Can monks, druids, and sorcerers exist in 4E?

[Nonanonymous]

This isn't about conversion here, I'm just wondering if the general themes of these now discarded classes can be carried over into the 4E classes. I suppose that the warlock would work for the sorcerer, though I've been unable to figure out if any of the classes presented could be made to use unarmed attacks (or gauntlets) to more or less represent a monk with no alignment descriptions. The druid is another tricky one, given that most of the cleric spells are nothing but buffs and fire based attacks.

[TheLogman]

Wait, you mean there are NO nature based spells? What about the Ranger? Does he still have spellcasting? Or is it just combat now?

If there are no Nature-based spells, then 4th edition has gone farther than I thought it would. I mean really, combat is fun and all, but why not have some problems solvable with nature magic? A survival on a tropical island?

Guess not.

[Ned the undead]

I've heard rumors of a primal book that supposedly has the Druid, Barbarian, and maybe the Scout.
However there will be nature magics as one the power sources in 4e is primal.

[Trizap]

don't worry, they will, they will just come later, trust me, I have my sources.

[ahammer]

[QUOTE=Nonanonymous;4422232] discarded classes [QUOTE]

that is a bad word to use they have said for sure they will be out with the phb2 next year... no if and or buts

I think they just wanted more time to work on thoese classesn and to have a reson to buy the phb2

btw from what I have seen the Druid will not have spell casting they will be a shapshifting class.. but im sure there will be a spell classing type for primal

[Terraoblivion]

A few of the rituals also use the nature skill and deal with typically nature'ish stuff. I haven't read them in general, but most of the magic such as spells geared for survival is handled by rituals so there is easily space for it already. It is just not the focus of any single class.

[Rockphed]

Yes, they can. Are they supported? Not as of yet. I personally think the druid should focus more on interesting battlefield control, and less on shapeshifting. As such, if I wanted a druid, I would refluff the wizard. It does stink that there is only 1 controller in the Players' Handbook, as seeing another controller would give more information on what is important for a controller, and what of the wizard is just the wizard being a wizard.:smallfrown:

[Nonanonymous]

Wait, you mean there are NO nature based spells? What about the Ranger? Does he still have spellcasting? Or is it just combat now?

If there are no Nature-based spells, then 4th edition has gone farther than I thought it would. I mean really, combat is fun and all, but why not have some problems solvable with nature magic? A survival on a tropical island?

Guess not.

Actually I haven't really bothered to read up on the ranger class, though I'll get on that now that you've reminded me of it.

EDIT: Just read through the ranger's powers, the only thing close to magic was basically one encounter/five minutes worth of invisibility as long you have cover/concealment, and preternatural bowmanship/swordsmanship.



that is a bad word to use they have said for sure they will be out with the phb2 next year... no if and or buts

I don't really do a good job keeping up with news that isn't in my RSS feeds.:smallsigh:

[Friv]

In order:

Sorcerer can be handled decently well by the warlock, really. Failing that, you could go with a wizard and never use one of your feats. ;)

Monk - not really, but you can sort of fake it with GM approval.
Wait, hang on, no you can't.
What the hell? There are no rules anywhere that I can find that deal with unarmed combat at all. It doesn't have a stat line, it doesn't have a damage amount, it doesn't provoke attacks of oppurtunity, there are no unarmed feats... it's just not referenced in any way.

Daamn. Ok, so if you want to monk it up, you'll need extensive houserules.

Druid: Probably not. A Ranger who was also a Ritual Caster might be able to pull it off starting at Level 2, though; proper divine rituals could substitute for much of the flavour of the druid, if not the mechanics.

[JaxGaret]

Monk - not really, but you can sort of fake it with GM approval.
Wait, hang on, no you can't.
What the hell? There are no rules anywhere that I can find that deal with unarmed combat at all. It doesn't have a stat line, it doesn't have a damage amount, it doesn't provoke attacks of oppurtunity, there are no unarmed feats... it's just not referenced in any way.

Daamn. Ok, so if you want to monk it up, you'll need extensive houserules.

Incorrect. Page 216 of the PHB has this to say about unarmed attacks:


Unarmed: When you punch, kick, elbow, knee, or even head butt an opponent, you’re making an unarmed strike. A simple unarmed attack is treated as an improvised weapon. Creatures that have natural weapons such as claws or bite attacks are proficient with those natural weapons.

