Umberlin

Which is what I meant by slang. Given the right context, and enough time of spreading within that context, a Word, thus a name, can change meaning - in that context. Which Monk obviously has, in the context of RPGs. Your example of Farmer, in the right context, given enough time, could change meaning in certain circumstances - if it couldn't then what you see with a fictional Monk in an RPG, versus a real Monk somewhere in actual time . . . wouldn't be possible. And it is. If it weren't you wouldn't have all the classes named Monk throughout various RPGs that have nothing to do with the actual role of various real Monks in various cultures throughout actual history. Accept it for what it is, not just in this RPG, but in many - many - RPGs? Maybe? No? Then . . . Do you want it renamed? Would it change anything? If yes . . . Okay, sure, but, again, what has really changed? The name doesn't change in any of the other RPGs that already use said name (which are quite many, out of curiosity I went digging for information, it's a very popular name for this sort of class apparently). The function of what was once the Monk in this setting won't have changed for the name change either. Like I said earlier, I'd just apply random nonsense words to each class to avoid these very sorts of, "but that actually names mean this" discussions, but not because the name Monkis inappropriate but because the name, in the context of a fantasy series, doesn't mean a thing. The writer can take any given name and apply any given meaning to it, no matter how widly out of place. Developers that use terms like Monk, Warrior, Priest and so on tend to stick with them for very practical reasons - familiarity with how they've been used in past RPGs. For example let's take the Paladin as Obsidian have presented it . . . you could apply the same issue with the name of the Monk to the name of the Paladin. Want the Paladin's name changed? It wouldn't change the intended function it it were, and it'd just irk all the people that wanted something called "Paladin" in the game. I'm not sure changing the Monk's name would really do anything positive, and the few people in this thread that might support such a change? I'm not sure they're a good measure of a community wide reaction . . . In the end I think it's better to just stop thinking of a fictional Monk in a fantasy RPG in any real world terms, as they have had a meaning in the RPG community, for a very long time now, that is obviously not realistic. It's neat to note what real world Monks do, they come in all the shapes mentioned here and more, but, it's obvious, these fictional Monks are not them.

This is interesting to see discussed . . . I'm curious, have you played D&D as a tabletop game, as a Wizard, and not just the IE interpretations - First Edition specifically?

I'm fairly sure barbarian berserker isn't . . . quite what they're getting at with the Monk anyways. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. Regardless Monk is a pretty common term in fantasy RPGs of many types, to the extent that Monk, in reference to RPGs has taken on a bit of its own meaning. Anyone familiar with the D&D based IE games, I'm fairly sure, already have an idea of what they're getting at. An exact idea? Nah. Enough to make an educated guess, even if the turn out is diifferent that the estimation? Maybe. I just think it's a mistake to think, "Monk" in any terms but game terms, because, as I said, a Monk, in game terms, though there is variance, has some fairly consistent themes quite apart from reality. Words have meanings, but in certain contexts those meanings can be quite different. Does it have to make sense? Meh. I think of it as a brand of slang, and some words that are slang for one thing, while sharing a quite different academic presence, are fairly common place.

The 'cult' word they used may result in 'cultiests' as the in lore term, but, really, it's so little to go on that I wouldn't consider that a definite by any stretch. A good question, but I think the only way you'll get an answer is to get lucky during one of the Q&As. If you're really curious it may be worth submitting.

They're playing a tabletop game though . . . I see no dancing.

