this class.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 12, 2009)

This development by WotC brings back the 1st Edition nostalgia for me!

My friend's favorite PC back then was a Psionic Monk from the pages of Dragon Magazine. It seemed like a good fit then and continues to now.

As for having a psionic character without a primary mental stat I think to another one of my favorite RPGs. Shadowrun had Physical Adepts which were very similar in concept. They used magic to become better warriors.

The only things that I agree need to be clarified are the Transfer Enchantment Ritual (although that will be available in my games no matter WotC's response) and more importantly whether implement enhancement bonuses add to the Flurry of Blows damage.


----------



## Flobby (May 12, 2009)

*The manuscripts!*

They should have secret manuscripts for monk magic items! (I don't think there is a Kung Fu movie that doesn't have them). If the monk has a manuscript with a secret technique (magic item power) it gives a magic bonus to their unarmed attack. 

Note: I haven't seen the actually playtest as I don't have a subscription...


----------



## rowport (May 12, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Ahhh, I knew it didn't sound right to add the enhancement bonus to flurry of blows.




I disagree; Flurry of Blows has both the "Implement, Psionic" keywords.  That means it adds implement bonuses.  Very straightforward.


----------



## Cadfan (May 12, 2009)

rowport said:


> I disagree; Flurry of Blows has both the "Implement, Psionic" keywords. That means it adds implement bonuses. Very straightforward.



No, that only applies to damage rolls.  This isn't a roll, so it doesn't apply.  PHB pg 55, 225, 275, 276, etc.  Enhancement bonuses apply to damage rolls, not to all assignments of damage.

The PHB says this by just saying "damage rolls" every time it talks about adding enhancement to damage, but I believe that WotC has further clarified for those who don't find this sufficiently convincing.


----------



## rowport (May 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, that only applies to damage rolls.  This isn't a roll, so it doesn't apply.  PHB pg 55, 225, 275, 276, etc.  Enhancement bonuses apply to damage rolls, not to all assignments of damage.
> 
> The PHB says this by just saying "damage rolls" every time it talks about adding enhancement to damage, but I believe that WotC has further clarified for those who don't find this sufficiently convincing.




D'OH!  I am convinced.  And, now being convinced, I also agree with the several folks here who are skeptical about why the Monk striker damage adder does not scale with level.    (I thought it was just expecting the increase of enchantment bonuses.)


----------



## The Grackle (May 12, 2009)

rowport said:


> D'OH!  I am convinced.  And, now being convinced, I also agree with the several folks here who are skeptical about why the Monk striker damage adder does not scale with level.    (I thought it was just expecting the increase of enchantment bonuses.)




A monk is a minion-killer, so extra damage isn't really necessary.  Non-minions (the ones who don't explode with one hit) get slid around and, because Flurry is an implement power, whatever effects the monk has enchanted his fists with.  The damage is tertiary.


----------



## 77IM (May 12, 2009)

That doesn't seem like it fits the definition of a striker very well at all.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Felon (May 12, 2009)

A few observations (some of which have no doubt already been made, but my head would explode if I tried to read every post preceding this one). 

1) Like the barbarian and the avenger, I feel that at least a token few ranged attack powers would be nice to have in the mix. I think it's a big mistake to make a class melee-only. It's bad juju to have to multiclass just to get even a little range.

2) The class description mentions Strength being a secondary ability score, but it's not reflected in any of the powers. I guess that's a common trait of the playtest classes, but I would like to see monks get some benefit from being ripped and chiseled.

3) Throwing out the ki power source and making monks psionic? I say, throw out the psionic power sourcer and have psions and psychic warriors use the ki power source.

4) The Design & Development article for the monk bothers me. They acknowledge that weapon users have ways to beef up their damage dice, and thus so should monks. This begs the question as to why they feel implement powers ought to be shortchanged on damage, while all weapon powers deserve some way to pull ahead?


----------



## The Grackle (May 12, 2009)

77IM said:


> That doesn't seem like it fits the definition of a striker very well at all.
> 
> -- 77IM




The playtest shows the "Centered" Flurry of Blows.  I'd assume the other version is more single-targety. (Maybe multi attacks?)


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 12, 2009)

Felon said:


> 2) The class description mentions Strength being a secondary ability score, but it's not reflected in any of the powers. I guess that's a common trait of the playtest classes, but I would like to see monks get some benefit from being ripped and chiseled.



That is 'cos the playtest, like all the others, only includes one 'build' i.e. DEx+WIS monk, not the DEX+STR monk archetype.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 12, 2009)

Felon said:


> 1) Like the barbarian and the avenger, I feel that at least a token few ranged attack powers would be nice to have in the mix. I think it's a big mistake to make a class melee-only. It's bad juju to have to multiclass just to get even a little range.




Wot no shuriken? Hopefully they've not shown some shuriken based attacks!

(I suppose that being Dex based for attacks they are automatically good at ranged Basic attacks, FWIW)



Felon said:


> 3) Throwing out the ki power source and making monks psionic? I say, throw out the psionic power sourcer and have psions and psychic warriors use the ki power source.




This would have been my personal preference too. "Ki" has been genericised enough now that it doesn't scream "oriental" to me. It is a better fit for 'internal discipline and power' than psionics which still seems sci-fi to me.



Felon said:


> 4) The Design & Development article for the monk bothers me. They acknowledge that weapon users have ways to beef up their damage dice, and thus so should monks. This begs the question as to why they feel implement powers ought to be shortchanged on damage, while all weapon powers deserve some way to pull ahead?




Preach it brother! The issue of weapon users getting continual bumps to their damage while the implement users don't is... disappointing to say the least.

Cheers


----------



## Hellzon (May 12, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Wot no shuriken? Hopefully they've not shown some shuriken based attacks!




They get shuriken proficiency, at least. (And sling prof for Western monks.) Just not much in the way of ranged powers.

Technically, a shuriken works as an implement for "close burst/blast" powers, but that's wonky to build an entire character around.


----------



## Xris Robin (May 13, 2009)

Actually, it doesn't count as an implement for monks.  Or weapon.  The only thing monks can do with shuriken and slings IS a ranged basic attack.  (Or MC into Rogue.)

Shuriken and slings aren't monk weapons, which are also the only thing they can use as implements.  Which is a little weird.  I'm not sure why they can use a weapon that can't be used with a single power.  I mean, that works for Wizard, because they attack using their implements.