On page 219 it lists the stats for an Unarmed attack.

[Nonanonymous]

EDIT: Just read through the ranger's powers
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/11/Power_rangers_movie_poster.jpg/185px-Power_rangers_movie_poster.jpg

That just sort of leaped out at me after I posted it.

[Nonanonymous]

Incorrect. Page 216 of the PHB has this to say about unarmed attacks:



On page 219 it lists the stats for an Unarmed attack.

Yes, but you know what they don't have? Gauntlets as weapons. You can't enchant your fists, and you're likely to want some magic weapons at some point in the game. I just find it preposterous that they have some sort of issue with characters punching their foes to death at WotC. :smallannoyed:

[TheOOB]

The PHB is specifically designed to cover martial, divine, and arcane PCs. It has four martial classes(warlord, fighter, rogue, and ranger), 2 divine(cleric, paladin), and 2 arcane(wizard, warlock) and we will presumably see more from each power source in the future. The book also mentions that there are more power sources that will be available in future books with new classes, including but not limited to ki(monk), primal(druid, barbarian), elemental(sorcerer), psionic(psion, psi warrior), and shadow(I think illusionists and enchanters).

And yes, rangers are non magical now, though they can learn some magic through feats like every class.

[JaxGaret]

Yes, but you know what they don't have? Gauntlets as weapons. You can't enchant your fists, and you're likely to want some magic weapons at some point in the game. I just find it preposterous that they have some sort of issue with characters punching their foes to death at WotC. :smallannoyed:

You'll just have to wait for the Monk class.

Perhaps they will include Gauntlets in the Adventurer's Vault or Martial Power.

[Eldariel]

For some reason, I initially read "The Duergar Rangers".

[Nonanonymous]

For some reason, I initially read "The Duergar Rangers".

Sounds like the makings of a plot hook. :smallamused:

[TheOOB]

When monks come out there will be a way to enchant your fists. 4e is designed assuming a certain level of enhancement on your attack rolls, and monks, like everyone else, will get it.

[Nebo_]

It says specifically in the PHB that the Druid, Monk, Psion & Barbarian are coming and it hints very heavily at more classes that use other power sources. It even mentions what the sources will be.

[ghost_warlock]

btw from what I have seen the Druid will not have spell casting they will be a shapshifting class.. but im sure there will be a spell classing type for primal

Yeah, probably labeled a 'shaman' or something like that.

I expect all of these classes to make an appearance in 4e. I don't, however, expect that they will translate exactly from what we think of when we picture these classes in their 3e incarnations.

Converting characters directly between editions doesn't seem to be a WotC priority.

[FoE]

I don't mind them taking some extra time with monks if they can, you know, not make them D&D's bitches. And I mean the prison kind. :smalltongue:

[Tsotha-lanti]

Yes, but you know what they don't have? Gauntlets as weapons. You can't enchant your fists, and you're likely to want some magic weapons at some point in the game. I just find it preposterous that they have some sort of issue with characters punching their foes to death at WotC. :smallannoyed:

Are you kidding? Why would you need gauntlets? Monks fighting with gauntlets is just dumb. Meanwhile, 4E already has Implements, which give attack and damage bonuses to spells. I wonder what the monks could use?!!!11

[kamikasei]

I'm suddenly intrigued by the idea of the Druid as a shapeshifting class with no spells (as powers) but with ritual casting for free the way wizards get it. Might go some way towards giving the feel of a class that's "out of combat, I am a sage and master of the wilds. In combat, I am a giant bear."

[Roderick_BR]

I'm suddenly intrigued by the idea of the Druid as a shapeshifting class with no spells (as powers) but with ritual casting for free the way wizards get it. Might go some way towards giving the feel of a class that's "out of combat, I am a sage and master of the wilds. In combat, I am a giant bear."
Oddly enough, that sounds funny and awesome at the same time.

And since we are talking about emulating 3e classes, what would a makeshift bard be? A rogue with those multiclass feats for wizard powers? Somehow I don't see bards using rituals, as they are a more improvision kind of magic users than typical wizards.

[SamTheCleric]

Yes, the Coming "power sources" are: Primal, Elemental, Psionic, Ki and Shadow.