Because the Monks are not real Monks, they're fictional, with little to no basis in reality, and meant only to fit into the lore and story of the world (which Obsidian have yet to present us) not into any reality or other setting. They're fictional, meant to fit into this fictional. Real Monks, real plate armor and reality really aren't supposed to ever come into it. The Monks in this setting pull upon their Soul, their inner energy, to enhance themselves. The lore supports the idea of effects of the superhuman variety, shown in the concept art of the Monk's fists glowing with magical energies. In the end it's not any different than the idea of a touch ranged spell in D&D, or self/party enhancing spells in D&D. If anything the D&D Wizard walking up to you and touching you to apply a spell is the more difficult sell because he doesn't have the martial training to get up close and avoid being hit, typically, as the Monk. In the sense of the superhuman enhancements, complaining about a fictional Monk punching through plate in a fictional, not at all reality based, Fantasy game is akin to complaining about Superman punching through a tank in a comic book setting. Personally I don't really like superman, but my reaction isn't to demand superman be changed. I just go read something else I do like. With the Monk the same remains true . . . I just won't play as a Monk, I'll play as a Wizard or Cipher. - I said it in another thread, and I'll repeat it now, if I ever make a fantasy game I'm just going to use randomly made up words for the names of classes, abilities and races to avoid the, "real world definition" sitgma.

The grimoire comes off as a Wizard's personal focus, of sorts, if so they may not be so simple to simply pick up and take from. In fact it could be incredibly dangerous, I like the idea that they're calculations but whose to say they aren't in a shorthand or their own personal system if they are the paranoid sort? Could get messy.

It reminds me, a bit, not wholly, of the lore supporting Diablo II's Necromancer. Just the general theme of, "they aren't really evil" but, "people are still scared of them" . . . I'm not sure what he's getting out fully transfers into Shamanism, but, I can see the possibility of such an idea. Whether it will be present, or not, is anyone's guess, but . . . because of the terminology they're using I get the feeling that, if we see it, it won't be the main focus of the Necromancy related content in the game. I'm curious now, however, exactly what the reaction of people in the world will be, in different areas, to Necromancy - especially if the player uses it. I think it's interesting to discuss that second portion just because you have games like DA2, with their forbidden magics, that you can use out openly on the street with . . . absolutely no one blinking an eye . . . . Which just makes backstories like this pointless. They need to have substance and representation in the gameplay, the mechanics and the world a player explores to maintain the presence that the lore suggests. - Maybe we'll find an out of the way spin off culture with a Shamanic bent though, who knows. It's just the language they're using that suggests they have a more specific idea of Necromancy. Even though it does sound a bit like some 'ancestor worship' cultures that try and contact their dead ancestors, or call upon them for help. That, of course, doesn't necessarily suggest an exact parallel. I can see a form of Necromancy that pulls from it, without going into Shamanism and ancestor worship cultural themes as a whole. They're more likely pulling little bits and pieces from it, if they're pulling from it at all. They may have just had some ideas that just happened to have some similarities.

