Druids, Monks and Rangers - Issues

[Umberlin]

I know that you're not trolling because you've had this argument before, so:

 

Monks punching through armor have as much basis in reality as wizards conjuring fireballs from their palms. Significantly less than one trained fighter whacking another over the head with a blunt object. That's the entire point.

 

I don't mind the fantastical (obviously), if it can earn its place in the narrative.

 

I wasn't arguing for or against the inclusion of monks. I was merely pointing out that wizards DID exist, regardless of whether magic (as in actual, functional magic - like what we'll have in P.E.) did or did not exist.

Even in a medieval (or pseudo-medieval fantasy) setting completely devoid of functional magic, there should still be witches and wizards. It would be "unrealistic" otherwise.

 

On that note, let's talk about, stories, throughout pretty much every culture, across all of history, in regard to any given 'person' or 'persons' that may, or may not, have done something fantastic, and had gossip and fantastic tellings of their deeds . . . and . . . blah blah blah existed. Many fantastic stories, everywhere, are based on real people. Fantastic ideas of what a Witch might have done? Sure. Fantastic ideas about what that martial artistic could do? Definitely. Fantastic ideas about what that guy standing by the King could do with fire? No doubt. Fantastic ideas about what those Monks up in the monestary could do? Yep, that too.

 

People are predictable gossips, and you know how that whispering game works - exaggerations get out of hand, quickly. And that's any and every culture (at any and every given time). Some kid kicked a stone and took out a larger kid. Two years later the young man fought bravely against a gigantic abomination. A hundred years later It's the same story but a different culture with new characters and names. Two hundred years later the space aliens are scratching their head tentacles going, "If the people of this extinct civilization had four arms, as in this historically accurate story, then why did their skeletons only have two?"

 

Aaaanyways . . .

 

How true were any of these fantastic stories based on existing, living, people in any given time and any given culture? Doesn't matter. They existed regardless, the stories and the people. Point is, fantastic ideas about what "insert anybody throughout all of time" did isn't a new construct. Fantastic ideas of what a martial artist might do, might seem like a modern construct of games, to some people out there, but it's not, much like your Wizard or Witch, or, what have you, such fantastic ideas, however unfounded, still popped up. Why do things like that exist? Well, any number of reasons, I'm sure, but, personally I'm just glad they do exist.

 

The world would get real boring real fast without a bit of imagination, if you ask me.

 

Long story short, people see things and exagerate them.

 

"Because."

Edited December 11, 2012 by Umberlin

[wanderon]

People Exaggerate?

 

Surely not on the internet?

[Umberlin]

The point was more that there likely isn't a time in history, or, place in the world, where people didn't do such things. The internet surely is a place, of sorts, and a part of Humanity's time table, but such truths are there with or without its existence.

[wanderon]

The point was more that there likely isn't a time in history, or, place in the world, where people didn't do such things. The internet surely is a place, of sorts, and a part of Humanity's time table, but such truths are there with or without its existence.

 

My point was that it appears in a higher degree on the internet than possibly any other place except of course areas of political discourse...

[Sacred_Path]

-snip-

 

Noone wants to dilute their stories by going off on tangents though. And you don't want to destroy your audience's belief! That's the entire goal of a fantastical story! Any good storyteller would leave out an element that adds neither flavor nor enhances believability nor adds different options of storytelling. That's why I was asking, why is this [monks] in there?

[Alexjh]

-snip-

 

Noone wants to dilute their stories by going off on tangents though. And you don't want to destroy your audience's belief! That's the entire goal of a fantastical story! Any good storyteller would leave out an element that adds neither flavor nor enhances believability nor adds different options of storytelling. That's why I was asking, why is this [monks] in there?

 

I'd say it does enhance flavour, and really, if something is going to destroy belief in a fantasy setting, its probably going to be something other than monks - psyc. There is nothign anywhere that says that P:E is a fundementally Western setting anyway, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a mishmash of various cultures formed together into something coherant. Besides, if we were going with Monks as an opposite to mages (one believes in manipulating external energies, one belives in mastering internal ones) they do fit into a Western setting far more logically than in a setting with no magic.

