1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? Yes. Well if fighters and rogue have it, the monks really should as well. They are better warriors than rogues.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? Meh. I prefer something of a ki point system but this'll do.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? They are approprate. I would like a ki blast though.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? Yes they do. FoB is classic and works. Same with SotW. Iron Wood Defence is interesting but it has that monk in a hard stance parring blow feel. Deflect Arrows is classi. Hurricane Strike is awesome. But I miss a grapling maneuver.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? I am not all there about deadly strike. I prefer it fighter exclusive. Give them sneak attack.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? Yes. Seem right.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? It gives monks a lot of MAD. I'd prefer 12+ Dex OR Wis.
Okay seriously1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?Yes. Well if fighters and rogue have it, the monks really should as well. They are better warriors than rogues.2) Do you like the implementation of daily re
How are you going to do dex OR wis? You need dex for attacks. You need both to have enough AC.
And for people who are concerned about MAD, I count only two 'big' stats. This isn't very different from other classes. Is it so wrong to expect characters to have two high stats?
How are you going to do dex OR wis? You need dex for attacks. You need both to have enough AC. And for people who are concerned about MAD, I count only two 'big' stats. This isn't very different from other classes. Is it so wrong to expect chara
How are you going to do dex OR wis? You need dex for attacks. You need both to have enough AC.
And for people who are concerned about MAD, I count only two 'big' stats. This isn't very different from other classes. Is it so wrong to expect characters to have two high stats?
12 + the higher of your Dexterity mod or your Wisdom mod
That way to can play a Str monk and have Str be your highest or second highest score.
12 + the higher of your Dexterity mod or your Wisdom modThat way to can play a Str monk and have Str be your highest or second highest score.
And for people who are concerned about MAD, I count only two 'big' stats. This isn't very different from other classes. Is it so wrong to expect characters to have two high stats?
They have two mandatory "big" stats. For every other class, the second-most useful stat is nice but not required. Con is no less useful for them than anyone else, since they're entirely melee, so if you're going to say that a fighter needs high Con, then so does the monk, and that makes 3 stats they need. Fortunately they don't need Str, too, like the 3e monk.
They have two mandatory "big" stats. For every other class, the second-most useful stat is nice but not required. Con is no less useful for them than anyone else, since they're entirely melee, so if you're going to say that a fighter needs high Con
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? It makes sense to me. Anyone who uses 'maneuvers' or special fighting techniques should be able to use expertise dice (or another expertise/spell like ability). 2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? I'm not sure that it should be ki (I've always liked short-rest recharge more than long-rest recharge). 3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? I think the abilities are appropriate, but I think that there should be alternative options. I'm not sure what these options should be, but I want them. Examples could probably be found in previous editions. 4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? I like 'em. As with everything else, I want more options. 5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? I can't see anything that doesn't seem appropriate at least for some monks. 6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? Love 'em. Exactly as I imagine a monk. 7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? Maybe, it seems like a good idea, but it is a tad MAD for the monk. I think it's a bit far since the monk will end up with primary str/dex and wis, along with a secondary in con. Wis probably needs to be a secondary. Maybe full wis should be added with no armor, wis (max 2) should be added in light armor, and then not added in medium/heavy armor.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?It makes sense to me. Anyone who uses 'maneuvers' or special fighting techniques should be able to use expertise dice (or another expertise/spell like ability).2) Do you
And for people who are concerned about MAD, I count only two 'big' stats. This isn't very different from other classes. Is it so wrong to expect characters to have two high stats?
They have two mandatory "big" stats. For every other class, the second-most useful stat is nice but not required. Con is no less useful for them than anyone else, since they're entirely melee, so if you're going to say that a fighter needs high Con, then so does the monk, and that makes 3 stats they need. Fortunately they don't need Str, too, like the 3e monk.
They don't have two mandatory big stats.
A first level monk only needs a Wisdom of 12 to have the same AC as a rogue (assuming equal Dexterity). With the default array, that would be their 4th highest stat; in other words, one of their lowest stats. In order to maintain that level of AC, you would need to boost Wis in addition to Dex (as the rogue will be boosting Dex and gaining access to better armor), but you only need to boost it by 4 points.
They have two mandatory "big" stats. For every other class, the second-most useful stat is nice but not required. Con is no less useful for them than anyone else, since they're entirely melee, so if you're going to say that a fighter needs high Con
I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. What benefit do you get from being str? It's like saying you can make a str rogue - sure, you could, but why?
1) To grab, push and knock down foes.
2) Longspear monk. Longspear is the monk's most damaging weapon
3) Str checks. Monks also have Mighty Exertion.
4) Jump length and height.
1) To grab, push and knock down foes. 2) Longspear monk. Longspear is the monk's most damaging weapon3) Str checks. Monks also have Mighty Exertion.4) Jump length and height.
My gut level response is to dislike the monk because much of his mystical pushing beyond the physical are things I'd like to see a fighter do. That said, a fighter who trains w/ monks and learns a maneuver or two sounds compelling. I'd like to see encounter versions of the ki abilities (akin to the wizard's signature spells). I think the passive abilities are fine. I know a guy from The Old Group(tm) I've played with would love the possibility of a crazy AC/tough monk. It does capture a lot of what I feel is monk-like. I get why d strike, flurry, and sneak attack are damage balanced, but I'd prefer they be a little more different.
My gut level response is to dislike the monk because much of his mystical pushing beyond the physical are things I'd like to see a fighter do. That said, a fighter who trains w/ monks and learns a maneuver or two sounds compelling. I'd like to see en
My suggestion would be to give monks more, smaller, die than the other classes.
This is definitely worth exploring. A big advantage of the XD system is that individual classes can be tailored individually - in much the same way that prior edition spellcasters had different spell progressions, XD can also have different dice progressions.
Definitely worth exploring, and the suggestion of more+smaller dice for the Monk specifically is an idea I find intriguing.
I think it would be cool if they explored alternate mechanics for pooling XD, also. I mentioned for the rogue having a starting pool that can spend until the next round thy spend in stealth. A monk could have an alternate mechanic as well. Re-focus (action) to get a pool of 6xd, maybe it won't hold up for monk. I could imagine a beserker who gets more XD as hit points diminish, or rangers who get bonuses for studying targets or preffered monster groups. Even rogues that can get them by bluff checks and/or acrobatics.
just a thought.
This is definitely worth exploring. A big advantage of the XD system is that individual classes can be tailored individually - in much the same way that prior edition spellcasters had different spell progressions, XD can also have different dice pro
Pooling XD is not something I can really get behind. I don't see the advantages, and there are heavy costs. There's depth enough in just one round of XD decisions, more rounds just means there's that much more to consider. Eventually you hit a limit. The bookkeeping gets a bit rough, as well. One-round XD is really easy on the bookkeeping: if your dice are 3d8, then you get three actual d8s, and set them aside. You roll each one when you use it, and move it to the expended pile. And no matter how many you use, they all go back to the usable pile when they refresh. Having a whole pile of d8s that shift back and forth as the rounds tick away is needlessly complicated.
Pooling XD is not something I can really get behind. I don't see the advantages, and there are heavy costs. There's depth enough in just one round of XD decisions, more rounds just means there's that much more to consider. Eventually you hit a lim
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? Expertise Dice work well for any class that could pull any of its tricks ten times in a row. As a barehanded Fighter variant, the monk falls into that category. That said, I would prefer the Fighter to be the barehanded Fighter variant. Let the monk shine on its own. It has ki, it has random superpowers - play up those, and play down the expertise dice.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? As a single-use daily ability, ki strongly reminds me of a daily spell (specifically, cure light wounds). I think the ki system could be a bit more unique. Maybe it could involve a recharge mechanic based on meditation.
Also, monks should use ki more than once per day. A single daily power is pretty weak as a class feature.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? Both abilities are appropriate to monks. The obvious ability to add is an energy attack, similar to the ones popular in a well-known anime.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? Running across walls and snatching arrows remind me of the wuxia monks. Standing in place and absorbing damage is more like a defensive fighter in plate armor, but it can work on a monk.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? I'm starting to think the maneuver list needs to be sorted by class. With three classes drawing from it, it's starting to look less like a candy box and more like an encyclopedia.
In general, I'm in favor of allowing any class access to a maneuver unless there's a compelling reason not to. Precise Shot makes sense on the monk who picks up a bow, Composed Attack works just as well without a weapon. On the other hand, Flurry makes sense on a knife-wielding fighter or rogue.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? No. These abilities represent a single character who doesn't like fear and disease. They do not represent a range of characters with myriad desires and abilities. When a class fails to represent a range of characters, it has failed as a class. It would be better to offer a selection of passive and active abilities so that anyone can find something that stays true to their character concept.
Also, flat immunities are bad form. They run the risk of an irresistible zombie plague striking the disease-proof monk and making the universe explode. Resistances are much more manageable.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? From a roleplaying perspective, it's hard to explain how wisdom helps you dodge, but I can accept it as part of the monk's magic. One of the more coherent of the monk's many superpowers. Dex and Wis look like a no-brainer, but Orzel says Str/Wis is still good, so I'll hold judgement.