I definitely thought of Monk when I thought of that, but I'd warn again anything that assumed P:E's Monk had to be along those lines, simply because settings have done Monks outside of the lines before. In Obsidian's setting, by the concept art he uses fists (and possibly the weapons on his belt) and likely any part of his body that can be turned into a weapon . . . however, he is obviously enhancing himself magically - as noted by the glowing fists. The magical enhancement is supported by Obsidian's release on souls, that explains how that inner energy can be pulled upon to enhance, to superhuman extents. The exact mentality of the Monk is what we don't know. Why they do the things they do. Why they use, or don't use, certain weapons. So it's less a question of fighting style, since they hint that in addition the the 'unarmed' combat abilities they do use weaponry of some sort (it appears to be a sheathed, short bladed weapon). So the fighting style, and the things we can draw from that are more obvious (though not fully defined, obviously we haven't seen how he'd use the weapon). You can take that definition and get, "Monk" from it, but it's a definition. Just one. Fantasy Monks tend toward several lines, and are the way they are to keep them from just being another Cleric or another Priest. As I said on the last page the issue with most suggestions I see for the Monk . . . is that they come off as suggestions for another class entirely. They come off like a Priest. They come off like a Barbarian. They come off like a Paladin. They come off like a Cleric. All of these things P:E already has some equivalent to. And so on. The Monk tends to exist, as it does, in fantasy games of varying sort as something that 'is not' those other classes, and cannot be mistaken for them. You have to remember even Obsidian came up and mentioned that they didn't there to be too much overlap between the classes. The better thing to discuss is, "what drives what is there" the mentality behind their look, art, combat style and use of certain weapons and armor, or the lack thereof. What's there is obvious, this is what the Monk is, so rather than askign why it's not different . . . maybe we should be asking, "Why is it there?" From a mechanical standpoint it's there to be a very, absolutely, different option from the other classes. From a lore standpoint we know very little but a few hints, but we do know how they enhance themselves at least. Now, then, you could ask, "Does that extend to more than hands and feet" and, again, he has a weapon on his belt. I think if the Priest doesn't manage to cover it, the the thing that would be a nice addition to the Monk would be the DAoC styled melee-Friar aspects, since they mesh well with what we see. The DAoC Friar, especially the staff using melee build, had a lot in common with the visuals we're seeing from P:E's monk, most notably that they could enhance themselves with magic. Now the Friar's magic was faith based, but you could easily extend the 'drawing on the soul' aspect of P:E's Monk to something that had a lot of functional similarities. Essentially you'd just add another build within the Monk that allowed for staff combat, because the magical enhancements elements are, obviously, already there. Still, I'm not so sure that's really a 'suggestion' so much as something that's likely already there. Again, we see the Monk with a weapon. It may not be a staff, but which weapons are more for Obsidian to decide. At the end the idea stays the same, "this Monk has trained thoroughly in the use of "X combat style" be it unarmed, with a staff or with that bladed weapon, and becomes more deadly by way of magical means, enhancing strength or speed or what have you. Is the Monk spiritual though? Well everyone in P:E seems to have 'some' spiritual aspect. So being spiritual may not be as definitive as it might be in a setting where souls aren't major elements. And in fantasy games we've seen many Monk styles. Not all of them were spiritual. Some were very physical. Some were wanderers. Some had key spiritual elements, sure, but others did not. And this is an important thing to keep in mind, definitions of the Monk from other fantasy games and reality need not apply, but, within the P:E setting . . . Obsidian also want to avoid cross over between the classes. I think that's why Paladins in P:E aren't Faith based in the manner of the P:E Priest.

What we have already hints at more than the barehanded Monk, just look at the weapon on his belt. Something I've mentioned repeatedly. Wanting different builds within Obsidian's Monk, in Obsidian's setting, which is what you want, is just fine. I agree with you that multiple builds within 'any' given class, if they're well done, can only help the design of a class (if they're well done). I may not have wanted any of the traditional classes or races, or the traditional setting, but, as I said, repeatedly, I'm willing to accept Obsidian's vision. I'm more concerned, knowing that they're going this route, that there is quality. The Monk can be any style, by my measure, and what's fitting for the setting? That's up for Obsidian. Sounds more like a variant of what they're doing for Priests, even if you don't keep the Priestly magic. Actually that's something I see with a lot of suggestions for the Monk, they sound like things that would fit the Priest pretty readily.

