The whole GF - GWF was a very bad design decision, topped off with the Paragon exchange path that wrecked chaos. If they went with Paladin - Barbarian we would have two awesome classes now, both with unique paragons and most probably both equally desired. Instead we are stuck in the mire of mediocre GFs and unblanced GWF not really fitting in the whole D&D flavour.
They can twist the names however they want, but the GWF is a barbarian. The "determination" for tab is just a re-branded berserker rage.
I have a GF, GWF, and a HR at 60. There is STILL room for a paladin, and a good fighter two weapon class.
By all accounts the Warlock is almost done, so I am accepting that it is the next class. I could care less about a druid though, in fact I can say it is my all time LEAST favorite of the D&D classes. Maybe they are more awesome in 4E (I skipped it because I have $1k in 3/3.5 books), but I seriously doubt they could ever be awesome enough to make me like them at all.
The monk I would however be willing to pay real money to play, just as I did in the other D&D mmo.
They can twist the names however they want, but the GWF is a barbarian. The "determination" for tab is just a re-branded berserker rage.
I have a GF, GWF, and a HR at 60. There is STILL room for a paladin, and a good fighter two weapon class.
By all accounts the Warlock is almost done, so I am accepting that it is the next class. I could care less about a druid though, in fact I can say it is my all time LEAST favorite of the D&D classes. Maybe they are more awesome in 4E (I skipped it because I have $1k in 3/3.5 books), but I seriously doubt they could ever be awesome enough to make me like them at all.
The monk I would however be willing to pay real money to play, just as I did in the other D&D mmo.
In 4E the shape-shifter druid is indeed different. They basically specialize in a beast form (the actual form is just cosmetic), and amp up damage quite a bit. It would be quite a bit like playing a were-wolf with the ability to change forms at will.
As much as it pains me to say it, and it does, running around as a werewolf would be very cool. It would need to be the huge crinos werewolf though, not just a normal wolf.
On the topic of Paladins (while I don't yet have the energy to post a big Let's Build a Class post after seeing my last one shoved into this mess of a thread), I think their addition to the class roster could give some important perspective to the GF class and the Defender role in general. By having a defensively centered divine class like the paladin who could bring more magic into the tanking game (drawing aggro with the single-target Lay-on-hands ability, if that's still a thing in 4e, or "Shield Other"-style damage control magic), more attention could then be drawn to the martial prowess of the GF. I personally play a GF as my primary character, and would love to see them gain a little more tactical and thematic aggressiveness (because hitting people with your shield is kind of bad-*** >.> just saying)
I'm guessing <tab> will be wildshape, and wildshape will be fixed by druid subclass, for instance bear for guardian druids.
I hope <shift> will be sprint. It would be confusing if <shift> varied between forms, and beast form should have sprint.
Probably beast form and caster form will have different at-wills and fill different roles.
For instance, a guardian druid that wildshapes to bear to survive aggro/focus fire.
Conversely, a predator druid might have stronger defenses in human/oid form, with light armor and staff mastery.
Another possibility is that beast form would not have access to encounter powers, and that caster form would have no or weak at-wills. Then druids would switch to caster form, dump their encounters, and go to beast form until cooldowns end.
I like how casters in this game have themes: clerics light, wizards ice, rangers thorns. So it would be nice if druids were mostly either fire, earth, thorns, swarm, etc. casters, but not some mix of all possibilities.
A whip animation for fire or thorns attacks would be cool, unless warlocks already have that covered.
I'm guessing <tab> will be wildshape, and wildshape will be fixed by druid subclass, for instance bear for guardian druids.
I hope <shift> will be sprint. It would be confusing if <shift> varied between forms, and beast form should have sprint.
Probably beast form and caster form will have different at-wills and fill different roles.
For instance, a guardian druid that wildshapes to bear to survive aggro/focus fire.
Conversely, a predator druid might have stronger defenses in human/oid form, with light armor and staff mastery.
Another possibility is that beast form would not have access to encounter powers, and that caster form would have no or weak at-wills. Then druids would switch to caster form, dump their encounters, and go to beast form until cooldowns end.
I like how casters in this game have themes: clerics light, wizards ice, rangers thorns. So it would be nice if druids were mostly either fire, earth, thorns, swarm, etc. casters, but not some mix of all possibilities.
A whip animation for fire or thorns attacks would be cool, unless warlocks already have that covered.
Nice ideas for druid, although I bet if they do it, it will look more like the Ranger class with beast/humanoid being analagus to ranged/melee stances, with all powers having two versions. Much easier to implement with the ranger as a template.
I'm leaning to a few of the same classes posted here as well as an additional couple:
druid
paladin
* necromancer
* Gunner
Obviously the Necromancy would be able to summon minions to fight with it and could focus on Life Steal spells, poision, and dark magic.
Gunner would be a ranged class with the use of rifles and could have break down into Sniper, Assault, or Barrage (Single damage, mid range damage, and AOE damage)
I'm leaning to a few of the same classes posted here as well as an additional couple:
druid
paladin
* necromancer
* Gunner
Obviously the Necromancy would be able to summon minions to fight with it and could focus on Life Steal spells, poision, and dark magic.
Gunner would be a ranged class with the use of rifles and could have break down into Sniper, Assault, or Barrage (Single damage, mid range damage, and AOE damage)
Guns in forgotten realms are rare and dangerous inventions of the priests of ogmah. There is a chance of them exploding on every use. I find it very unlikely they would base an entire class on them.
I'd like to see crossbows. Maybe a crossbow rogue for a second rogue subclass? Is that a thing in 4e?
Upthread people noted that minions aren't much use, so necromancer might be a problem. How about an illusionist wizard? You would summon phantasms, which could be of undead why not, and not have to worry about them dying because they would have such short lives anyway.
0
zenzeeMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
There have always been three things I have wanted in this game:
paladins
druids
monks
The standard fighters, clerics, wizards & rogues have never interested me.
I HATE the Monk. It flies into everything that D&D has ever had about classes. A Fighter could (originally) be a ranged or melee combatant, wielding weapon and shield, two handed or a ranged weapon. The Wizard has Schools to focus in, the Cleric can actually be both a healer, blaster or melee. And the Rogue in 3.x had a wide variety of options.
