Monk implementation

[Iyanga]

I don't quite get the core monk implementation:

 

The more wounds you get, the more you deal out.

 

I thought Monks are guys who avoid taking damage.

 

 

This is why you see a lot of unarmed and unarmored X running around. Not because the rules say you can't use those items, but because in most situations it's one of the best ways to play. An unencumbered X can be a terror on the battlefield, a nightmare that just won't seem to die, no matter how hard he gets hit. Blows that seem like they should kill him only serve to make him stronger.

 

 

Sorry, but when I read this without the class, I would have said: Ahhhh...the barbarian! Cool. Just like

. Using any weapon that is useful, as long as it gets the job done - and in really close combat, why bother with a weapon if there are muscles? But...a monk?

 

[Sensuki]

If you spend the wound point you do avoid taking (Health) damage

[Greensleeve]

Honestly, I don't really have a particular core conception of any class. To me they don't exist outside of the mechanics. This is different in PE, and I'm very happy to see them do something different with each class other than what's expected. Really happy about that, actually. 

 

As for what that description brings to mind, I'd go more for a number of Shounen action heroes, Luffy from One Piece in particular. They always take one hell of a beating before unleashing their most powerful attack to finish of the bad guy. Sounds very much like this type of Monk to me. 

[Ffordesoon]

D&D monks or GTFO, then? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

 

Personally, I think it sounds cool.

[Labadal]

You still take damage, it's just that some of that damage fills your wound. You don't have unlimited wounds. You'd probably need to use your wound resource when it fills up. As you gain levels you can get more wounds at one time. It doesn't sound that overpowered to me. i personally like the concept. It basically means that you'll have to be careful with how you handle battles.

[Iyanga]

Honestly, I don't really have a particular core conception of any class. To me they don't exist outside of the mechanics.

 

 

So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively?

That's okay.

I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?"

[Greensleeve]

 

Honestly, I don't really have a particular core conception of any class. To me they don't exist outside of the mechanics.

 

 

So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively?

That's okay.

I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?"

 

 

I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. 

 

Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. 

 

I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats. If you've read Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon (if not, strongly recommend that you do) then Raseed is a great monk in my mind. 

[Aldereth]

If that's the direction they are going, I am guessing they are trying to make a class that gain strength through pain and in game terms get "resource" by taking hits.  Nothing really wrong with it, the WoW fighter (tank) kind of operate like it a bit.  

 

Personally, I always thought the D&D monk archetype that eventually evolved into the monk in cRPG to be a bit of an odd ball.   Their fighting style is model after the Shaolin monks from Wuxia novels while their "story" is one contrived by TSR (and later SSI, Bioware, Black Isle, Blizzard...etc) to make them fit into a fantasy setting.   I always find them kind of clash with the classic fantasy setting.   Spiritual warrior who fight unarmed and no hair...   Heck, I cannot think of a fictional archetype from any fantasy novel/film/tv and yet it's in so many cRPG.   The closest I can think of is Frair Tuck from Robin Hood (who uses a staff) and maybe the Avatar from the Last Airbender.   I was hoping that P:E would break that mold and come up with something unique, I suppose we shall see.

[Greensleeve]

If that's the direction they are going, I am guessing they are trying to make a class that gain strength through pain and in game terms get "resource" by taking hits.  Nothing really wrong with it, the WoW fighter (tank) kind of operate like it a bit.  

 

Personally, I always thought the D&D monk archetype that eventually evolved into the monk in cRPG to be a bit of an odd ball.   Their fighting style is model after the Shaolin monks from Wuxia novels while their "story" is one contrived by TSR (and later SSI, Bioware, Black Isle, Blizzard...etc) to make them fit into a fantasy setting.   I always find them kind of clash with the classic fantasy setting.   Spiritual warrior who fight unarmed and no hair...   Heck, I cannot think of a fictional archetype from any fantasy novel/film/tv and yet it's in so many cRPG.   The closest I can think of is Frair Tuck from Robin Hood (who uses a staff) and maybe the Avatar from the Last Airbender.   I was hoping that P:E would break that mold and come up with something unique, I suppose we shall see.