Of course my posts are rehashes of the same thing when replying to you. Responses to your posts have never needed updated. You've never ceased to spout the exact same posts that ignore everything, even Obsidian's own lore and provided Monk related content, so that you can keep complaining that the Monk doesn't fit into your vision of P:E and Obsidian's world, despite the fact that your vision is obviously different from theirs. Most pointedly if their vision matched your own, the Monk as it's been presented, so far, would never have existed. You consistently insist that your vision of the world is the right one, and that anything outside of that does not fit. Yet it's not your world, it's Obsidian's, and whether something fits, or not, is their call. If they presented the Monk to us, no matter the form, they obviously have a place for it in their lore. Your claims that it doesn't fit, that the Monk's abilities are improbable or ridiculous (all of which I can quote), suggests that you think you know more about the world they're creating than they do. News flash: "You don't." Personally I'd have prefered no Monk, or any of the traditional classes for that matter. I'd have prefered a wholly original setting with non-traditional races, classes, architecture, biomes and so on . . . but I accept what they're doing and don't pretend that the things I dislike 'don't fit' because it's their creation. Not mine. I'll be over playing a Wizard or Cipher, I won't even be touching the Monk. It's not my thing, but I can live with it. Most of your suggestions are just asking for another class entirely, and that's fine in a way. Ask for a class type if you want it. Asking that a class type Obsidian obviously wants in, that some players seem excited about, be changed to the point that it's essentially replaced with another class, essentially, is just saying that you want them to take it out because you don't like it. Just because. That players that do like it should just have it taken away from them, because you don't like it. But of course you just skip anything you don't like, not just my posts, but many throughout this thread, because you'd rather complain about the Monk some more with the same posts, over and over, about how the Monk doesn't fit into the world of P:E. The world of P:E . . . you know . . . that world you obviously created, that you obviously know more about than the developers and the world that you obviously wrote all the lore for . . . even the lore that supports the existence of how the Monk uses the soul. Wait, why did you do that again if you didn't want such a thing in the game again? Oh, right, you skipped that too. There is no Dervish class in Guild Wars 2.

They could represent any class in more ways than the usual archetypes. The archetypes they're choosing are obviously meant to fit the characters and setting they have in mind. They could have neglected to include any or all of the classes to provide something fresh. They're obviously sticking to the class types that P:E is pulling from (which included Monk characters of this type in more than one game), quite purposefully. They aren't forcing anything. The lore to support the Monk's way of using their soul was produced before they ever revealed the Monk. Ill fitting suggests that it doesn't fit the setting, but they shaped the setting themselves and included the class which suggests that it does, in fact, fit their setting. If it didn't they wouldn't have included it. The only thing it doesn't fit is your idea of what the setting should be, and what should be in it.

Arcane spell failure, and other little bits . . . It's of note that several of these aspects were left out of most, or all, cRPGs that I have experience with. Obviously different rulesets dealt with armor and casting differently. My point, when mentioning the above, isn't that P:E will use this system, just an example of one system's use of armor out of many, many out there. The end all point being that we don't know what it means to wear armor in this setting yet. (It's also of note that I didn't quote the entire entry on armor because . . . anyone that actually cares will just find it themselves, anyways different editions handled things differently from one another to lesser or greater extents so . . . yeah . . . ) I'm not really expecting P:E's system to be that complex anyways. Speculating. I know. I just think it's premature to jump on the, "But Wizards can!" wagon is all, because we don't know what it means, that Wizards can wear heavy armor, within the context of the game yet.

I think I appreciate an antagonist most when their motivations, eventually, become clear and I find them to be, arguably, better than my character's own motivations. It'd be an interesting thing if you had several paths through the story, one of which could match antagonist's without you realizing, but with several that did not. It'd be an interesting moment to realize your choices could have sided your character with the antagonist in the end, or against him . . . but with the twist that if you went against him you might just have to realize that he (or she, or it, I don't care) might have just been right all along.