 

Plus this is a game and the inclusion of a class which is arguably furthest removed from the "core 4" is a good choice for diversities sake.

 

But for Monks that I thought worked well in a game, see the Black Raven monastary in Icewind Dale 2, I felt that worked well within the setting despite being an Eastern themed monastary in a Nordic-themed setting.

[Sacred_Path]

I'd say it does enhance flavour, and really, if something is going to destroy belief in a fantasy setting, its probably going to be something other than monks - psyc.

 

The appearance of which figure in a Euro-centric tale like the Arthur myths would give the reader pause, most likely: Lancelot, Merlin, or Forton?

 

There is nothign anywhere that says that P:E is a fundementally Western setting anyway

 

The character art we've seen so far looks somewhat Caucasian, I'd argue.

 

Plus this is a game and the inclusion of a class which is arguably furthest removed from the "core 4" is a good choice for diversities sake.

 

Enter mermaids, scarecrows and bonobos as playable races. It's for diversity's sake, silly!

 

But for Monks that I thought worked well in a game, see the Black Raven monastary in Icewind Dale 2, I felt that worked well within the setting despite being an Eastern themed monastary in a Nordic-themed setting.

 

Right, skimpily clad hermits in the middle of nowhere enhanced the dales by a good margin.

[Alexjh]

I'd say it does enhance flavour, and really, if something is going to destroy belief in a fantasy setting, its probably going to be something other than monks - psyc.

 

The appearance of which figure in a Euro-centric tale like the Arthur myths would give the reader pause, most likely: Lancelot, Merlin, or Forton?

 

There is nothign anywhere that says that P:E is a fundementally Western setting anyway

 

The character art we've seen so far looks somewhat Caucasian, I'd argue.

 

Plus this is a game and the inclusion of a class which is arguably furthest removed from the "core 4" is a good choice for diversities sake.

 

Enter mermaids, scarecrows and bonobos as playable races. It's for diversity's sake, silly!

 

But for Monks that I thought worked well in a game, see the Black Raven monastary in Icewind Dale 2, I felt that worked well within the setting despite being an Eastern themed monastary in a Nordic-themed setting.

 

Right, skimpily clad hermits in the middle of nowhere enhanced the dales by a good margin.

 

Your first point is a fairly poor analogy - you know what would be even more utterly out of place in Arthurian/Nordic/Gaelic mythoses? Eldritch Horrors. Drow. Mind Flayers. Tolkienesque Elves. Rakshasa. Sympathetic Bad Guys. Orcs and Half-orcs. Gnomes. Guns. Psychic powers. Mithril. Yetis. Golems. Common enchanted weapons. +1 Weapons. Clerics who cast spells. Cyclops. Gorgons. Minotaurs. Sphinx. Slimes. Halflings. Giant Scorpions. Giant Rats. Harpies. Aboleths. Wizards with actual definable powers. People who ascend to being Gods. A City between worlds. Djinn. The fact that seemingly civilizations can exist when they are outnumbered by monsters 500 to 1. There are plenty more that appear in every aspect of modern fantasy. Modern fantasy is not fundementally linked to any one mythology, and indeed, many of the things which are now tropes of the genre were created by authors of fiction.

 

A guy who is supernaturally good at punching things is way easier to fit into a setting than any of the above.

 

For your mermaids, scarecrows and bonobos, if they fit with the world then sure. It'd be a fairly strange world, but if it made sense in context then why not. As Monks already exist as a thing, and we have established this isn't based on one specific real world location or mythology they slot in fairly easily. But this is still missing the point I am making - races are not (usually) a playstyle choice - claases are. If I was suggesting I wanted guys with lazers or I wanted a Mecha class then I could see your point. This however is a technologically contemporary class from a different part of the world.

 

Hermits tend to live in the middle of nowhere last I checked, and the "skimpily clad" you suggest was as far as I recall the standard character models for the infinity engine which amounted to a tunic, not sensible dress for a mountaintop sure, but not exactly skimpy either. There is a good history of (western) Monks making their homes in remote places (see St. Cuthbert for example) and this archetype also ties into the concept of asceticism which has been a bit thing in Christianity (and therefore to a degree I add, the Arthurian Mythos). The only difference is that we are bringing in (eastern) idea of physical training into that setting, which given the whole Christian thing about protecting the weak is really only NOT a thing because Abrahamic religions are ostensiably (if not in practise) claiming to be pacifistic ones.

