Maybe at higher levels there should be a One-Shot K.O. power, or a Two-finger Gotcha! in the Eyes power. One to render an enemy unconcious (or stunned) until they save or take damage, and one to blind an oppenent for 1 round or until they save. Heh, you're probably working on that already.
I'm thinking of leaving the Two-Finger Gotcha for when I build my Three Stooges classes...
Darn, I had been joking then, but now I really feel inclined to build some!
Great work on attempting to include my favourite class back into 4th edition, god knows why they didnt include it to begin with.
Anyway, I think you should change Ki Focus: Fast Movement to a passive monk class feature. Monks deserve to have faster speed bonus whenever they want, not just for one turn per battle. I really think this is a class defining ability.
Replace Ki Focus: Fast Movement with a one round temporary self only haste?
Great work on attempting to include my favourite class back into 4th edition, god knows why they didnt include it to begin with.
Anyway, I think you should change Ki Focus: Fast Movement to a passive monk class feature. Monks deserve to have faster speed bonus whenever they want, not just for one turn per battle. I really think this is a class defining ability.
Replace Ki Focus: Fast Movement with a one round temporary self only haste?
I think there's already a feat that gives a flat bonus to movement speed for the Monk that wants to be quick on their feet, while the Ki Focus was intended for that occasional burst of "just that bit more". Mind, I will have to check over the feats more thoroughly to confirm that that is the case.
It would be good if classes could fit multiple roles.
For example, you could have the monk split into two clear builds - one (STR-heavy) focussed on Defending, and the other (DEX-heavy) focussed on striking. People would notbe sure at first which 'type' they were going up against...
I think there's already a feat that gives a flat bonus to movement speed for the Monk that wants to be quick on their feet, while the Ki Focus was intended for that occasional burst of "just that bit more". Mind, I will have to check over the feats more thoroughly to confirm that that is the case.
Yes there is a feat that allows you to move a few squares more passively. However a monk taking this is no different then a wizard taking the same feat.
The monk speed should be set apart from other classes and taking a feat that every other class can take is not the proper solution.
The monk needs a passive speed bonus above and beyond what other classes can get. This is obviously what the designers believed true in D&D3e, and chainmail, and other games.
Yes there is a feat that allows you to move a few squares more passively. However a monk taking this is no different then a wizard taking the same feat.
The monk speed should be set apart from other classes and taking a feat that every other class can take is not the proper solution.
The monk needs a passive speed bonus above and beyond what other classes can get. This is obviously what the designers believed true in D&D3e, and chainmail, and other games.
I don't think that it necessarily follows that, just because it was that way in 3.5 and earlier, that it should be a part of 4E. Even if it were, the Rogue's Tumbling became integrated into powers, with shifting and movement being built in to them, and I imagine the Monk's increased speed may be handled in a similar way. Also, in 3.5 the Monk didn't get any flat movement bonus until 3rd level...
I'm also approaching the Monk from a Defender perspective. That might not fit everyone's tastes, but it's how I'm handling it in my campaign. With that in mind, this Monk's mobility is built into their Menacing Shadow mark.
All that being said, I do very much appreciate your input on the class and hope you continue to share your ideas and opinions as I develop it further.
i for one like this class, though the ki power source lacks originality (since you have no base to work on in such an early stage of 4th ed), this monk is pretty decent and playable, i will be playing this monk myself until i finish mine.
First off I have never been a fan of monks in a dungeons and dragons setting. The combination of explicitly oriental fantasy characters and explicitly western (cleric, bard, druid) has, IMO, brought an element to the game that requires a greater degree of suspension of disbelief than flying galleons and flinging spells on a whim. That being said I address the class froma numbers perspective.
1. I am not sure I would agree with reaching hide armor as a monk. I have not and will not put your class through the extensive playtesting process I generally do and the armor may be necessary to maintain an AC high enough to not be torn asunder by equal level normals, but it is a drastic shift from the classic oriental monk, the cinematic version, and the monk of previous DnD editions.
