The Monk Class

[morrow1nd]

How about we drop martial arts entirely. Guns, magic, swords, archery and some semi-naked lunatic runs around trying to punch people in the face? I am all for suspension of disbelief, but that is being slightly ridiculous.

 

Hospitilar/Flagellant is the way to go I think.

 

Aedelric xD i chuckled a bit after reading your comment. Nice point!

Edited October 21, 2012 by morrow1nd

[AGX-17]

AGX-17 is my hero, seriously. But to outwalltext Umberlin is't really possible, because she really seems to believe that backtracking to "it's fiction" argument on any discussion about consistencry of style of the setting is a perfectly legit tactic.

 

We would all do well to remember, a wall of text is a vice, not a virtue. If you can't make a point concise, it's probably not a point worth making.

[Umberlin]

Paladin comes from the Holy Roman Empire, a semi-mythical group similar to King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, whose stories are those of their defense of Christianity against the Muslims. Ergo, Paladin is used in an acceptable way in RPGs. The real Paladins were defenders of their faith and crusaders against opposing faiths. That fits with the archetype of the Paladin in pretty much every RPG.

 

Except it doesn't. Not even the D&D Paladin fits that. It's changed in more than a few ways to fit the setting, and P:E's version is massively changed beyond any point of argument. I can't name a fantasy RPG in which a Paladin in any way matches its actual origin. And I have no problem with it, even in the settings where they start healing wounds, flinging around magic and so on and so forth. A Paladin in D&D is a very fictional rendition, and nothing like the reality beyond some possible trace inspirations. In that same sense a Paladin in RPGs is a separate thing, part of a separate language - much like a slang word versus typical use of the same word.

 

You just automatically accept that it's not meant to be the same with the Paladin. In that same sense you should just accept that the name Monk in RPGs has, in fact, for a very long time now, held a separate meaning when used in the context of RPGs. That's just a fact, not even an opinion, if it were an opinion I couldn't point at the countless RPGs out there that use Monk to reference something in a manner that is anything but the tradition, real world, application. It's not real. It's fiction, and if you think, "It's fiction" isn't a plausible argument then kick out every last class name you can think of that has a different real world application.

 

You won't have many left standing.

 

Changing the monk's name would do something positive: show originality.

 

That's debatable, using names other than the Monk for such classes isn't original either. That's also been done. Repeatedly. The only people it speaks to are the few in this thread that would like such a change. That's it's only definite positive application. You have no idea of how it will be recieved beyond that.

 

P:E doesn't have to be Dungeons & Dragons. It doesn't have to be bound by any stereotype, and that's a large part of what they had intended, was it not?

 

It doesn't have to be, but that's not my call. My call wouldn't have left a single traditional element standing. Obsidian's call has a roster of classes with nothing but D&D parallels that have been changed just enough to say they aren't the same. The Paladin, oddly, seeming to be the one most unlike its D&D parallel.

 

Why not change the name when they have already done the same with the Bard anyway with the Chanter?

 

Why not change the name of every last class? Why use any of the traditional classes at all?

 

Then they could vary it up a bit, have martial artists from all sorts of backgrounds instead of monastic ones! Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to a religious hand to hand specialist if they called them Dancers and based their martial arts on dancing with the premise that it reflects the 'movement of the heavens' or somesuch as it would fit in well with how the Chanter works.

 

True. They could, but they didn't. And if they did change the name? Nothing would really change. You could make them religious, faith based, instead of pulling spiritual aspects to enhance themselves. Then you'd have people complaining about that. You could call them Dancers. People would complain about that. In the end Obsidian gave us lore up front about using the Soul to superhuman effect, enhancement of the body and other aspects of the Soul. After they had established that, they gave us a Monk who was fighting barehanded and enhancing their punches magically, one assumes by drawing upon their soul.

 

Of all the things they could have done, they seem to have gone with something that they set up before the class was even announced.

 

In the end no matter what they did people would complain. They'll complain about the name, the martial arts, that its not western, that it's not realistic, that its not this that or another thing and so on.

 

I could spend all day complaining that the game isn't shaping up to how I'd have done every little detail too . . . but what's the point? I'm more concerned about the quality of what they choose to do, rather than exactly 'what' they choose to do. If they do the Monk well, fit it in their setting, and all that, sure, I won't play it still . . . but what do I care? I'll play a class I actually have interest in like the Wizard or Cipher.

