The Monk Class

[Nonek]

Hopefully all classes have a massive amount of play in them (obviously at a cost) so we can have that pacifist with strong soul powers, or an Ironfist homage but not both. Be less reason to have multiclass that way and help define our characters somewhat.

[Osvir]

Hopefully all classes have a massive amount of play in them (obviously at a cost) so we can have that pacifist with strong soul powers, or an Ironfist homage but not both. Be less reason to have multiclass that way and help define our characters somewhat.

 

No Multi-Classing, instead include Ultra-Classing (Class Focus/Direction in many ways). I likes :D

[junk11]

The fact that even mages are wearing armour in this game makes the lack of armour for the monk even more out of place. Side note: martial arts refers to all forms of combat, firing an AK47 is a martial art. Also, medieval Europe had many forms of martial arts, especially the knights who were brought up trained for warfare and trained in many forms of unarmed combat that rivalled anything from the East, it was just unfortunate that most of it has been lost instead of preserved.

 

I personally would have liked to have seen a 'martial artist' built around the style of the rest of the world: an armoured monk, one who may still fight with fists but wears armour for the same reason as the mage: counteract the use of firearms. In fact, the stated reason that mages have to wear armour due to firearms getting through their mystical defenses raises the question of why that is if the monks are able to counteract it.

 

A gladiatorial martial artist would have been rather intersting, or a monk habit wearing badass. I'm not a fan of Fortan's appearance and see it as a wasted opportunity to do something new with the class like they have done with many of the others.

 

an unarmored/light-armored monk can using soul to enhance body reflects with predicting (from training) and dodging (with enhaneced reflex)

there are many explanation really, that's for obsidian to decide..

and we can see that guns in PE haven't excess the capacity of bows, that's why they still have bows in the game..

longer reload time, less accurate, jammed...etc

 

so if people want to see how "chi" works in real life...well here is the video....best ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yP0_Ie0WAo

 

 

and for people who really want to go "Logical" and "realistic" in combat

why would you think a heavy armor wizard can withstand a bullet hit and keep fighting in the game?

if you want to say how people are stupidly crazy about unarmored monk can be made in the game, I can say the same to heavy armored warriors.

if heavy armor is that good, there won't be a ballistic vest for bulletproofing in real life...we will still wear plate armor in the battlefield (hmm..guess I went to modern)

heavy armored knight usually has less field perspective with their helmet,

no agility compares to light armored archers, need "great strength" to wear,

arrow shot from a skilled archer can still penetrate through armor (except the very good quality ones),

and a musket can pierce plate armor easily even in normal life

so what is the point of wearing a plate armor against rangers?

and Why didn't warrior wear plate armor all the time in real life but they do in the game?

There can be so many questions to a fiction heavy armored fighter in the game...

Why the majority don't ask it?

Because it seems "logical" and "plausible" for a fighter to wear plate armor with a sword and be invincible,

but is it really?

 

This game is a fantasy world with some medieval backgrounds and few other things added in the world..

fictional magic, soul theory, religions and races...etc

The game is a imaginary world with infinity possibility at the hand of the creative team..

How they approach/focus on the lore, fighting system doesn't have to be the same as our physical world

having the choice between an unarmed class and armed class can bring more diversity to the game..

with good lore and background story, anything can be explained...

but then it depends on how the majority of readers react to such lore...

 

anyway to me, I enjoy playing as normal fighter or unarmed monk. Paladin is another different aspect of melee class in most of the game (well...especially on DnD)

For me, fighting ability isn't the most important thing I looked at a class, it's how the class fit in...

monk can really fit into PE because the setting of the soul,

you can really play this setting around,

for example in combat techniques, people can use soul for direct damage, weapon enhancement, pure body enhancement, chant enhancement or even manipulating others like jedi

Why limit its use?

[Osvir]

I want magic, I want an unarmored dude who can take a bullet to his head and shrug it off like nothing happened. That's not the issue for me is the discipline, the lore of the Monk, the path of the Monk. This is a fantasy setting, realism isn't going to exist (to some extent, sure).