Druids and Barbarians will be Primal
Psions will be Psionic
Monks will be Ki
Sorcerers will be Elemental.

:smallbiggrin:

[Corlindale]

And since we are talking about emulating 3e classes, what would a makeshift bard be? A rogue with those multiclass feats for wizard powers?

As a fan of the magical side of the 3.5 Bard, I'd probably go with a Fey Pact Warlock. They get a decent bit of confusion and mind control and fit nicely with "trickster" flavour as well; Bluff as a class skill and powers enhancing it. And perhaps one could imagine having a rod that was also a flute.. :smallsmile: With a slight change of the flavour, you could sort of get a nature-themed bard. Would miss the illusions, though.. those were always among the greatest bard tricks for me. Only a few rituals exist now to emulate their effect, and I can't fit the extensive casting and preparation time of those with the spontaneous nature of my ideal bard.

Perhaps multiclassed with Rogue somehow - I haven't really studied the multiclass rules extensively yet.

[Tengu]

Are you kidding? Why would you need gauntlets? Monks fighting with gauntlets is just dumb. Meanwhile, 4E already has Implements, which give attack and damage bonuses to spells. I wonder what the monks could use?!!!11

Monk's implement will be a prayer wheel. Spin it three times, receive enlightenment and your fists burst in flames.

[Indon]

Monk's implement will be a prayer wheel. Spin it three times, receive enlightenment and your fists burst in flames.

Wheel... of... PRAYER!

But seriously, if you want to play another class in 4'th edition, don't bother to wait on Wizards of the Coast. All three of those classes can be made right now, without too much trouble.

Monk:
Power Source - Ki (Reflavor the powers you take from other classes to this - I would have Ki attacks focus on physical or force damage)
Role - Melee Controller/Defender (Use reflavored Fighter and Wizard powers - focus on effects that daze or knock the opponent prone, and give the Monk controlling abilities to hold aggro rather than the mark mechanic), though that's debatable.
Extras - Ritual Spellcasting

Druid:
Power Source - Primal (Physical damage, and... is 'nature' a kind of damage?)
Role - Leader (Use primarily reflavored Warlock powers, but steal one or two non-at-will powers from a few other classes as well to model versatility)
Extras - Ritual Spellcasting

Sorceror:
Power Source - Arcane
Role - Striker/Leader (Use reflavored Ranger powers, add a couple AoE damage-focused Wizard spells, and a couple leader powers)

Just off the top of my head, that's how I'd generally make those classes. The roles are somewhat up for debate, because the Monk and the Druid fail to fit into the 4'th edition role system. But you can make powers for any role, really.

[Scintillatus]

You know Monks are trained to use BOTH fists, right? Make the damage 2d4, change the Fighter abilities to allow fists as an implement, and done.

Sorcerors? Wizards, at least until WOTC comes out with PHB2 and they get their super-awesome elemental magic powers.

Druids? Yeah, that and Bards (etc etc... basically special powersources) are the ones we can't do yet.

[wodan46]

PHB2 is probably gonna have all the classes people complain about missing.

The first classes they've featured are the basic classes, who adhere the closest to the 4E mechanics. More complex classes, that use summons, illusions, shapeshifting, and ability damage will show up later, but they will show up.

Bards are reportedly going to be Arcane Leaders, with a strong emphasis on Illusions outside of their basic role.

Druids are going to focus on Shapeshifting, but will still be able to cast combat spells, and as such its reasonable to suspect that they will get Ritual Casting.

Sorcerers are almost certainly using the Elemental power source, and tend to have ongoing elemental aura effects after casting.

Shadow is going to relate to necrotic energy, necromancy, and life drain, not Illusion or Enchantment, each of which will have its own class most likely (Bard for the first, possibly something like Beguiler for the second?)

As for stuff I don't know for sure, I bet that Barbarians will have Rages that give them temporary HP equal to a Surge and a Strength bonus, while Summon spells/classes will likely involve minions, sustain actions, or both.