Looking back over my answers, I favor monks as the go-to class for gish characters. They already blend the natural and the supernatural into a fighting style. Give it a sword, and it's a passable duskblade.
With all of those superpowers, the monk treads very close to being a "Fighter plus" class. That's probably bad.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?Expertise Dice work well for any class that could pull any of its tricks ten times in a row. As a barehanded Fighter variant, the monk falls into that category. That said,
I kind of dig the monk. I especially like the new maneuvers with upgrades as you invest more dice. Like how hurican force punch or whatever it is called becomes magical at 2 dice invested. I think it is a good mechanic and something I would like to see in all the martial classes. They might want to rephrase it from magical to push beyond human limits or superhuman or legendary but I would love it if for example vault was raised by 1 foot per die result at 1 die, 5 feet at 2 dice and 10 feet at 3 dice. It would be a fairly cool way IMO for martial classes to go superhuman while also leaving a mundane option for people who want more grounded fighters.
I'd also like some maneuvers that would cap the number of dice you oculd invest, I'm mainly thinking of things like skill mastery and mighty exertion which with multiple dice might slide too far towards making out of combat actions guaranteed.
I'm not too hip to the AC though. The problem with 2 stat depency is it really is a 3 stat dependency or heck maybe even 4 since you can't ignore con as a martial class and strength covers too many monk like skills. All those things you can't dump are harder to make decent since you need 2 stats instead of 1. I don;t have a solution off hand though so I can;t say it is terrible.
I kind of dig the monk. I especially like the new maneuvers with upgrades as you invest more dice. Like how hurican force punch or whatever it is called becomes magical at 2 dice invested. I think it is a good mechanic and something I would like t
I'm a tad underwhelmed, disappointed with the mention of Ki, that started with 3rd Ed, and I'm still not sure about Expertise/Manoeuvres yet, at first I really liked them, now I'm feeling a bit iffy.
I also like dodge missiles and evasion as class features.
I'm a tad underwhelmed, disappointed with the mention of Ki, that started with 3rd Ed, and I'm still not sure about Expertise/Manoeuvres yet, at first I really liked them, now I'm feeling a bit iffy.I also like dodge missiles and evasion as class fea
I understand why they designed it they way they did, I just think it's lame. That's my personal feeling; I would prefer an extra attack to just be an extra attack. I could see the balance factor being each attack getting a -2 to damage, I could see the big hit being the first hit rather than the first roll, I could see just full on attacks with a reduction to accuracy (though that would probably play havoc with this bounded accuracy thing - another topic for another time)
Basically anything but "one guaranteed damage hit that matters + a die that may or may not matter + a die that may or may not matter".
I'm leaning to just making them do normal damage each, but have each hit be at -2 to damage. Assuming a 20 dex by lvl 10 (and what monk in their right mind won't have an 18 or 20 dex I wanna know), that'd be 3 attacks at 4-9 damage each.
But basically I'm not satisfied with flurry and I'll make that clear on the survey. I'd like to explore what could be done that would make me happier and also preserve balance across all the classes, but if everyone here seems happy with it then I'll save my thoughts for the survey.
re: monk AC/MAD -
Right now, the monk needs the following stattage: dex - attack, damage, ac (ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY); wis - ac, ki save DCs (very important); con - HP (very important)
This is similar to what a melee cleric needs (str/con/wis), but the cleric has build options that makes str and con not as important. The monk has no option; they must have a decent wis, con and a very high dex. That in and of itself isn't a massive problem, but right now we don't really have a lot to go on. Ki use is restricted to 4/day which makes the wis based DC's importance somewhat questionable. Still, if you're hitting someone in the armour value it's important to consider how elevated that is on the priority list. Wis to AC creates an automatic perception that you need a high wis, even if you don't do anything else with the stat.
I personally don't see it as a red flag. Yellow for sure: watch this space, see if it moves. If it doesn't move then we're fine but it could easily go badly.
As for a justification for wisdom to AC, it represents a kind of prescience or 6th sense that is commonly talked about in kung fu movies. Their insight allows them to predict movements and act on instinct, so their wisdom score makes them harder to hit.
re: flurry -I understand why they designed it they way they did, I just think it's lame. That's my personal feeling; I would prefer an extra attack to just be an extra attack. I could see the balance factor being each attack getting a -2 to damage, I
I'm a tad underwhelmed, disappointed with the mention of Ki, that started with 3rd Ed, and I'm still not sure about Expertise/Manoeuvres yet, at first I really liked them, now I'm feeling a bit iffy.
I also like dodge missiles and evasion as class features.
ugh evasion... yeah I like it how it feels as a class feature, but the implications are too horrible to contemplate. Speaking as someone who still plays 3e regularly and hasn't houseruled evasion, its impact on spells is something I'd prefer to avoid this time around.
ugh evasion... yeah I like it how it feels as a class feature, but the implications are too horrible to contemplate. Speaking as someone who still plays 3e regularly and hasn't houseruled evasion, its impact on spells is something I'd prefer to avoid
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? 2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? 3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? 4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? 5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? 6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? 7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk?
1) Yes, I think the system is a perfect fit for the monk. I think it does a good job of mirroring the learning of new martial arts techniques.
2) Yes. I think the ki system should be reserved for the monk's most powerful abilities, which should be techniques that drain so much of the monk's energy he is unable to use them again until he has time to rest. And as time goes on, the monk's training allows him to use these abilities more often, but never so often that the use of one isn't an important resource management decision.
3) Yes. Those two are perfect and need not be watered down by adding tons of superfluous options. I do wish that stunning strike would have a chance to kill a target, though. Say if a target (same-size or less humanoid) has X HP or less after you hit, you can use this technique to kill them instead of stun them.
4) Yes. I think these maneuvers give the monk a unique and quasi-mystical feel without turning them into some weird anime abomination.
5) Absolutely. The whole list looks like things you would expect a D&D monk to do. I like everything except the same thing I don't like for the fighter: Mighty Exertion. Get rid of that (for the monk and fighter) and it's golden.
EDIT: Didn't realize the monk doesn't have Parry. They really need that to be a competent martial artist. Watch any martial arts movie. A good 85 to 90% of the fighting consists of blocks, dodges and parries. And that is a big part of my mental picture of what a monk should look like in combat.
6) Yes. They seem to match up perfectly with my mental picture of a D&D monk. Undaunted Strike might come a little early, but everything else seems spot on.
7) Wis to AC is just fine. I don't know why people will complain on one side, saying that the monk's AC will be too low to be effective in combat; then, on the other side, they complain that monsters need higher attack bonuses. The attack bonuses of monsters are as low as they are so that fighters can be big bad tanks, while rogues and monks and wizards and so on don't have to just assume any monster that swings at them will auto-hit.
Overall, I think this is a great version of the monk. It needs a little bit of refinement, but it looks pretty close to perfect in my opinion.
1) Yes, I think the system is a perfect fit for the monk. I think it does a good job of mirroring the learning of new martial arts techniques.2) Yes. I think the ki system should be reserved for the monk's most powerful abilities, which should be tec
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?
I'm torn. I think the system works fairly well, but I liked expertise dice being a unique advantage for fighters, not a generic mechanic for all non-caster classes. If they're going to give this to every non-caster class, they need to think of something else for fighters.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not?
No. I strongly dislike daily resources, both thematically and for balance reasons. I think Ki would work better as an encounter mechanic.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see?
They're a decent start, though I'd like to see more of them and I'd like players to be able to choose which powers they get.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see?
They're a decent start. One thing I'd really like to see are monk fighting styles, such as crane, tiger, etc.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added?
Of course. Too many to list here. I'm sure they will get around to adding alot more.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk?
Yes and no.
I don't like Way of the Fist since it makes Str a dump stat for Monks. This is more of a problem I have with finesse weapons in general, though. I think they should let you use Dex for attack only, not for damage.
I think Undaunted Strike should start out as just magical and grant the other damage types at higher levels. I don't like level 1 monks with adamantine fists.
The blanket immunity granted by Clear Mind is a bit too much, IMO. Advantage on saving throws would be more appropriate, IMO.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk?
Yes.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?I'm torn. I think the system works fairly well, but I liked expertise dice being a unique advantage for fighters, not a generic mechanic for all non-caster classes. If the
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?
I was ok with "AEDU for all" in 4e, I have no problems with Exp Dice being used for several classes. We need more class-exclusive maneuvers, though. 2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not?
Daily resources feel like a decent complement to exp dice. It's like, "here's the things you can always do, and here's the big guns. Use them wisely." 3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see?
They feel quite bland. I'd like to see some awesomeness, like... Hadoken! Shoryuken! Raging Demon! Cmon guys! Decades of fighting games and the monk still can't get cool moves! 4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see?
It's a decent start. 5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added?
Deadly Strike should probably be removed. 6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk?
Unarmed strike is ok, Monastic training is cool, Clear Mind is thematically appropriate, but I'll never understand why monks should be immune to diseases. Makes no sense to me. 7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk?
