Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With your logic there shouldn't even be more than one weapon, since every time a newer is invented, all other weapons should just be thrown out of the window.

Or why have dozens of martial arts? Just pick the deadlier and discard all others.

Edited by DocDoomII
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

With your logic there shouldn't even be more than one weapon, since every time a newer is invented, all other weapons should just be thrown out of the window.

Or why have dozens of martial arts? Just pick the deadlier and discard all others.

It's not the same thing.

 

Two classes meant to fill the same role, melee combat, can not be equal. One does the job better.

A mace is not the same as sword, one does better against armored target, and the other does better against unarmored target.

A pistol is not the same as rifle, one is used for medium range combat and the other for long range combat.

 

And you can't balance a whole class in a way you would a weapon, you can't make monks bad against plates because that would mean your party sucks if it doesn't have fighter, and you can't make fighter bad against unarmored because your party would suck if you don't have monk. A person can carry multiple weapons and switch between them, you can't "carry" multiple extra classes just to cover all things, it makes for bad game play experience and totally limits your party choices.

 

So no, it's not even close to same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone, with a bit of training, can channel their soul to either defensive or offensive powers that rival any weapon or armor, then why are weapons and armors not obsolete ?

 

Everyone can't. Not all souls are equal. Not all people are equal. Obsidian outlined this already.

 

. . .

 

Why are you acting like there's never been an RPG with a Monk styled class in it before? Why are you acting like a Monk styled class wouldn't have gear?

 

Monk styled classes, mixed in with Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric etc styled clases . . . this has happened before, in far, far more than one game. This is not some impossible alien undertaking requiring logic that only divinity my glean a hint of. Your issues with the addition of a Monk styled class seem to come from your personal conjuration of problems that no longer exist, a result of many developers having tackled them succesfully over the course of quite a few different RPGs with such a class mixed in with other class types.

Edited by Umberlin

"Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance!

You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trulez, you don't even know if any kind of soul in this game can be apt at any kind of combat ability.

By a roleplay standponint that would be enough to justify the class.

 

But you don't even know what kind of ability a monk, a barbarian and a normal warrior will have, how they work and what effect they may apply.

For what we know, monks punches can hit tsubo* like in Hokuto no Ken and by doing so debilitate the opponent.

 

*Either directly or with forceful impact through the armor.

 

 

This is all speculation, you can't be against a class without even knowing how the hell it will work.

Edited by DocDoomII
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all speculation, you can't be against a class without even knowing how the hell it will work.

 

Most people are not against the class but the stereotype looks, abilities and background it generally comes with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly, I'd throw out the whole class system altogether and just have "people who can use soul power/people who can't" and just let the player choose his combination of stats, feats and skills like in Fallout 1/2.

 

like that we can have psionics, magic, martial arts, "Paladiny" and gun stuff without the butthurt.

 

that way, nobody feels their favorite class is being undermined by another...which is also what's happened in the cipher thread: "cipher a pointless class, mages should do it all!"

Edited by NerdBoner
Link to post
Share on other sites

With your logic there shouldn't even be more than one weapon, since every time a newer is invented, all other weapons should just be thrown out of the window.

Or why have dozens of martial arts? Just pick the deadlier and discard all others.

It's not the same thing.

 

Two classes meant to fill the same role, melee combat, can not be equal. One does the job better.

A mace is not the same as sword, one does better against armored target, and the other does better against unarmored target.

A pistol is not the same as rifle, one is used for medium range combat and the other for long range combat.

 

And you can't balance a whole class in a way you would a weapon, you can't make monks bad against plates because that would mean your party sucks if it doesn't have fighter, and you can't make fighter bad against unarmored because your party would suck if you don't have monk. A person can carry multiple weapons and switch between them, you can't "carry" multiple extra classes just to cover all things, it makes for bad game play experience and totally limits your party choices.

 

So no, it's not even close to same thing.