 

It does make a point though with the heavy armor Wizard vs the Unarmored Monk. One solution is to give the Monk heavy plate armor too, let everyone be able to wear all kinds of armor (which I think is the direction Obs are taking).

 

Forton is a companion, not what defines the class (Look at Aloth, is he wearing heavy armor? No).

[Aedelric]

I can not work out if you meant that video as a joke or not Junk11.

 

Yes Osvir, monks should be allowed to wear heavier armour, their is no reason not to. The argument people have is "They use magical spirit shields and stuff" that is fine, but logic dictates they would also wear armour as a safety for when that does not work, this is why I have such a big problem with the semi-naked monk stereotype.

 

This is the exact same problem I have with kung-fu, if one can supercharge their fist then why not a flail or sword and shield. They would prefer a weapon every time as it would always do more damage, it is idiotic to bring fists to a sword/gun/magic fight.

[Michael_Galt]

Last I checked, flails aren't an organic part of your body. They don't have a "life force"/"soul"/"internal energy"- that's why. And going to your very argument, your argument makes even LESS sense, since those videos demonstrated real life humans doing things that should be technically impossible. Sledgehammer broke fewer bricks than forehead. The guy used his shoulder to smash through over 10 brick slabs lined up across 5 feet. Don't know how to say it any differently. Don't you think if the karate guys could channel their ki into a sledgehammer, which is technically superior to an average human in terms of damage production, they would? Of course they would- but that's not how it works.

 

Talking "fantasy", magic weapons are INFUSED with magic. Just the same way bodies are "infused" with magic, to allow them to do extraordinary things. So if in real life, people can break bricks and boards with their bodies, have people break 100lb granite slabs on them while balanced on spearpoints, why wouldn't "magical" martial artists be able to do even more amazing things? Can a magic sword cut through a non-magic sword? Yes, that's the whole point. So if a non-magic hand can smash bricks, then a magic would could crush steel.

 

Unlike weapons, bodies also have brains connected to them, which allow them to think, so if you want to have powerful "tools", you would use magically infused weapons. If you want to BE powerful, you infuse your body- or in the case of a "wizard"/"chanter"/"priest", you use magic to effect the bodies of others and/or your environment. Or if you are a "cipher", you use it to affect the minds of others. This is really pretty simple.

[Umberlin]

The fact that even mages are wearing armour in this game makes the lack of armour for the monk even more out of place. Side note: martial arts refers to all forms of combat, firing an AK47 is a martial art. Also, medieval Europe had many forms of martial arts, especially the knights who were brought up trained for warfare and trained in many forms of unarmed combat that rivalled anything from the East, it was just unfortunate that most of it has been lost instead of preserved.

 

I personally would have liked to have seen a 'martial artist' built around the style of the rest of the world: an armoured monk, one who may still fight with fists but wears armour for the same reason as the mage: counteract the use of firearms. In fact, the stated reason that mages have to wear armour due to firearms getting through their mystical defenses raises the question of why that is if the monks are able to counteract it.

 

A gladiatorial martial artist would have been rather intersting, or a monk habit wearing badass. I'm not a fan of Fortan's appearance and see it as a wasted opportunity to do something new with the class like they have done with many of the others.

 

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."

Edited October 14, 2012 by Umberlin

[Osvir]

why can they wear both?

 

Obsidian stated that they wanted to give more choice to the player, hence letting the Wizard be able to wear Heavy Armor. Now if they lock that out from the Monk they will be lying about choice so I think it is pretty obvious that the Monk should be able to wear Heavy armor too (speculating).

 

I think that Heavy Armor = Slower-movespeed, slower attack speed, slower casting speed, easier to target, probably need to spend points in a stat (Strength?) to be able to wear Heavy Armor, thus getting lower in another essential stat for the Wizard (and in turn making your spells do less damage)~ that's quite a plenty of disadvantages (speculating). What are the active penalties in DnD Umberlin? *sigh*

 

To put it simply, "We need more information before we can really talk about heavy armored versus medium armored versus light armored."