No, NO. Now every (barely optimized) monk needs to be Wis/Dex. Bad. This needs to change. Something like this would be better:
While you are wearing no armor and are not using a shield, your Armor Class equals 12 + your Dexterity modifier or your Wisdom modifier. Increase your AC by 1 at level 10.
You know what else would be cool? Let monks use Wis for attacks and damage with unarmed strike. This way, Dex is still useful, but no longer mandatory.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?I was ok with "AEDU for all" in 4e, I have no problems with Exp Dice being used for several classes. We need more class-exclusive maneuvers, though. 2) Do you like the i
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? It's okay, seems like it's going to be the Next thing to have if you're a trained/experienced combatant. The Monk needs more and smaller dice, but so do the other classes.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? I would prefer Ki as encounter resource, but not being every round (like expertise) allows for more impressive effects. So double (at least) the Ki uses a day if it must be daily.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? They are appropriate, but a player should be free to choose which ones are gained upon leveling up. Wholeness of Body is very nice. I would very much like to see Abundant Step, or something similar (I loved my teleporting 4E Monk). Also, some more condition/effects like Stunning Strike (Death Touch? a blinding attack?).
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? Again, pretty good. Not sure why Flurry of Blows is not a class feature. Hurray for Deflect Missiles! Love Iron Root Defense. Vault, however, is terrible (the inches(!) added to a vertical jump are laughable). I picture a Monks leaping as more like single-round flight-- I want a "fly the highest of all the expertise dice you roll" option. Is vault so bad because it is a maneuver and has to be "realistic?"
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? Mostly appropriate, but a Monk's Slow Fall should not have the limitations of Controlled Fall, and be more like Feather Fall. Parry needs to be added to the Monk's list. Daedly Strike is perfect for the Monk (one deadly, stone-breaking blow, rather than a flurry).
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? I like them, but, again, a player should be able to choose in what order the character receives them, and there should be more options (fly your speed, must land on your turn as a class feature, maybe).
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? I would prefer "10 + your Dexterity modifier and either your Strength or Wisdom or Constitution modifier." Very much do not like Monks being the only class with two main abilities. Also, it is weird that Strength is a dump stat for a Monk.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? It's okay, seems like it's going to be the Next thing to have if you're a trained/experienced combatant. The Monk needs more and smaller dice, but so do the other cla
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?
Yes. I feel like all noncasters should get them.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not?
I would prefer that Ki is used in manuevers as opposed to being a separate thing.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see?
I'd like to see some Ki empowered attacks beyond stunning fist.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see?
They're not bad, but I'd like to see more. Namely, I'd like to see some defensive manuevers more of the type where the monk dodges attacks, not soaks them. Ironroot defense just annoys me. The monk should be about avoiding damage, not soaking it.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added?
More or less.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk?
More or less, immunity to charms and fear is very appropriate for a monk. Undaunted strike I feel should come at a later level, level 2 just seems too early. And I never really bought into the monks are immune to disease thing, that feels like it should remain a paladin issue. I like the idea of the monk having superior mental conditioning though. He should be good against illusions and mind controls.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk?
Not really. I hate the double stat requirement mostly because it creates vast discrepancies with the class depending on how your group rolls for stats. I'd prefer it be more standardized.
Yes. I feel like all noncasters should get them. I would prefer that Ki is used in manuevers as opposed to being a separate thing. I'd like to see some Ki empowered attacks beyond stunning fist. They're not bad, but I'd like to see more. Namely, I'd
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?
- It makes sense they would get them. At this point, I wont be surprised to see everyone get some form of expertise dice.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not?
- Yes, though I would also like to see them toy with ki recharging after a short rest, (similar to the current warlock)
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see?
- Ki can step on expertise's toes a bit. Throwing a self heal with Ki was a good choice. Stunning fist was always a limited use (i think, could be wrong)
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? I would remove deadly strike and replace it with a sundering attack. Make it like a deadly strike, but perhaps like Iron Root defense, it requires you not to move that round. To off set the disadvantage, it has a stronger effect vs. inanimate objects.
- I'd like to see all the classes with manuvers get more manuvers (as in the player get more than the few they are allowed to pick up). The ones they have for the monk are decent, particularlly the ones that are stronger (in what the description does) when using more dice. This is likely a set-up to what the Pally and Ranger are going to get to do with their dice.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added?
- The seem good enough. the trick is not to make too much overlap, and when doing that, some appropriate ones may not make the cut.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk?
- Monks should have a save passive. They always had the best saving throws outside of a charisma maxed Pally. Maybe a "no save is ever lower than an X on the die" type ability. something that will still allow them to fail, but not easily, and likely not if they took Iron Will/Lightning reflexes, and saved some expertise dice that rouhg.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk?
- seems well enough, but might need something more. Maybe monk has "styles" that determine what an attribute can focus on. Hard style gets to add str damage into their attacks. Defensive style adds in Wisdom to AC. Ki style adds charisma bonus to ki/day uses. Stone style gives a damage resistance based on con (that is likely too much)
If you add other choices like that, you need to make it so if they are wearing armor, they lose out on other things, (like maybe can't access ki)
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?- It makes sense they would get them. At this point, I wont be surprised to see everyone get some form of expertise dice.2) Do you like the implementation of daily resou
So... Monks in AD&D Simple, fragile but hit hard as a truck. Monks in 3.X: A broken joke of a class that is even more useless than a Fighter in higher levels and just barely useful in lower levels. MAD, has to use specific magic items that are more expensive if they want to go unarmed, doesn't have a clear definite role which means that a Rogue or a Fighter are just better, class features that are hilariously weak (Flurry of blows comes to mind) and so on. Monks in 4e: A extremely mobile and versatile damage dealer that has several build options Monks in 5e A class that does everthing that the Fighter does, except unarmed and unarmored with a barely there ki mechanic and some really pathetic and hilarious powers (Wholeness of body comes to mind) with a sightly obtuse MAD but still MAD.
I'm glad it's better than 3.X but the class seems bland as everthing. It's literaly a Fighter with a different manuever list. There is more mechanical differences on playing a Sorceror or a Wizard than a Fighter or a Monk.
Feedback: Make the Ki mechanic more present and interesting. Remove the MAD. Make monks attack with Wis or something, he would already need something for Dex and Con anyway as any frontline fighter, HAVING to have a big score on those two plus another stat puts him behind the Fighter. Or at least make that extra stat count. Give it as a bonus to saves, maybe skills. Make it count.
So... Monks in AD&DSimple, fragile but hit hard as a truck. Monks in 3.X:A broken joke of a class that is even more useless than a Fighter in higher levels and just barely useful in lower levels. MAD, has to use specific magic items that are more exp
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Feedback: Make the Ki mechanic more present and interesting. Remove the MAD. Make monks attack with Wis or something, he would already need something for Dex and Con anyway as any frontline fighter, HAVING to have a big score on those two plus another stat puts him behind the Fighter. Or at least make that extra stat count. Give it as a bonus to saves, maybe skills. Make it count.
Attacking with Wisdom... I think I like that idea a lot-- internal training to external effect, not just a precision warrior like the rogue.
And agreed on more Ki usage.
Attacking with Wisdom... I think I like that idea a lot-- internal training to external effect, not just a precision warrior like the rogue.And agreed on more Ki usage.
Currently, as it is, it's a blatant trap choice. We doing this? We going back to Ivory Tower Design philosophy of adding blatant bad choices for new players so they can feel better and more skilled at "Character building" for picking a manuever over that one manuever?
Monks shouldn't have anything to do with Strength. Not even on the manuevers. Either rework that manuever to deal with Dex or Wis, or remove it all together.
Keeping that manuever there unchecked makes a bad precedence.
Also, that one manuever that requires Strength...Currently, as it is, it's a blatant trap choice.We doing this? We going back to Ivory Tower Design philosophy of adding blatant bad choices for new players so they can feel better and more skilled at "
I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. What benefit do you get from being str? It's like saying you can make a str rogue - sure, you could, but why?
1) To grab, push and knock down foes.
2) Longspear monk. Longspear is the monk's most damaging weapon
3) Str checks. Monks also have Mighty Exertion.
4) Jump length and height.
Yup all of those...
1) To grab, push and knock down foes. 2) Longspear monk. Longspear is the monk's most damaging weapon3) Str checks. Monks also have Mighty Exertion.4) Jump length and height.[/quote]Yup all of those...