I am also sad about the lack of any ranged attacks.  I mean, I was seriously hoping for a Hadouken.  No fireball?  Alright, so monk isn't a 'ki' character anymore.  If I can't "ki blast" someone at least let me "psionic blast" someone.  I punch the air, and the shockwave hits my enemy from a distance.  C'mon, that's almost classic, like punching air to put out candles.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 13, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I have a little pet theory that the elemental classes will fall along role lines (at least a little), however.
> 
> Earth = Defender
> Water = Leader
> ...




I don't think so and I hope not.  I'd much prefer for all of the elemental classes to, more or less, have access to a variety of elements each, though certainly they might favor one or the other.  3-4 common damage types, at least, for different builds and concepts.  Also, I'm not sure that the classic elements are the way things will work out, anyways, since D&D relies more on Fire/Lightning/Thunder/Acid/Cold for the most part, with a bit of Poison and Force thrown in, when it comes to grossly physical effects.

I much prefer to see the elemental classes focus on using each element in a different way, such as:

Fire Defense: Fire damage when marked and not attacking the marker, fire-themed power, speed, or defense increases ("tempering"), explosive sliding attacks.

Fire Control: Smoke screens, walls and pillars of fire, magma traps, suffocating ash bursts.

Fire Striker:  Set a foe on fire, further hits cause escallating fire damage and make for easier hits, ash in their eyes so they go blind.

Fire Leader:  Adding fire damage to allies attacks and blazing trails behind them as they move, providing fire resist, giving them breath weapon attacks.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 13, 2009)

Christopher Robin said:


> I mean, I was seriously hoping for a Hadouken.  No fireball?




Multiclass.


----------



## 77IM (May 13, 2009)

If there's no _ki blast_ power or whatever, why on earth is this class Psionic instead of Martial?

 -- 77IM


----------



## Herobizkit (May 13, 2009)

I was *JUST* going to ask about the fabled Hadouken, and the poster above me echoed my thoughts about the _ki blast_.  Psionics, energy attacks, and running up walls etc. always went hand-in-hand for me on my Psionic Monk builds from 3.x.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 13, 2009)

I hope they eventually get a built that can do energy blast style things.


----------



## The_Fan (May 13, 2009)

They're mostly close blast or burst powers, but there's a lot of Force being thrown around. One is fluffed to be you throwing an energy blast and then following it to the point of impact, but mechanics-wise you move and then produce the burst (man, that makes it sound like a fart.)

There are some flaming fists, cold kicks, a poisoned buddha palm-type attack, etc, and one really awesome utility that lets you run up walls at will. Pretty clearly mystical and not of the Martial source.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 13, 2009)

There's no Hadouken, but those other moves that Ken and Ryu could do in Streetfighter 2 are in this playtest.  One of them is described as "punching in the air" and another is a close burst kick where you can shift before attacking.


----------



## DMShoe (May 13, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Preach it brother! The issue of weapon users getting continual bumps to their damage while the implement users don't is... disappointing to say the least.



working on this.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 13, 2009)

DMShoe said:


> working on this.




_Noice!!!_


----------



## twilsemail (May 13, 2009)

77IM said:


> That doesn't seem like it fits the definition of a striker very well at all.
> 
> -- 77IM




It seems to me that the arrival of the Sorcerer changed that definition, though I could be mistaken.


----------



## Jack99 (May 13, 2009)

DMShoe said:


> working on this.




Awesome!

Edit: I can already picture it: Oversized Wands; costs a feat to wield in one hand, or else two hands. Any power channeled through an oversized wand ups the damage dice by 1 step.


----------



## Felon (May 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Awesome!
> 
> Edit: I can already picture it: Oversized Wands; costs a feat to wield in one hand, or else two hands. Any power channeled through an oversized wand ups the damage dice by 1 step.



I think Plane Sailing came up with the right idea a long time ago: have the type of implement reflect the damage dice. Thus, a wand generates smaller damage dice than a staff, but perhaps offers greater accuracy.

As it stands, the goal of making choice of implement as important as choice of weapon seems unfulfilled. Giving wizards implement mastery is all well and good, but whether my warlock picks a wand or a rod seems largely just a matter of taste rather than mechanics. And Dual Implement Wielding feat was a pretty big blow to staff users of all kinds.


----------



## Felon (May 13, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Multiclass.



Multiclassing is a fairly lukewarm set of mechanical options, so utilizing it as a solution to something that could just as easily be baked in to a class is pretty unappealing. I guess I could see it for the manaball, but whipping shurikens is inherently a monky option.

Maybe a paragon path could open up some options for channeling ki into pure energy.

And again, I entreat WotC to keep the ki power source in lieu of the psionic power source, rather than vice versa.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 13, 2009)

Felon said:


> Maybe a paragon path could open up some options for channeling ki into pure energy..



I've been pondering the idea of having Mind Blades being a more universal trait for Psionics. Something that could be picked up by all classes. I could see it as something that counts towards Implements and some sort of bonus. The Mind Blade could be made into the shape of whatever Weapons the character is Proficient with.

So in this case, if you took that feat. You could whip Mind Blade shurikens about and use that with your Disciplines.


----------



## vagabundo (May 13, 2009)

DMShoe said:


> working on this.




A drive-by posting.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 13, 2009)

DMShoe said:


> working on this.
> 
> Stephen Schubert
> Lead Developer, WotC RPG R&D




Glad to hear it! 

May I point you to my houserules on the issue thread if you want any extra inspiration


----------



## Stormtalon (May 13, 2009)

Caliber said:


> Indeed you can! Which corresponds pretty closely to what I was about to ask: for overland travel purposes, what if my Monk with the Jumping ability (something Crane?) wants to use that overland? Distance jumped isn't limited by his movement so you could possibly get some good additional movement out of it (particularly at higher levels, or with some resources invested into Jumping). Also, nothing says Wire-Fu/Wuxia like a guy traveling around the country side leaping from tree to tree, branch to branch, gliding gracefully over the serene lakes.




This nails it -- 4E is now offically the Naruto* RPG....  

But seriously, I'm lovin' the monk and its flavor -- can't wait to see the whole thing, plus the other stuff coming in PH3.

*(how the bloody blue blazes is it that nobody's made this joke in 14 pages?  Come ON people!)