 

Look at Japanese fiction. Manga in particular. There are plenty there. But then again, manga tends not to be the primary source of inspiration for archetypes in cRPGs. 

[Aldereth]

 

 

Look at Japanese fiction. Manga in particular. There are plenty there. But then again, manga tends not to be the primary source of inspiration for archetypes in cRPGs. 

 

 

Most of those are not classic fantasy setting (unless we count those manga that are derived from cRPG) with dwarves, elves or even medieval European settings.

[Greensleeve]

 

 

 

Look at Japanese fiction. Manga in particular. There are plenty there. But then again, manga tends not to be the primary source of inspiration for archetypes in cRPGs. 

 

 

Most of those are not classic fantasy setting (unless we count those manga that are derived from cRPG) with dwarves, elves or even medieval European settings.

 

 

Agreed. The archetype of a monk is extremely difficult to find in fantasy fiction, classical settings or not. I'd say that Throne of the Crescent Moon has one, in Raseed, though he wields a sword. That isn't 'classical' fantasy though, at all. Refreshing, however. 

[jamoecw]

i get what the OP is saying, it does seem like a barbarian.  i like the mechanics, it seems fresh and new, the name is a little off, but other than that it seems fine.  though the damage systems doesn't seem to lend itself to dodging attacks outright as a viable solution, all in all the name is a minor issue to me.

[Ffordesoon]

Wuxia isn't fantasy? Why? Because it's not our fantasy?

[Aldereth]

 

Agreed. The archetype of a monk is extremely difficult to find in fantasy fiction, classical settings or not. I'd say that Throne of the Crescent Moon has one, in Raseed, though he wields a sword. That isn't 'classical' fantasy though, at all. Refreshing, however. 

 

 

From the information you provide me, I take master Raseed over that Diablo 3 abomination in terms of character archetype 

[Aldereth]

Wuxia isn't fantasy? Why? Because it's not our fantasy?

It is, it is not classical fantasy.   The AD&D monk feel like shoehorning a wuxia monk into a Tolkien world and that feel weird IMHO.  Beside most Wuxia monk are the well learned mentor type that feels too stuffy for a player character.   I suppose that chastity vow kind of make them too boring for main protagonist/player characters :D

 

Edited May 8, 2013 by Aldereth

[Greensleeve]

Wuxia isn't fantasy? Why? Because it's not our fantasy?

 

Wuxia isn't 'classical' fantasy. It's still fantasy though. 

 

 

 

Agreed. The archetype of a monk is extremely difficult to find in fantasy fiction, classical settings or not. I'd say that Throne of the Crescent Moon has one, in Raseed, though he wields a sword. That isn't 'classical' fantasy though, at all. Refreshing, however. 

 

 

From the information you provide me, I take master Raseed over that Diablo 3 abomination in terms of character archetype 

 

 

You should read the book. It is very good. Starts out with one expecting a swashbuckler-y adventure in Arabian nights, end up getting mystery horror in Arabian Nights, with cool action. 

 

Raseed himself is 17, a Dervish in training and capable of superhuman feats of strength, agility and endurance, all through discipline and servitude to God. He serves God and Justice with true devotion and is a total bad ass. He's also a perfect deconstruction of the disciplined warrior archetype and the Lawful Stupid archetype. Well worth it. 

[Lephys]

You still take damage, it's just that some of that damage fills your wound. You don't have unlimited wounds. You'd probably need to use your wound resource when it fills up. As you gain levels you can get more wounds at one time. It doesn't sound that overpowered to me. i personally like the concept. It basically means that you'll have to be careful with how you handle battles.

 

Just to be clear, you're not actually "taking" the portion of damage that fills your wound.

 

Think of it like natural, temporary armor. Using purely example numbers, say you take 15 damage. 5 of that goes into 1 Wound (maybe, at a given level, every 5 damage fills 1 Wound. *shrug*). So, you take 10 damage, instead of 15. Then, if you use that Wound immediately, you never take any of that 5 damage that's occupying a Wound "slot." But, if you hold onto it, you take (again, example numbers) 1 damage/sec for the next 5 seconds.