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? Yes. God news about future multiclassing rules, I think. It makes sense from the "reaching supernatural level through physical traing" point of view.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? Keeping track of daily ressources from a game session to the next leads to errors (or cheating, of course). And Short rests to focus your Ki would be better fluff, IMO. The self-healing can be limited as an encounter abilty by only being usable at half HPs or less. 3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? They are okay. I would like to see a surge of power, giving additional expertise dice at the end of the turn. 4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? Controlled Fall : I miss the ability to fall from any height if you are close from a vertical surface. Deflect missile and no Parry is weird. A simple "Evasion" maneuver could take care about the ability to prevent damage from any source that monks IMO should have. Adding mechanics to catch and throw back missiles is funny but not really needed. Step of the Wind allowing you to sprint on vertical ropes or baby heads without hurting them is great. 5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? Parry or equivalent Dodge ability should be added, Deflect Missiles is not enough, almost a costly gadget. 6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? When a supernatural class would justify a skill Mastery, the class just gain two additional skills… The others are nothing new. 7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? My problem with the AC and all the monks DCs is the Wisdom prerequisite. I would allow the monks to use any mental ability and call it "mind modifier" in the features descriptions. And give the player's choice a link to symbolic animals, something like : Intelligence = Way of the Raven, Fox, or else. Wisdom = Way of the Elephant, Owl, or else. Charisma = Way of the Eagle, lion or else. Magical beasts or gems would be open too.
I hesitate to allow other physical abilities. Strength is OK, but Constitution is too good.
The current monk assure Dex/Wis clones, reducing the number of interesting backgrounds for players.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?Yes. God news about future multiclassing rules, I think. It makes sense from the "reaching supernatural level through physical traing" point of view.2) Do you like the imple
I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. What benefit do you get from being str? It's like saying you can make a str rogue - sure, you could, but why?
1) To grab, push and knock down foes.
2) Longspear monk. Longspear is the monk's most damaging weapon
3) Str checks. Monks also have Mighty Exertion.
4) Jump length and height.
Yup all of those...
Key Words - Balsa, Moribito
1) To grab, push and knock down foes. 2) Longspear monk. Longspear is the monk's most damaging weapon3) Str checks. Monks also have Mighty Exertion.4) Jump length and height.[/quote]Yup all of those...[/quote]Key Words - Balsa, Moribito
Each and every character you just mentioned are horrible to be represented by basic D&D rules of any edition, you are aware of this right?
Now, I could be all week recommending games where playing a Rogue, or a quick martial artist with a high (equivalent) Strength score not only works, but you don't gimp yourself out of all the other cool things you could normally do.
You might be wondering "Why oh why Cao Cao are you so hell bent on optimizationg on these particular classes man?"
It's quite easy actually to understand my point of view. Look at the casters. You can play around with them as much as you want, customize them, have all crazy atributes on them and they STILL work because their entire mechanics rely on a sole stat: Their casting stat.
While other classes need to spread, and their varied abilities all demand stuff from this spread. Add this to the fact that they will never be as versatile as said casters, and you will get frustrated eventually when playing a Strength rogue that can grab wrose than the unspecialized Fighter and it's pretty much a fighter with worse profiences and some extra skills.
I guess my point here is: Fighter and Rogues need to be more different and less atributes should be on demand for them.
Each and every character you just mentioned are horrible to be represented by basic D&D rules of any edition, you are aware of this right?Now, I could be all week recommending games where playing a Rogue, or a quick martial artist with a high (equiva
It's quite easy actually to understand my point of view. Look at the casters. You can play around with them as much as you want, customize them, have all crazy atributes on them and they STILL work because their entire mechanics rely on a sole stat: Their casting stat.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?
Pooling XD is not something I can really get behind. I don't see the advantages, and there are heavy costs. There's depth enough in just one round of XD decisions, more rounds just means there's that much more to consider. Eventually you hit a limit. The bookkeeping gets a bit rough, as well. One-round XD is really easy on the bookkeeping: if your dice are 3d8, then you get three actual d8s, and set them aside. You roll each one when you use it, and move it to the expended pile. And no matter how many you use, they all go back to the usable pile when they refresh. Having a whole pile of d8s that shift back and forth as the rounds tick away is needlessly complicated.
Fair enough, I agree with what you say. But it's worth testing maybe. I'm excited about XD, and I def. don't want added complexity. If they could ad mechanics that differentiate the XD mechanics aside from manuevers I would at least be intersted.
Fair enough, I agree with what you say. But it's worth testing maybe. I'm excited about XD, and I def. don't want added complexity. If they could ad mechanics that differentiate the XD mechanics aside from manuevers I would at least be intersted.
It's quite easy actually to understand my point of view. Look at the casters. You can play around with them as much as you want, customize them, have all crazy atributes on them and they STILL work because their entire mechanics rely on a sole stat: Their casting stat.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?
You can still play a finesse Dex/Wis cleric (probably of the trickster domain), or a defensive Con/Wis cleric and they wouldn't be underpowered options.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?[/quote]You can still play a finesse Dex/Wis cleric (probably of the trickster domain), or a defensive Con/Wis cleric and they wouldn't be underpowered options.
Yes, but there are multiple valid build choices. The monk only has one: Dex/Wis.
Edit: and a pure wis cleric is pretty playable actually. It won't use the words of power mechanic to max effect (i.e. to attack with a weapon) but it works.
Yes, but there are multiple valid build choices. The monk only has one: Dex/Wis.Edit: and a pure wis cleric is pretty playable actually. It won't use the words of power mechanic to max effect (i.e. to attack with a weapon) but it works.
It's quite easy actually to understand my point of view. Look at the casters. You can play around with them as much as you want, customize them, have all crazy atributes on them and they STILL work because their entire mechanics rely on a sole stat: Their casting stat.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?
Clerics need strength to cast spells now? No they don't.
I can create a archer cleric as much as I can create a archer rogue. Instead of manuevers that only work on combat I'd have all sorts of crazy utility backing that build up plus damage and healing. I can create a strength basic cleric as much as I can create a strength based rogue, but because of the basic profiences of the Cleric he'd be a overall better frontline character than the rogue, which synergises well with jumping, grabing and etc.
All because the focus of the class rely on a single atribute. As long as that thing is high, everthing is good to be tinkered on and tailored by the player.
Compare with the Monk. Let's look at him.
He doens't wear armor. He can't. So you need a high dex and wis atribute to even compare to other frontline fighters. Several DCs of his abilities deal with Wis, while his attack is dealt manly over Dex.
You now have two important stats that need to be your focus before you can even think spending points/placing numbers on the other attributes. Just like the Fighter would probably want either dex or str and focus all the rest on con. Except you'd probably want con as well as a monk.
As a Cleric, no matter how crazy you go, as long that Wis is high, you got it. This huge sub system exists to ensure you all the options you'll ever need, from healing, to buffing or Damage.
"But Cao Cao, spells are a limited resource!"
Not anymore, they aren't. Want to just attack with spells all day? Grab a deity that grants that as a at-will (Lightbringer comes to mind).
In conclusion: Casters just have more freedom to be build upon. Any mudane class -needs- and -thrives- for more than a single attribute high, while a caster needs one atribute high and that's it, the player is free to expand and create whatever on his mind eye from there.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?[/quote]Clerics need strength to cast spells now? No they don't.I can create a archer cleric as much as I can create a archer rogue. Instead of manuevers that only work on combat I
It's quite easy actually to understand my point of view. Look at the casters. You can play around with them as much as you want, customize them, have all crazy atributes on them and they STILL work because their entire mechanics rely on a sole stat: Their casting stat.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?
Clerics need strength to cast spells now? No they don't.
How about you address what I said, rather than something I didn't say?
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?[/quote]Clerics need strength to cast spells now? No they don't.[/quote]How about you address what I said, rather than something I didn't say?
- I agree with most of the criticism about this version of Monk found in this thread. So far too little focus on KI, they feel like fighter with less life, less damage, less armor but a bit more mobility (and only in turns when you don't use expertise to attack or something else).
- Flurry of Blows sucks big time against single targets. It need to be either different targets only but better or remove Deadly Strike from monk list but give Flurry better damage since it needs the Monk to hit multiple times.
- Monk needs a way to be the best at grappling, knocking down and disarming again. Making monks focus on Strenght in addition to Dex, Con and Wis is not the way. Pathfinder done this well by letting monks use feats that use dex for these kind of actions.
- What I really like about 5e monk is they got same attack bonus as fighters. Please keep that.
- Add monk fighting styles that give different benefits. Things like Tiger Style, Snake Style and so on.
- I agree with most of the criticism about this version of Monk found in this thread. So far too little focus on KI, they feel like fighter with less life, less damage, less armor but a bit more mobility (and only in turns when you don't use expertis
It's quite easy actually to understand my point of view. Look at the casters. You can play around with them as much as you want, customize them, have all crazy atributes on them and they STILL work because their entire mechanics rely on a sole stat: Their casting stat.
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?
Clerics need strength to cast spells now? No they don't.
I can create a archer cleric as much as I can create a archer rogue. Instead of manuevers that only work on combat I'd have all sorts of crazy utility backing that build up plus damage and healing. I can create a strength basic cleric as much as I can create a strength based rogue, but because of the basic profiences of the Cleric he'd be a overall better frontline character than the rogue, which synergises well with jumping, grabing and etc.
All because the focus of the class rely on a single atribute. As long as that thing is high, everthing is good to be tinkered on and tailored by the player.
Compare with the Monk. Let's look at him.