----------



## Campbell (May 13, 2009)

twilsemail said:


> It seems to me that the arrival of the Sorcerer changed that definition, though I could be mistaken.




There is no pure definition of striker that can possibly fit sorcerers, rogues, archery rangers, two weapon rangers, and barbarians. Rather, I'd argue that strong damage and mobility are both components of a striker, and that some strikers focus towards one end or the other. 

Note: I left Avengers and Warlocks out because they're mutants - The Avenger doesn't really fit into any of the 4 roles. They're sort of harriers that serve to frustrate a single opponent and fit somewhere between Defender and Striker. Warlocks just kind of suck - not by a huge degree, but they still suck.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 13, 2009)

I notice that the PHB definition is



> *Striker (Ranger, Rogue, Warlock)*
> Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack



.


----------



## Jack99 (May 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> I think Plane Sailing came up with the right idea a long time ago: have the type of implement reflect the damage dice. Thus, a wand generates smaller damage dice than a staff, but perhaps offers greater accuracy.




I guess I need to remember to mention when I use sarcasm, since over-sized wand wasn't clue enough. I agree that PS's idea is great (without  having seen it), since it's pretty much what I had considered doing imc.

Edit: I guess my comment might have sounded a tad snarky. That was not the intention. Thanks for mention PS's house rules. I haven't seen them, and if they are as good as you say, they should save me some time.


----------



## Rechan (May 14, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I've been pondering the idea of having Mind Blades being a more universal trait for Psionics. Something that could be picked up by all classes. I could see it as something that counts towards Implements and some sort of bonus. The Mind Blade could be made into the shape of whatever Weapons the character is Proficient with.
> 
> So in this case, if you took that feat. You could whip Mind Blade shurikens about and use that with your Disciplines.



Maybe a multi-class option, like how any martial class can take the Weapon multi-class things from Dragon?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Maybe a multi-class option, like how any martial class can take the Weapon multi-class things from Dragon?



That could be a good way of handling it. Especially since it could mean more unique properties for the Mind Blade without overpowering the feat(s).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> Multiclassing is a fairly lukewarm set of mechanical options, so utilizing it as a solution to something that could just as easily be baked in to a class is pretty unappealing. I guess I could see it for the manaball, but whipping shurikens is inherently a monky option.
> 
> And again, I entreat WotC to keep the ki power source in lieu of the psionic power source, rather than vice versa.




I won't go into a discussion on MCing here, but I disagree and think that people have not explored it enough yet because of its feat cost.

I was replying to the manaball part, not the shurikens. But were shurikens really a main part of the monk repretoire? IME monks threw shuriken about as often as the greatsword-wielding-fighter used his longbow. IOW, only when he had to.

As for ki vs. psionics, I prefer psionics. It encompasses more ground than ki. I don't see ki users taking mental dominion over an enemy. But I do see psionic users buffing their combat ability (psychic warrior, soulblade, Shadowrun's physical adepts [I know, not technically psionic, but closer to psionic than ki]). Plus, psionics has been a part of D&D longer than any in-game concept of ki has been. And I believe for the first time in 4E psionics won't be an arguably-broken subsystem of the game that drove some people away from it in previous editions.


----------



## balard (May 14, 2009)

WotC, please, hear the feedback. Hadouken was the most homebrew thing stuffed into monks. Throw him a bone a let him fireball from day one. 

If they are smart, they cram as mush Street Fighter moves in the powers as they can. Hurricane Kick make a neat Daily power(as in hit, push, shift, hit, push, shift... any here played the Street Fighter RPG?)


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Why is it there are so many strikers, and those seem to be the most popular and fun classes? Hmf. I think it leads to a desire for an ALL STRIKER PARTY WOO.




ALL STRIKER PARTY WOO!

Rogue!
Monk!
Avenger!
Ranger!
Sorceror!
Barbarian!
Warlock!

All battles over in 5 rounds or less... one way or the other, anyway...


----------



## chaotix42 (May 14, 2009)

balard said:


> WotC, please, hear the feedback. Hadouken was the most homebrew thing stuffed into monks. Throw him a bone a let him fireball from day one.
> 
> If they are smart, they cram as mush Street Fighter moves in the powers as they can. Hurricane Kick make a neat Daily power(as in hit, push, shift, hit, push, shift... any here played the Street Fighter RPG?)




Tatsumaki Senpukyaku is pretty much in there already as Three Winds Kick (17th lvl encounter power). It fits perfectly.

I will also take a Hadouken as an at-will power.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 14, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Tatsumaki Senpukyaku is pretty much in there already as Three Winds Kick (17th lvl encounter power). It fits perfectly.



I noticed that right away, but remember there's also hybrid classing at the moment.  A fireball is a little out there for what the monk is now, but they could get a ranged push attack which would match the feel of the monk better.


----------



## Felon (May 14, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I won't go into a discussion on MCing here, but I disagree and think that people have not explored it enough yet because of its feat cost.



That it costs a feat just to do a one-for-one swap-out of powers, which in many cases, uses ability scores aren't your best (making it an uneven swap)? Yep, that's one problem. That 11th level paragon paths bestow a bevy of abilities on a character while paragon multi-classing doesn't is another clear inequity.



> Plus, psionics has been a part of D&D longer than any in-game concept of ki has been. And I believe for the first time in 4E psionics won't be an arguably-broken subsystem of the game that drove some people away from it in previous editions.



There's a certain value to preserving legacy concepts, but it is pretty finite IMO. It's akin to the concept of "needless symmetry" that 4e boldly reined in. Psionics in D&D is one of those loose screws from an era of D&D that incorporated a lot of esoterica. Anyone remember the Boot Hill sections in the core 1e books?


----------



## Jack99 (May 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> That 11th level paragon paths bestow a bevy of abilities on a character while paragon multi-classing doesn't is another clear inequity.




I wonder if it might be possible to create a set of abilities/bonus that would work as a bonus for anyone who picks up paragon multi-classing.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> That it costs a feat just to do a one-for-one swap-out of powers, which in many cases, uses ability scores aren't your best (making it an uneven swap)? Yep, that's one problem. That 11th level paragon paths bestow a bevy of abilities on a character while paragon multi-classing doesn't is another clear inequity.




The cost of the feat gives your character versatility.