 

Speculating.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Osvir

[Gyor]

If we use Forton as an example, while he does use martial arts obviously he seems to dip into a larger part of monastic traditions, such as spiritual exploration via altered states of,conciousness achieved via mind altering drugs and self mortifaction.

 

While martial arts is a given for the Monk class, monks without it would cause a backlash from those that love it, it doesn't mean they can't borrow from other types of Monks or even wider Monastic traditions like Sufis, some types of Hierodules might resemble monks more then priests.

 

Btw the technical term for female monks is nuns.

[Hormalakh]

It would be interesting, with all this talk about armor wearing, if one of the reasons your characters wore plate armor with a helmet would be as a disguise a la "stormtrooper armor" (as a quest for example). If one of your characters was blocked out from wearing armor, that seems like it would be more difficult to do.

 

If I was playing an RPG and the setting called for my characters (some who might be weak) to wear armor to blend in with a disguise, it would make sense to make them wear heavy armor. Of course, the weaker ones would be heavily penalized, and probably wouldn't be able to fight very well, but it'd be an interesting concept.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited October 14, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Umberlin]

What are the active penalties in DnD Umberlin? *sigh*

 

Arcane spell failure, and other little bits . . .

 

Armor

 

Armor Qualities

 

To wear heavier armor effectively, a character can select the Armor Proficiency feats, but most classes are automatically proficient with the armors that work best for them.

 

Armor and shields can take damage from some types of attacks.

 

Here is the format for armor entries (given as column headings on Table: Armor and Shields, below).

 

Cost

 

The cost of the armor for Small or Medium humanoid creatures. See Armor for Unusual Creatures, below, for armor prices for other creatures.

 

Armor/Shield Bonus

 

Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.

 

Maximum Dex Bonus

 

This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.

 

Even if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC drops to 0 because of armor, this situation does not count as losing a Dexterity bonus to AC.

 

Your character’s encumbrance (the amount of gear he or she carries) may also restrict the maximum Dexterity bonus that can be applied to his or her Armor Class.

 

Shields

 

Shields do not affect a character’s maximum Dexterity bonus.

 

Armor Check Penalty

 

Any armor heavier than leather hurts a character’s ability to use some skills. An armor check penalty number is the penalty that applies to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks by a character wearing a certain kind of armor. Double the normal armor check penalty is applied to Swim checks. A character’s encumbrance (the amount of gear carried, including armor) may also apply an armor check penalty.

 

Shields

 

If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply.

 

Nonproficient with Armor Worn

 

A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for nonproficiency with shields.

 

Sleeping in Armor

 

A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He or she takes a -2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can’t charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.

 

Arcane Spell Failure

 

Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.

 

Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor

 

A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.

 

Shields

 

If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance.

 

Speed

 

Medium or heavy armor slows the wearer down. The number on Table: Armor and Shields is the character’s speed while wearing the armor. Humans, elves, half-elves, and half-orcs have an unencumbered speed of 30 feet.

 

They use the first column. Dwarves, gnomes, and halflings have an unencumbered speed of 20 feet. They use the second column. Remember, however, that a dwarf’s land speed remains 20 feet even in medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load.

 

Shields

 

Shields do not affect a character’s speed.

 

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.

 

To put it simply, "We need more information before we can really talk about heavy armored versus medium armored versus light armored."

 

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.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Umberlin

[Aedelric]

If we use Forton as an example, while he does use martial arts obviously he seems to dip into a larger part of monastic traditions, such as spiritual exploration via altered states of,conciousness achieved via mind altering drugs and self mortifaction.

 

While martial arts is a given for the Monk class, monks without it would cause a backlash from those that love it, it doesn't mean they can't borrow from other types of Monks or even wider Monastic traditions like Sufis, some types of Hierodules might resemble monks more then priests.

 

Btw the technical term for female monks is nuns.

 

Precisely, their is no reason why monks can not be represented in more ways than the singular kung-fu monk archetype. I will admit a number of people will be upset if monks were not superhuman semi-naked kung-fu masters,but if you ran a poll, Monk class would not be the an overly popular one compared to the rest.