He doens't wear armor. He can't. So you need a high dex and wis atribute to even compare to other frontline fighters. Several DCs of his abilities deal with Wis, while his attack is dealt manly over Dex.
You now have two important stats that need to be your focus before you can even think spending points/placing numbers on the other attributes. Just like the Fighter would probably want either dex or str and focus all the rest on con. Except you'd probably want con as well as a monk.
As a Cleric, no matter how crazy you go, as long that Wis is high, you got it. This huge sub system exists to ensure you all the options you'll ever need, from healing, to buffing or Damage.
"But Cao Cao, spells are a limited resource!"
Not anymore, they aren't. Want to just attack with spells all day? Grab a deity that grants that as a at-will (Lightbringer comes to mind).
In conclusion: Casters just have more freedom to be build upon. Any mudane class -needs- and -thrives- for more than a single attribute high, while a caster needs one atribute high and that's it, the player is free to expand and create whatever on his mind eye from there.
imho, this is a huge problem, regarding casters.
(it would be interesting if spells had DIFFERENT requirements, i.e. if invisibility was dex-based cause it is rogue-ish, so it would be harder for a wis-based cleric or int-based wizard to do everything. want to do stoneskin to be tougher than a fighter?sorry, you cant do that with just Int)
as it stood in 3e, the monk: -needed strength for unarmed damage. -needed Dex for AC, init, and possibly unarmed attack. -needed Con to withstand hits. -needed Int to get skillpoints, being a skillmonkey class. -needed Wis for abilities. (jk)-needed Cha BADLY, cause with so many ability requirements he sucked so hard he needed lots of friends to avoid dying! :P
at least now the monk needs "only" dex, wis, con. "only" 3 abilities...
You mean like Clerics, who make heavy use of both Strength and Wisdom?[/quote]Clerics need strength to cast spells now? No they don't.I can create a archer cleric as much as I can create a archer rogue. Instead of manuevers that only work on combat I
Thanks for the list, notice the following: Outside of the Monk, mudane classes that decide to focus on non-physical stats are boned in a combat situation. Unless that's what you are looking for in a character (Which them is fine) you'd probably pick those as something secundary for your main stats.
I'd also like to point out how manage different stats you can combine with the Fighter and work ok in a combat situation (He can let go of Strength and focus on dexterity for his offensive stat) that you can't with a Rogue (Well I guess if you are willing to pick the inferior manuevers over the superior skills the rogue -could- do some ok Strength builds. But if you want a fast and dashing combatant, why not a dex based fighter? If it's about skills just pick a background that fits with your concept.)
Well, the Wizard "only" needs int, dex, and con. "only" 3 abilities...
A wizard could have an 8 on every single stat and a 18 on his int and he would be fine and probably several solutions to a adventure at hand.
Granted, he'd be extremely fragile and easy to hit, but he just needs his Int for his spells.
Thanks for the list, notice the following:Outside of the Monk, mudane classes that decide to focus on non-physical stats are boned in a combat situation. Unless that's what you are looking for in a character (Which them is fine) you'd probably pick t
Cmon now, we both know that Dex and Wis are both of paramount importance for the monk right now, while the only important ability for wizards is Int. Dex and Con might be nice for a Wizard, but they are not even close to int.
Cmon now, we both know that Dex and Wis are both of paramount importance for the monk right now, while the only important ability for wizards is Int. Dex and Con might be nice for a Wizard, but they are not even close to int.
Well, the Wizard "only" needs int, dex, and con. "only" 3 abilities...
NO, the wizard just needs MONSTROUS constitution (17+ on first level) to get good hp per level, then a secondary (14-15) intelligence. most other scores can be aforded at 8. the wizard will be protected by invisibility, levitate, mirror image, and (later) wall of force etc. so he wont get attacked much, these few attacks may as well hit, they'll just scratch him.
NO, the wizard just needs MONSTROUS constitution (17+ on first level) to get good hp per level, then a secondary (14-15) intelligence. most other scores can be aforded at 8. the wizard will be protected by invisibility, levitate, mirror image, and (l
invisibility, levitate, mirror image, and (later) wall of force etc. so he wont get attacked much, these few attacks may as well hit, they'll just scratch him.
Oh, so the wizard gets away with not requiring stats because he's actually a demigod, rather than an adventurer.
k
Oh, so the wizard gets away with not requiring stats because he's actually a demigod, rather than an adventurer.k
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? I feel that Expertise Dice are a good basis for non-spellcasting classes to have something special, too. So generally, yes, it is a good choice, IMO. I would like to have different maneuvers for different classes, though, to make each class special. IMO, almost no maneuvers should overlap.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? Stunning Strike seems like a normal monk ability to me, so it is fine. And the monk can magically heal with ki. As I think that generally self healing powers for all characters should increase, I am fine with this also.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? They are bland compared to what 4E monks can do. DNDN monks should be able to do what 4E monks can do, at least a little bit. The fact that it is Ki should be reason enough for daily usage for those who need "magic" to explain the daily use of stuff like that, IMO.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? For me, the monk maneuvers turn maneuvers into something worth noting, because so far they all have been bland compared to 4E. Hurricane Strike looks good, as it opens up a tactical option to be used on a battlemap, which I welcome greatly. Yes, there is Protect, but that is not enough, because I was missing forced movement in maneuvers before. Forced movement and disabilities are very cool and fun, so more pushing, pulling, knocking prone, stunning and stuff, please. The fighter and the rogue definately also need stuff like this to appeal to me. Also, the introduction of different levels of effects depending on the amount of dice spent in one maneuver appeals to me. The fighter and the rogue need that. Those maneuvers are the first that are not boring to me. So more movement and more non-normal stuff that can be narrated well for all classes, please.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? I really hate to have a long list of maneuvers that I have to read through in order to find class-specific maneuvers. Same is true for long spell lists. But that is a question of format only and can be easily changed. I think that only a handful of maneuvers should overlap, if any at all. There should be only different maneuvers for different classes and extra class abilities that give rider effects for maneuvers. Put it in a 4E style module, if necessary.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? Cold Iron and Adamantine resistance, really? That is so.... oldfashioned. But use whatever you like, I guess. The (to me, at least) very interesting 4E monk can stand up in a heartbeat, jump really far (without the use of Expertise Dice), fly and do all kinds of stuff. Here I get immunity to disease. Boooooring.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? Yes, but I do not like the fact that the monk depends on two attributes so much as all the other classes seem to depend on only one. Is MAD really necessary? I doubt it.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?I feel that Expertise Dice are a good basis for non-spellcasting classes to have something special, too. So generally, yes, it is a good choice, IMO.I would like to have d
You do realize that ranged and magic attacks target AC, right? Not just the frontliners need it.
You are not a frontliner. You also got this huge bag of utility spells. Can you see how AC is of less importance of say, a Fighter or any other class that goes to the frontline? You don't need dex to hit most of your spells as a wizard, heck most of the time you force others to make saves, meaning it's even more important that you raise your int over anything else.
My entire argument lies over this: Casters need a single atribute for their entire sub system, the thing that defines them to work. Why do the non-casters need several of them? Why the Monk AC can't be wis modifier x2? Or how about he attacks with his wis modifier as well? DC for moves? Why not wis?
The Wizard does all that, save the AC thing but he isn't a frontliner and he is going to get all those tools to control stuff anyway.
You are not a frontliner.You also got this huge bag of utility spells.Can you see how AC is of less importance of say, a Fighter or any other class that goes to the frontline?You don't need dex to hit most of your spells as a wizard, heck most of the
You do realize that ranged and magic attacks target AC, right? Not just the frontliners need it.
More AC is certainly nice for a wizard, but it's not nearly as important as it is for the monk. Coz they're not frontliners, yeah. Though I admit that I was going to say that wizards add Int to AC. I still think in 4e terms.
More AC is certainly nice for a wizard, but it's not nearly as important as it is for the monk. Coz they're not frontliners, yeah. Though I admit that I was going to say that wizards add Int to AC. I still think in 4e terms. :-D
You might want to take a look at the current wizard spells. They don't make 'em like they used to. You can't cast other spells while flying, and taking damage (like, say, an arrow) has a chance to knock you out of the sky. Invisibility breaks when you cast a spell or attack.
So no, you can't just rely on utility spells in place of AC.
You might want to take a look at the current wizard spells. They don't make 'em like they used to. You can't cast other spells while flying, and taking damage (like, say, an arrow) has a chance to knock you out of the sky. Invisibility breaks when
Haha, if they just rewrote the book to say under wizard class that their Dex increases their AC instead of it being part of a "general rule" would he become a Dual attribute focused charachter?
Monk is a Wisdom based charachter, dex effects him the same way it affects everyone else. He gets to add Wisdom to his AC.
silly.
Really, Wizard Int/Str?Haha, if they just rewrote the book to say under wizard class that their Dex increases their AC instead of it being part of a "general rule" would he become a Dual attribute focused charachter?Monk is a Wisdom based charachter,
Oh, yeah, big bone of contention: where's the increased speed (like the wood elf, but progresses with level)?