But the Monk? It doesn't matter what the designers give the class, it's remember for one thing. I beat everything up with my FISTS! And that's it. It's like that kid in the game group where you're going to playing in a War of The Roses type game that ALWAYS wants to play a Ninja. Heck, he ALWAYS wants to play a ninja, no matter what you're playing. That's the Monk class.
And as much as I love the Paladin (currently playing a Paladin of Kelemvor for the D&D Encoutners season) the issue is how do you build him in game? See, unlike the Fighter in 4e in which they turned him/her into a Kensei, a one trick pony, whether that's one weapon and shield or two handed, the Paladin can do both, because his/her powers are not limited to the weapon choice. Worse, you can't make the class do either, because then you're stepping on the GWF or GF's toes.
A better class to go after the Druid would be a Warlock, sadly. It's a true blaster mage, and currently there's no master of DoTs in this game, and that's what the Warlock does best.
Warlock will very possibly be before the Druid -- during beta there were signs of a Scourge Warlock class in the works, so it could already be completed.
0
zenzeeMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited February 2014
Really? Hmm. That will please a couple people I know, they've been waiting for the Warlock to play this game.
I HATE the Monk. It flies into everything that D&D has ever had about classes. A Fighter could (originally) be a ranged or melee combatant, wielding weapon and shield, two handed or a ranged weapon. The Wizard has Schools to focus in, the Cleric can actually be both a healer, blaster or melee. And the Rogue in 3.x had a wide variety of options.
But the Monk? It doesn't matter what the designers give the class, it's remember for one thing. I beat everything up with my FISTS! And that's it. It's like that kid in the game group where you're going to playing in a War of The Roses type game that ALWAYS wants to play a Ninja. Heck, he ALWAYS wants to play a ninja, no matter what you're playing. That's the Monk class.
Wrong actually.
Monk was originally in 1st edition D&D, was reintroduced in late 2nd edition (scarlet brotherhood), and was a main staple of 3rd edition D&D. And of course was in players handbook 2 for 4th edition. Been there all along, so it hardly 'flies in the face' of all that is D&D.
You have a right to a personal distaste of course, but that doesn't make it a unmitiged reality for the universe. Fact is, LOTS of people love martial arts, and the monk class. That's an actual fact, and not an opinion.
I'm not really a fan of ninjas or martial arts, but I still would love to have a monk. I hate the overgeared mook on most armors/weapons and maybe the monk will have something more simple, design wise.
0
zenzeeMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Monk was originally in 1st edition D&D, was reintroduced in late 2nd edition (scarlet brotherhood), and was a main staple of 3rd edition D&D. And of course was in players handbook 2 for 4th edition. Been there all along, so it hardly 'flies in the face' of all that is D&D.
You have a right to a personal distaste of course, but that doesn't make it a unmitiged reality for the universe. Fact is, LOTS of people love martial arts, and the monk class. That's an actual fact, and not an opinion.
I never said it wasn't in the game before whatever edition. It's been, as you pointed out, since AD&D 1e, but the main shtick has always been BEATING PEOPLE UP WITH FISTS! It doesn't matter what other 'powers' every designer has ever given it, no one CARES. All they care about is 'I get to pummel monsters like Dragons with my FIST!', despite the fact that mechanically, it's never been that good. Especially in a table top game system where armour is mechanically, and effectively, a binary dodge bonus. Either you get hit for rolled damage, or it misses you completely. Yes, no. It added even more convoluted and ham fisted rules to a system that barely handled it's own magic system, which was nothing more than a bunch of exclusionary little rules that didn't even interact with the main rules.
The sad part is that in most D&D based settings, the punching Monk didn't really fit. But someone always wants to play the 'Japanese Ninja', and so they made the Monk, and has for the past 3 editions tried to stuff him into the traditional Western settings of D&D. Often with hilariously bad results.
Mechanically speaking, why is the monk bad? Well, in general it relied on about 3-4 stats being good to be effective. Strength for hit and damage (until 3.x where it gave Finesse, so Dex was all that's needed to hit) Dexterity AND Wisdom for defense, because a Front Line Fighter type that wore NO armour, which is also the only way defenses actually scaled up, pre-4e, was a GREAT idea, really. And Constitution was mandatory because it only ever had a D8 for a hit die, compared to the Fighter classes' (Ranger, Paladin, Fighter and later Barbarian) having a d10+ (Barby had a d12, not entirely sure why. It didn't really ever needed it.) Secondly, the 'powers' it got didn't really help it in most fights, they were either too specific, or too broad, too late to be constantly effective.
Thing is, no one really cares about the powers. All they want to do is PUNCH MONSTERS IN THE FACE! YEAH! Which frankly is a bad excuse for a class.
Ironically enough, in late 2e, I actually was able to do that, with a Fighter and some of the optional rules in the later books. And I was more of Shaolin monk than the monk class could ever hope to be. And for the record, I LOVE Eastern AND Western martial arts.
I never said it wasn't in the game before whatever edition. It's been, as you pointed out, since AD&D 1e, but the main shtick has always been BEATING PEOPLE UP WITH FISTS! It doesn't matter what other 'powers' every designer has ever given it, no one CARES. All they care about is 'I get to pummel monsters like Dragons with my FIST!', despite the fact that mechanically, it's never been that good. Especially in a table top game system where armour is mechanically, and effectively, a binary dodge bonus. Either you get hit for rolled damage, or it misses you completely. Yes, no. It added even more convoluted and ham fisted rules to a system that barely handled it's own magic system, which was nothing more than a bunch of exclusionary little rules that didn't even interact with the main rules.
I've never played with anyone that played a monk for that reason. Maybe if you were playing with a 10 year old. On the same note, little kids that play fighters play em to PUMMEL MONSTERS WITH THEIR SWORD! Your argument doesn't make much sense to me, sorry.
Monk uses (over all editions) the exact same system that every other class used. You get a bonus to hit, roll a dice. You either hit or miss. Nothing about it is strange or complicated.
The sad part is that in most D&D based settings, the punching Monk didn't really fit. But someone always wants to play the 'Japanese Ninja', and so they made the Monk, and has for the past 3 editions tried to stuff him into the traditional Western settings of D&D. Often with hilariously bad results.