[Zeful]

Points (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15861146&postcount=1)


Second interesting tidbit: One of the really fun things I've had a chance to play with in the last couple of weeks is a little bit of development assistance on the Player's Handbook II. The part that I got to get my hands dirty on is the sorcerer--an old friend, since I created the first draft of the sorcerer back in the early days of my work on 3rd Edition. The 3rd Edition sorcerer was spurred by the simple observation that an enormous hunk of valuable real estate in the Player's Handbook was devoted to the support of a single class--the wizard. I asked the question, "Is there some other way we can utilize all these spells?" That and the idea of cast-on-the-fly from a limited list was enough to get the sorcerer into the book, and it became one of the most popular innovations of the 3rd Edition game. In 4th Edition, we don't want to design classes for this sort of reason anymore; since every class is in effect a spellcaster, we don't want to see a 99% overlap of the power lists between two classes. That mean taking the sorcerer back to the broad story concepts (concepts that evolved later in the sorcerer's original 3e design, since the sorcerer began with mechanics in 3e) and thinking hard about what it *could* be and how it could occupy the same role and power source as the wizard but be a different class. I think we've got some great ideas cooking up on that score. (Hint: It might involve some wild magery.)

Bolded to highlight.
Looks like the Sorcerer is an Arcane Controller (unless something happens between now and then).


As for stuff I don't know for sure, I bet that Barbarians will have Rages that give them temporary HP equal to a Surge and a Strength bonus, while Summon spells/classes will likely involve minions, sustain actions, or both.

There are no strength bonuses, just power bonuses to attack and damage.

[Friv]

Incorrect. Page 216 of the PHB has this to say about unarmed attacks:



On page 219 it lists the stats for an Unarmed attack.

Brilliant, thanks. I knew it had to be somewhere. :smalltongue:

[Nonanonymous]

Sorcerors? Wizards, at least until WOTC comes out with PHB2 and they get their super-awesome elemental magic powers.

Spellbook =/= spontaneous caster empowered by their bloodline.

[Rutee]

Spellbook =/= spontaneous caster empowered by their bloodline.

I don't think anyone is going to bitch when you change the flavor. I really, really don't.

[JaxGaret]

I can see a TWF Ranger using Unarmed attacks being used as a Monk. Just reflavor the powers, and create this feat tree:

Improved Unarmed Attack: Deal +2 damage with Unarmed attacks, and your Unarmed attacks gain the Off-Hand property.

Greater Unarmed Attack (prereq IUA): Add +2 to your attack rolls when you make an Unarmed attack, and your Unarmed attacks gain the Versatile property.

You can keep on going with more Unarmed feats.

[Bandededed]

...
Greater Unarmed Attack (prereq IUA): Add +2 to your attack rolls when you make an Unarmed attack, and your Unarmed attacks gain the Versatile property.

Wait, what? The first part sounds good to me, but Versatile? So you can wield your hand in both hands and do more damage...?

[Nonanonymous]

^
@
That would be like putting your hands together and slamming them into your opponent, I believe.

[Skyserpent]

^
@
That would be like putting your hands together and slamming them into your opponent, I believe.

Or perhaps proper balance and weight distribution, with maybe a bit of rotation to provide more torque, giving the strike more force?

[Grug]

My theory? Sorcerer will be a blasty type. It will have similar spells to the wizard, but more "At will" powers and larger number of Encounter powers to embrace the spontaneous theme.

By the way, do Power Sources have any mechanics? Or are they just for flavor.

[skywalker]

I'd like to say that page 130 of the Monster Manual is all about Githzerai(the monk posterchild) and each version of Githzerai gets a whallop of an unarmed strike(+17) that does 2d8 damage at will. So you could use that as a base(the weakest Githzerai is a level 11 monster) to create a damage progression for monks.

I'm not very good at math and stuff, but I'm sure someone intelligent and good at these rules things can handle that.

I've got nothing as far as the powers, tho.

[JaxGaret]

^
@
That would be like putting your hands together and slamming them into your opponent, I believe.

Starfleet-style :smallsmile:


Or perhaps proper balance and weight distribution

Since an Unarmed attack can be made with any part of the body, this is pretty much what I was thinking of. An unarmed combatant using greater body control to deal more powerful single strikes.

[JaxGaret]

My theory? Sorcerer will be a blasty type. It will have similar spells to the wizard, but more "At will" powers and larger number of Encounter powers to embrace the spontaneous theme.

Or they could continue with the Heritage theme, but give multiple options, like the Warlock pacts.