I actually like the monk after reading, just read that finese weapons use dex for damage as well as attack thought that had got changed back, which means that he only needs 2 stats rather that 3 which i thought at first. I think it would be interesting if the monk used something different to expertise dice but i think it will work fine for the moment. I do like flurry blows, while against 1 enemy it can be less reliable than deadly strike, it allows you to still potentially do damage if you miss with your initial. I wouldnt mind monks not being able to use deadly strike but then they can choose how many dice they want to roll for each flurry they do rather than having to make an attack for each one.
I actually like the monk after reading, just read that finese weapons use dex for damage as well as attack thought that had got changed back, which means that he only needs 2 stats rather that 3 which i thought at first. I think it would be interesti
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not? I dig it. I have a feeling that once multiclassing hits, having the mechanic shared across classes will make multiclassing fighter, rogue and monk much easier / more logical. And let's face it, monk, fighter and rogue are all classes that we as players expect to engage in melee combat, so sharing the mechanic there makes sense to me.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not? I think it is fine, especially since the other form of magical healing (cleric spells) is also a daily resource.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see? At first I thought Stunning Fist seems like it ought to be a maneuver rather than a ki power, but thinking about it more, perhaps it is fine as-is. The ki powers as written seem very minor, something that adds to the flavor of the class without providing a massive mechanical benefit. If they were too awesome, you'd never see a fighter.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see? They look pretty good. I really like the upgrades where you spend more dice to make the maneuver into a magical ability.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added? Fighter and rogue should keep some unique maneuvers. Also, multiclassing might make it a moot point.
6) Do you like the passive abilities of the Monk? Sure, they look pretty good, and fit pretty well with the monks of editions past.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk? Looks good to me at first blush. I worry about stacking abilities from other classes; like will a wizard/monk become unhittable if he casts Mage Armor and Shield? I do like that a fighter/monk could use armor if he wanted to, and doesn't become unable to use his monk stuff.
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?I dig it. I have a feeling that once multiclassing hits, having the mechanic shared across classes will make multiclassing fighter, rogue and monk much easier / more logi
Oh, yeah, big bone of contention: where's the increased speed (like the wood elf, but progresses with level)?
I actually like the monk after reading, just read that finese weapons use dex for damage as well as attack thought that had got changed back, which means that he only needs 2 stats rather that 3 which i thought at first.
Could you not also make a Str/heavily armoured monk?
As for manoeuvres replacing class features, still not sure, I'm torn with manoeuvres at the moment.
I actually like the monk after reading, just read that finese weapons use dex for damage as well as attack thought that had got changed back, which means that he only needs 2 stats rather that 3 which i thought at first.[/quote]Could you not also mak
Hard to do without heavy armor proficiency, which monks don't get.
mountain dwarf, scale mail for a +15 to armor a possible 17 with a 14 dex. dump the rest into strength and wis. I see an Iron root defender forming right here. you could use the hand axe to be even more dwarven but the only advantage it has is that it is slashing damage and not bludgeoning (both the hand axe and your fist deal a d6 of damage). You can also stick to unarmed attacks since finess weapons can use dex or strength if I'm not mistaken.
EDIT: use endurance specialist as well.
for super effective mode use the experimental refocusing rule and give yourself a decent con. your basically an iron clad defender at this point.
2nd EDIT: I may actually play test this character later this week.
Background Artisan(blacksmith).
mountain dwarf, scale mail for a +15 to armor a possible 17 with a 14 dex.dump the rest into strength and wis. I see an Iron root defender forming right here. you could use the hand axe to be even more dwarven but the only advantage it has is that
Not clear on how you get to 18. Scale is 14+dex (max 2), for 16, mountain dwarf makes it 17. Where's the extra +1? You don't get wis-to-AC while wearing armor. A shield would do it, but you don't have shield proficiency.
I agree that it would be awesome if monks could be tanky, I really don't see why that has to be restricted to only the fighter.
Not clear on how you get to 18. Scale is 14+dex (max 2), for 16, mountain dwarf makes it 17. Where's the extra +1? You don't get wis-to-AC while wearing armor. A shield would do it, but you don't have shield proficiency.I agree that it would be a
I only really have one contention about the monk. As a monk, it works great. What about my wrestler, what about my streetfighter, what about my boxer, what about any number of other unarmed unarmored combatant?
This is what I want to be able to see with a monk, I want to be able to use different fighting styles that use different types of abilities. A boxer uses dex and int, a wrestler uses strength and cha.
I had postulated on my blog that maybe Monk should be a build of a much more encompassing class that covers multiple areas of unarmed and unarmored fighting. I still feel that way.
I only really have one contention about the monk. As a monk, it works great. What about my wrestler, what about my streetfighter, what about my boxer, what about any number of other unarmed unarmored combatant?This is what I want to be able to see wi
Hard to do without heavy armor proficiency, which monks don't get.
mountain dwarf, scale mail for a +15 to armor a possible 17 with a 14 dex. dump the rest into strength and wis. I see an Iron root defender forming right here. you could use the hand axe to be even more dwarven but the only advantage it has is that it is slashing damage and not bludgeoning (both the hand axe and your fist deal a d6 of damage). You can also stick to unarmed attacks since finess weapons can use dex or strength if I'm not mistaken.
EDIT: use endurance specialist as well.
for super effective mode use the experimental refocusing rule and give yourself a decent con. your basically an iron clad defender at this point.
Nice.
mountain dwarf, scale mail for a +15 to armor a possible 17 with a 14 dex.dump the rest into strength and wis. I see an Iron root defender forming right here. you could use the hand axe to be even more dwarven but the only advantage it has is that
Not clear on how you get to 18. Scale is 14+dex (max 2), for 16, mountain dwarf makes it 17. Where's the extra +1? You don't get wis-to-AC while wearing armor. A shield would do it, but you don't have shield proficiency.
I agree that it would be awesome if monks could be tanky, I really don't see why that has to be restricted to only the fighter.
sorry bout that i screwed up the numbers at first then edited it to where it should be
sorry bout that i screwed up the numbers at first then edited it to where it should be
I only really have one contention about the monk. As a monk, it works great. What about my wrestler, what about my streetfighter, what about my boxer, what about any number of other unarmed unarmored combatant?
This is what I want to be able to see with a monk, I want to be able to use different fighting styles that use different types of abilities. A boxer uses dex and int, a wrestler uses strength and cha.
I had postulated on my blog that maybe Monk should be a build of a much more encompassing class that covers multiple areas of unarmed and unarmored fighting. I still feel that way.
I think outside of the core 4 the fringe classes will be less all encompasing and more built to satisfy particular niches. The monk is here to be that kind of eastern influence wuxia martial artist with magical ki powers type of guy. All of the other types of characters you mention can be easily covered in the fighter class, though you do bring up a good point that there should be an unarmed combat specialty. there should be some way to get the d6 fist outside of the monk class.
I think outside of the core 4 the fringe classes will be less all encompasing and more built to satisfy particular niches. The monk is here to be that kind of eastern influence wuxia martial artist with magical ki powers type of guy. All of the oth
I only really have one contention about the monk. As a monk, it works great. What about my wrestler, what about my streetfighter, what about my boxer, what about any number of other unarmed unarmored combatant?
When you think about it, 'unarmed' is just a weapon choice and 'unarmored' is just a choice of armor. Fighters are supposed to be good with all weapons, and your fist, or kick, or head-but or whatever (claws, fangs, horns, etc if your race has 'em), is just a factory-original weapon.
When you think about it, 'unarmed' is just a weapon choice and 'unarmored' is just a choice of armor. Fighters are supposed to be good with all weapons, and your fist, or kick, or head-but or whatever (claws, fangs, horns, etc if your race has 'em)
I only really have one contention about the monk. As a monk, it works great. What about my wrestler, what about my streetfighter, what about my boxer, what about any number of other unarmed unarmored combatant?
This is what I want to be able to see with a monk, I want to be able to use different fighting styles that use different types of abilities. A boxer uses dex and int, a wrestler uses strength and cha.
I had postulated on my blog that maybe Monk should be a build of a much more encompassing class that covers multiple areas of unarmed and unarmored fighting. I still feel that way.
I think outside of the core 4 the fringe classes will be less all encompasing and more built to satisfy particular niches. The monk is here to be that kind of eastern influence wuxia martial artist with magical ki powers type of guy. All of the other types of characters you mention can be easily covered in the fighter class, though you do bring up a good point that there should be an unarmed combat specialty. there should be some way to get the d6 fist outside of the monk class.
But fighter really won't cut it. If I want my unarmed wrestler which because I'm not wearing armor, has a 17/18 STR a 15/16 dex and have a whopping 12-13 AC. Sure I could wear armor, but that defeats the purpose of the character.
I think outside of the core 4 the fringe classes will be less all encompasing and more built to satisfy particular niches. The monk is here to be that kind of eastern influence wuxia martial artist with magical ki powers type of guy. All of the oth
I only really have one contention about the monk. As a monk, it works great. What about my wrestler, what about my streetfighter, what about my boxer, what about any number of other unarmed unarmored combatant?