 

This should have been an opportunity to provide something fresh, a hierodule is a fine example tackling it from another angle, inspired by Greeks this kind of class could almost be a seductress.

 

But my stance remains like others, their is no reason to force all aspects of this currently ill fitting class to conform to a known and overused standard.

 

Also, I am for nuns.

[Umberlin]

Precisely, their is no reason why monks can not be represented in more ways than the singular kung-fu monk archetype.

 

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.

 

This should have been an opportunity to provide something fresh, a hierodule is a fine example tackling it from another angle, inspired by Greeks this kind of class could almost be a seductress.

 

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.

 

But my stance remains like others, their is no reason to force

 

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.

 

all aspects of this currently ill fitting class to conform to a known and overused standard.

 

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.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Umberlin

[Aedelric]

Yea, I skip your posts Umberlin, sorry I do not have any interest in what you say on this particular subject, it is always the same post rehashed.

 

Gyor, I did not mention Sufis in your suggestion. I do not know much about them (Perhaps you could elaborate on your idea) is that is to do with the whirling dervish correct? I am not sure how that concept could be carried over apart from perhaps forms of dances. So long as they do not mimic the Guild Wars 2 class as that was quite rubbish.

[Umberlin]

Yea, I skip your posts Umberlin, sorry I do not have any interest in what you say on this particular subject, it is always the same post rehashed.

 

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.

 

So long as they do not mimic the Guild Wars 2 class as that was quite rubbish.

 

There is no Dervish class in Guild Wars 2.

[Osvir]

I'm sorry Umberlin, I don't mean no ill but your posts doesn't give much. Except being condescending and "I have to be right!". Personally I know what Obsidian have in mind, I've read their lore (not all of it, and some is scrambled in memory). Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to discuss it or other ideas. I respect your preference of not having Monks, I want them I just hope that not all of them are like Forton.

A, because I want my own unique Monk that I can shape (Which I am sure I will be able to anyways, even if all of them are like Forton)

B, Forton should be Forton, in more ways than just his personality as a companion, and he should be best at what he does (Doesn't mean that I could learn a thing or two from him or go down the same path without him).

 

I'm with Aedelric here, I'm kind of ignoring (skimming) your posts because you're not bashing (or addressing) me. Maybe I should brace myself for it though :/

 

As I said, I mean no ill.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Osvir

[Hormalakh]

Sufis explained here in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

 

There are other sects of Muslims that had monks or monk-like behavior. Not all Sufis are Dancing Dervishes. Generally speaking however, most Muslims do not follow a sort of monasticism as other religious orders like Christians or Buddhists. But generally speaking there are Muslims that follow a generally esoteric way of life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monasticism

 

Of course, I don't know if its really a great idea to be viewing Monks from a religion point of view, just because PE is its own fantasy setting and isn't going to match up very well with how our world works. It would be cool to take ideas from other monastic practices, but ultimately monks in PE should be their own special thing and not some sort of skewed misrepresentation of actual monks, in their multiple variations of Buddhist, Christian, or other.

[Luridis]

I could so fall in love with a Friar Tuck themed monk: bad ass with two-handed blunt weapons, cloth armor, and a sprinkle of priestly, but combat oriented magic.

 

Edit: Okay, scratch the priestly magic and move towards abilities gained by a focus or devotion to the discipline of their order. Self heals, party combat buffs and armor compensation.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Luridis

[Luridis]

Sufis explained here in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

 

There are other sects of Muslims that had monks or monk-like behavior. Not all Sufis are Dancing Dervishes. Generally speaking however, most Muslims do not follow a sort of monasticism as other religious orders like Christians or Buddhists. But generally speaking there are Muslims that follow a generally esoteric way of life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monasticism

 

Of course, I don't know if its really a great idea to be viewing Monks from a religion point of vIiiew, just because PE is its own fantasy setting and isn't going to match up very well with how our world works. It would be cool to take ideas from other monastic practices, but ultimately monks in PE should be their own special thing and not some sort of skewed misrepresentation of actual monks, in their multiple variations of Buddhist, Christian, or other.