We don't know much about armor, heavy armor especially. We know a Wizard can wear it, I'd bet even a Monk, in theory, could wear if the system is open. The thing is we also know there are light and medium armor forms. We can assume the Wizard can wear Light armor, just like the Monk, as an example. So the question in my mind is, "What is the benefit to wearing light or medium or heavy armor as a Wizard?" My assumption is that, if the Wizard can wear heavy or light, that there is some reason to wear light, just like there's a reason to wear heavy (more defense). The thing we don't know is the reason to wear light armor. Perhaps there's a penalty to wearing heavier armor, of some sort, or some of factor. We don't know yet. So, maybe you can put the Monk in heavy armor . . . the question remains the same as the Wizard . . . why can they wear both? If they can wear any armor there must be a reason for light and medium armors existing. The Wizard's choice of light or heavy or medium armor may well come down to specific build. The same thing may apply to Monks. If there are multiple kinds of Monk build, we don't know them yet, though there's certainly the hint in the art that the Monk can use weaponry (he has a weapon on his belt). We don't know about builds yet. We don't know much about what wearing heavy armor does, versus wearing lighter armors, in the context of this game. We don't know if there are penalties on heavier armors or some bonus on lighter armors for particular builds. We don't know. - The reality is your Wizard in D&D could have worn Heavy Armor as well. They've said you can wear heavy armor as a Wizard in P:E as well. Saying you can wear heavy armor . . . doesn't really mean much all without the surrounding details. Because while you could wear heavy armor as a Wizard in D&D, if you so chose, there . . . were active penalties there to doing so. To put it simply, "We need more information before we can really talk about heavy armored versus medium armored versus light armored."

DRM is relative. Steam's form is acceptable and can reward the user, even make things easier for the user. I've played games with actual DRM, the kind that keeps you from playing the game normally or at all in the worst of cases. Valve and Steam actually bring you a pretty nice promise, long standing, that no other DRM promises - that being that if they ever go under, if Steam ever goes down for good, they will unlock those games you bought. In addition they consistently reward you free games, free demos (it may not seem like a big thing now, but for awhile various services were trying to get you to pay for demos and Valve was not), massive sales, cheap games, games you can't get anywhere else in some cases and more. Is it perfect? Oh no, no no no, but it could be worse, and they've done a decent job. In the end, if you want DRM free, Obsidian are giving you that option. Steam is DRM, no doubt, but it's DRM done right. The kind that realized you can't punish your legitimate users consistently, because, in the end, if your DRM makes it harder for a person to play a bought game than a pirate stealing your game . . . there's an issue. Steam has luckily made it easier for me to play every game in my library. It's a choice. I use Steam because I choose to, because what it offers makes up for the DRM. It won't do that for everyone. For those people, in this case at least, there is a no DRM option.

I always thought an RPG set in the Pirates of Darkwater world would have been a breath of fresh air back before pirate movies and games exploded back into popularity.

Um . . . I'd agree that full on pirating doesn't fit 'every' RPG, but an RPG can cover any subject matter. Including pirating.

Personally I'm not for killing NPCs outright, just 'because' but if quests are well done they can put you in certain situations where there could be casualties, and that can mean NPCs. I think there should be more quest variety than that, but when you have to watch out not only for your companions, but a bunch of civilians, in the midst of a nasty fight . . . I think that's a character moment. What sort of character are you playing? Are you careful? Do you not care? If you were careful did you make a mistake? How does the character feel about the mistake? If you didn't care, then why? How do people (npcs) and companions react if you made a mistake? How do people and companions react of you shouted out the order to ignore civilian casualties? Good moments can be made out of situations like that, if the quests are well crafted, and . . . quite simply . . . immortal NPCs, in my mind, can harm a moment like that. Imagine that NWN2 moment where the village being slaughtered was blamed on you, with the trial and all. What if it wasn't just finger pointing? What if you were there, in combat, and people died, maybe even all the people. What if that trial wasn't a question of whether you did it? What if it was a character progression moment that made you explain your actions? What if it was more about explaining why you did what you did, whether you thought winning the battle was more important than the lives of the people there. And so on. Of course you could have just been more careful and avoided tha point, but even being careful . . . there could have been a few, or a lot, of people dying. Again, obviously every quest should not involve something like that . . . but when you get used to immortal NPCs, and then you suddenly come across a village where they aren't, so you aren't careful in that moment . . . it lessens the blow. Because it's not a character moment then. It's a game mechanics being inconsistent moment that was thrown at you, and you have no way of knowing those NPCs wouldn't get right back up by the mechanics - due to past experience.