Monk has always been monk. I have never seen or heard of using monk to simulate a ninja. There have been ninja classes in D&D, notabley from the oriental adventures suppliments from the various editions. Totally different, using actual magic spells, swords, and other classical ninja powers. Heck even an assassin would make a better ninja than a monk. Oh and by the way forgotten realms has had monks in the lore for quite some time. Ever read the 'cleric quintet' books? And for that matter there is an entire Asian style empire called Karatur on the opposite side of the continent from Neverwinter, and yes, they have ninjas.
Mechanically speaking, why is the monk bad? Well, in general it relied on about 3-4 stats being good to be effective. Strength for hit and damage (until 3.x where it gave Finesse, so Dex was all that's needed to hit) Dexterity AND Wisdom for defense, because a Front Line Fighter type that wore NO armour, which is also the only way defenses actually scaled up, pre-4e, was a GREAT idea, really. And Constitution was mandatory because it only ever had a D8 for a hit die, compared to the Fighter classes' (Ranger, Paladin, Fighter and later Barbarian) having a d10+ (Barby had a d12, not entirely sure why. It didn't really ever needed it.) Secondly, the 'powers' it got didn't really help it in most fights, they were either too specific, or too broad, too late to be constantly effective..
So basically its no different from paladin which 'requires' 4 stats to be effective.
Most monks will specialize in a stat. You got the 'strong' monk whose more of a pugilist, the quick dexterious monk whose more the bruce lee type, the wise monk who might be the old sensei type. Monks arnt really meant to have ALL their bennificial stats high. Unless you are power gaming of course. At the end of the day it is an interesting and complex class that can be built in many different ways for many different outcomes.
Thing is, no one really cares about the powers. All they want to do is PUNCH MONSTERS IN THE FACE! YEAH! Which frankly is a bad excuse for a class. .
I love how you shoot out assumptions about other people and what they care about, like its the sacred truth. The powers were cool and useful, and that's one of the core draws of the class. The immunities, the speed, the ability to do damage when you are buck naked. I could tell you stories how I played a monk in tourney play back in the day, how the party was screwed over and had their gear stolen, and how my monk character was the only one that could save them. But I sorta get the feeling I might be talking to brick wall here.
0
zenzeeMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I've never played with anyone that played a monk for that reason. Maybe if you were playing with a 10 year old. On the same note, little kids that play fighters play em to PUMMEL MONSTERS WITH THEIR SWORD! Your argument doesn't make much sense to me, sorry.
You're lucky then. Because most players in my 29 years as a DM once they know that they can kung-fu monsters want to Kung Fu monsters.
Monk uses (over all editions) the exact same system that every other class used. You get a bonus to hit, roll a dice. You either hit or miss. Nothing about it is strange or complicated.
Uh huhn. No. Wizards, Clerics and Druids and Bards have spells, and each spell was it's own rules block, that did not interact with any of the other rules. And each of them actually got their own special spell lists, with little crossover in actual spells But that's not what I'm focusing on.
Monk has always been monk. I have never seen or heard of using monk to simulate a ninja.
That's not what I said. I said the Monk is like that kid in just about every High School D&D horror story from the late 80's to early 90's, in which he always wants to play a Ninja. A medieval Germany game about knights and dragons? He wants to play a Ninja! A more politically inclined game, where everyone is a Drow in Menzoberranzan? He wants to play a NINJA! Not a Drow Assassin, but a Ninja with a Katana! You name the campaign, and he wants to play a Ninja. That's what the Monk is, a class that sticks out and is mostly inappropriate unless your setting is set in a land like the Shou Empire of Kara-tur.
So basically its no different from paladin which 'requires' 4 stats to be effective.
Now, the Paladin did need 4 stats too, yes I will grant you tha, but the only real issue was the Charisma, which needed to be 17 or more. The rest were 11 and 9. Not that hard to roll, as opposed to three 15s. And unlike the Monk, Dexterity did affect AC, and could wear any armour the Fighter could.
However, looking at the 1e stats for the Monk, you need 15s in Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom, and an 11 in Constitution. Not all that easy to get. However, they get Thief abilities at level 1! So technically, yes they COULD be played as Ninja, as they had Hide in Shadow and Move Silently as powers, among others. But really, no one did. They were too happy to punch monsters to death. After all, they got to add half their level to damage whenever fighting something with a weapon in its hands.
I stand corrected about the HP in 1e. They had 2d4, which actually works out to about 5HP per level on average. In 3.x they brought it up to a D8.
Most monks will specialize in a stat. You got the 'strong' monk whose more of a pugilist, the quick dexterious monk whose more the bruce lee type, the wise monk who might be the old sensei type. Monks arnt really meant to have ALL their bennificial stats high. Unless you are power gaming of course. At the end of the day it is an interesting and complex class that can be built in many different ways for many different outcomes.
Not in 1e they couldn't. But I will grant that the 1e Monk was ridiculously overpowered. In 3.x not so much. And worse, to be effective, 'specializing' in one stat meant nothing. You NEEDED to have a good Dex and Wis because BOTH added to your AC. And given that you wore no armour and had Cleric hit points, but had to fight in a front line, a better than average Constitution was also desirable. Sadly, the 3.x Monk was an example of perfect class design, but terrible mechanics. It's perfect in that there were no dead levels in terms of goodies. You always got something when you leveled, whether it was a feat like everyone else, or you got a special power. It was terrible in that most of the powers were, well, pretty terrible.
I love how you shoot out assumptions about other people and what they care about, like its the sacred truth. The powers were cool and useful, and that's one of the core draws of the class. The immunities, the speed, the ability to do damage when you are buck naked. I could tell you stories how I played a monk in tourney play back in the day, how the party was screwed over and had their gear stolen, and how my monk character was the only one that could save them. But I sorta get the feeling I might be talking to brick wall here.
Maybe it's anecdotal, but after 29 years of running various RPGs, and a lot of which was Dungeons and Dragons, most players I've run across, if you ask them what a A D&D Monk can do, the first thing they remember is PUNCHING MONSTERS IN DA FACE! WITH THEIR BARE HANDS! HOO HA!
The second most common answer is the speed boost, followed by the fact that they don't need armour. Or weapons. But they almost always mention the PUNCHING MONSTERS, HOO HA! Everything else is secondary, or unimportant. And this is not just around me, but on various gaming sites and forums, including Wizards of The Coast's very own.