 

Then you could have them wearing different things like dancing clothes instead of the usual monk garb and maybe even something like masks, with the choice of mask reflecting the 'role' the Dancer wants to take on in his fight.

 

Then you'd still have the people complaining they weren't wearing full armor, and wielding weapons. Of note a lot of the complaints in this thread I can quote, that have issue with the Monk, cite, as their issue, just about everything you came up for this Dancer (not wearing full armor, not using weapons, using martial arts at all, doing things that are unrealistic and so on [note: these are from various posters collected - not just one poster]). Personally, if the Monk became your Dancer, my deal would be the same as with the Monk. I wouldn't play it, but my concern wouldn't be that it was there, it'd be that Obsidian did it well - not what but how.

 

As long as it fits within their world, and they decide that, not any of us, they've done their job well. It's their writing, their story and they define what fits in this world. And no amount of, "I'm so disappointed in you Obsdian" style posts, from certain posters in this thread, that seem to think they know better/more than Obsidian about Obsidian's own trade, will change that.

 

But to outwalltext Umberlin is't really possible, because she really seems to believe that backtracking to "it's fiction" argument on any discussion about consistencry of style of the setting is a perfectly legit tactic.

 

Again, you don't decide what's consistent within a fictional setting like this. The writers, the creators, do. They decide what is fitting, consistent, for the area of this fantasy world we're in.

 

As for walls of text, I'm sorry, but a wall of text is a massive unbroken thing; lacking paragraphs, a true wall a block. I realize you're just trying to demean my side of things, to make it look lesser through the only manner you can, since you don't actually have anything worthwhile to add. So . . . yeah . . . your use of the term doesn't have to be accurate. I would even say, that while I disagree with him, he can actually discuss something without resorting to indirect insult . . . but . . .

 

We would all do well to remember, a wall of text is a vice, not a virtue. If you can't make a point concise, it's probably not a point worth making.

 

Apparently not. I'm sorry, but I've put you both on ignore. Please do the same to me, since the manner in which I post seems to offend your superior sensibilities so.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Umberlin

[UncleBourbon]

I have always been a fan of more western style monks - using zen archery like stuff, usually with crossbows.

[Aedelric]

Crossbows would give them a nice ranged choice for for a typically close combat class, sort of how people imagine witch hunters. But I think I read somewhere that crossbows will not be in Eternity, unfortunately, if I am wrong someone please correct me.

[AGX-17]

I have always been a fan of more western style monks - using zen archery like stuff, usually with crossbows.

 

A western style monk would have no concept of zen, and the only way they'd know archery would be if they were former soldiers who decided to become monks. And they'd be giving up their vows to engage in combat of any kind.

Edited October 22, 2012 by AGX-17

[Tusck]

I was put off monk's in the NWN series because they became a gimmicky min/max class. I don't have a problem with the concept, but I would rather see them be fleshed out more with a complete look at Asian lore.

[Few]

I have always been a fan of more western style monks - using zen archery like stuff, usually with crossbows.

 

A western style monk would have no concept of zen, and the only way they'd know archery would be if they were former soldiers who decided to become monks. And they'd be giving up their vows to engage in combat of any kind.

 

Unless the monk was English then he would know archery as it was law for all males to do archery practice and he would have done this when he was younger before taking any vows

[ReyVagabond]

All i know i want a more combat focused than the Cleric, and more Buff oriented that straight heal, and to be able to use Weapons like Swords, stafs, Shilds, ect. all the wu shu weapons.

[metacontent]

To me, a monk is 100% about specialization, they focus on a very narrow set of behaviors, and in exchange for their focus those behaviors become honed to the point of heroic proportion.

 

I would prefer to see that Monks get a list of 20 specialized options, but they start with only chosing 1 of them, and gain 1 more skill every 8 levels. Which means by level 45 they would only have 5 of these specialized skills, whereas by that time other classes might have 20 or more special skills.

 

One option might be sword fighting, if a Monk took this option then they would be one of the best sword fighters in the entire kingdom, even better than fighter of the same level, however the trade off would be that the Monk would have no other skills, no armor skills, no versatility, they wouldn't even know how to use non-sword weapons. The fighter on the other hand would not be as deadly with the sword, but would know how to use many other weapons, and would also be good at using armor, and also have a whole other bag full of tricks.

 

Another example might be bludgeoning defense, this would make the monk highly resistant to all bludgeoning damage, it would be nearly impossible to knock this Monk unconscious with a fist, or even a club. Of course there would be no such thing as piercing defense, or slashing defense, because lets face it the monk is still made of meat.