[Sacred_Path]

Your first point is a fairly poor analogy - you know what would be even more utterly out of place in Arthurian/Nordic/Gaelic mythoses? Eldritch Horrors. Drow. Mind Flayers. Tolkienesque Elves. Rakshasa. Sympathetic Bad Guys. Orcs and Half-orcs. Gnomes. Guns. Psychic powers. Mithril. Yetis. Golems. Common enchanted weapons. +1 Weapons. Clerics who cast spells. Cyclops. Gorgons. Minotaurs. Sphinx. Slimes. Halflings. Giant Scorpions. Giant Rats. Harpies. Aboleths. Wizards with actual definable powers. People who ascend to being Gods. A City between worlds. Djinn. The fact that seemingly civilizations can exist when they are outnumbered by monsters 500 to 1. There are plenty more that appear in every aspect of modern fantasy. Modern fantasy is not fundementally linked to any one mythology, and indeed, many of the things which are now tropes of the genre were created by authors of fiction.

 

They are FR staples though. To which (by way of IE) P:E will be an homage. Remember, this is a game that will have elves and dwarves simply because "players want them".

 

For your mermaids, scarecrows and bonobos, if they fit with the world then sure. It'd be a fairly strange world, but if it made sense in context then why not.

 

That's exactly the point, yes! Of course you can backpedal now by saying "but we don't know yet how the presence of monks will be explained! Could be some awesome reasoning". Well that makes me twitch and stuff but the point really is they haven't explained it at all yet.

As Monks already exist as a thing, and we have established this isn't based on one specific real world location or mythology they slot in fairly easily.

Uh, yes they do (have their roots in a real world region). Much like fighters in ornamented plate armor with two-handed swords.

 

But this is still missing the point I am making - races are not (usually) a playstyle choice - claases are. If I was suggesting I wanted guys with lazers or I wanted a Mecha class then I could see your point. This however is a technologically contemporary class from a different part of the world.

Uh, yes. Replace "bonobos" with "lawyers" (that's a class!). Now by your reasoning if there was a lawyer class we'd simply have to assume that bureaucracy in P:E is evolved enough to make that believable with nothing to go on. And I'd have to say "Bitch please. We have bloody religious skirmishes with epic explosives and hordes of fantastical monsters swarming the world. Surely lawyers have much less of a place in there than axe-wielding barbarians?!"

 

Hermits tend to live in the middle of nowhere last I checked

If they can support themselves. Otherwise they don't exactly live.

 

and the "skimpily clad" you suggest was as far as I recall the standard character models for the infinity engine which amounted to a tunic, not sensible dress for a mountaintop sure, but not exactly skimpy either.

Orly? Sounds p. chilly to me.

 

There is a good history of (western) Monks making their homes in remote places (see St. Cuthbert for example) and this archetype also ties into the concept of asceticism which has been a bit thing in Christianity (and therefore to a degree I add, the Arthurian Mythos). The only difference is that we are bringing in (eastern) idea of physical training into that setting, which given the whole Christian thing about protecting the weak is really only NOT a thing because Abrahamic religions are ostensiably (if not in practise) claiming to be pacifistic ones.

You got a bit convoluted there. "They totally fit into a Western theme except not, because they could be Chrisian but not really!

 

I think the one thing that becomes apparent also here is that monk supporters try to refute the claim that monks are a bad idea, but they don't put anything forth that would explain why monks should be in there in the first place.

[Alexjh]

Many of those are FR staples sure, but some are basically staples of the entire genre - Tolkienesque elves, Orcs, Golems and definable wizards are widely present, and sympathetic villains are a staple of general fiction now.