However, the real issue with adding the Monk to Neverwinter is not actually how bad a class it is in 3.x. Or how good a class it is in 4e. It's mostly gear based. See the various classes have unique weapon/gear set ups. The Controller Wizard has an Orb for a weapon, and I think an off hand of some sort (I don't play Wizards, I have a slot open because I'm hoping for a Paladin -Not likely for the reason I gave- or a Warlock), and Robes for armour. A Rogue gets two weapons (Well, Daggers mostly) and Leather armour. A Great Weapon Fighter gets Scale Armour, a Sword Knot and a Two Handed weapon. The Guardian Sword and Board and Plate, and so on and so forth.
The Monk gets his/her fists and nothing else. Yes, you can make some fist wrappings, but still no armour. And then there's matter of Rings, Helmets, Belts and the like.
And getting back to weapons, see, a GWF's power increases with each new class of Great Weapon they get, in fact all the other classes, the same. Whereas a Monk would automatically do more, no matter what their wearing, which makes itemization a little difficult. And really that's the issue I see, itemization. What's the point of gear, when you don't need to be 'better'. And yet, that's the point of a Video Game, to get a visual representation of your growing power. A Fighter gets better/heavier looking armour and bigger, more impressive weapons. Even a Rogue and Wizard and Cleric gets cool looking gear A Monk would not, NEED it, and more importantly, it might look forced, if it did. Especially to Veteran players like you and I.
Let's forget all my ranting about the Monk in various editions of D&D, and focus on the real issue for this video game: How would you make it seem more 'powerful' like the other classes, when as we all know, gear would not be as important to it?
The Warlock would be easier to do, because although you would have to make it rely on Cloth armour, you can change up the look of said armour, and it would have a different set of weapons as opposed to the Controller Wizard. So Itemization would be easier.
And honestly, the Paladin would also be another hard one to do. In 4e it wears plate, and can use either a one hand and shield or two handed weapon, thus making it potentially better than either a GWF, or inferiour to a GF.
The Warlock is the most likely class after or before the Druid.
However, the real issue with adding the Monk to Neverwinter is not actually how bad a class it is in 3.x. Or how good a class it is in 4e. It's mostly gear based. See the various classes have unique weapon/gear set ups. The Controller Wizard has an Orb for a weapon, and I think an off hand of some sort (I don't play Wizards, I have a slot open because I'm hoping for a Paladin -Not likely for the reason I gave- or a Warlock), and Robes for armour. A Rogue gets two weapons (Well, Daggers mostly) and Leather armour. A Great Weapon Fighter gets Scale Armour, a Sword Knot and a Two Handed weapon. The Guardian Sword and Board and Plate, and so on and so forth.
The Monk gets his/her fists and nothing else. Yes, you can make some fist wrappings, but still no armour. And then there's matter of Rings, Helmets, Belts and the like.
And getting back to weapons, see, a GWF's power increases with each new class of Great Weapon they get, in fact all the other classes, the same. Whereas a Monk would automatically do more, no matter what their wearing, which makes itemization a little difficult. And really that's the issue I see, itemization. What's the point of gear, when you don't need to be 'better'. And yet, that's the point of a Video Game, to get a visual representation of your growing power. A Fighter gets better/heavier looking armour and bigger, more impressive weapons. Even a Rogue and Wizard and Cleric gets cool looking gear A Monk would not, NEED it, and more importantly, it might look forced, if it did. Especially to Veteran players like you and I.
I don't see this as a problem. Wizards never wore armor in D&D, yet they do in neverwinter. It wouldn't be to hard to have various sets of gear look like different types of martial clothes. Monks were never naked, and lets be honest the armor dynamic in this game is TOTALLY different than real D&D. Each piece adds a bunch of different stats to your character, much of which it doesn't actually make any sense to be on armor. Your character is more heavily influenced by his gear 'stats' than his actual ability scores. So I don't see how any of your arguments would prevent cryptic from making a monk. You just give them cloth eq like any other class with the same stat dynamics. None and I mean NONE of the classes actually in Neverwinter conform to any of the D&D systems not even 4th edition. So like everything else a monk class would have to be heavily reworked. No biggie, been there done that,
And heck, a large number of people wandering around PE are wearing cosmetic stuff, that is not directly related to their class or lvl at all. You want to look like a classic penniless monk? Wear those peasant garbs.
Let's forget all my ranting about the Monk in various editions of D&D, and focus on the real issue for this video game: How would you make it seem more 'powerful' like the other classes, when as we all know, gear would not be as important to it?
The Warlock would be easier to do, because although you would have to make it rely on Cloth armour, you can change up the look of said armour, and it would have a different set of weapons as opposed to the Controller Wizard. So Itemization would be easier.
And honestly, the Paladin would also be another hard one to do. In 4e it wears plate, and can use either a one hand and shield or two handed weapon, thus making it potentially better than either a GWF, or inferiour to a GF.
The Warlock is the most likely class after or before the Druid.
What you say about paladin holds true to basically all the classes they already modified. Ie they have weapon choices in real D&D and they limit them to pretty much one weapon setup in this game. One way they could do that would be to have 2 weapon setup, much like Hunter ranger. a two handed sword that has mostly single target attacks (as not to step on gwf toes), then you tab and switch to sword and board. Or, like cleric, they could just give em one weapon and that's it. There's lots of ways they could do it.
I think everyone knows warlock is next, most likely followed by druid (both good classes), that's not really in question.
Armour is not important to a wizard in real d&d either, but yet in this game they have clothes with huge stats on them. I fail to see how monk would be any different.
Some of these arguments show a lack of imagination as a GM. In 29 years of gaming you have never used hand wraps or magical tattoos for monks? Really you seem so blinded by your hatred of the monk that you are unwilling to look at how it could be done, because you just don't want it in the game. Well, I and many others do want it in the game. Having played scrappers in CoH for over 8 years, and knowing how many Paragon devs went back to Cryptic, I have no doubt they could make and amazing monk. That I am sure will not change the fact that you just do not want one in the game.
Well, I don't want to see the druid or the bard in the game, but I can state it once and leave it at that. Luckily the the development cycle is not about what any one player (or any one developer for that matter) wants. It is about what can be done, and what a majority of the players will want. Well, and what will make money.