 

Another option might be disease resistance, or poison resistance, or fast movement, or silent movement...

 

Again, these options would be far more powerful options than what is available to other classs, so the monk would get far fewer of them, and also aquire these options much more slowly than other classes.

 

This would make the Monk a powerful end game class, but quite weak at the beginning.

 

tl;dr: If I had my way, I would make the Monk the most powerful, but least versitile class in the game. They would start out extremely weak, but end up extremely powerful, but even at end game they would not be very versitile, because Monks are about specialization, focus, and dedication.

 

However, I fully agree that Monks should not be restricted to only hand-to-hand martial arts, they should be able to choose any weapon they want, but they would only ever use that one type of weapon, that is their focus, they wouldn't even know how to use any other weapon.

Edited October 22, 2012 by metacontent

[FlintlockJazz]

I thought this topic had died, hate to see it back. Umberlin, you argue that if we change the monk then why stop there well why stop at the chanter then? I explained the benefits of changing the name for the monk, getting away from the preconceptions of spiritualism imherent in the name monk (and which doesn't make sense when everyone is using spiritual power as they are planning to in PE). Saying that its up to Obsidisn, we are aware of that we are discussing whether its a good choice or not as is our right, don't like it don't bother discussing it then.

 

As to calling them dancers and changing their clothes, it changes their role in society, making them performers instead, and removes the Eastern ascetic that some feel is out of place. Plus it would be so much more interesting!

[Wolfentir]

I'm bored with all kung-fu inspired monks in RPGs.

 

Monks could use greek pankration. Greek soliders were taught pankration so if they lose their weapons/shileds they could defend themselves by punching, powerful kicks and takedowns. Hence, why greek armies could often defeat more numerous opponents (besides tactics, etc pankration would help greek soldiers in battles).

 

Besides using ancient form of boxing (and kicking), pankration also used wrestling which involved quick and efficient takedowns which would always end with moves which would break opponents necks or limbs or with strikes to the neck, groin, eyes, etc.

 

I think this would work nice, esp with monks having their bodies enhanced by life-long training and meditation which would unlock physical (strength, agility, resistanc, etc) powers coming from their soul or from praying to a certain god.

[Kane_Severance]

I'd be fine with Eastern monks if they got a Jade Empire style treatment. The problem with monks in most RPGs is they are homogenous and boring. You use less equipment, get fewer upgrades and only have one way to do your thing.

 

Jade Empire had different martial styles which all felt very different.

 

There's also no reason for an eastern monk not to have equipment upgrades. Many kung-fu movies talk about famed martial artists that use swords, spears, staves, claws, rings and hammers. Many of the weapons are relics with amazing backstory. Those kind of things are woefully missing in most rpgs that include monks.

 

I don't want to see another D&D monk, but I think Eastern monks could be done better in RPGs.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Kane_Severance

[Umberlin]

I thought this topic had died, hate to see it back.

 

I don't disagree.

 

Umberlin, you argue that if we change the monk then why stop there well why stop at the chanter then?

 

Why stop anywhere? Like I said nothing would make me happier than if they axed every last traditional element, and did a lot of things different . . . but in the end that's not my call. I'm more concerned witht he quality of what's present than what is actually present. This is their decision and it obviously fits into their world and lore somehow. They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't.

 

I explained the benefits of changing the name for the monk, getting away from the preconceptions of spiritualism imherent in the name monk (and which doesn't make sense when everyone is using spiritual power as they are planning to in PE).

 

A Monk is what Obsidian details them as, and nothing more, our preconceptions don't matter and the reality of a Monk doesn't matter either. The benefits you lay out only are beneficial to some, and you, nor I, have any conception of the community reaction beyond a handful of people in this thread that are particularly against one aspect of the Monk, or another, or just plain all of it. This thread is full of a vocal few that don't like the Monk in one aspect or another, yet, you may not have noticed, Monk styled characters are very popular. Use your head and think about what replacing the Monk could potentially result in.

 

Most of what's being asked for sound like completely different Classes regardless, or, even worse, existing classes. Most people against the Monk, in this thread, would have been better off creating a, "I have an idea for a new class" thread.

 

Saying that its up to Obsidisn, we are aware of that we are discussing whether its a good choice or not as is our right, don't like it don't bother discussing it then.