 

In class design there is three major routes what you can go. Classless sytem where only characters skills give limitation to what that character can do, Skyrim goes for example of game which uses this approach. Then there is option number two where there is only one class per role, Dragon Age uses this design. Then there is dungeon & dragon approach where we have multiple classes for each role which take little different approach to fullify that role, this system also gives that option that one class can do multiple role, but don't necessary fullfit those roles as good as other classes but gives more flexibility for your character.

 

I would like to take your pistol versus rifle argument and chage it for bit. In my example we compare M-16 and AK-47 (they were choosed because they are classic movie weapons and so probably best known). M-16 offer longer range, lighter weight for weapon, ammunition and clips and you can add more toys (like laser sight, scope, etc.) to it without modifications. Were AK-47 offers cheaper manufacturing costs, better penetration and it is more reliable in harsh conditions. And now try to decide which of this weapons are better suited to be assault rifle and why. Answer is both are well suited to fill that role, because there is combats where other is better than another. And what I wanted to say with this comparison was that there can easily be multiple classes for same role and none of them is automaticaly inferior to another class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Monks being lightly-armored warriors that focus more adeptness rather than force (almost like Rogues) but focus on mastery of either exotic weapons or a very small number of specific weapons that the player can choose? Initially the Monk could have fists bonuses that rival real weapons, but after a few levels those diminsh as the Monk begins training in his weapon(s) of choice.

 

I'm not sure how the Souls concept of PE would be worked into it but I'm positive that someone could fit it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me a monk is one of the most disciplined classes in these types of games or story's. They're more believable to me and I respect them more than other classes because I understand to some degree the sacrifice they've made to get at the level they're at. They spend exorbitant amount of time practicing & training their mind and body's into lethal weapons and also have mastered their bodys' conditioning them into fantastic vesals of knowledge and wisdom for healing and defending.

 

I've seen first hand accounts of them breaking bricks with their hands. Not Karate chopping them, but punching bricks into dust from inches away. I've seen them being stabbed with a spear and the spear tip won't break their skin, but it will slice through other things. I've watched a gentleman do 2 finger push ups upside down without help. That type of discipline is super human and completely different than just hacking a dudes arm off or running a lance through his belly. I have a lot of respect for those guys. Those are real people too, not something from story books.

 

My personal play style would really prefer to play as a cleric type of player that is a warrior priest that lays hands on people and pray and heal their wounds, while also being able to defend myself as well. Again, I've seen first hand accounts of 3 Asian men who in 3 minutes literally prayed away a woman's tumor in her belly. It was live with Dr's there and you could watch the tumor shrinking in real time. They were not monks, but it just shows you what's possible. Whether combat is kung fu or another martial art is debatable. I think using my body as a weapon makes more sense to me than wielding swords and running around in bulky armor. It's true in some games it may not seem like it fits the world, but neither is it normal to see an Asian who speaks perfect English with a Scottish accent, but they're out there, and it gives them plenty of character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monks are going to be martial artists whether we want them to be or not. What I'd like to see is the monk using self-modification spells in tandem with weaponless and unarmored combat.

 

Well, I don't know how real can it be, but I've seen some documentaries of tibetan monks wrecking piles of roof tiles with a hand and being hit with an iron bar and said iron bar bending.

Faked. The iron bar would have to be swung with sufficient force to bend an iron bar, and no matter how a monk is trained in Lama, there's no way of hardening the body to bend iron on a baseball bat swing. Alot of the so-called super powers of martial arts are faked. I don't want to disappoint those who desire to be ninjas. Especially Tantra Super Ninja!

"This is what most people do not understand about Colbert and Silverman. They only mock fictional celebrities, celebrities who destroy their selfhood to unify with the wants of the people, celebrities who are transfixed by the evil hungers of the public. Feed us a Gomorrah built up of luminous dreams, we beg. Here it is, they say, and it looks like your steaming brains."

 

" If you've read Hart's Hope, Neveryona, Infinity Concerto, Tales of the Flat Earth, you've pretty much played Dragon Age."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monks are going to be martial artists whether we want them to be or not.

