Monk implementation

[Iyanga]

A lot of postings used the approach:"It is a good concept, if I can kind a reasoning for it."

 

 

But shouldn't it be vice versa?

 

If I want to display "discipline" in combat as part of a character class, is a "rage counter with special attacks" a good concept for it and the first concept I would pick?

 

 

I think the conversion of damage to DoT is great. This is for me the discipline part. The mortification of the flesh, as written in the lore. I can force my body to not give up...yet.

 

 

But with special attacks that unlock and use a rage counter, the monk basically starts to ask for pain like a masochist, just because you want to deal damage.

 

 

I think what I would have preferred:

 

- Damage is turned into DoT (maybe depending on current hp)

- Some special attacks (on timers f.e.) are able to remove a DoT

 

This does sound like the same, but is not. The special attacks are not fueled by the DoT, that is, the special attack is available even if you have no DoT running. Your technique of "Slashing The One Legged Eagle" hurts the enemy the very same, with and without DoT, but it also gives you the power surge you need to last longer in combat (by removing a DoT or maybe healing you).

 

This way it is still viable to protect the monk from getting hit, without sacrificing his offensive power, but getting hit does not have the same negative effect on the monk as on those undisciplined warrior classes.

[Lephys]

As it is a predominantly melee-oriented class, I don't see how the Monk is supposed to go into melee combat against various foes with the goal of "Don't take any damage."

 

As I see, it, the only difference in a Monk and a Fighter is that the Fighter says "Well, I'm going to get hit, so I better wear a bunch of awesome armor, so as to prevent the incoming blows from setting me back in my focus on the use of my martial weapons and such to take down the enemy," while a Monk says "Well, I'm going to get hit, so I better convert a portion of the incoming blows into energy that I can harness and reidirect back at the foes in a variety of ways.

 

Basically, their ability to divert their own pain/wounds IS their defense, AND their offense.

 

If you fight a Troll, as a Monk, and it's doing 70 damage swinging a big log at you, and you convert 20 of that to Wounds every time, and it fills up your Wounds with each swing, then you get to redirect THAT much energy THAT often back at that Troll. Whereas, if you're fighting a Goblin, it might only give you 2 points of Wounds damage per swing. That doesn't mean that "Stand here until this Goblin hits you 10 times, THEN retaliate" is the first tactic you can think of.

 

It's just like how Rangers/ranged characters are more effective at range, against slower enemies, than they are in melee range or against extremely fast enemies (that can close the distance and dodge a lot). The Monk is best when the damage he is receiving is both not too low and not too high. It's a very controlled scope.

 

I wouldn't say it's like a Rage counter, because those are typically "The higher the better." You're at 10% health? Your rage is causing you to do +400% damage! Whereas, Wounds, with the Monk, are all about control.

 

All that being said, I do think that maybe there's some room for some kind of balancing aspect to the mechanic. Maybe the longer you maintain efficient Wounds management (kinda like a sweet spot), the greater the percentage of incoming damage that becomes diverted into Wounds. Or, maybe even a whole 'nother resource, all-together. Calm, perhaps? I dunno...

 

It does seem a bit like there could be something to temper the "actively taking damage is a good thing" aspect to it. Well, that and the "You pretty much don't have any utility until you start getting hit" thing. That's the only thing that bugs me a little, really. I don't think any other class will start with 0 class resources, and build up as they fight. A Wizard doesn't have to go hit 5 enemies with his staff, successfully, before he can cast a spell. He starts with all his spell ammo up-front and uses it up as he goes.

 

I think they need to draw inspiration from this from the Cipher. The Cipher isn't fully effective unless maintaining focus on the same enemy for a duration, but she doesn't have to go without using abilities entirely until she builds up that focus for that duration.

 

Like I said... maybe some kind of balance aspect to the Monk would be welcome. Maybe offense builds one thing, and "defense" (getting hit) builds Wounds, and only in the proper mixtures can they produce the most potent effectiveness. *shrug*

[DCParry]

As it is a predominantly melee-oriented class, I don't see how the Monk is supposed to go into melee combat against various foes with the goal of "Don't take any damage."

 

As I see, it, the only difference in a Monk and a Fighter is that the Fighter says "Well, I'm going to get hit, so I better wear a bunch of awesome armor, so as to prevent the incoming blows from setting me back in my focus on the use of my martial weapons and such to take down the enemy," while a Monk says "Well, I'm going to get hit, so I better convert a portion of the incoming blows into energy that I can harness and reidirect back at the foes in a variety of ways.

 

Basically, their ability to divert their own pain/wounds IS their defense, AND their offense.

 

If you fight a Troll, as a Monk, and it's doing 70 damage swinging a big log at you, and you convert 20 of that to Wounds every time, and it fills up your Wounds with each swing, then you get to redirect THAT much energy THAT often back at that Troll. Whereas, if you're fighting a Goblin, it might only give you 2 points of Wounds damage per swing. That doesn't mean that "Stand here until this Goblin hits you 10 times, THEN retaliate" is the first tactic you can think of.