By the way, do Power Sources have any mechanics? Or are they just for flavor.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here, and the answer is no doubt complicated, but in a word, yes.

For instance, the Divine power source seems to utilize Radiant energy a fair bit. And the Martial power source necessitates that characters' powers are, well, martial in nature, which means that they are more likely to be against AC than against the other defenses, Arcane powers tend to have a variety of energy types, etc.

[Rutee]

By the way, do Power Sources have any mechanics? Or are they just for flavor.

Nope, no mechanics. It's purely a flavor thing. Not sure how I'd feel about a mechanic for them,a ctually.


For instance, the Divine power source seems to utilize Radiant energy a fair bit. And the Martial power source necessitates that characters' powers are, well, martial in nature, which means that they are more likely to be against AC than against the other defenses, Arcane powers tend to have a variety of energy types, etc.
None of these are tied to the power source They're tied to the powers. The powers are tied to the class. But there's no particular mechanic that goes with the Power Source.

[JaxGaret]

None of these are tied to the power source They're tied to the powers. The powers are tied to the class. But there's no particular mechanic that goes with the Power Source.

So you think the fact that most Martial powers are more likely to be vs. AC, for example, isn't mechanics tied to a power source?

[Rutee]

So you think the fact that most Martial powers are more likely to be vs. AC, for example, isn't mechanics tied to a power source?

Not really, because riddle me this: Are you forced to do it one way or the other?

[JaxGaret]

Not really, because riddle me this: Are you forced to do it one way or the other?

No, but the question was "are they just for flavor", and I think that the answer is no.

You could certainly create a Martial character with lots of different energy-type damages vs. Fort or Reflex or Will, but will it really feel like a Martial character, or more like an Arcane character?

[Rutee]

No, but the question was "are they just for flavor", and I think that the answer is no.

You could certainly create a Martial character with lots of different energy-type damages vs. Fort or Reflex or Will, but will it really feel like a Martial character, or more like an Arcane character?

Sure. Look at Diamond Mind's use of Concentration. I could totally see someone concentrated on fakeouts, a smattering of intimidation (Lighter then the actual skill, so it actually works..), and the like working on mostly Will. I'll agree that most Martial characters will target AC, but no part of the power source mechanics requires it one way or the other. I imagine the Monk, for instance, will target multiple defenses.

[JaxGaret]

Sure. Look at Diamond Mind's use of Concentration. I could totally see someone concentrated on fakeouts, a smattering of intimidation (Lighter then the actual skill, so it actually works..), and the like working on mostly Will. I'll agree that most Martial characters will target AC, but no part of the power source mechanics requires it one way or the other.

Agreed. It's more of a tendency/suggestion than a hard and fast rule.


I imagine the Monk, for instance, will target multiple defenses.

Monks are rumored to use the Ki power source.

[Rutee]

Right. I don't think Ki particularly implies any particular target or other. It'll probably be an individual class thing (Samurai mostly hitting AC, Ninja trading AC and Reflex, etc)

[Dark Tira]

Mechanically power sources matter when it comes to things like wands. You have to have at least 1 arcane power to use arcane wands. So if it's true that Sorcerers will be elemental-based then they won't be able to share wands with Wizards and Warlocks.

[NephandiMan]

An elemental power source...well, I guess that would work, although at first brush it feels like a desperate attempt on WotC's part to make the sorcerer something other than a wizard without a spellbook. After all, wizards are not exactly lacking in elemental powers.

(As a side note, I just realized that this forum's spell-checking program doesn't consider "spellbook" a word. I find that quite amusing).

[Grug]

There is a sidebar in the 4ed PHB that says explicitly that Druids, babarians, sorcerors, and monks will be in an upcoming rulebook.

[JaxGaret]

An elemental power source...well, I guess that would work, although at first brush it feels like a desperate attempt on WotC's part to make the sorcerer something other than a wizard without a spellbook. After all, wizards are not exactly lacking in elemental powers.

An Elemental Sorcerer would be interesting, since in the cosmology of 4e, Elemental forces stem from the Primordials and the Elemental Chaos. Sorcerers might be akin to Wild Mages (that's been floated by 4e designers as a possible design theme). If so, I imagine that their powers might reflect a much more raw and undisciplined use of Arcane power.

So "Elemental" doesn't simply mean damage types, it has a slightly deeper meaning.