From my understanding the 4e monk is really cool, and would fit well in this game.
Personally I want to Punch AND Kick things. I also like the control aspects that the 3.5 monk could achieve with feats like Falling Star Strike, Improved Trip, and Pain Touch to name a few. The 3.x Oriental Adventures book based on the game L5R was a great addition to the monk.
I have a selective taste for martial arts and so on. Yes to all the Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan kinda thing, no to Samurai and ninjas. My main in EQ2, which I've been playing for nearly nine years now, is a Monk, and he's absolutely fantastic, one of my best characters ever. The DDO Monk is not bad, but I'm not as crazy about it. And not being familiar with the 4e PnP rules (beyond what I glean second hand from forums), I would be curious as to how it would be implemented in NW.
0
zenzeeMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I don't see this as a problem. Wizards never wore armor in D&D, yet they do in neverwinter.
In 4e, what Neverwinter is based off, 'Clothing' is the 'armour' of the Wizard, in other editions, they wear Robes, and the Robes have various types of Magical ones, like Robes of the Archmage. However, pre-4e, Monks did NOT get any magical clothing or magical weapons. They ARE the magical weapons. How would you do itemization?
It wouldn't be to hard to have various sets of gear look like different types of martial clothes. Monks were never naked, and lets be honest the armor dynamic in this game is TOTALLY different than real D&D. Each piece adds a bunch of different stats to your character, much of which it doesn't actually make any sense to be on armor. Your character is more heavily influenced by his gear 'stats' than his actual ability scores. So I don't see how any of your arguments would prevent cryptic from making a monk. You just give them cloth eq like any other class with the same stat dynamics. None and I mean NONE of the classes actually in Neverwinter conform to any of the D&D systems not even 4th edition.
Actually, they do. I mean, in 4e, the GWF is actually one half of the Fighter Class. As is the Guardian. They map pretty closely. The GWF uses big weapons and scale armour, just like the basic class, actually, it maps to a combination of the 4e Essentials Slayer class and the basic 4e fighter, the GF maps to the Essentials Knight and One handed Fighter.
It's likely itemization stats that's the biggest issue, and how do you make clothes look appropriate but they're the same thing as Wizard wears? So stats generation will be changed too? Who knows.
And heck, a large number of people wandering around PE are wearing cosmetic stuff, that is not directly related to their class or lvl at all. You want to look like a classic penniless monk? Wear those peasant garbs.
What you say about paladin holds true to basically all the classes they already modified. Ie they have weapon choices in real D&D and they limit them to pretty much one weapon setup in this game. One way they could do that would be to have 2 weapon setup, much like Hunter ranger. a two handed sword that has mostly single target attacks (as not to step on gwf toes), then you tab and switch to sword and board. Or, like cleric, they could just give em one weapon and that's it. There's lots of ways they could do it.
The issue is that Paladins can/could end up stepping on the GWF/GF's toes in terms of stuff.
Like you can have a Plate wearing Two Handed weapon user. Is that really 'fair' to the Great Weapon Fighter player, or the Guardian Fighter?
Armour is not important to a wizard in real d&d either, but yet in this game they have clothes with huge stats on them. I fail to see how monk would be any different.
I suppose. But it's mostly the weaponization that I'm worried about.
Honestly, I won't ever be playing a Monk class. So it won't be bothering me, as I tend to solo anyway.
I'd rather have a Paladin, but I don't know how they could make that class work.
In 4e, what Neverwinter is based off, 'Clothing' is the 'armour' of the Wizard, in other editions, they wear Robes, and the Robes have various types of Magical ones, like Robes of the Archmage. However, pre-4e, Monks did NOT get any magical clothing or magical weapons. They ARE the magical weapons. How would you do itemization?.
Monks could wear robes in 3rd edition. Robe of eyes was a nice one actually. almost without exception these magical items would not confer an ac bonus and if it did it was not physical in nature, and thus did not hamper movement in any way. Bracers of armor were often a popular magic item as, like the mage armour spell, simulated armour without conferring any penalties like real bulky armor would.
Seeing as the eq in neverwinter gives crazy stats that don't make much sense anyway, you just give monks cloth like garments with what ever sort of stat progression cryptic feels is right for the class. Maybe have them get fancier looking bracers as part of the sets?
Actually, they do. I mean, in 4e, the GWF is actually one half of the Fighter Class. As is the Guardian. They map pretty closely. The GWF uses big weapons and scale armour, just like the basic class, actually, it maps to a combination of the 4e Essentials Slayer class and the basic 4e fighter, the GF maps to the Essentials Knight and One handed Fighter.
.
They do at first glance yes. But there are many many changes to the core 4e system. Feats don't exist (as a freeform many option list to choose from), multiclassing (such as 4e had it) doesn't exist. skills don't exist. Ac/deflection,.. and pretty much every stat in the game is almost completely different from any D&D. I could go on, but the game is heavily modified, even from 4e.
It's likely itemization stats that's the biggest issue, and how do you make clothes look appropriate but they're the same thing as Wizard wears? So stats generation will be changed too? Who knows..
martial arts clothes, not arcane caster clothes. Why do you think they are the same?
The issue is that Paladins can/could end up stepping on the GWF/GF's toes in terms of stuff.
Like you can have a Plate wearing Two Handed weapon user. Is that really 'fair' to the Great Weapon Fighter player, or the Guardian Fighter?
I don't have an answer to that...
You can make paladin a useful and unique class the brings something special to the table. make it an aura using class for example. a tank that uses his two handed weapon to block and parry. I would imagine the paladin would not dish out the damage with his two hander a gwf could, nore have the same huge defensive bonuses the gf has. rather he tanks by holding agro and using various auras to debuff enemies and/or buff allies, with a few minor heals thrown in.
Honestly I think its a bit silly to think that any new class having 'heavy armour' or 'two handed weapon' would be stepping on any toes. there have been literally hundreds of classes made for the various D&D systems using all varieties of eq.
We do? And I'm not being facetious, I had no idea. OK. Well, this game may be getting three more players. :P
..
They haven't announced a release officially, but they have been working on warlock since beta. There has been dev chat about how they think everyone wants druids as well.