Making your character MAD when you choose non-synergous classes has been an issue since point-buy became the prevalent means of generating ability scores and your class's abilities actually keyed off your prime stat. A fighter/caster in previous editions needed a good Str/Con/Dex and a good Int/Wis/Cha (maybe less so as we go back in editions). There are still utilities that require no attack roll that you could pick up that could synergize well with a character concept you have in mind.

Paragon Multiclassing isn't needed. You can retrain lower level powers picked up through multiclassing as you gain in levels to access higher level powers from your chosen multiclass while still gaining access to your PP powers. And you now have more PPs available to you because you multiclassed (and you gain this benefit with the very first feat which most agree *is* worth the cost).

So, I disagree and I think people are still too shocked by the "sticker price" to look into how multiclassing in 4E can benefit their character or its concept without automatically screwing themselves. Once I get a chance to get out from behind the DM screen I plan to prove my theory to my players.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> There's a certain value to preserving legacy concepts, but it is pretty finite IMO. It's akin to the concept of "needless symmetry" that 4e boldly reined in. Psionics in D&D is one of those loose screws from an era of D&D that incorporated a lot of esoterica. Anyone remember the Boot Hill sections in the core 1e books?




Yep. That and Gamma World. It was fun. My players and I still remember playing Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Dungeonland, and Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. Quirky stuff that made the game a blast. We used 1E psionics too! 

Then the game got all serious and stuff. And we started to realize how broken and unfun (to us) some stuff was. But I still like psionics and there is a larger fanbase for it than Asian settings if 3E WotC releases are any indicator. So I have been waiting for a version of psionics that doesn't push at the boundaries of brokenness and I'm confident 4E will deliver that. I like Asian-themed play too, but I don't see the need for a power source built on that theme.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 14, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The cost of the feat gives your character versatility.




Versatility vs. Power has never been that great of a dichotomy for balance.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 14, 2009)

Leatherhead said:


> Versatility vs. Power has never been that great of a dichotomy for balance.




If you choose a power from a class that synergizes with your chosen class, then it is well worth the cost of a single feat in 4E. Feats in 4E aren't worth as much as they were in 3E*. My contention is that the versatility *has* some ingrown power to it, so overall you aren't shorting your character in its power level (and even if you are losing power it is at most depriving yourself of 3 feats which doesn't put your character too far behind the power curve to the point of making a weak character). Obviously the majority disagree with me. My own players disagree with me. When I test my theory as a player I'll either prove them right or wrong. Maybe when that happens I'll start a thread here detailing my experiences with multiclassing.

*One example springs to mind. Not necessarily meant to prove that V=P, just a 3E to 4E example. In 3E you could do a whirlwind attak through feat choice. In 4E a non-fighter can gain the same option by MC into Fighter and chosing one of the Fighter "close burst 1" powers. Many people considered the cost of WA to be too high back then, but thought it a cool concept for their PC and still took it. MC now offers some of those same options, sometimes at a lower cost.


----------



## Felon (May 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I wonder if it might be possible to create a set of abilities/bonus that would work as a bonus for anyone who picks up paragon multi-classing.




It seems to me that just as we have paragon paths races in PHB2--which are indifferent to the character's base class--we could likewise have them for paragon multiclassed characters. Why shouldn't a multiclassed paragon character get some neat benefit for spending an action point? 


Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The cost of the feat gives your character versatility.



OK, I multiclassed my warlock with wizard. It's the only remotely good multiclassing option available because my best stat is Con and my second-best is Int. How has my world opened up? What wizard at-will is worth having as an encounter (bearing in mind the attack and damage roll is effectively -2 relative to my warlock powers)? What wizard encounter, utility, or daily is worth both a feat and a warlock power of the corresponding type?

Classes get versatility from multiclassing by virtue of their base class being needlessly hemmed in to begin with. The barbarian multiclasses as ranger just to have an attack he can use with his throwing axe. The monk multiclasses as rogue just to have some use for his shurikens. That's two feats gone, and the "feats aren't all that good anyway" argument is swiftly going the way of the flumph as more books come out. I know human warlock is all feated out, and seriously wants his mutliclass feats back.

You ought to get some benefit in addition to swapping out a power. The notion of providing to additional powerful feats that have multiclassing as a prerequisite has me intrigued.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> OK, I multiclassed my warlock with wizard. It's the only remotely good multiclassing option available because my best stat is Con and my second-best is Int. How has my world opened up? What wizard at-will is worth having as an encounter (bearing in mind the attack and damage roll is effectively -2 relative to my warlock powers)? What wizard encounter, utility, or daily is worth both a feat and a warlock power of the corresponding type?




I'm not sure whether this is a rhetorical question or not, but I'll offer one answer 

The infernal warlock in my campaign multiclassed as a wizard in order to get scorching burst as an encounter power, because if he manages to curse a bunch of mooks, it is great having an extra area attack spell to zap them with.

Wouldn't necessarily work for everyone, but works for him.

Often multiclassing isn't worth extra power-swap feats though. My 7th level wizard is multiclassed as a cleric purely because "Divine Oracle" would be an ideal class for the direction I want to take him in. Every time I look at the cleric vs wizard utility or encounter powers I find myself saying "nah, the wizard ones are better at this level"


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2009)

Felon said:


> OK, I multiclassed my warlock with wizard. It's the only remotely good multiclassing option available because my best stat is Con and my second-best is Int. How has my world opened up? What wizard at-will is worth having as an encounter (bearing in mind the attack and damage roll is effectively -2 relative to my warlock powers)? What wizard encounter, utility, or daily is worth both a feat and a warlock power of the corresponding type?




It depends alot on how you've built your character and what you want to do with him. I don't even necessarily agree that wizard is your only remotely good multiclassing option. Looking at stats isn't the end-all be-all of the MC choice. How the powers you choose through multiclassing interact with the abilities you have is more important to me. The question is too open-ended for me to answer. You might as well ask me for retirement planning advice. Without knowing your details and retirement goals any advice I gave would be just as general as what I have been saying about MC on this thread.



Felon said:


> Classes get versatility from multiclassing by virtue of their base class being needlessly hemmed in to begin with. The barbarian multiclasses as ranger just to have an attack he can use with his throwing axe. The monk multiclasses as rogue just to have some use for his shurikens. That's two feats gone, and the "feats aren't all that good anyway" argument is swiftly going the way of the flumph as more books come out. I know human warlock is all feated out, and seriously wants his mutliclass feats back.