 

It's just like how Rangers/ranged characters are more effective at range, against slower enemies, than they are in melee range or against extremely fast enemies (that can close the distance and dodge a lot). The Monk is best when the damage he is receiving is both not too low and not too high. It's a very controlled scope.

 

I wouldn't say it's like a Rage counter, because those are typically "The higher the better." You're at 10% health? Your rage is causing you to do +400% damage! Whereas, Wounds, with the Monk, are all about control.

 

All that being said, I do think that maybe there's some room for some kind of balancing aspect to the mechanic. Maybe the longer you maintain efficient Wounds management (kinda like a sweet spot), the greater the percentage of incoming damage that becomes diverted into Wounds. Or, maybe even a whole 'nother resource, all-together. Calm, perhaps? I dunno...

 

It does seem a bit like there could be something to temper the "actively taking damage is a good thing" aspect to it. Well, that and the "You pretty much don't have any utility until you start getting hit" thing. That's the only thing that bugs me a little, really. I don't think any other class will start with 0 class resources, and build up as they fight. A Wizard doesn't have to go hit 5 enemies with his staff, successfully, before he can cast a spell. He starts with all his spell ammo up-front and uses it up as he goes.

 

I think they need to draw inspiration from this from the Cipher. The Cipher isn't fully effective unless maintaining focus on the same enemy for a duration, but she doesn't have to go without using abilities entirely until she builds up that focus for that duration.

 

Like I said... maybe some kind of balance aspect to the Monk would be welcome. Maybe offense builds one thing, and "defense" (getting hit) builds Wounds, and only in the proper mixtures can they produce the most potent effectiveness. *shrug*

 

I think you are voicing some valid concerns re: mechanics, but I would think (and I could be off base here) that monks would have some sort of kick-start ability. It would either give them a wound to use right off the bat (meaning they would start taking damage and have a resource unit to use) or preferably something like an "empty wound", that is a resource unit to use that is not attached to the damage taking element. It would be a small amount of resource and something that could be used to start a fight or pop a little extra chi for a major move. 

 

Also, we shouldn't fall into the trap of only focusing on the wound mechanic. I assume it is the defining mechanic of the class, but is it the only mechanic? Can wounds be consumed in different ways (to heal?)?. Also, in the goblin/troll example, does a monk really need to worry about a wound when killing one goblin? Can't he just smack him in the head? Would a mage use a fireball to kill one goblin? Would a warrior pop his whirlwind attack? That may be going a bit far on my part but I think it is something to think about. 

[Aldereth]

On a side note, I cannot help but be fascinated how much influence D&D monk and old TV show like Kung Fu mix with historical European monk has shape this expectation from the cRPG fan base regarding the "monk" class should be.   This expectation is  really an amalgamation of all those sources and it would deviate just as much  as Obsidian take(wound mechanic and all) from the original inspiration of the martial monks from history.

[AGX-17]

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.

One of their stated goals since early in development was to stray from cliche D&D-type mechanics/concepts with a lot of the outlying classes.

[Lephys]

I think you are voicing some valid concerns re: mechanics, but I would think (and I could be off base here) that monks would have some sort of kick-start ability. It would either give them a wound to use right off the bat (meaning they would start taking damage and have a resource unit to use) or preferably something like an "empty wound", that is a resource unit to use that is not attached to the damage taking element. It would be a small amount of resource and something that could be used to start a fight or pop a little extra chi for a major move. 

 

Also, we shouldn't fall into the trap of only focusing on the wound mechanic. I assume it is the defining mechanic of the class, but is it the only mechanic? Can wounds be consumed in different ways (to heal?)?. Also, in the goblin/troll example, does a monk really need to worry about a wound when killing one goblin? Can't he just smack him in the head? Would a mage use a fireball to kill one goblin? Would a warrior pop his whirlwind attack? That may be going a bit far on my part but I think it is something to think about.

My concern was that the Wounds mechanic might BE the only mechanic. Meaning that, if you're not taking damage, you're just doing what any other character can do that isn't class-specific (thwacking things with your hands and/or leveragey objects of some nature). You make a valid point, about not needing a fireball or special attack to kill a Goblin. But, my concern remains that a Fighter or Wizard has the option of doing something Wizardly or Fighterly before subjecting himself to damage (which is a negative thing for ANY class, even though it's a negative-with-a-perk for the Monk).

 

Basically, I don't want to see a Monk and Damage function like the Wonder Twins. You know, they can't do anything unless they're in contact with one another. Otherwise they're just the Mediocre Twins.

 

Like you said, maybe there's something that has limited use but can provide some sort of boost before actually subjecting oneself to damage (even if it's something that instantly provides some amount of Wounds for "free," and you still immediately suffer the DOT effects of the Wounds until you spend them). Or, maybe Monks possess a repertoire of Monkish things that don't rely specifically upon Wounds. *shrug*

 

I don't mind Monks relying upon incoming damage and Wounds to be at peak effectiveness for their class mechanic, but it seems a bit strange if they're the only class who has 0 class-specific resources at their disposal until they first suffer initial damage. I don't mind the damage suffering after that (because it's going to occur), but it's almost like "Okay, enemies. You always get the first move against me, but THEN I'll be really good and scary!"