2. Including the Katar as a class weapon is outside the scope of existing character classes, none of which grant proficiency in a superior weapon.
3. Menacing Shadow is the only class feature that would have no numeric limitation on its function. Reducing it to n+ability modifier would put it into the scope of other existing class features. It is also unclear if you are allowing them to mark multiple foes in the event that they have attacked more than one in a round.
4. Ki Focus: Flurry of Blows is broken. Absolutely broken. With no restriction regarding what kind of weapon can be used while performing this maneuver this not only leads the way but also carries the torch, opens the gate, disarms the traps, and otherwise overcomes all obstacles to powergaming, ESPECIALLY when one starts using powerful, high level magic weapons.
5. At-will techniques a) General: The fluff in your descriptions implies that these are all intended to be unarmed attacks. However, you have not included a restriction to the attacks specifically stating so (along the lines of the ranger and rogue attack requirements). Restricting the weapon use in the attacks would make the choice to have many of them not target AC more in scope with existing class's powers, of which very few use a weapon and target a defense other than AC. To support the existing theme of two builds per class I would suggest having approximately half the techniques require unarmed attacks and the other half allow any melee weapon, with a smattering that require ranged weapons or have an additional benefit for using a particular weapon. b) Staggering Blow: This attack should either not gain a bonus to damage from dexterity or should have restrictions on the size of the creature pushed to remain in the same power range as the fighter exploit, Tide of Iron, which requires a shield and restricts the size of creature that can be pushed and only pushes one square. c) Honed Blow: Completely in balance damage wise to other defender powers. If this were intended to be an unarmed only attack increasing the frequency of damage increases would not be unbalancing. d) Fierce Blow: This technique may be slightly overpowered considering that marking an opponent only requires attempting to hit them in a previous round and it attacks against a non-AC defense. e) Nimble Blow: Likely the most mechanically balanced of your at-will techniques. If this were intended to be an unarmed attack only technique increasing the frequency of damage increases would not be unbalancing.
6. Encounter Techniques a) Hobbling Strike: Good flavor, good restriction, particularly happy to see that it implies you can perform this technique with a thrown dagger or shuruken. b) Dual Blows: Balanced in comparison to other 1st level, multiple target attacks. c) Stunning Blow: As a previous poster mentioned the name is misleading. Since your fluff describes it as striking a vital area a fluffy name encompassing that concept might be a better selection. Also, striking a vital area with a weapon is more akin to a critical strike than it is to an attack that would cause dazed, this technique would make a good choice for an unarmed attack only. d) Interfering Blow: This technique would be more in balance with other 1st level encounter powers if the benefit to an allies AC lasted only until the end of your next turn, or a save ended the effect. e) Mighty Throw: This technique is definitely overpowered. With an attack against a non-AC defense, an automatic ability modifier damage increase, a conditional ability modifier damage increase, a push or shift to the enemy which ignores creatures in the way, and the prone condition added to the target this technique is so far above and beyond anything else presented at 3rd level that I don't even know where to begin suggesting potential balancing factors other than put it at a higher level.
7. Daily Techniques a) Quivering Palm: The name and fluff of this technique suggest that it should be restricted to unarmed attacks only. b) Whirlwind of Blows: As it is this technique either crosses into the controller category or is grossly overpowered. Restricting the number of targets inside the burst, or more rationally adjacent to the PC, to 1+ability modifier would put the power level more into perspective with other 1st level powers.
8. Utility Techniques are overall balanced. The language of Step of Air is a little confusing. An athletics check determines the distance you do jump, there is not a set DC to succeed at a jump.