Your "needlessly hemmed in" is "properly focused" in some peoples' eyes. Probably even the designers. The barbarian doesn't need an attack power for his throwing axe, nor does the monk need one for his shuriken. Those are options that the average barbarian or monk will use only when then can't get face-to-face with their enemy and a basic ranged attack usually suffices. If you want the option to attack at range more often then I see that as exactly what the multiclass feats are meant for.



Felon said:


> You ought to get some benefit in addition to swapping out a power. The notion of providing to additional powerful feats that have multiclassing as a prerequisite has me intrigued.




Most feats are passive. Multiclass feats are of the few that give you an active ability. The benefit you receive is access to an ability you would otherwise not have. Adding anything more would make the MC more powerful than other feats.

A couple examples of synergy:

Rogues benefit from having Combat Advantage over their enemies. Ranged rogues have to go through some work to gain CA regularly. Not many rogue powers attach conditions to an enemy that would grant him CA. Multiclass into a class that does have such powers to gain powers that daze, stun, etc his opponents to synergize with his sneak attack.

Warlocks can only curse the closest enemy. They are also squishy and usually want to avoid combat. Blitzing the enemy spellcaster could be dangerous for them. Multiclassing into powers that help them get closer to a protected enemy and back out again could help a warlock that wants to be able to hit the back line enemies and still benefit from his curse damage.

Or you may just want to multiclass becasue you have a cool concept and aren't worried about the power curve. It's much more difficult to make a character that falls to far below the power curve. You have to intentionally try to make your PC suck (like taking powers that key off an ability score of 8). The power disparity between the master min-maxxer and the casual players in my home group is barely noticable in 4E (the difference in 3E became untenable for me as DM in comparison).


----------



## jasin (May 15, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Or you may just want to multiclass becasue you have a cool concept and aren't worried about the power curve. It's much more difficult to make a character that falls to far below the power curve. You have to intentionally try to make your PC suck (like taking powers that key off an ability score of 8). The power disparity between the master min-maxxer and the casual players in my home group is barely noticable in 4E (the difference in 3E became untenable for me as DM in comparison).



The only explanation I have for this that the minmaxing skill between the master minmaxer and the casual players is minuscule.

We've been playing 1st-8th, and the difference between the master minmaxer (playing a dwarf battle rager fighter) and the casual butt-kicker (playing a dark pact warlock) is larger than anything I've seen in 3E ever since I've had a late-3.0 dwarf melee cleric in the same party with a Con 8 fighter/cleric/paladin with +1 LA.

I'd expect 4E multiclassing is a particularly vicious trap. Suppose you have an 18 in your primary stat and 14 in your secondary. 14 isn't great, but it's not terrible, right? They did say that the math was done so that you'd need about a 16 in your primary stat, so you can afford a -1 for your multiclass powers, which aren't your focus, right?

Which puts you at -2 to attack compared to your primary class' powers, while WotC is publishing feats to bring up most people (y'know, those with 18s) up to speed since their attack values are too low. You spent a feat to swap a power which might be useful for one which will hit some... 1/3 of the time? God forbid you took an implement power if you're normally using weapons, such as a paladin trying to get some area effects from multiclassing into cleric (in which case you're also missing out on the trained skill).

To me this seems much like the multiclassed cleric/paladin from 3E: if you don't know exactly what you're doing, one of the more sensible-sounding multiclasses might end up about equal to shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2009)

jasin said:


> The only explanation I have for this that the minmaxing skill between the master minmaxer and the casual players is minuscule.




No, it's not. Viable challenges in 3E became nigh-impossible. What would challenge the min-maxxer would auto-kill the casuals and what would challenge the casuals was a cake-walk at best for the min-maxxer and at worst made the casuals irrelevant as the min-maxxer overshadowed them.



jasin said:


> We've been playing 1st-8th, and the difference between the master minmaxer (playing a dwarf battle rager fighter) and the casual butt-kicker (playing a dark pact warlock) is larger than anything I've seen in 3E ever since I've had a late-3.0 dwarf melee cleric in the same party with a Con 8 fighter/cleric/paladin with +1 LA.




Dwarf battle rager is mighty powerful, but it doesn't take a min-maxxer to make one. A casual player can fall right into the same power without trying very hard. We've played 1st-11th so far and while the DBR (played by our "second-best" min-maxxer) is hard to take down without artillery foes, the feylock (played by our most casual player) has never been over-challenged nor made irrelevant by the DBR or the main min-maxxer's ranger.



jasin said:


> I'd expect 4E multiclassing is a particularly vicious trap. Suppose you have an 18 in your primary stat and 14 in your secondary. 14 isn't great, but it's not terrible, right? They did say that the math was done so that you'd need about a 16 in your primary stat, so you can afford a -1 for your multiclass powers, which aren't your focus, right?
> 
> Which puts you at -2 to attack compared to your primary class' powers, while WotC is publishing feats to bring up most people (y'know, those with 18s) up to speed since their attack values are too low. You spent a feat to swap a power which might be useful for one which will hit some... 1/3 of the time? God forbid you took an implement power if you're normally using weapons, such as a paladin trying to get some area effects from multiclassing into cleric (in which case you're also missing out on the trained skill).




You can choose powers that don't rely on you hitting. Some powers have Effects that occur whether you hit or miss. Utilities don't attack anything. If you do multiclass for attack powers you can do so into a class that uses the same stat to attack as your own. A Monk multiclassing into Rogue for ranged attacks will use Dex for either power.




jasin said:


> To me this seems much like the multiclassed cleric/paladin from 3E: if you don't know exactly what you're doing, one of the more sensible-sounding multiclasses might end up about equal to shooting yourself in the foot.




I agree that you have to know what you're doing. But I don't think that a player who spends all four feats to MC AND uses Paragon multiclassing in any semi-thoughtful way is going to be anywhere nearly as hosed as a 3E Paladin 10/Cleric 10.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 15, 2009)

This comes back to the problem that felon mentions for his warlock. Infernal or con based warlocks; unlike fighters, clerics, paladins, warlords, rangers (who can pretty easily choose multiclassing powers which will work effectively off their key ability)


----------



## Pseudopsyche (May 15, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If you choose a power from a class that synergizes with your chosen class, then it is well worth the cost of a single feat in 4E. Feats in 4E aren't worth as much as they were in 3E*. My contention is that the versatility *has* some ingrown power to it, so overall you aren't shorting your character in its power level (and even if you are losing power it is at most depriving yourself of 3 feats which doesn't put your character too far behind the power curve to the point of making a weak character). Obviously the majority disagree with me. My own players disagree with me. When I test my theory as a player I'll either prove them right or wrong. Maybe when that happens I'll start a thread here detailing my experiences with multiclassing.