 

The thing here is not only do I trust Obsidian to have good justification and mechanics given their track record, but furthermore, I have seen monk mechanics before that did work before, by the people who made P:E. This gives me good faith that P:E will make them worthwhile. If there was a lawyer class that made sense in a combat heavy game that'd be fine, but obviously the difference is that monks are an established combatant and therefore work in a game. If you wanted to have a regular non-magical laywer in your party (though maybe not in this game, this is a game about souls after all ) if they had a) sufficient "value" for your party, b) could be made to fit the setting, c) were fun to play as and d) were sufficiently differentiated from the other classes then I don't have an objection at all. These are the four requirements of any class, and I believe that monks fulfill them amply.

 

You made that last point more complex than it is and it boils down to the fact that Medieval European History and development is entirely bound to Christianity in a colossal way. However, fantasy literature is based off of a Medieval setting but very very rarely one that includes Christianity. This is simultaniously problematic and giving room for massive amounts of flexibility. Why does the Forgotten Realms resemble a monotheistic Middle Ages when its really weird jumble of polytheism? Why is Middle Earth apparently far less religious than Europe of a comparable technology level? The closest to as is I can think of offhand would possibly be Hyboria (as that is vaguely analagous to Eurasia anyway) where there are mixes of polytheism and monotheism, but even there, these are religions with very different tones to Christianity. Both Hyboria and Middle Earth are far more coherant settings than Forgotten Realms.

 

So the net result of that: if you are going to include religion at all in a pseudo-medival setting, its best to do one that invokes a vibe of christianity while having its own flavour. Flavour such as martial monks for instance.

[Sacred_Path]

The thing here is not only do I trust Obsidian to have good justification and mechanics given their track record, but furthermore, I have seen monk mechanics before that did work before, by the people who made P:E. This gives me good faith that P:E will make them worthwhile. If there was a lawyer class that made sense in a combat heavy game that'd be fine, but obviously the difference is that monks are an established combatant and therefore work in a game. If you wanted to have a regular non-magical laywer in your party (though maybe not in this game, this is a game about souls after all ) if they had a) sufficient "value" for your party, b) could be made to fit the setting, c) were fun to play as and d) were sufficiently differentiated from the other classes then I don't have an objection at all. These are the four requirements of any class, and I believe that monks fulfill them amply.

 

I thought I had baited you enough for you to explain why monks should be in there. Differentiation is exactly the issue, I feel the monk can do nothing that another class couldn't/ shouldn't do. The 'moving around the battlefield quickly' idea is ok but then that could be a rogue too. They actually have movement abilities (like HiPS).

 

You made that last point more complex than it is and it boils down to the fact that Medieval European History and development is entirely bound to Christianity in a colossal way. However, fantasy literature is based off of a Medieval setting but very very rarely one that includes Christianity. This is simultaniously problematic and giving room for massive amounts of flexibility. Why does the Forgotten Realms resemble a monotheistic Middle Ages when its really weird jumble of polytheism? Why is Middle Earth apparently far less religious than Europe of a comparable technology level? The closest to as is I can think of offhand would possibly be Hyboria (as that is vaguely analagous to Eurasia anyway) where there are mixes of polytheism and monotheism, but even there, these are religions with very different tones to Christianity. Both Hyboria and Middle Earth are far more coherant settings than Forgotten Realms.

 

I'm simply not buying the 'monks could be based on Christians' line of thinking. They're too obviously Eastern. Christian knights (i.e. Templars) are usually represented by Paladins.

[Chilloutman]

The thing here is not only do I trust Obsidian to have good justification and mechanics given their track record, but furthermore, I have seen monk mechanics before that did work before, by the people who made P:E. This gives me good faith that P:E will make them worthwhile. If there was a lawyer class that made sense in a combat heavy game that'd be fine, but obviously the difference is that monks are an established combatant and therefore work in a game. If you wanted to have a regular non-magical laywer in your party (though maybe not in this game, this is a game about souls after all ) if they had a) sufficient "value" for your party, b) could be made to fit the setting, c) were fun to play as and d) were sufficiently differentiated from the other classes then I don't have an objection at all. These are the four requirements of any class, and I believe that monks fulfill them amply.

 

I thought I had baited you enough for you to explain why monks should be in there. Differentiation is exactly the issue, I feel the monk can do nothing that another class couldn't/ shouldn't do. The 'moving around the battlefield quickly' idea is ok but then that could be a rogue too. They actually have movement abilities (like HiPS).