I suppose. But it's mostly the weaponization that I'm worried about.
Honestly, I won't ever be playing a Monk class. So it won't be bothering me, as I tend to solo anyway.
I'd rather have a Paladin, but I don't know how they could make that class work.
I'd like both monk and paladin. My two favorite D&D characters of all time are those classes and I'd dearly love to build both of them.
something that we where talking with friends, it would be awesome to play something more oriented to the hand to hand combat, kicks and acrobatics, anyone has any info about it?
Not anytime soon. The next two classes will most likely be Warlock and Druid. Its a safe bet Paladin and/or Bard will follow after. Based on how long it took Ranger its safe to estimate 3 to 6 months between classes. So if we see Warlock on module 3. it could be 6 months past that for Druid, another 6 months for Paladin or Bard. And thats even before Monk gets on the list.
Unless something changes, the present pace of 2 to 3 classes a year is far to slow to make everyone happy.
Comments
They can twist the names however they want, but the GWF is a barbarian. The "determination" for tab is just a re-branded berserker rage.
I have a GF, GWF, and a HR at 60. There is STILL room for a paladin, and a good fighter two weapon class.
By all accounts the Warlock is almost done, so I am accepting that it is the next class. I could care less about a druid though, in fact I can say it is my all time LEAST favorite of the D&D classes. Maybe they are more awesome in 4E (I skipped it because I have $1k in 3/3.5 books), but I seriously doubt they could ever be awesome enough to make me like them at all.
The monk I would however be willing to pay real money to play, just as I did in the other D&D mmo.
In 4E the shape-shifter druid is indeed different. They basically specialize in a beast form (the actual form is just cosmetic), and amp up damage quite a bit. It would be quite a bit like playing a were-wolf with the ability to change forms at will.
And agreed on monk. Let it be so!
I'm guessing <tab> will be wildshape, and wildshape will be fixed by druid subclass, for instance bear for guardian druids.
I hope <shift> will be sprint. It would be confusing if <shift> varied between forms, and beast form should have sprint.
Probably beast form and caster form will have different at-wills and fill different roles.
Conversely, a predator druid might have stronger defenses in human/oid form, with light armor and staff mastery.
Another possibility is that beast form would not have access to encounter powers, and that caster form would have no or weak at-wills. Then druids would switch to caster form, dump their encounters, and go to beast form until cooldowns end.
I like how casters in this game have themes: clerics light, wizards ice, rangers thorns. So it would be nice if druids were mostly either fire, earth, thorns, swarm, etc. casters, but not some mix of all possibilities.
A whip animation for fire or thorns attacks would be cool, unless warlocks already have that covered.
paladins
druids
monks
The standard fighters, clerics, wizards & rogues have never interested me.
Nice ideas for druid, although I bet if they do it, it will look more like the Ranger class with beast/humanoid being analagus to ranged/melee stances, with all powers having two versions. Much easier to implement with the ranger as a template.
druid
paladin
* necromancer
* Gunner
Obviously the Necromancy would be able to summon minions to fight with it and could focus on Life Steal spells, poision, and dark magic.
Gunner would be a ranged class with the use of rifles and could have break down into Sniper, Assault, or Barrage (Single damage, mid range damage, and AOE damage)
Guns in forgotten realms are rare and dangerous inventions of the priests of ogmah. There is a chance of them exploding on every use. I find it very unlikely they would base an entire class on them.
Upthread people noted that minions aren't much use, so necromancer might be a problem. How about an illusionist wizard? You would summon phantasms, which could be of undead why not, and not have to worry about them dying because they would have such short lives anyway.
I HATE the Monk. It flies into everything that D&D has ever had about classes. A Fighter could (originally) be a ranged or melee combatant, wielding weapon and shield, two handed or a ranged weapon. The Wizard has Schools to focus in, the Cleric can actually be both a healer, blaster or melee. And the Rogue in 3.x had a wide variety of options.
But the Monk? It doesn't matter what the designers give the class, it's remember for one thing. I beat everything up with my FISTS! And that's it. It's like that kid in the game group where you're going to playing in a War of The Roses type game that ALWAYS wants to play a Ninja. Heck, he ALWAYS wants to play a ninja, no matter what you're playing. That's the Monk class.
And as much as I love the Paladin (currently playing a Paladin of Kelemvor for the D&D Encoutners season) the issue is how do you build him in game? See, unlike the Fighter in 4e in which they turned him/her into a Kensei, a one trick pony, whether that's one weapon and shield or two handed, the Paladin can do both, because his/her powers are not limited to the weapon choice. Worse, you can't make the class do either, because then you're stepping on the GWF or GF's toes.
A better class to go after the Druid would be a Warlock, sadly. It's a true blaster mage, and currently there's no master of DoTs in this game, and that's what the Warlock does best.
Paladin
Warlock
If I could pick a dream class it would be the Avenger but thats a pipedream ofc
Wrong actually.
Monk was originally in 1st edition D&D, was reintroduced in late 2nd edition (scarlet brotherhood), and was a main staple of 3rd edition D&D. And of course was in players handbook 2 for 4th edition. Been there all along, so it hardly 'flies in the face' of all that is D&D.
You have a right to a personal distaste of course, but that doesn't make it a unmitiged reality for the universe. Fact is, LOTS of people love martial arts, and the monk class. That's an actual fact, and not an opinion.
The sad part is that in most D&D based settings, the punching Monk didn't really fit. But someone always wants to play the 'Japanese Ninja', and so they made the Monk, and has for the past 3 editions tried to stuff him into the traditional Western settings of D&D. Often with hilariously bad results.
Mechanically speaking, why is the monk bad? Well, in general it relied on about 3-4 stats being good to be effective. Strength for hit and damage (until 3.x where it gave Finesse, so Dex was all that's needed to hit) Dexterity AND Wisdom for defense, because a Front Line Fighter type that wore NO armour, which is also the only way defenses actually scaled up, pre-4e, was a GREAT idea, really. And Constitution was mandatory because it only ever had a D8 for a hit die, compared to the Fighter classes' (Ranger, Paladin, Fighter and later Barbarian) having a d10+ (Barby had a d12, not entirely sure why. It didn't really ever needed it.) Secondly, the 'powers' it got didn't really help it in most fights, they were either too specific, or too broad, too late to be constantly effective.