I always liked class kits as an option, obviously with the option to ignore them and do your own thing. I'm less certain about the idea of class evolution, simply because it can be done in so many ways. With some it's a simple matter of how you build them being what they evolve toward, versus what they start out as. In other cases you have things like prestige classes or upgrade classes and so on. There are a lot of ways to do it. Given we aren't really seeing prestige styled classes so far . . . my assumption is it'll be more a case of build? Or maybe there's still more to hear.

Who said anything about right? I told you what is there, as others have, and have you potential reasons for what is there such as pointing out Obsidian's own lore, and typical uses of such mechanics from the sort of game this one is pulling from. My idea of right? My idea of right you read earlier in the thread, and ignored just as readily as you ignore everything that doesn't continue your continued, "It punches through armor with its fist and its naked" description of the Monk, which, now as then, isn't even right by the art or how Obsidian have presented the use of the Soul to magical effect in this setting. My idea of right? My idea of right was very simple. No traditional fantasy races. No traditional fantasy classes. No traditional fantasy weapons. No traditional fantasy armor. No pulling from the typical historical/cultural inspirations (medieval/roman/etc) and instead pull from one or several of the most ancient (one of the ancient middle eastern cultures/sumerian) or lesser used (one of the sourth american cultures/mayan) civilizations on Earth as basic, but not absolute, inspiration. For the world to be ancient, low tech, low magic and almost alien in its visual qualities to escape from being yet another romp through environments we've seen so many times my eyes could bleed. Axe the swords. Axe the plate. Axe the usual fantasy weapons and armor, go for more primitive, odd, weaponry and armor and clothing and architecture and writing and everything that fits within the logic and times of a fictional culture and its fictional people. And you think the one solitary magically fueled Monk annoys you? I'd have prefered something else too, but I'm willing to see what they're going for and try and figure out how it fits in the logic of the world and lore they've presented so far. You on the other hand seem to think it's more appropriate to tell Obsidian how disappointed you are in them, as if you're talking from a superior standpoint - but it comes off as a whining child throwing a tantrum because his parents got him the wrong toy.

I disagree and no one has justified anything, just excused. What you mean is you snip their posts without reading, disregarding anything and everything, even when they're outright quoting you the lore Obsidian have presented us so far on things like the Soul, how it can be used, such as to enhance the body. They well explained the idea that drawing upon the soul can create effects anywhere from the superhuman to the explosively magical. They have other classes besides the Monk that use magical effects to achieve their goals, of course, as explained, repeatedly, but somehow it's only wrong when the Monk does it. Somehow, in your mind, while the other magic using classes still use gear of some sort, the Monk . . . is apparently naked in your mind . . . despite it obviously still having gear. Despite the types of games this one is pulling from having Monks, as well, that also still required gear, even for the hand-to-hand builds. And so much more, repeatedly explained in detail. But none of that happened because: "Snip." But go ahead, keep making it out that the Monk is a naked man that punches through plate despite for no reason at all that is an exact replica of Shaolin Monks somehow despite looking nothing like them. Because it's obviously not a very fictional take on the Monk fueled by magic, wearing clothes, and obviously armed with at least one weapon besides the magical effects he uses to defend himself, and attack his enemies.

I wonder if the artist they are currently using has seen this thread . . . I bet it would be pretty disheartening to see a bunch of people asking for someone else.

If someone sends you somewhere the directions need to be accurate, and included, accurately, in your journal. If someone tells you specifically what to do in a particular situation, it should be accurately recorded. So some detail should be there. On the other hand, if something is hidden, and a person 'doesn't' know where it is, there obviously should not be a detailed explanation of where it is in your journal. I don't want an arrow pointing me everywhere though. And I don't want little pointers screaming, "Here's that hidden thing!" that somehow no one else found.

It's also of note that there is a weapon of some sort on his belt, suggesting there may be builds involving weapons of one sort or another. I'm not sure if it's a blunt weapon or a sheathed blade of some sort though.