 

You made that last point more complex than it is and it boils down to the fact that Medieval European History and development is entirely bound to Christianity in a colossal way. However, fantasy literature is based off of a Medieval setting but very very rarely one that includes Christianity. This is simultaniously problematic and giving room for massive amounts of flexibility. Why does the Forgotten Realms resemble a monotheistic Middle Ages when its really weird jumble of polytheism? Why is Middle Earth apparently far less religious than Europe of a comparable technology level? The closest to as is I can think of offhand would possibly be Hyboria (as that is vaguely analagous to Eurasia anyway) where there are mixes of polytheism and monotheism, but even there, these are religions with very different tones to Christianity. Both Hyboria and Middle Earth are far more coherant settings than Forgotten Realms.

 

I'm simply not buying the 'monks could be based on Christians' line of thinking. They're too obviously Eastern. Christian knights (i.e. Templars) are usually represented by Paladins.

 

To be honest, there are as many reasons to have them monks in as there is unlimited reasons why not. Its always only matter of taste. An oh: What he can do what other class cant? are you joking? So we will be sitting with warrior and mage and we are set to go, because other classes can swing a sword or cast a spell so why to bother with them? xD

[Sacred_Path]

To be honest, there are as many reasons to have them monks in as there is unlimited reasons why not. Its always only matter of taste.

 

Then those reasons can't be very good, rite? "I like monks" isn't exactly a great justification.

 

Also good job at not naming a single one of those many reasons.

 

 

What he can do what other class cant? are you joking? So we will be sitting with warrior and mage and we are set to go, because other classes can swing a sword or cast a spell so why to bother with them? xD

 

I didn't understand that grammatically. But I think you're asking what differentiation there is between the other classes? That's impossible to say right now, we don't have much information on classes. A fighter or Barbarian will be very distinct from a mage though as they will use powerful weapons (we don't know about the armor question yet), be able front liners, and will be effective even if their special abilities will run out. Enough of a difference between them and mages to justify their inclusion.

[Alexjh]

My point was more that while they draw on certain christian influences (asceticism) they are in no way obliged to be representative of Christianity because this isn't a game which has Christianity in its world, and therefore the culture of this world is presumably fairly far removed from Medieval Europe anyway. Especially as, you know, last I checked there weren't Elves, Dwarves, Godlike etc in Medieval Europe who presumably have their own cultures to varying degrees.

 

 

Well, as this is a playstyle thing, if we look at 3rd Edition D&D and the five front line class there is a definite pattern to their design: each is built around a different aspect of character design.

 

Fighters are built around freedom to choose feats with no special abilities

Rangers are built around skills

Paladins are built around spells/spell like abilities

Barbarians are built around a single powerful special ability

Monks are built around a suite of special abilities

 

This is of course a generalisation, but its the basic core of why the classes work differently.

 

Anyway, I've given you plenty of reasons and as Monks are in the game and your arguement seems basically boil down to "I don't like monks" I think we may as well leave it here.

[Sacred_Path]

Monks are built around a suite of special abilities

 

That may well be the case, though in P:E all classes have innate special abilities.

 

Without a theme to them and without a good concept it's all drivel though.

 

Anyway, I've given you plenty of reasons and as Monks are in the game and your arguement seems basically boil down to "I don't like monks" I think we may as well leave it here.

 

Trololol? I think I laid out clearly why monks are not exactly a good idea.

 

And yes they will be in there. I also argue against romance and it will be in there. Maybe I just have a thing for lost causes

[Acre]

What's drivel is the notion that monks would stick out because the setting is apparently western - although it is clearly meant to be one area of a much larger world with a host of different cultures.

[Umberlin]

That's why I was asking, why is this [monks] in there?

And you don't want to destroy your audience's belief!

 

If you have to ask why the Monk is in there, over such a thing, and I quote your post with this, as "Belief!", then you have to ask the same of the Priest, Druid, Cipher, Chanter and Wizard. If you want to get rid of the Monk, you need to get rid of all of those as well.