This is what I want to be able to see with a monk, I want to be able to use different fighting styles that use different types of abilities. A boxer uses dex and int, a wrestler uses strength and cha.
I had postulated on my blog that maybe Monk should be a build of a much more encompassing class that covers multiple areas of unarmed and unarmored fighting. I still feel that way.
I think outside of the core 4 the fringe classes will be less all encompasing and more built to satisfy particular niches. The monk is here to be that kind of eastern influence wuxia martial artist with magical ki powers type of guy. All of the other types of characters you mention can be easily covered in the fighter class, though you do bring up a good point that there should be an unarmed combat specialty. there should be some way to get the d6 fist outside of the monk class.
But fighter really won't cut it. If I want my unarmed wrestler which because I'm not wearing armor, has a 17/18 STR a 15/16 dex and have a whopping 12-13 AC. Sure I could wear armor, but that defeats the purpose of the character.
I guess I would say change your mind about his attributes, so you can play charachter closer to your concept of his capability.
I think outside of the core 4 the fringe classes will be less all encompasing and more built to satisfy particular niches. The monk is here to be that kind of eastern influence wuxia martial artist with magical ki powers type of guy. All of the oth
Why make Flurry of Blows (a) unarmed-only, and (b) monk-only? It's an ability that previous editions have allowed with weapons (even if only a specific group, at times - or via after-the-fact feats or options), and it's an ability that one could easily see using on a dexterous Fighter (or even Rogue - like a swashbuckling rapier type).
EDIT: I know the answer is "Because Monk" (or "Because Classes"), but part of what makes me uneasy about putting so many things onto the same Expertise/Maneuver system is that it makes it far more obvious that "Ability X" is exclusive because we need to justify distinct classes.
A thought:Why make Flurry of Blows (a) unarmed-only, and (b) monk-only? It's an ability that previous editions have allowed with weapons (even if only a specific group, at times - or via after-the-fact feats or options), and it's an ability that one
Why make Flurry of Blows (a) unarmed-only, and (b) monk-only? It's an ability that previous editions have allowed with weapons (even if only a specific group, at times - or via after-the-fact feats or options), and it's an ability that I could easily see using on a dexterous Fighter (or even Rogue - like a swashbuckling rapier type).
(b) Because it's a mechanic that has been defining of the Monk class. Sure, lots of other people could have rapid strikes, but FoB is a Monk thing, and it's fine to keep it that way.
(b) Because it's a mechanic that has been defining of the Monk class. Sure, lots of other people could have rapid strikes, but FoB is a Monk thing, and it's fine to keep it that way.
If the Rogue's Sneak Attack is any example, we'll probably see a "Rapid Strikes" maneuver anyways, that removes the unarmed restrictions, and otherwise leaves the maneuver unchanged.
I should have edited faster. If the Rogue's Sneak Attack is any example, we'll probably see a "Rapid Strikes" maneuver anyways, that removes the unarmed restrictions, and otherwise leaves the maneuver unchanged.
The question is about as useful as "why isn't magic missile a cleric spell?" I mean, there's no real reason, it just isn't.
There's nothing involved in the process that says "Well, we need to make sure the cleric and wizard are distinct, so no Magic Missile for the cleric." It's not that direct. The cleric spell list is created by asking "What do we want the cleric to be/represent/feel like/do?" and asking whether the spells achieve that goal or not.
The question is about as useful as "why isn't magic missile a cleric spell?" I mean, there's no real reason, it just isn't.There's nothing involved in the process that says "Well, we need to make sure the cleric and wizard are distinct, so no Magic
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
I'm trying to think of how to put the why of that into words adequately. I think it's just less satisfying to have "Things ('realistic') people could ('realistically') do" split and seperated and tied to specific (non-caster) concepts, than it is to have "Anything You Can Concieve Of" split and seperated and tied to specific (spellcaster) concepts.
I dunno. Just personal taste.
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing th
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
I'm trying to think of how to put the why of that into words adequately. I think it's just less satisfying to have "Things ('realistic') people could ('realistically') do" split and seperated and tied to specific (non-caster) concepts, than it is to have "Anything You Can Concieve Of" split and seperated and tied to specific (spellcaster) concepts.
I dunno. Just personal taste.
Remember as well that fighters get a second attack straight up. Monks do not. So the monk isn't the only one able to rock multiple attacks on multiple targets, and once we have a TWF specialty that mitigates the absolutely overboard detriment of TWF then we will likely see a fighter based build rocking 4 attacks by level 6 that can still be modified by adding the deadly strike damage to the over all damage pool. I mean even as of right now the two weapon fighter at level 6 is able to send out more attacks in a round than a monk can at level 10. If the TWF based fighter could also use flurry he would, at level 10, be able to rock 7 attacks per turn.
This is one of the other reasons I would rather see flurry go into a class feature progression type deal.
Remember as well that fighters get a second attack straight up. Monks do not. So the monk isn't the only one able to rock multiple attacks on multiple targets, and once we have a TWF specialty that mitigates the absolutely overboard detriment of TW
Weapon monks should be a thing. They can be better than other classes at unarmed, but it shouldn't be their only option.
I am likely making a weapon monk for the one I run in my playtest.
Edit well he will have weapons in case he needs them but he will likely just be using his fists.
I am likely making a weapon monk for the one I run in my playtest.Edit well he will have weapons in case he needs them but he will likely just be using his fists.
Wrestling doesn't make you better at not getting stabbed.
Neither does meditation.
The point is, there needs to be more unarmed and unarmored combatants other than monk. At least the monk as it stands in its current state you cannot realize other types of martial artists. Because honestly if I want to make a grappling monk, where I'm all about locking down targets so the others can wail on it, I should be able to do so, and it currently isn't possible with what we have.
I understand this is the first iteration, but if you can't realize multiple different types of unarmed/unarmored combatants through the monk class, then the monk has failed for me.
Neither does meditation.The point is, there needs to be more unarmed and unarmored combatants other than monk. At least the monk as it stands in its current state you cannot realize other types of martial artists. Because honestly if I want to make a
Lots of random 3e holdover abilities that don't feel flavorful: boo!
Ki as a source of power: yay!
Daily powers: boo!Alignment restriction: boo!Awkwardness of many ED abilities: boo!Wisdom required for AC: boo!Lots of random 3e holdover abilities that don't feel flavorful: boo!Ki as a source of power: yay!
Cmon now, we both know that Dex and Wis are both of paramount importance for the monk right now, while the only important ability for wizards is Int. Dex and Con might be nice for a Wizard, but they are not even close to int.
Given that the wizard has no armor until he stumbles across elven chain mail or bracers of defense dex is in some ways more important to the wizard than it is too any class except the rogue/monk. And it probably equals the monk in need for wisdom. Rocking a 9-10 AC only works when your DM actively avoids attacking you. Some wizards can spam mage armor for at least a 12 AC but that still is deeply in the hit all the effing time when attacked range. With the current HP to damage ratios you can't afford to be hit more than 50% of the time when you are attacked.
Still I think wisdom to AC while flavorful is a bad mechanical decision.
Given that the wizard has no armor until he stumbles across elven chain mail or bracers of defense dex is in some ways more important to the wizard than it is too any class except the rogue/monk. And it probably equals the monk in need for wisdom.
I really resent that part, 3rd Ed started the Ki malarkey, and far too culturally specific for me.
They should just change it to "Focus" and be done with it.
I really resent that part, 3rd Ed started the Ki malarkey, and far too culturally specific for me.[/quote]They should just change it to "Focus" and be done with it.
Cmon now, we both know that Dex and Wis are both of paramount importance for the monk right now, while the only important ability for wizards is Int. Dex and Con might be nice for a Wizard, but they are not even close to int.
Given that the wizard has no armor until he stumbles across elven chain mail or bracers of defense dex is in some ways more important to the wizard than it is too any class except the rogue/monk. And it probably equals the monk in need for wisdom. Rocking a 9-10 AC only works when your DM actively avoids attacking you. Some wizards can spam mage armor for at least a 12 AC but that still is deeply in the hit all the effing time when attacked range. With the current HP to damage ratios you can't afford to be hit more than 50% of the time when you are attacked.
Still I think wisdom to AC while flavorful is a bad mechanical decision.
I'm willing to admit that Dex is important for a wizard. When I was writing my previous post, I did not remember that Int cannot be added to AC in Next, like you can do in 4e. My mistake.
However, I still think the monk is way more dependent on dual attributes than the wizard.
Monk, Wisdom:
Contributes to AC (on a melee class). Contributes to Saving Throws DC and monks special abilities. Contributes to typically important skills for the class.
Monk, Dex:
Contributes to AC (on a melee class) Contributes to Attack rolls and Damage rolls. Contributes to initiative. Contributes to typically important skills for the class.
Which stat is more important for the monk? Maybe dex, but not by much. They're both of paramount importance, and no monk can afford not raise them at every occasion.