 

Discussing what you like is one thing, people getting up on high thrones and acting like they know better than Obsidian is another, going to far as to shame them like they high some manner of higher ground, and, no, I'm not talking about you, but I can quote several that have. I explained this. In detail. The only way you don't get that is if you are trying to not get it.

 

As to calling them dancers and changing their clothes, it changes their role in society, making them performers instead, and removes the Eastern ascetic that some feel is out of place. Plus it would be so much more interesting!

 

True, but it doesn't change other aspects that some people here feel are out of place, as I explained in detailed, very specifically. As you explained it, nearly everything remaining in your idea still was something someone here had a problem with, and, on top of that, it creates a new problem, that being there are, if you noticed, people that want the Monk. So not only does it not do enough to please those that didn't like the Monk, it creates a new pool if people that are no longer pleased.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

I don't disagree.

 

And yet here we both are, I guess we're just glutton for punishment.

 

Why stop anywhere? Like I said nothing would make me happier than if they axed every last traditional element, and did a lot of things different . . . but in the end that's not my call. I'm more concerned witht he quality of what's present than what is actually present. This is their decision and it obviously fits into their world and lore somehow. They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't.

 

While they haven't changed the name on many of the classes, they have made a change to how the classes themselves work: they now all use powers achieved through their souls. Even Fighters get to use their souls to power attacks and such like, which means that they have been reworked to fit the setting. If anything, it seems like the monk has not been altered at all to fit the setting, despite his defining feature (spiritual enlightenment leading to combat abilities) being pretty much passed to all the other classes, which raises the question: what is the point of the monk's spiritual enlightenment if others can also achieve it? What is it about the monk that separates itself from a FIghter whose trained himself to fight with fists and has created a lifestyle around it?

 

A Monk is what Obsidian details them as, and nothing more, our preconceptions don't matter and the reality of a Monk doesn't matter either. The benefits you lay out only are beneficial to some, and you, nor I, have any conception of the community reaction beyond a handful of people in this thread that are particularly against one aspect of the Monk, or another, or just plain all of it. This thread is full of a vocal few that don't like the Monk in one aspect or another, yet, you may not have noticed, Monk styled characters are very popular. Use your head and think about what replacing the Monk could potentially result in.

 

Most of what's being asked for sound like completely different Classes regardless, or, even worse, existing classes. Most people against the Monk, in this thread, would have been better off creating a, "I have an idea for a new class" thread.

 

Samurai and Jedi are both quite popular, yet people don't expect them to be in every game. A lot of people, myself included, just don't want a class shoehorned in just to appease those who want to play a certain class regardless of the setting. I will go into this later in this post.

 

Discussing what you like is one thing, people getting up on high thrones and acting like they know better than Obsidian is another, going to far as to shame them like they high some manner of higher ground, and, no, I'm not talking about you, but I can quote several that have. I explained this. In detail. The only way you don't get that is if you are trying to not get it.

 

I disagree that is what people are doing, some are just very passionate about this, however it is probably best we leave this topic alone to be honest.

 

True, but it doesn't change other aspects that some people here feel are out of place, as I explained in detailed, very specifically. As you explained it, nearly everything remaining in your idea still was something someone here had a problem with, and, on top of that, it creates a new problem, that being there are, if you noticed, people that want the Monk. So not only does it not do enough to please those that didn't like the Monk, it creates a new pool if people that are no longer pleased.

 

It's not intended to change the other aspects, it's merely a background change. Those who like the monk for the way it operates will still get the class they want, and many of the people complaining about the monk not fitting in will be satisfied that it now fits with the lore of the game. The only people who will be unhappy are those who insist on the monk to be exactly like he is in other games, and therein lies the problem people have with monks: they seem to be shoehorned into every game over the years whether they fit or not, usually with little to no adaptation to explain how they fit into the world or their impact upon it, and this is what people who dislike the monk are most worried about, that it is yet again being shoehorned in.

 

People may want to play it, but then people often want to play Jedi in a MechWarrior game or a sword wielding samurai in a modern day realistic military game, if it doesn't fit then it either needs to be adapted or they need to understand that you don't always get what you want, and I see no reason why the monk should not be put under this same expectation. The standard Monks are fine in an Eastern setting with samurai and the like, and I would not expect to see the option to play as a Western Knight in such a setting except as a cop out by the developers and would mark it down for it. I know, we don't actually know much of the lore of the game yet, but as I mentioned earlier we know that it is a world in which all classes can access their souls to gain powers and that plate and guns are in while Forton looks like your stereotypical Oriental monk, which is setting off alarm bells in people's heads that there has been no attempt to modify the class to fit the setting.