 

The appearance of which figure in a Euro-centric tale like the Arthur myths would give the reader pause, most likely: Lancelot, Merlin, or Forton?

 

Again, this is not a historically accurate retelling of history - it's a high fantasy setting as portrayed by Obsidian who've yet to fully release information on the world, its people and their culture. What we know may have flavors we recognize, but that in no ways implies we know the full story, nor what is present and why. If Obsidian have included such a class, with such an aesthetic and such abilities then one might assume Obsidian have created a world in which they fit . . . instead of one baselessly assuming they know more about the game, its world and its peoples than the people actually creating it.

[Sacred_Path]

If Obsidian have included such a class, with such an aesthetic and such abilities then one might assume Obsidian have created a world in which they fit . .

 

Assuming that monks are a good idea in this game with nothing to go on vs. assuming it's a bad idea judging by what we have learned so far (about classes, races and art). Which is better and why?

[Jobby]

To be fair we've seen very little of the worlds lore, im sure monks will be intertwined with the games history and world very well as Obsidian can work from the ground up and aren't randomly throwing them into a pre-established world.

 

I didn't personally feel like monks fitted in to the Forgotten Realms world very well, if at all, but at the end of the day they're here by popular demand and they aren't going to be removed at this stage.

 

Anyway, nobodys forcing us to play as them, personally i'll be avoiding the monk and the chanter class most likely as i've never liked bards and fighting with your fists is boring when you can have fancy magical swords lol, (these views are only based on what i've seen so far ofc).

[SaibotMK]

I hope for some kind of conjuration class, i'm sure their will be if they haven't announced one already.

[Umberlin]

Assuming that monks are a good idea in this game with nothing to go on vs. assuming it's a bad idea judging by what we have learned so far (about classes, races and art). Which is better and why?

 

Very simple.

 

Your assumption is based on nothing. It's just an assumption. On the other hand, I'm talking about a development studio, Obsidian, with a long history of well developed games; featuring interesting worlds, stories, dialogues, characters, gameplay, mechanics and decisions. So, who do I give the benefit of the doubt to?

 

A. Someone, you, that tries to claim a thing's place, or lack of place, in a world they know nothing about?

 

Or . . .

 

B. An established developer, Obsidian, who have proven themselves time and time again, who actually know the story and world they're creating, the place of its peoples in the world, and whether a thing has a place in the world 'they' are creating. This is no assumption. They, Obsidian, are creating every last aspect of this world - without question. The things that exist in the world they're creating, they put there. The links of said things, in the world they are creating are theirs to decide and craft.

 

So, A or B? You, a random person on an internet forum, with no recorded background . . . who is not developing the game . . . or Obsidian . . . the people actually creating the game, with a long standing history of game development. Gee, I wonder which one I should decide to trust of subjects of belonging. Such a hard decision. Still, please, go on, tell us more about what belongs, or doesn't, in this setting you have no part in the creation of.

 

Meanwhile I'll be assuming Obsidian's hard working employees are not the talentless hacks far too many on this forum, especially lately, seem to think they are.

[Zenning]

I really don't get your reasoning Sacred_Path. You're arbitrarily ignoring the more unbelievable aspects of other classes, but focusing completely on these things for the monk.

 

Hell, its been mentioned a number of times that do have a different playstyle from other character archtypes. Usually one thats more about never getting hit, and being very maneuverable (Seriously, in pathfinder, with lunge, combat reflexes, and wind stance, good luck ever hitting a Monk). But to you, somehow that doesn't make sense. Because for some reason a barbarian being able to be stabbed with a hundred arrows, and a chanter being able to empower his friends with his words is somehow reasonable. I mean hell, in the setting, it makes more sense that your soul should be useable to empower ones self more than someone else, and yet being able to punch through steel is just so much more unreasonable than being able to literally disintegrate dragons.

 

Like Umberlin said, we don't know much about the game, but we do know that the developer Obsidian has a very good track record when it comes to painting a coherent and believable story. And I think its okay to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to creating their very own story, instead of arbitrarily picking out certain factors and claiming their somehow more impossible, or doesn't fit the setting that we know absolutely jack**** about.