I would certainly agree that versatility has the _potential_ to be powerful.  However, I also suspect that versatility also gives you many sub-optimal choices.  I strongly suspect WotC was very conservative with multiclassing, since it's a very broad rule that allows the combination of powers from two arbitrary classes, and it must be balanced against all the class powers that WotC ever releases.  It looks to me like they chose to allow a few good multiclassing options and many more mediocre ones, instead of allowing many decent options and a few broken ones.  Admittedly, I haven't spent a heck of a lot of time experimenting with concrete multiclass builds.


----------



## Jack99 (May 15, 2009)

Felon said:


> It seems to me that just as we have paragon paths races in PHB2--which are indifferent to the character's base class--we could likewise have them for paragon multiclassed characters. Why shouldn't a multiclassed paragon character get some neat benefit for spending an action point?




That's probably the best way to model it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> This comes back to the problem that felon mentions for his warlock. Infernal or con based warlocks; unlike fighters, clerics, paladins, warlords, rangers (who can pretty easily choose multiclassing powers which will work effectively off their key ability)




Just using the keywords "Effect" and "Constitution" in the Compendium and doing a quick search of heroic tier powers I find the following powers that key well off of Constitution and may be a better choice than equivalent powers the warlock can choose without multiclassing depending on what you want your warlock to do:

Barkskin - Druid Utility 2
Boundless Endurance - Fighter Utility 2
Unstoppable - Fighter Utility 2
Shroud of Awe - Invoker Utility 2
Fear No Elements - Swordmage Utility 2
Triumphant Vigor - Warden Utility 2
Phantom Structure - Artificer Utility 6
Laugh it Off - Barbarian Utility 6
Indomitable Shift - Barbarian Utility 6
Ode to Sacrifice - Bard Utility 6
Song of Conquest - Bard Utility 6
Unbreakable - Fighter Utility 6
Daring Shot - Fighter Utility 6
Unicorn's Touch - Swordmage Utility 6
Variable Defense - Swordmage Utility 6
Runic Resistance - Artificer Attack 7
Flamewall Strike - Swordmage Attack 7
Form of the Stone Sentinel - Warden Attack 9
Wellspring of Renewal - Barbarian Utility 10
Warding Vines - Warden Utility 10
Earthstride - Warden Utility 10


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 15, 2009)

Interesting that only 4 of those alternatives existed in the original PHB...

I don't know whether any of those have the limitation that the Con based bonus only applies if you have one of the specific base class flavours (like some of the Int based effects in warlock powers might look attractive to wizards until you realise that you only get the Int based effect if you are infernal pact or something)


----------



## Felon (May 15, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Your "needlessly hemmed in" is "properly focused" in some peoples' eyes. Probably even the designers. The barbarian doesn't need an attack power for his throwing axe, nor does the monk need one for his shuriken. Those are options that the average barbarian or monk will use only when then can't get face-to-face with their enemy and a basic ranged attack usually suffices. If you want the option to attack at range more often then I see that as exactly what the multiclass feats are meant for.



By what virtue does someone decide for every barbarian or monk what they need? If a fellow player is looking through the barbarian just for one lousy ranged encounter power, he's probably the best arbiter of what he needs. Maybe they feel they need a counter to immobilizes, slows, dazes, and similar anti-melee effects; neutralizing the movement of a melee-only character is as crippling as crit-immunity ever was to a rogue in 3e.

When the pool of powers to draw from is small, the "properly focused" argument has merit, but with the size of the pool of 4e powers, "focused" is just putting positive spin on a lack of options--especially considering that a single given power can have both melee and ranged options. In fact, the rogue and ranger both have a balance of melee and ranged options--are they "improperly focused"?



> Most feats are passive. Multiclass feats are of the few that give you an active ability. The benefit you receive is access to an ability you would otherwise not have. Adding anything more would make the MC more powerful than other feats.



To act as if there's some metric for feats based on whether they're "active" or "passive" seems rather spurious. Moreover, you are only telling part of the story: you receive access to an ability you would otherwise not have *and* you lose access to an ability you *would* otherwise have. You don't just gain, you gain and lose. 



> A couple examples of synergy:
> 
> Rogues benefit from having Combat Advantage over their enemies. Ranged rogues have to go through some work to gain CA regularly. Not many rogue powers attach conditions to an enemy that would grant him CA.



See, this remark is a sign of dated material, as is the "feats aren't that powerful in 4e" assertion. Distant Advantage patched the CA-at-range issue.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I don't know whether any of those have the limitation that the Con based bonus only applies if you have one of the specific base class flavours (like some of the Int based effects in warlock powers might look attractive to wizards until you realise that you only get the Int based effect if you are infernal pact or something)




They don't. I didn't list any that require a class feature. I even excluded some that put you into a rage as the effect because I don't know the rage rules that well.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 15, 2009)

Felon said:


> What entitles you to decide for every barbarian or monk what they need?




*I* didn't decide that, the designers did.



Felon said:


> If a fellow player is looking through the barbarian just for one lousy ranged encounter power, he's probably a better arbiter of what he needs than you are. Maybe they feel they need a counter to immobilizes, slows, dazes, and similar anti-melee effects; neutralizing the movement of a melee-only character is as crippling as crit-immunity ever was in 3e.




Then within the current rules there are options for that player through multiclassing. What entitles you to say that every class should be able to combat every shortcoming? That kind of attitude of "there's always a counter" led to 3E orb spells that bypassed SR because someone thought spellcasters "needed" to get around that one thing that put a speedbump in their way.



Felon said:


> When the pool of powers to draw from is small, the "properly focused" argument has weight, but with the size of the pool of 4e powers, "focused" is just putting positive spin on a lack of options--especially considering that a single given power can have both melee and ranged options. In fact, the rogue and ranger both have a balance of melee and ranged options--are they "improperly focused"?




