4th Ed Monk?

[Aloïsius]

It seemed to me that he strongly implied it was in, but stopped short of confirming it.

Maybe splitting hairs, but in this atmosphere of speculation, I think it's important to be precise.

I wondered if it was rather the contrary (DR in, Monk out). I guess my english is not good enough.

 

[Umbra_Kaitou]

I wondered if it was rather the contrary (DR in, Monk out). I guess my english is not good enough.

No, with the way my post was worded it should be read

"There is a very good chance Monks are in and DR is out"

*does happy dance* Not only did I actually get an answer, but Monks are in here in some way shape or form yaaaay.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Update: Logan has clarified some of what of the designers have been saying in regards to specific class mentions.

Nobody has said which 8 classes are in or out of the PH1. We've talked about classes in seminars and on the boards, and we've mentioned way more than eight classes in them. All the classes in the 3.5 PH will appear at some point in the game's lifespan, but the only ones you can call "confirmed" in the PH1 are fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.

So -- monk is 'in' by their use of the term, just not necessarily 'in' the PHB1. Same for warlord, paladin, & ranger (the other specifically mentioned classes which were not specifically linked to PHB1).

 

[TroyXavier]

We'll eventually get all the classes from 3.5 PHB in 4th ed. in some form. My guess is they'll be in PHB II.

 

[blargney the second]

If monk is in the 4e PHB, I hope it's more customizable than the 3e one. Lawful-only was irritating, and essentially cookie-cutter monks were not as interesting to me as classes that you could actually tweak along the way.

 

[variant]

Monks just screw with my campaign. When I think of a Monk in a medieval setting, I think of a cloistered priest. I say dump the class.

 

[BryonD]

Monks just screw with my campaign. When I think of a Monk in a medieval setting, I think of a cloistered priest. I say dump the class.

And when I think of a monk in a world where magic and divine forces are real and tangible, I think of a D&D monk. There now you've said your position and I've said the opposite.
Can we please please please not restart this endless debate in this particular thread. The general forum is a great place for debating whether or not monks SHOULD be in D&D. This forum is a great place for discussing facts and rumors regarding the status of Monks in the 4E ruleset.

Pretty please.

 

[Quartz]

How is doing 1d3 base damage going to scare anyone?

Because of all the adds. Wedid this recently with the thread on Belkar in OOTS 439. Consider a Str 16 character fighter. 11th level or so. We'll give him feats as needed (every level), so he's got Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Melee Weapon Mastery, Power Attack, Greater Weapon Focus, the TWF feats. A Full Attack is 4 attacks. He's got +3 cesti (or his fists are GMWed to +3), he's got a +4 enhancement bonus to Str and a +2 Inherent Bonus.

So he's +4 to hit and +4 damage from feats, +6 from Str, +3 from magic weapon. So he hits at +13 over his BAB (say 10) for typically 15 HP damage, plus any Favoured enemy bonuses and funky stuff like Rage. If he were using a 1d8 weapon, that would only increase the damage to 17.5. And at +23 to hit we might devote 5 points to Power Attack. So he's potentially doing 80+ HP a round. Could easily be over 100.

Also the inability to dodge.

Take 2 levels in Rogue to get Evasion, 4 for Uncanny Dodge, or more in Ranger.