|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:14PM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
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.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:24PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:29PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:32PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:37PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:41PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
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.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:45PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:54PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2011
|
Why should an unarmored wrestler get a better AC than a highly trained martial artist monk or a well-armored warrior fighter?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 12:59PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2012
|
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.
My mind is a deal-breaker.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 1:18PM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
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 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.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