Thing is, no one really cares about the powers. All they want to do is PUNCH MONSTERS IN THE FACE! YEAH! Which frankly is a bad excuse for a class.
Ironically enough, in late 2e, I actually was able to do that, with a Fighter and some of the optional rules in the later books. And I was more of Shaolin monk than the monk class could ever hope to be. And for the record, I LOVE Eastern AND Western martial arts.
I've never played with anyone that played a monk for that reason. Maybe if you were playing with a 10 year old. On the same note, little kids that play fighters play em to PUMMEL MONSTERS WITH THEIR SWORD! Your argument doesn't make much sense to me, sorry.
Monk uses (over all editions) the exact same system that every other class used. You get a bonus to hit, roll a dice. You either hit or miss. Nothing about it is strange or complicated.
Monk has always been monk. I have never seen or heard of using monk to simulate a ninja. There have been ninja classes in D&D, notabley from the oriental adventures suppliments from the various editions. Totally different, using actual magic spells, swords, and other classical ninja powers. Heck even an assassin would make a better ninja than a monk. Oh and by the way forgotten realms has had monks in the lore for quite some time. Ever read the 'cleric quintet' books? And for that matter there is an entire Asian style empire called Karatur on the opposite side of the continent from Neverwinter, and yes, they have ninjas.
So basically its no different from paladin which 'requires' 4 stats to be effective.
Most monks will specialize in a stat. You got the 'strong' monk whose more of a pugilist, the quick dexterious monk whose more the bruce lee type, the wise monk who might be the old sensei type. Monks arnt really meant to have ALL their bennificial stats high. Unless you are power gaming of course. At the end of the day it is an interesting and complex class that can be built in many different ways for many different outcomes.
I love how you shoot out assumptions about other people and what they care about, like its the sacred truth. The powers were cool and useful, and that's one of the core draws of the class. The immunities, the speed, the ability to do damage when you are buck naked. I could tell you stories how I played a monk in tourney play back in the day, how the party was screwed over and had their gear stolen, and how my monk character was the only one that could save them. But I sorta get the feeling I might be talking to brick wall here.
You're lucky then. Because most players in my 29 years as a DM once they know that they can kung-fu monsters want to Kung Fu monsters.
Uh huhn. No. Wizards, Clerics and Druids and Bards have spells, and each spell was it's own rules block, that did not interact with any of the other rules. And each of them actually got their own special spell lists, with little crossover in actual spells But that's not what I'm focusing on.
That's not what I said. I said the Monk is like that kid in just about every High School D&D horror story from the late 80's to early 90's, in which he always wants to play a Ninja. A medieval Germany game about knights and dragons? He wants to play a Ninja! A more politically inclined game, where everyone is a Drow in Menzoberranzan? He wants to play a NINJA! Not a Drow Assassin, but a Ninja with a Katana! You name the campaign, and he wants to play a Ninja. That's what the Monk is, a class that sticks out and is mostly inappropriate unless your setting is set in a land like the Shou Empire of Kara-tur.
Now, the Paladin did need 4 stats too, yes I will grant you tha, but the only real issue was the Charisma, which needed to be 17 or more. The rest were 11 and 9. Not that hard to roll, as opposed to three 15s. And unlike the Monk, Dexterity did affect AC, and could wear any armour the Fighter could.
However, looking at the 1e stats for the Monk, you need 15s in Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom, and an 11 in Constitution. Not all that easy to get. However, they get Thief abilities at level 1! So technically, yes they COULD be played as Ninja, as they had Hide in Shadow and Move Silently as powers, among others. But really, no one did. They were too happy to punch monsters to death. After all, they got to add half their level to damage whenever fighting something with a weapon in its hands.
I stand corrected about the HP in 1e. They had 2d4, which actually works out to about 5HP per level on average. In 3.x they brought it up to a D8.
Not in 1e they couldn't. But I will grant that the 1e Monk was ridiculously overpowered. In 3.x not so much. And worse, to be effective, 'specializing' in one stat meant nothing. You NEEDED to have a good Dex and Wis because BOTH added to your AC. And given that you wore no armour and had Cleric hit points, but had to fight in a front line, a better than average Constitution was also desirable. Sadly, the 3.x Monk was an example of perfect class design, but terrible mechanics. It's perfect in that there were no dead levels in terms of goodies. You always got something when you leveled, whether it was a feat like everyone else, or you got a special power. It was terrible in that most of the powers were, well, pretty terrible.
Maybe it's anecdotal, but after 29 years of running various RPGs, and a lot of which was Dungeons and Dragons, most players I've run across, if you ask them what a A D&D Monk can do, the first thing they remember is PUNCHING MONSTERS IN DA FACE! WITH THEIR BARE HANDS! HOO HA!
The second most common answer is the speed boost, followed by the fact that they don't need armour. Or weapons. But they almost always mention the PUNCHING MONSTERS, HOO HA! Everything else is secondary, or unimportant. And this is not just around me, but on various gaming sites and forums, including Wizards of The Coast's very own.
However, the real issue with adding the Monk to Neverwinter is not actually how bad a class it is in 3.x. Or how good a class it is in 4e. It's mostly gear based. See the various classes have unique weapon/gear set ups. The Controller Wizard has an Orb for a weapon, and I think an off hand of some sort (I don't play Wizards, I have a slot open because I'm hoping for a Paladin -Not likely for the reason I gave- or a Warlock), and Robes for armour. A Rogue gets two weapons (Well, Daggers mostly) and Leather armour. A Great Weapon Fighter gets Scale Armour, a Sword Knot and a Two Handed weapon. The Guardian Sword and Board and Plate, and so on and so forth.
The Monk gets his/her fists and nothing else. Yes, you can make some fist wrappings, but still no armour. And then there's matter of Rings, Helmets, Belts and the like.
And getting back to weapons, see, a GWF's power increases with each new class of Great Weapon they get, in fact all the other classes, the same. Whereas a Monk would automatically do more, no matter what their wearing, which makes itemization a little difficult. And really that's the issue I see, itemization. What's the point of gear, when you don't need to be 'better'. And yet, that's the point of a Video Game, to get a visual representation of your growing power. A Fighter gets better/heavier looking armour and bigger, more impressive weapons. Even a Rogue and Wizard and Cleric gets cool looking gear A Monk would not, NEED it, and more importantly, it might look forced, if it did. Especially to Veteran players like you and I.