Well I do always look on the bright side of life....

The designers decided that the focus of rogues and rangers had room for both. Why another striker, the barbarian, doesn't have similar options built in I'm not sure. 



Felon said:


> To act as if there's some metric for feats based on whether they're "active" or "passive" seems rather spurious. Moreover, you are only telling part of the story: you receive access to an ability you would otherwise not have *and* you lose access to an ability you *would* otherwise have. You don't just gain, you gain and lose.




Or sometimes you just gain. In my feat list above you could multiclass from Warlock to Fighter to take the 2nd level utility that gives you 2d6+Con temp hit points over the warlock 2nd level utility that gives you 5+Con temp hit points. A feat for an (on average) improved (equal to or better 83% of the time) version of the warlock power. [Statistically that's a +2 bonus to the warlock version. Seems on par with most 4E feats.]

That's an objective comparison of powers that provide the same benefit to the character. There are subjectively better options depending on what you want to do with your PC.



Felon said:


> See, this remark is a sign of dated material, as is the "feats aren't that powerful in 4e" assertion. Distant Advantage patched the CA-at-range issue.




You're right I didn't know about that feat. Have a cookie.

My point still stands that there are synergies that can be had through multiclassing that aren't always available to the base class. And Distant Advantage doesn't leave your opponent with a single action per turn or no actions like Daze and Stun do. It also doesn't give you CA against the enemy artillery that isn't currently flanked by the melee PCs in the party. So that feat is one way to accomplish what you want, multiclassing is another. Which is better? That's subjective to the effect you desire. The reasons can be both mechanical and style-based.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 15, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> *I* didn't decide that, the designers did.




This comment reflects the 'designer knows best' issue which seems to run throughout 4e design, but which perhaps doesn't sit well with many people coming to 4e.

More things are locked down to specific classes because "designer knows best", unlike previous editions (especially 3e) which really opened up possibilities. If 3e had never existed, 4e would probably have seemed a natural extension from 1e and 2e classes. 3e let the genie of multiclassing and feat customisation and choices out of the bottle.


----------



## Felon (May 15, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> *I* didn't decide that, the designers did.
> 
> Then within the current rules there are options for that player through multiclassing. What entitles you to say that every class should be able to combat every shortcoming? That kind of attitude of "there's always a counter" led to 3E orb spells that bypassed SR because someone thought spellcasters "needed" to get around that one thing that put a speedbump in their way.



First off, I edited my posts a bit to remove some of "you" pronouns, which can add a needlessly hostile tone.

Regarding the 3e orb spells, 3e had the right idea. Spell resistance blunted a lot of the wizard's heavy-hitting evocation spells, so they created an option that provided some less heavy-hitting conjuration spells that bypassed SR. That's giving players options with give-and-take--do you pick the big nuke, or go for a single-target spell that bypasses a pesky defense? Now, they screwed up that approach with some other conjuration spells like Cone of Flame, which were just as heavy-hitting as the evocation spells, but that's a flaw in the execution, not the idea. 

Contrast that with 4e's approach to SR, or DR, or crit-immunity, or the undead's immunity to mind-affecting effects...They took them away, leading to fewer interesting options for both attack powers and monsters to use them against. Undead are just lame radiant-vulenrable immunity-defecient creatures. 

However, while monsters lack puissant defenses in 4e, they do have potent and interesting attacks, many of which take away movement. This should lead to some interesting choices for players mulling over their power options: should I take a ranged power just to have something in arsenal for when I'm glued down? By denying them this option, the end result is the player thinking "well, screwed again", rather than "darn, knew I should've picked the ranged attack just in case.."



> The designers decided that the focus of rogues and rangers had room for both. Why another striker, the barbarian, doesn't have similar options built in I'm not sure.



The designers simply don't know best a lot of the time. Constant updates to the core rules and patch feats like Weapon/Implement Expertise and Distant Advantage are good proof of that--but at least it shows they can address their glitches. And sometimes they're intentionally leaving a hole to be filled later with a splat book. Bards, for instance, were turned into arcane archers with Arcane Power.


----------



## Cadfan (May 15, 2009)

I'm not sure that the game actually needs encounter powers for barbarians who want to throw weapons and so on.

But I know there are certain types of players who will be angry that they don't exist, and will feel that barbarians somehow can't "really" use heavy thrown weapons if they don't have official powers that let them do special thrown weapon attacks.

And WotC makes money by selling people stuff like that.  Demand exists, supply exists, eventually there will be a point where these come up in the publication queue.

So I predict we will eventually have encounter powers for barbarians who want to wield heavy thrown weapons and get special extras, monks who want to throw shuriken and get special extras, and so on.


----------



## 77IM (May 15, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> More things are locked down to specific classes because "designer knows best", unlike previous editions (especially 3e) which really opened up possibilities. If 3e had never existed, 4e would probably have seemed a natural extension from 1e and 2e classes. 3e let the genie of multiclassing and feat customisation and choices out of the bottle.




That is very insightful.  3e was very close to having the "best of both worlds" between a class system and a more free-form system, but 4e has taken a step back in this regard.  (Not because of the multiclass-as-feats design, but because so many cool abilities, like two-weapon fighting, are intrinsically tied to particular classes.)

The conspiracy-theory explanation is that it will help them sell books:  by restricting the classes to fairly specific character types, we have to buy new books to make variant characters.  ("Oh, you could make a fighter-mage via multiclassing, but it's easier to just wait until swordmage comes out in a few months...")

The benefit-of-the-doubt explanation is that classes have always been important to D&D and that the designers decided to prioritize making the game really cool for class-oriented characters and worry about multiclassing later (hence the new material on hybrid characters).

 -- 77IM


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> This comment reflects the 'designer knows best' issue which seems to run throughout 4e design, but which perhaps doesn't sit well with many people coming to 4e.
> 
> More things are locked down to specific classes because "designer knows best", unlike previous editions (especially 3e) which really opened up possibilities. If 3e had never existed, 4e would probably have seemed a natural extension from 1e and 2e classes. 3e let the genie of multiclassing and feat customisation and choices out of the bottle.




But that's just what designers do. They have to make assumptions. Why can't Wizards heal (in 3.x)? Why should every Monk get Slow Fall? Why can't a Druid learn Fireball? Why shouldn't Cleric and Paladin spellcaster levels not stack? Why does every Rogue have Sneak Attack? Why do Bards not get a Familiar?