The game is still being fleshed out, if we voice our discontent loudly enough the monk class just might not be made at all.

 

They already announced monk class in their update, so it is very unlikely that they don't bring one in final product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit late to this party, but...

 

I'm also one of those who have some issues with the Monk. Mainly the bare-hands thing, in a world where almost everyone wears some type of armor

along with usually a fairly long piece of sharp metal, which is designed to mess human bodies up. Even more so if there's no armor in the way.

 

Fair enough, in PE their fists will be Soulpower Enhanced, but still...

 

I think I could grudgingly tolerate a Monk if they redesigned it to be more unique. The whole Shaolin/Bruce Lee angle always felt out of place.

 

Even the suggestions others here have about making them european Warrior Monks doesn't sit right with me. Sounds too much like the Priest class.

 

 

 

If they *absolutely* must have this class in, at least do away with the overly asian design. And give him a staff or spear, at the very least.

 

 

*Shrugs and grumbles about these "damned Monks"....*

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultimate expression of this focus is the ability to concentrate his body's natural energies into his hand, manifesting as a supernatural glow around his clenched fist, making his fist "like unto a thing of iron". So concentrated, this "iron fist" can smash into its target with superhuman hardness and impact, while his hand becomes impervious to pain and injury.

 

Good old Iron Fist.

 

I could like something like that, but overall I'm pretty much fed up with the nice european medieval scene always filled with martial arts monks and ninjas.

But then again, I wasn't always, at some point ninjas were totally cool and awesome when they'd flip out and kill everybody.

 

So I'll just take them as they come, while hoping Obsidian manages some resemblance of sense in explaining,

why there's a bunch of people who'd think it's all clever to fight without weapons and armor* and actually prove the point by doing so.

 

* although, will they fight without armor? If wizards wear plate, will not monks likewise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect people's different opinions on this, but personally I like the option of playing as a monk, even if it is a shaolin-style monk. They could end up being a poorly designed cliche, but so could all the other classes if they're badly designed, and with Obsidian's track record I'm interested to see what they do with it.

 

To me, the Monk would work if it's an ascetic character who's based around self-reflection/self-improvement/self-denial, differing from the Priest who's more about religious fervour and zealotry. If it is that the Monk eschews armour and weapons, I would think that was more about the idea of self-reliance, and about forgoing material things in order to focus on the training of the soul, which with enough training and dedication powers them to superhuman feats of strength and endurance. Also, I would think they would do this even if it wasn't always the most efficient way of fighting, as they would be focussed on more philosophical and lofty goals than the more prosaic classes like Warriors or Rogues, even to their immediate detriment.

 

Also, at the risk of muddying my argument - I think people overrate plate armour, and armour in general, in these types of games. I really enjoy the armoured knight archetype in games, but historically armour was something that was situationally very useful, and at other times a real hinderance. I think we've just got too used to the idea of armour adding to an "armour value" and being a great bonus, but really it was great up until the moment when something could go through it, and then it was just a hinderance. I'm not particularly arguing for semi-naked monks or chainmail bikinis, but as much as "reality" matters in these sorts of thing, I think people too often assume that running around on an adventure clad head to foot in plate and mail is more "realistic" than it perhaps would be.

 

Whether Monks are "Asian" or not doesn't really bother me, although as a white guy who lives in England, personally I like to see more diversity in these games. I think the idea of a handful of outlandish characters who've arrived from across the water, and the potential for religious/philosophical/cultural clashes they bring are something Obsidian could portray in a really interesting way. If I want to be surrounded by white people who talk like they're in the middle ages I can just go to the local Asda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so bothered about "Bare fists vs. Armor". Hell, you can still use your bare hands to mess up joints etc underneath the armor or whatever.

 

Take the Heruli. They ran into battle naked, and in the first battle, they were not even allowed a shield. Only if they survived their first battle (obviously) were they allowed to carry a shield into subsequent ones.