Wizard, Intelligence:
Contributes to Saving Throws DC. Contributes to Spell Attack rolls and Damage rolls. Contributes to typically important skills for the class.
Wizard, Dex:
Contributes to AC (on a ranged class. I'm not saying AC is useless for ranged types, but it sure is less important) Contributes to initiative.
The class' main stat in clearly Int, no contest. Dex is indeed a de facto secondary stat, but I can see some wizard not increasing it at every occasion and still be an optimized wizard.
Given that the wizard has no armor until he stumbles across elven chain mail or bracers of defense dex is in some ways more important to the wizard than it is too any class except the rogue/monk. And it probably equals the monk in need for wisdom.
Wrestling doesn't make you better at not getting stabbed.
Neither does meditation.
The point is, there needs to be more unarmed and unarmored combatants other than monk. At least the monk as it stands in its current state you cannot realize other types of martial artists. Because honestly if I want to make a grappling monk, where I'm all about locking down targets so the others can wail on it, I should be able to do so, and it currently isn't possible with what we have.
I understand this is the first iteration, but if you can't realize multiple different types of unarmed/unarmored combatants through the monk class, then the monk has failed for me.
Again I feel the need to point out that 'unarmed' and 'unarmored' are just weapon & armor choices. Being 'best unarmed/unarmored combatant' is conceptually no different from being best with a bohemian ear-spoon when wearing a tumbler's breastplate. By itself, it's nothing to base a class on - and something that should fall in the fighters 'best at fighting' bailiwick.
Neither does meditation.The point is, there needs to be more unarmed and unarmored combatants other than monk. At least the monk as it stands in its current state you cannot realize other types of martial artists. Because honestly if I want to make a
What if the monk got to choose a physical ability and a mental ability for combat instead of hard-coded as Dex/Wis? Maybe the monastic training relies on strength and intelligence to deal and avoid precise blows, etc. I know some people may object to using Con as an offensive combat ability, but it seems like it makes some sense when applied to a martial artist class.
What if the monk got to choose a physical ability and a mental ability for combat instead of hard-coded as Dex/Wis? Maybe the monastic training relies on strength and intelligence to deal and avoid precise blows, etc. I know some people may object to
I know some people may object to using Con as an offensive combat ability, but it seems like it makes some sense when applied to a martial artist class.
Instinctive, lucky, repetition like as in a flurry of light energy wasteing attacks ;p
Instinctive, lucky, repetition like as in a flurry of light energy wasteing attacks ;p
What if the monk got to choose a physical ability and a mental ability for combat instead of hard-coded as Dex/Wis? Maybe the monastic training relies on strength and intelligence to deal and avoid precise blows, etc. I know some people may object to using Con as an offensive combat ability, but it seems like it makes some sense when applied to a martial artist class.
This is a start of what I was thinking. Then we can reflavor menuvers as needed to match the new stats. Then the different builds and concepts become more possible.
This is a start of what I was thinking. Then we can reflavor menuvers as needed to match the new stats. Then the different builds and concepts become more possible.
I know some people may object to using Con as an offensive combat ability, but it seems like it makes some sense when applied to a martial artist class.
Instinctive, lucky, repetition like as in a flurry of light energy wasteing attacks ;p
Oh and since the word..... Chi... means life force.... duh duh duh duh..... CON is perfect
Instinctive, lucky, repetition like as in a flurry of light energy wasteing attacks ;p [/quote]Oh and since the word..... Chi... means life force.... duh duh duh duh..... CON is perfect
1) Do you like the choice to use Expertise Dice for the monk? Why or why not?
I feel like expertise dice has become too gimmicky and fillerish with three classes now getting them, aside from my feelings about the fighter and uniqueness. If expertise dice aren't going to be unique, then they should at least not be tacked onto every class.
2) Do you like the implementation of daily resources for Ki uses? Why or why not?
Great idea, but they need more abilities, and more daily uses. So really, it's just a matter of number-tuning. I like this because I like the idea of a martial artist that can draw on deep hidden reserves of inner strength in a time of need, and the idea of daily ki uses works pretty well for that.
3) Do you feel that the abilities granted by Ki uses are appropriate? What else would you like to see?
See Fist of the North Star. Aside from that, I do feel like they are appropriate so far. I'm totally for cool things like energy blasts, smashing through otherwise nigh-indestructible objects, that kind of stuff.
4) Do you think the Monk-specific maneuvers do enough to capture the unique feel of a Monk? Why or why not? What other maneuvers would you like to see?
See, I have less of a problem with the monk getting maneuvers than I do the rogue, and for the most part, I feel like they at least got the thematic ideas right. Personally, I would like to see the things that are maneuvers be baked in class features, and have the maneuvers belong to other specific styles, much like the Oriental Adventures variant monk styles in 3e.
I feel like a lot of those maneuvers are things most monks, once they reach a certain point, can do, and that the thing that really defines a martial artist, especially one like the monk, is their actual fighting style. I think maneuvers should be much more closely tied to that. I will say its good that they are at least somewhat modular right now, in that you can choose which maneuver to take when the option comes up, and you aren't forced to get x maneuver at y level.
5) Do you think the non-Monk-specific maneuvers are appropriate for the Monk? Are there any you think should be added?
You mean the maneuvers that the monk shares with other classes? Seems kind of redundant since the only maneuvers you can take are the ones that are on the monk list anyway. See my above answer.
I like all but undaunted strike. I don't think they should get it all right away. I think it should improve and lead up to that point as the monk levels up.
7) Do you like the implementation of AC for the Monk?
I would like to see it elaborated on but yes. I like the idea of intuition and the spirit guiding and guarding the monk. It's very appropriate.
I feel like expertise dice has become too gimmicky and fillerish with three classes now getting them, aside from my feelings about the fighter and uniqueness. If expertise dice aren't going to be unique, then they should at least not be tacked onto e
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA as the machine gun punch. Really really well trained and practiced people can land like, 10 strikes in a second. Scary stuff. Hehe, in 3e a round was 6 seconds....
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA as the machine gun punch. Really really well trained and practiced people can land like, 10 strikes in a second. Scary stuff. Hehe, in 3e a round was 6 seconds....
I have most often heard that referred to as a Wing Chun Chain Punch, although there is a variation in Silat as well. It is a fairly common maneuver in continental Asian arts.
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA as the machine gun punch. Really really well trained and practiced people can land like, 10 strikes in a second. Scary stuff. Hehe, in 3e a round was 6 seconds....
I have most often heard that referred to as a Wing Chun Chain Punch, although there is a variation in Silat as well. It is a fairly common maneuver in continental Asian arts.
While I don't remember the name, I know I have never heard it called chain punch before. Is it a Wing Chun thing? I figured a move like that would fall more on the less technical Chinese kick-boxing side of Kung Fu than it would on the Wing Chun side of things. I can see it being a fairly normal thing, as China isn't the only place I have seen that done.
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA as the machine gun punch. Really really well trained and practiced people can land like, 10 strikes in a second. Scary stuff. Hehe, in 3e a round was 6 seconds....
I have most often heard that referred to as a Wing Chun Chain Punch, although there is a variation in Silat as well. It is a fairly common maneuver in continental Asian arts.
While I don't remember the name, I know I have never heard it called chain punch before. Is it a Wing Chun thing? I figured a move like that would fall more on the less technical Chinese kick-boxing side of Kung Fu than it would on the Wing Chun side of things. I can see it being a fairly normal thing, as China isn't the only place I have seen that done.
It is a highly technical maneuver, actually. The arm positioning in particular is critical to keep your upper body defended while throwing punches at that speed.
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA
I dunno. I'm much less satisfied by "You can't make a flurry of attacks with your rapier/dagger/chain/flail/sword/whatever, because doing that (unarmed) is the Monk's thing", than I am by "You can't fire a missile of magical energy, because doing that is the Wizard's thing."
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA as the machine gun punch. Really really well trained and practiced people can land like, 10 strikes in a second. Scary stuff. Hehe, in 3e a round was 6 seconds....
I have most often heard that referred to as a Wing Chun Chain Punch, although there is a variation in Silat as well. It is a fairly common maneuver in continental Asian arts.
While I don't remember the name, I know I have never heard it called chain punch before. Is it a Wing Chun thing? I figured a move like that would fall more on the less technical Chinese kick-boxing side of Kung Fu than it would on the Wing Chun side of things. I can see it being a fairly normal thing, as China isn't the only place I have seen that done.
It is a highly technical maneuver, actually. The arm positioning in particular is critical to keep your upper body defended while throwing punches at that speed.
Explains why I've never been that good at it. Then again, I also never put much practice into it. I pretty much stuck exclusively to Jeet Kune Do with only a little variance. I'm fond of my combat ki/iron shirt technique. I can still do it too. I just can't stop nearly as much as people who are actually really skilled with that.
If this helps at all, monks flurrying actually use both of their fists in a Kung Fu technique where you basically go back and forth rapidly and land a crap ton a strikes in a second. I forget what its actually called but its commonly known in the USA
I just can't stop nearly as much as people who are actually really skilled with that.