 

Yes! Precisely why I edited priestly magic out of my post. Monks with a mechanic central to a particular mental discipline sounds wonderful. Also, a love for simple weapons like staves, unarmed and clubs: a enigmatic nightmare armed with a chair leg or piece of driftwood. :D

[FlintlockJazz]

I'll have to agree to disagree. Martial arts take "martial training", and make it into an "art". Just training in combat doesn't make you a martial artist- you must also be expressing your "philosophy" through your fighting style.

 

No offense, but thats bull of the hughest quality, propaganda used to sell you on certain martial arts in the same way fencing tried to make people believe it was more of an art than the older swordfighting schools. The term 'martial art' is of western origins and is Latin for 'Art of Mars' and was being used in fencing manuals in the 1500s.

 

As to the rest of your post, please do some research before theorycrafting, as you'd learn just how indepth the martial arts were developed in the middle ages. Young boys from the age of 7 underwent a training regime that was comprehensive and a true 'art' that rivalled samurai and other 'ethic cool' warriors.

 

EDIT: in short, martial art refers to a codified training regime and there were manuals in Europe describing many of the training regimes used for many of the different weapons from swords to halberds to maces, how to overcome armour with said weapons, etc.

Edited October 15, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Umberlin]

I respect your preference of not having Monks, I want them I just hope that not all of them are like Forton.

 

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.

 

I could so fall in love with a Friar Tuck themed monk: bad ass with two-handed blunt weapons, cloth armor, and a sprinkle of priestly, but combat oriented magic.

 

Edit: Okay, scratch the priestly magic and move towards abilities gained by a focus or devotion to the discipline of their order. Self heals, party combat buffs and armor compensation.

 

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.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Umberlin

[Aedelric]

I actually made the effort to read up on that the other day, but thanks for the link anyway Hormalakh.

 

 

Project Eternity has a large pantheon of Gods which has the potential for numerous religion, religions or beliefs can even be based around spirituality rather than a single deity. So my point here is that with so many religions the Monk class should be one of the most diverse of them all, not shoehorned into the kung-fu monk archetype. This topic has covered a variety of different interpretations of what monks can be, taken from the diversity of our own world. Their is not reason why Eternity can not also have that extreme variance.

 

Personally I want the kung-fu monk dropped, but that will not happen, it is in and I and others have to live with it. But their is also no reason why we should be stuck with that archetype alone.

 

For every religion in the game their should be a unique sub-class of monk, well, one can dream. :D

[Hormalakh]

I think you and I have been in agreement for a long time Aedelric. We don't want gimmicky rehashes.

[Ashram]

I think what you guys are asking for is that Obsidian provides options. I am all for that...but taking the martial arts out of monks and calling it gimmicky is like taking away spellcasting from wizards because that is gimmicky and rehashed. I mean why do they have to toss spells....that is so predictable. Call me crazy, but maybe it is one of the essential pieces that sets that class apart from the others?

[Hormalakh]

A wizard is by definition one who uses magic. We are challenging the idea that a monk by definition is one who uses martial arts. I mean when you hear "that monk was amazing" you don't think "wow that monk really kicked the ever-living life out of that dude." You think "wow that dude must be really spiritual." With a wizard you think "Wow that guy used his/her magic like a beast."

 

So let's try this:

 

Wow! That ________ is amazing!

 

Fighter - kicked the crap out of the guy with his sword or other weapon

Wizard - Zapped him with a lightning bolt (magic)

Chanter - I'm not really sure but maybe sang the dude to death?

Priest - Used prayer magic on that mofo

Barbarian - Basically ripped the guy to shreds with his hulk-like strength.

Thief (Diplomat) - talked the dude out of a fight

Thief (Assasin) - killed that dude without anyone finding out

Thief (robber) - Stole that dudes money

Cipher - Mind ****ed that dude.

Ranger - Used that bow really well.

Monk - ???? Used martial arts?