 

 

No, my problem is with the "Bare fists vs. longer reach weapons"

 

An unarmed man in a battle situation against one or several other opponents with any kind of weapon that give longer reach, armored or otherwise,

is at a *severe* disadvantage. If they have spears or such, there's no way he'd come out of it on top.

 

It's just too fantastical for me to be able to accept. Give him a weapon of some sort, and I'd be grudgingly ok with him, at least. Don't care so much about

whether he wears armor or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it may be interesting to use the Monk as a pacifist class. So that its basically a defendable anti warrior that uses his skills to stun lock enemy's, disable their movements, or use "pressure points" to disable enemy attacks or weapons. Maybe even de-buff baddies so that following attacks allow the other damage dealing classes to exploit the new found vulnerabilities, while also allowing the monk to heal his team. At the very least I'd like the option to choose to be a traditional fighter monk, versus one who plays more of a support role. I'm ok with them being able to wield weapons, but would like it to be done in a way that its not just a fighter with increased dexterity who can duel wield. Hopefully they're more interesting than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think we'll get this martial arts monk no matter what.

 

Give him weapons, and he more or less just becomes another fighter. Make him a more european-type monk, and he's too similar to Priest.

 

 

Honestly hope Obsidian have some nice twist to it, and good lore.

 

 

I'll probably not recruit this NPC. If there's no other NPC to fill the gap, that's what the Adventurer's Hall is for, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultimate expression of this focus is the ability to concentrate his body's natural energies into his hand, manifesting as a supernatural glow around his clenched fist, making his fist "like unto a thing of iron". So concentrated, this "iron fist" can smash into its target with superhuman hardness and impact, while his hand becomes impervious to pain and injury.

Equip knuckle dusters (same as having "iron fists") and you still wont do ANY damage to armored opponents, your fist simply lacks the power created by the swing of longer weapons. You can't split wood by hitting it with the axe blade alone, you need the shaft to create swing speed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my problem is with the "Bare fists vs. longer reach weapons"

 

It's not that much of a more disadvantage than dagger vs reach weapon.

But yeah, logically it doesn't work, in game it probably will.

 

Give him weapons, and he more or less just becomes another fighter. Make him a more european-type monk, and he's too similar to Priest.

 

Actually I could also like a kensai, sword saint type. Not a big difference from a standard fighter,

but what's the real difference anyway? Between monk and a fighter specializing in unarmed combat.

 

The ultimate expression of this focus is the ability to concentrate his body's natural energies into his hand, manifesting as a supernatural glow around his clenched fist, making his fist "like unto a thing of iron". So concentrated, this "iron fist" can smash into its target with superhuman hardness and impact, while his hand becomes impervious to pain and injury.

Equip knuckle dusters (same as having "iron fists") and you still wont do ANY damage to armored opponents, your fist simply lacks the power created by the swing of longer weapons. You can't split wood by hitting it with the axe blade alone, you need the shaft to create swing speed.

 

I assume you never read the comic? :) In that context, punching through plate armor is no big deal.

In game context, I guess it could be soul power that gives the hit the extra punch.

Instead of casting the lightning ball, like a wizard would, you contain it in your fists, or something like that.

 

But anyway, I'm not thrilled the class is in and wouldn't mind seeing it dropped.

But whether I'll take the NPC or not, mostly depends on if I like him/her as a character, not as a representative of the class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one fights agaisnt armored opponet without any weapons, one should of course not hit opponents most armored places, as they are made to endure hits from weapons, but aim those places which aren't so armored. And triping armoured opponet is always good tactic as what heavier opponents armour more s/he is hindered by it when trying to stand up. And for example chain mail is good agaisnt penetraiting or slashing weapons, but it's protective capacity is not so great against blunt weapons, where you could easily count hits from iron fist.

 

And what comes for the weapons, of course monk should be able to use them (as one could in BG2 and D&D), but maybe monks weapon skills should not be so much weaker than his unarmed combat skills.

 

Vargr is right one his/her point that unarmed fighter is heavily disadvantaged against multiple armed opponets, although so is single armed fighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...