----------



## 77IM (May 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But that's just what designers do. They have to make assumptions. Why can't Wizards heal (in 3.x)? Why should every Monk get Slow Fall? Why can't a Druid learn Fireball? Why shouldn't Cleric and Paladin spellcaster levels not stack? Why does every Rogue have Sneak Attack? Why do Bards not get a Familiar?




Plenty of other role-playing games exist and don't have those sorts of restrictions.

In contrast, 4e's "strong" class system sometimes reminds me of Henry Ford's comment about the Model T:  "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

 -- 77IM


----------



## boolean (May 16, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Tatsumaki Senpukyaku is pretty much in there already as Three Winds Kick (17th lvl encounter power). It fits perfectly.
> 
> I will also take a Hadouken as an at-will power.




Easiest method I can see would be to use Hybrid classing to make a Monk|Avenger, taking Radiant Vengeance as your Avenger at-will power.

If your character has a decent Constitution or Charisma you could do the same with Warlock or Sorcerer. Dragon Frost would have the advantage of having a built-in push effect.


----------



## Gunpowder (May 16, 2009)

77IM said:


> Plenty of other role-playing games exist and don't have those sorts of restrictions.
> 
> In contrast, 4e's "strong" class system sometimes reminds me of Henry Ford's comment about the Model T:  "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
> 
> -- 77IM




Are those other role-playing games point buy? I assume so. Point buy works quite well for some systems but D&D has always used classed based design, classes are well ingrained in the identity of D&D. 3.X is the closest to point buy D&D has gotten. Maybe they chould have gone point buy system but can you imagine the backlash if they dropped the concept of classes? If was bad enough when gnomes weren't in the pbh and no one even likes gnomes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 16, 2009)

77IM said:


> Plenty of other role-playing games exist and don't have those sorts of restrictions.
> 
> In contrast, 4e's "strong" class system sometimes reminds me of Henry Ford's comment about the Model T:  "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
> 
> -- 77IM



Maybe. Maybe those games also have other problems. Sometimes, restrictions are good. There is a reason to have class systems, and it is not to give every character the ability to be everything he wants. The goal is to put you into a specific position, to have a unique set of abilities that sets you apart from the rest, and that allows you to focus on these. 

Some "restriction-free" games I know use point buy systems, and end with the problems of having jack of all trades and masters of none against highly specialized, optimized characters. And in most such games, the highly specialized character is more fun to play because he can reliably achieve his characters shtick. 

Restrictions can also be considered a necessity of role-playing - you are not any character, you are a specific one. You have your specialties and you have your weak areas. 
It is definitely a part of having a game - games always create restrictions, because otherwise there is no challenge in playing them. 

Of course you can ask "should every Rogue be able to sneak attack"? I say the character class might have that limitations. A character in general doesn't need that ability, and if you play a "roguish" concept that doesn't need this ability, than maybe you need a different class to represent your character. 

The real restriction in D&D 4 is that no matter what you play, you have considerable combat abilities. If you want to play a pacifist or just someone generally incompetent in battle, you can't do that in D&D 4. Heck, even in D&D 3 you got hit points, saving throw increases and Base Attack Bonus, no matter what you did. You couldn't get 10 ranks in Craft (Basketweaving) without gaining 11 hps (4 starting, +7 per level you need to get to 10 ranks).


----------



## jbear (May 16, 2009)

77IM said:


> I don't miss the Ki power source. It was always a one-class pony.
> 
> But I wish they had made monks Martial instead of Psionic. Psionics developed a very distinct flavor over the course of 3e (it featured crystals and bending spoons and some pretty freaky stuff involving ectoplasm) and I don't think monks fit with that very well.
> 
> ...



Or you could see it the other way around: they are called martial ARTISTS.

I think when someone can levitate through sheer concentration, a fine line has been crossed, a step towards a world of bending spoons...

If you want to take this into perspective using the kung fu genre, without looking any further than the flying aerial battles which are iconic, the martial ARTIST bends the laws of reality in a way that goes beyond physical training.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 16, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> They don't. I didn't list any that require a class feature. I even excluded some that put you into a rage as the effect because I don't know the rage rules that well.




The rage powers are valid because the power puts you into the rage and only ends at the end of the encounter or if you enter another rage.

Another benefit of the power swap feats is that they allow you to re-choose the power you are swapping every time you level. This isn't part of retraining, it's a feature of those feats.

With that in mind I have some multiclass options that would fit an infernal warlock very well, IMO:

[sblock=Infernal Warlock/Barbarian]Half-Elf Warlock (Infernal)
Str 13	
Con 18
Dex 11
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 16

Dilettante: Pressing Attack (Barbarian)
Feat: Berserker’s Fury [Multiclass Barbarian]
8th Level Feat: Acolyte Power [Instinctive Charge, Barbarian Utility 6]
10th Level Free Power Swap for AcP [Heart Strike, Barbarian Utility 10]
10th Level Feat: Adept Power [Black Dragon Rage, Barbarian Daily 9]
15th Level Free Power Swap for AdP [Flameheart Rage, Barbarian Daily 15]
16th Level Free Power Swap for AcP [Great Stomp, Barbarian Utility 16]
19th Level Free Power Swap for AdP [Storm Drake or Winter Pheonix Rage, Barbarian Daily 19]
22nd Level Free Power Swap for AcP [Untouched, Barbarian Utility 22]
25th Level Free Power Swap for AdP [Ash Hammer or Stone Tempest Rage, Barbarian Daily 25]
29th Level Free Power Swap for AdP [Rage of the Primal Beast or Winter Ghost Rage, Barbarian Daily 29]

The Utilities are useful for getting into close combat and/or control.

The Daily attacks all do half damage on a miss and put you in a rage that has a benefit that lasts through the end of the encounter (since you don't have another rage to enter to end the first one). The rages I would consider give bonuses to all attacks (not just melee) or defenses or effect enemies.

The initial multiclass feat is a definite benefit. An extra trained skill and +2 to all damage rolls (not just melee) 1/day for the duration of an encounter.

The other two feats depend on how you want to play your Infernal Warlock. One more feat to pick up a high damage brutal weapon would make the dailies more effective for sure (since they all still do half damage plus the EoE effect).[/sblock]


----------