 

Either way, you at least get a 5HP loan, even if you don't get rid of the Wound, which you get to pay back in 5 seconds, instead of immediately (like any other class would... just take the 15 up front).

 

Thus, for anyone who was worried, it's not quite a "Run in and take a bunch of damage, then you'll rock." It's more of a "Run in and take a bunch of attacks, and convert some of the damage to effective offensive capabilities, so that you can last longer whilst running in and taking a bunch of attacks to your person."

[Iyanga]

I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. 

 

Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. 

 

I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats.

 

You are describing now a different part of the combat - but even there you agree, that your monk gets his powers from discipline in whatever form, not from being hit. So I suspect a system where the character had to rest/meditate and train his body would reflect even him better than a rage counter, that unleashes wrath when full.

[jamoecw]

shaolin warrior monks are buddhist paladins, dnd made them into something different because paladins are for 'good' which is based based on a christian societies view of good, and thus they don't fit perfectly.

 

with mechanics of dnd monks they tend to be built selfishly, they can't take on powerful creatures, they don't heal others or shield them from harm in some way, even though shaolin warrior monks have a strict code for doing what is best for the people as a whole.

 

a monk can't compete 1 on 1 against any of the fighter classes, has less utility than the utility classes, and don't cast spells.  having one in the party isn't as good as pretty much any other class, yet a party of just monks can easily be a terror to a whole country.  their attacks are built for fighting many weak enemies (like peasants), able to stun clerics and other spellcasters until they can kill them, able to outrun mounted knights and such.  so basically they can show up to a village and kill everyone including the local cleric/adept, then when the local lord shows up to protect his lands they can take off and avoid a fight they can't win.  if they catch him unaware they can try for a quivering palm strike and kill him in one strike.  on the flip side if a local lord starts terrorizing the countryside they can't stand up to him, the best they can hope for is to catch him unaware (harder to do if he is paranoid due to making enemies right and left) and take him out with quivering palm, and hope that none of his lackey's don't decide to take his place.

 

monks aren't a worthless class, they make great spellcaster assassins, but they do have variant classes that are built for that, so ultimately i think a monk should have been a variant paladin, only tied to true neutral alignment instead of lawful good, unable to associate with lawful good, or chaotic evil people.  so you can't have a normal paladin in the same party as a monk, and the class has half the wealth per level as normal.  swap out a few paladin powers for monk powers and you end up with a monk class that can go toe to toe with other paladins, complete with the paladin's lay on hands like what has been a monk power in pretty much all literature that have had a monk type person.

 

but enough about why dnd monks are not a good class.

[Greensleeve]

 

I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. 

 

Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. 

 

I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats.

 

You are describing now a different part of the combat - but even there you agree, that your monk gets his powers from discipline in whatever form, not from being hit. So I suspect a system where the character had to rest/meditate and train his body would reflect even him better than a rage counter, that unleashes wrath when full.

 

 

Well, I really don't think it's like rage, nor do I get a rage feeling from it. To me, it feels more like someone who receives a blow, then re-directs and re-channels that pain (or chi, or whatever) as a focus for his soul. So it goes something like this:

1) Receives pain.

2) Pain is turned into focus for soul.

3) Soul powers awesome stuff.

 

Feels quite disciplined to me, not rage-like and unbridled like a berserker. 

[Vitor Medina Cruz]

I don't quite get the core monk implementation:

 

The more wounds you get, the more you deal out.

 

I thought Monks are guys who avoid taking damage.

 

 

This is why you see a lot of unarmed and unarmored X running around. Not because the rules say you can't use those items, but because in most situations it's one of the best ways to play. An unencumbered X can be a terror on the battlefield, a nightmare that just won't seem to die, no matter how hard he gets hit. Blows that seem like they should kill him only serve to make him stronger.