Summary -
Other than not being a fan of the monk class in general, this class as written is fairly well balanced when you consider the tendency of most game designers to either over- or under-power new additions and then adjust them to par. There have been many other home-brew class posts that have been so far beyond the scope of the existing classes that I couldn't convince myself it would be worth the time to make a careful analysis and meaningful response. The class features and techniques definitely fall into the defender role with some crossover into the realm of the controller or striker, with a distinctly different flavor than the fighter and the paladin. The idea of a defender that fills its role by causing action economy attacks, reduced movement range, and shadowing their mark is a very interesting idea and it may very well make its way into one of my campaigns, just not as a monk.
First off I have never been a fan of monks in a dungeons and dragons setting. The combination of explicitly oriental fantasy characters and explicitly western (cleric, bard, druid) has, IMO, brought an element to the game that requires a greater degree of suspension of disbelief than flying galleons and flinging spells on a whim. That being said I address the class froma numbers perspective.
Thank you, your Onioness. :D I found your thorough review very informative and helpful.
1. I am not sure I would agree with reaching hide armor as a monk. I have not and will not put your class through the extensive playtesting process I generally do and the armor may be necessary to maintain an AC high enough to not be torn asunder by equal level normals, but it is a drastic shift from the classic oriental monk, the cinematic version, and the monk of previous DnD editions.
I've never been particularly sold on the "wear armour, lose all abilities" of the previous editions Monk, although I can see some reasoning for balance purposes. As I think I've said on another thread, they've largely removed restrictions from creating characters that fit a concept. Heavily armoured wizard? Go ahead and spend the feats and we won't penalise you for it further. I'm sure some people could dream up concepts of Monk-style, heavily armoured characters too, for instance the firebenders of Avatar seem to come reasonably close. And while the first monks that come to mind might be orange robed wire-fu experts, there seem to be some evidence that not all were along those lines. Final Fantasy 11 seems to move more towards a somewhat armoured monk too. And I could certainly see monks worshipping amongst the tundra favouring animal hides over cloth.
2. Including the Katar as a class weapon is outside the scope of existing character classes, none of which grant proficiency in a superior weapon.
I have to admit that I hadn't really thought of it beyond the flavour of giving them the weapon, as it did seem the more Monk like without homebrewing sai and siangham. As for no class getting a superior weapon proficiency for free, the Rogue does recieve the shuriken, which is listed as a superior weapon. That said, I didn't note the "high-crit" property of the katar, so that probably will be removed.
3. Menacing Shadow is the only class feature that would have no numeric limitation on its function. Reducing it to n+ability modifier would put it into the scope of other existing class features. It is also unclear if you are allowing them to mark multiple foes in the event that they have attacked more than one in a round.
I've been bouncing back and forth a bit between allowing several marks. Afterall, if you shadow one mark, you are unlikely in most cases to be able to shadow a second, especially in the more mobile combat of 4E.
4. Ki Focus: Flurry of Blows is broken. Absolutely broken. With no restriction regarding what kind of weapon can be used while performing this maneuver this not only leads the way but also carries the torch, opens the gate, disarms the traps, and otherwise overcomes all obstacles to powergaming, ESPECIALLY when one starts using powerful, high level magic weapons.
I'm guessing you don't like it then? :P Is it the scaling in particular you have issue with on this? Having two basic attacks once per encounter (remembering that you'd be sacrificing your safety net armour boosting interrupts) doesn't seem too game breaking, especially considering the Ranger's At-Will. I was considering reducing it to two strikes until 21st level, when it becomes 3, and perhaps restricting it to unarmed, melee light blades, and quarterstaffs.
5. At-will techniques[...]
I'm pretty much going to redo all the At-Wills from scratch.
a) Hobbling Strike: Good flavor, good restriction, particularly happy to see that it implies you can perform this technique with a thrown dagger or shuruken.
Thank you.
b) Dual Blows: Balanced in comparison to other 1st level, multiple target attacks.
I had thought so for the most part, although maybe it should be against AC?
c) Stunning Blow: As a previous poster mentioned the name is misleading. Since your fluff describes it as striking a vital area a fluffy name encompassing that concept might be a better selection. Also, striking a vital area with a weapon is more akin to a critical strike than it is to an attack that would cause dazed, this technique would make a good choice for an unarmed attack only.