 

Anyway, I need to go start up X-Com so I can dissect some aliens...

[Osvir]

Most of what's being asked for sound like completely different Classes regardless, or, even worse, existing classes. Most people against the Monk, in this thread, would have been better off creating a, "I have an idea for a new class" thread.

 

Couldn't resist. Very good point Umberlin

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61020-the-monk-class/page__st__320

[AndreyPlatonov]

I am for wide variety of monk specs.Martial or magic,or even wis-blind monk with bow and dzen arrows=)creating with the power of his soul=)

[Nomine Vacans]

I am for wide variety of monk specs.Martial or magic,or even wis-blind monk with bow and dzen arrows=)creating with the power of his soul=)

"Are you stupid, Uriel? Japanese people don't have souls!" © South Park

[AndreyPlatonov]

Asian People in Project Eternity?

[sardic]

I would also prefer something different than the typical fantasy sterotype kung fu monk in 'tolkein' medieval fantasy worlds. I mean if this was Jade Empire it would be different.

 

I really like the hospitilar or flagellant idea, the zealot. I guess the same themes run through all monk archtypes with immunity to mind effects and some limited pain resistence because of training, extreme beliefs and in case of of a flagellant, self multitation for penance.

 

Flagellants in history was popular and was supressed in many places by various churches. Hell maybe you could turn it into a pet class with a twist. Maybe a raise followers ability )

 

Rogues have had charm, warriors threaten/intimidate, maybe our zealot could have some political skills, convert etc.

 

Lot of material for a flagellant, lots of options. Be really nice to have something different for the monk.

[Aldereth]

I always find the cRPG monks modelled mostly after the Shaolin monks of the orient to be a bit jarring. It is just that cRPG almost exclusively give unarm combat mastery or fancy martial weapon skill to this class and the fighter class are undiscipline baffoon who rely solely on great strength.

 

I would like to some of that unarmed or fancy (Hong Kong action movie inspired) martial arts with weapon or bare hands be employed by normal fighter class. Just give this class the extra mystical/spiritual power. Like the fighter can specialize into a more dexterity base martial artist (with or without weapon) with a wide selection of weapons and armor and can rely a bit on their strength bonuses for damage. While the monk would not have such a wide selection of equipment, but have something extra in the form of mystical spiritual power than goes with the moves. eg. heal themselves, imbue their fist or palm with power...etc.

[Tethros]

Ok, let's clear up some misconceptions and take a look at what we're talking about in mechanical terms when we talk about monks.

 

1) Martial arts are fighting techniques used in any sort of mortal combat. Literally, martial arts means "arts of war". They are not limited to weaponless fighting styles, fighting that originated in Asia, or fighting styles with close-range weapons. So, is there any kind of proficiency system with weapons in the game? Or bonuses/penalties if you have a certain level of knowledge with a weapon? If so, then you de facto have martial arts in the game and every single character that gets into a scuffle uses them.

 

2) A more pertinent question seems to be: should unarmed fighters of some sort be able to fight against armed fighters? In the real world, the answer is almost always a resounding NO. Going up with your bare hands against someone with a knife (under the assumption that you'll only take 1d4 damage) will get you killed very quickly. Let alone multiple people with knives. So does that mean that there can't be unarmed fighters in P:E? Well, it depends on how much verisimilitude you're aiming for.

 

3) Monks channel spiritual powers to achieve certain magical or quasi-magical effects. If you allow point 2 to stand, then I see no reason not to allow point 3. It makes for a fun character to play in combat.

 

4) Outside of combat monks hold a particular position in society. They have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of some ideal or cause, and for this they command a level of respect in their community.

 

I think ultimately, monks should be a subclass of priests. There's no reason why you can't have different monastic orders with different class features. Maybe one is an expert and weaponless combat, maybe another focuses on healing or somesuch. The level of focus that it takes to become a monk will make this subclass less versatile than the generic "priest", but will have a trade-off in excelling in a particular area. Overall, I see no reason why a "monk" wouldn't work in the world of P:E.

 

Edit: And anyone who is having problems with the concept of Asian people in P:E should probably check their racism at the door. This doesn't take place in Europe. Let go of your preconceptions.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Tethros