 

 

Sorry, but when I read this without the class, I would have said: Ahhhh...the barbarian! Cool. Just like

. Using any weapon that is useful, as long as it gets the job done - and in really close combat, why bother with a weapon if there are muscles? But...a monk?

 

Agreed. While i think the mechanics interesting, I don't think it fits well with a monk. When we speak of a Monk that fights, we can't ignore the association with martial arts, which, in turn, are all based on avoiding damage and doing critical hits, the opposite of the described mechanism. The monk described is so much counterintuitive, much like saying that a mage main ability is to throw arrows... Since it is a fantasy game in an imaginary world we can do whatever we want, ok, but why been so explicitly confusing? I don't a see a good reason for this, if the mechanism is interesting (and it is), find another class that it makes more sense, and find an interesting mechanism which fits better with the common understanding of what a monk do.

[TMZuk]

I don't quite get the core monk implementation:

 

The more wounds you get, the more you deal out.

 

I thought Monks are guys who avoid taking damage.

 

 

This is why you see a lot of unarmed and unarmored X running around. Not because the rules say you can't use those items, but because in most situations it's one of the best ways to play. An unencumbered X can be a terror on the battlefield, a nightmare that just won't seem to die, no matter how hard he gets hit. Blows that seem like they should kill him only serve to make him stronger.

 

 

Sorry, but when I read this without the class, I would have said: Ahhhh...the barbarian! Cool. Just like

. Using any weapon that is useful, as long as it gets the job done - and in really close combat, why bother with a weapon if there are muscles? But...a monk?

 

Actually.... Conan is a very poor example.

 

Read the original short-stories by Robert E. Howard. Unless forced by circumstance, Conan always wear armour. The same in the movie you link to. He wears armour most of the time, when he knows he has to fight. He only leaves it behind when he has to use stealth, or as in the clip where he is a slave pitfighter, and therefore have no say in the matter.

 

Conan is perhaps born a barbarian, but his "class" is warrior/thief.

Edited May 9, 2013 by TMZuk

[Vitor Medina Cruz]

 

 

I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. 

 

Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. 

 

I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats.

 

You are describing now a different part of the combat - but even there you agree, that your monk gets his powers from discipline in whatever form, not from being hit. So I suspect a system where the character had to rest/meditate and train his body would reflect even him better than a rage counter, that unleashes wrath when full.

 

 

Well, I really don't think it's like rage, nor do I get a rage feeling from it. To me, it feels more like someone who receives a blow, then re-directs and re-channels that pain (or chi, or whatever) as a focus for his soul. So it goes something like this:

1) Receives pain.

2) Pain is turned into focus for soul.

3) Soul powers awesome stuff.

 

Feels quite disciplined to me, not rage-like and unbridled like a berserker. 

 

Well, still don't fell like a monk to me. I would expect a monk to focus his discipline and his soul on avoiding hit and doing amazing , I don't know, counter-stuff, and be able to find and explore others weaknesses. I don't know what would be a cool and different monk class, I just don't think this one suggested is that.

[Greydragon]

It doesn't quite fit the traditional view of a martial artist; however considering the variety of martial arts you could certainly find examples of similar characters/styles. Dodging, evading and countering seem more like 'soft' skills while taking hits, absorbing damage and delivering damaging blows are all 'hard' skills. Perhaps they should explore a mix of the two to balance out the individual play styles. After all it comes down to personality and tactics whether you want 'hard' or 'soft' in a fight. 

[Sensuki]

Different world, different lore, different game

 

From the beginning Obsidian has stated

 

The core four classes will feel the same as their D&D counterparts but you will be able to bend them out of their archetypes

 

The other classes will have new spins on them to make them more unique to the P:E world

 

So far we have the Chanter being more of a traditional bard than D&D bard

Our monk example ^

Paladins functioning more like Warlords/Marshalls

 

The ranger will probably be the next class unveiled as that's what they are working on now. I am interested to see what you'll be able to do with that. D&D sort of has the Ranger as either an expert marksman and/or a Two Weapon Fighter like Drizzt.

 

Really interested in what's in store for the Cipher, Chanter and Druid