Let's forget all my ranting about the Monk in various editions of D&D, and focus on the real issue for this video game: How would you make it seem more 'powerful' like the other classes, when as we all know, gear would not be as important to it?
The Warlock would be easier to do, because although you would have to make it rely on Cloth armour, you can change up the look of said armour, and it would have a different set of weapons as opposed to the Controller Wizard. So Itemization would be easier.
And honestly, the Paladin would also be another hard one to do. In 4e it wears plate, and can use either a one hand and shield or two handed weapon, thus making it potentially better than either a GWF, or inferiour to a GF.
The Warlock is the most likely class after or before the Druid.
I don't see this as a problem. Wizards never wore armor in D&D, yet they do in neverwinter. It wouldn't be to hard to have various sets of gear look like different types of martial clothes. Monks were never naked, and lets be honest the armor dynamic in this game is TOTALLY different than real D&D. Each piece adds a bunch of different stats to your character, much of which it doesn't actually make any sense to be on armor. Your character is more heavily influenced by his gear 'stats' than his actual ability scores. So I don't see how any of your arguments would prevent cryptic from making a monk. You just give them cloth eq like any other class with the same stat dynamics. None and I mean NONE of the classes actually in Neverwinter conform to any of the D&D systems not even 4th edition. So like everything else a monk class would have to be heavily reworked. No biggie, been there done that,
And heck, a large number of people wandering around PE are wearing cosmetic stuff, that is not directly related to their class or lvl at all. You want to look like a classic penniless monk? Wear those peasant garbs.
What you say about paladin holds true to basically all the classes they already modified. Ie they have weapon choices in real D&D and they limit them to pretty much one weapon setup in this game. One way they could do that would be to have 2 weapon setup, much like Hunter ranger. a two handed sword that has mostly single target attacks (as not to step on gwf toes), then you tab and switch to sword and board. Or, like cleric, they could just give em one weapon and that's it. There's lots of ways they could do it.
I think everyone knows warlock is next, most likely followed by druid (both good classes), that's not really in question.
Armour is not important to a wizard in real d&d either, but yet in this game they have clothes with huge stats on them. I fail to see how monk would be any different.
Well, I don't want to see the druid or the bard in the game, but I can state it once and leave it at that. Luckily the the development cycle is not about what any one player (or any one developer for that matter) wants. It is about what can be done, and what a majority of the players will want. Well, and what will make money.
From my understanding the 4e monk is really cool, and would fit well in this game.
Personally I want to Punch AND Kick things.
As a bonus.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Danica_Maupoissant
In 4e, what Neverwinter is based off, 'Clothing' is the 'armour' of the Wizard, in other editions, they wear Robes, and the Robes have various types of Magical ones, like Robes of the Archmage. However, pre-4e, Monks did NOT get any magical clothing or magical weapons. They ARE the magical weapons. How would you do itemization?
Actually, they do. I mean, in 4e, the GWF is actually one half of the Fighter Class. As is the Guardian. They map pretty closely. The GWF uses big weapons and scale armour, just like the basic class, actually, it maps to a combination of the 4e Essentials Slayer class and the basic 4e fighter, the GF maps to the Essentials Knight and One handed Fighter.
It's likely itemization stats that's the biggest issue, and how do you make clothes look appropriate but they're the same thing as Wizard wears? So stats generation will be changed too? Who knows.
Not when you quest.
The issue is that Paladins can/could end up stepping on the GWF/GF's toes in terms of stuff.
Like you can have a Plate wearing Two Handed weapon user. Is that really 'fair' to the Great Weapon Fighter player, or the Guardian Fighter?
I don't have an answer to that.
We do? And I'm not being facetious, I had no idea. OK. Well, this game may be getting three more players. :P
I suppose. But it's mostly the weaponization that I'm worried about.
Honestly, I won't ever be playing a Monk class. So it won't be bothering me, as I tend to solo anyway.
I'd rather have a Paladin, but I don't know how they could make that class work.
Monks could wear robes in 3rd edition. Robe of eyes was a nice one actually. almost without exception these magical items would not confer an ac bonus and if it did it was not physical in nature, and thus did not hamper movement in any way. Bracers of armor were often a popular magic item as, like the mage armour spell, simulated armour without conferring any penalties like real bulky armor would.
Seeing as the eq in neverwinter gives crazy stats that don't make much sense anyway, you just give monks cloth like garments with what ever sort of stat progression cryptic feels is right for the class. Maybe have them get fancier looking bracers as part of the sets?
They do at first glance yes. But there are many many changes to the core 4e system. Feats don't exist (as a freeform many option list to choose from), multiclassing (such as 4e had it) doesn't exist. skills don't exist. Ac/deflection,.. and pretty much every stat in the game is almost completely different from any D&D. I could go on, but the game is heavily modified, even from 4e.
martial arts clothes, not arcane caster clothes. Why do you think they are the same?
You can use your cosmetic appearance while you quest. Some people even use it to look 'naked' while they run around questing and dungeoning.
You can make paladin a useful and unique class the brings something special to the table. make it an aura using class for example. a tank that uses his two handed weapon to block and parry. I would imagine the paladin would not dish out the damage with his two hander a gwf could, nore have the same huge defensive bonuses the gf has. rather he tanks by holding agro and using various auras to debuff enemies and/or buff allies, with a few minor heals thrown in.
Honestly I think its a bit silly to think that any new class having 'heavy armour' or 'two handed weapon' would be stepping on any toes. there have been literally hundreds of classes made for the various D&D systems using all varieties of eq.
They haven't announced a release officially, but they have been working on warlock since beta. There has been dev chat about how they think everyone wants druids as well.
I'd like both monk and paladin. My two favorite D&D characters of all time are those classes and I'd dearly love to build both of them.
Unless something changes, the present pace of 2 to 3 classes a year is far to slow to make everyone happy.
Neverwinter Wonderland
Neverwinter Wet & Wild
Neverwinter 2nd Anniversary Montage
Neverwinter Anniversary Montage
Protector's Jubilee Speech
Oh the Carnage