Yes, a bit of a rename and refluffing required there, for definite.
d) Interfering Blow: This technique would be more in balance with other 1st level encounter powers if the benefit to an allies AC lasted only until the end of your next turn, or a save ended the effect.
*Re-reads his own work* Er, there was an "until your next turn" in there somewhere, I'm sure of it... *cough*
e) Mighty Throw: This technique is definitely overpowered. With an attack against a non-AC defense, an automatic ability modifier damage increase, a conditional ability modifier damage increase, a push or shift to the enemy which ignores creatures in the way, and the prone condition added to the target this technique is so far above and beyond anything else presented at 3rd level that I don't even know where to begin suggesting potential balancing factors other than put it at a higher level.
Started coming to that decision myself from another look. Was thinking of changing it to a jujitsu-like throw into any other free space adjacent to the monk where it falls prone.
a) Quivering Palm: The name and fluff of this technique suggest that it should be restricted to unarmed attacks only.
Admittedly, it does, but there are a few powers in the books that don't always quite match fluff-to-crunch in all situations. I might think of changing it though.
b) Whirlwind of Blows: As it is this technique either crosses into the controller category or is grossly overpowered. Restricting the number of targets inside the burst, or more rationally adjacent to the PC, to 1+ability modifier would put the power level more into perspective with other 1st level powers.
That's some good advice on the 1+mod and will implement that on my re-write, although I'm not quite clear on how "targets inside the burst" differs from "adjacent to the PC". Close burst 1 was, I thought, the way they indicated all adjacent squares in 4E.
8. Utility Techniques are overall balanced. The language of Step of Air is a little confusing. An athletics check determines the distance you do jump, there is not a set DC to succeed at a jump.
Ah, I can see where that would cause some confusion: it was meant to imply that you gain the "half DC for running start" on the second jump if you already had that on your first.
Other than not being a fan of the monk class in general, this class as written is fairly well balanced when you consider the tendency of most game designers to either over- or under-power new additions and then adjust them to par. There have been many other home-brew class posts that have been so far beyond the scope of the existing classes that I couldn't convince myself it would be worth the time to make a careful analysis and meaningful response. The class features and techniques definitely fall into the defender role with some crossover into the realm of the controller or striker, with a distinctly different flavor than the fighter and the paladin. The idea of a defender that fills its role by causing action economy attacks, reduced movement range, and shadowing their mark is a very interesting idea and it may very well make its way into one of my campaigns, just not as a monk.
Again, I appreicate your considerable and considered input. I have to say, with the number of "monk as martial controller" threads that popped up, I'm surprised there isn't a bit more thought of going this way with the class, as to me "controller, but only in melee range" seems to fit the concept of Defender quite well.
I am planning a pretty major revision of the class soon, and I'll be certain to take onboard a lot of your thoughts.
The part of flurry of blows that I refer to as broken is the combination of the scaling and attack - move - attack, especially in the form of a class feature possessed by all monks. Perhaps attack - shift 1 - attack or only attack at one end or the other of your movement would lend it more balance, but my playtesting regimen is pretty time consuming and would really need 30 levels of material to work with to complete it.
Upon reading your response it had come to me that a monk wieldind a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other could effectively be considered to be dual wielding a weapon and an unarmed strike, could synergize well with multiclassing to ranger. On that note I did not see multiclass feats for your monk.
The rules regarding burst are pretty concisely detailed on p272 of the PHB. I, however misread the description of close attacks on my first read and upon further examination concede the area of effect would be identical to adjacent creatures. However with the coming splatbooks (sic, splatbooks have been ruining the game since 2E) and PHB2-3-4-however many they think they can make us buy I would watch out for feats that allow close range martial attacks to have a new extended range, much like Arcane Reach.
Otherwise fantastic work, I hope to see your rewrite on these forums sometime soon.