[Randomthom]

Just a quick side-note, a lot of the conversation in this thread revolves around the existence of monks in other sources, fictitious & real.

 

A few posts back someone questioned if there were any other examples of monks for whom receiving damage was beneficial.

 

I'd just like to point out that this is a new IP that, while following & using many tropes within the fantasy genre, is not tied to them and is welcome to make up new & original stuff.

 

Regarding the tactical viability of such a thing, a lot of the thought seems to be very much from a human perspective. Turn it on it's head a little bit and you can imagine a hardy race (dwarves?) who might suit this over the traditionally agile monk fighting style or perhaps a religion that requires one to undergo pain before inflicting it, one based around suffering (Illmater in D&D would suit this).

 

Anyway, my point is that, yes, there isn't much precedent for this from other sources but that doesn't make it an illegitimate concept.

 

I imagine that monks will be designed to have some abilities that do not require you to take damage or at least the ability to inflict the necessary wound upon yourself to get the blood (& fists) pumping!

[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.

One of their stated goals since early in development was to stray from cliche D&D-type mechanics/concepts with a lot of the outlying classes.

 

 

 

I don't mind the concept. I mind the label.

 

Calling a table a chair is not groundbreaking, just confusing. And "You can sit on both and both have 4 legs, so it's fine" is not really an argument that convinces me.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Iyanga

[Lephys]

I don't mind the concept. I mind the label.

 

Calling a table a chair is not groundbreaking, just confusing. And "You can sit on both and both have 4 legs, so it's fine" is not really an argument that convinces me.

Ahh, but are there not already multiple types of monks in reality that are rather different from one another? Why not a new variant that simply doesn't exist in reality? A little creativity is all that is.

 

Monks of any kind are typically quite devoted to rigorous forms of self-discipline and ideals. You're telling me that people who meditate on the embracement of suffering in life bear absolutely no resemblance to monks of the real world? I find this hard to believe.

 

Calling a table a chair might be confusing, but calling it a stool might just make it an ogre's stool, even though they're different things. 8P

[Greensleeve]

 

I don't mind the concept. I mind the label.

 

Calling a table a chair is not groundbreaking, just confusing. And "You can sit on both and both have 4 legs, so it's fine" is not really an argument that convinces me.

Ahh, but are there not already multiple types of monks in reality that are rather different from one another? Why not a new variant that simply doesn't exist in reality? A little creativity is all that is.

 

Monks of any kind are typically quite devoted to rigorous forms of self-discipline and ideals. You're telling me that people who meditate on the embracement of suffering in life bear absolutely no resemblance to monks of the real world? I find this hard to believe.

 

Calling a table a chair might be confusing, but calling it a stool might just make it an ogre's stool, even though they're different things. 8P

 

 

Yes. This.

 

Also Re: No Monk abilities outside of Wounds, it sounds as though something like Transcendent Suffering doesn't require Wounds to use. Josh spoke of the Monk being super-fast with it out of combat, so I imagine it's not something limited by Wounds. Could be very wrong though, as it's based entirely on conjecture. 

[Aldereth]

Yes. This.

 

Also Re: No Monk abilities outside of Wounds, it sounds as though something like Transcendent Suffering doesn't require Wounds to use. Josh spoke of the Monk being super-fast with it out of combat, so I imagine it's not something limited by Wounds. Could be very wrong though, as it's based entirely on conjecture.

Similar sentiments here. The mythical RPG monk archetype is already "something" else already, no reason not to at least check out another interpretation.

 

Buddhist monk seek to detached themselves from the illusion of the material world. The teaching/ methodology/ discipline is but a vehicle for greater wisdom. Those too would be cast away if they attached the monk to the illusion of the material world. The RPG martial/shaolin monk archetype is fixated on the discipline and the martial arts. Which is already quite far from this.

 

I believe it is not a question of Chair and table anymore. The archetype is a throne that was called a chair and Obsidian came up with a bench and we are complaining the bench does not have the regal status a chair should have like the throne we are calling a chair. At the end of the day, if they are well made, we can all sit very comfortably on them be it a thron, a chair or a bench

Edited May 16, 2013 by Aldereth

[Iyanga]

 

Monks of any kind are typically quite devoted to rigorous forms of self-discipline and ideals. You're telling me that people who meditate on the embracement of suffering in life bear absolutely no resemblance to monks of the real world? I find this hard to believe.

 

You are starting to disappoint me, you are not reading what I write, just in order to have an argument.

I already stated that the self-discipline and ideals part is of course a core part of the monk.

 

If the monk could not fight at all, it would also find resemblance in the real world. Would this be a good concept for a monk in PE? According to your logic that everything is fine, as long as there is a match in the real world, then a monk class that has no use in the game and just uses up a party slot would be fine, too.

 

And using flagellation as excuse for the combat mechanics merely shows that the concept of flagellation is not understood. It's part of meditation and rituals, not something people do while fighting for their life and it has nothing to do with masochism, where the person seeks out the pain itself. A monk who would be able to sacrifice HP temporary before a fight to receive a buff f.e. would reflect the concept of flagellation ten times better than a rage counter (and even add a strategical element to the class, not just a tactical).

 

 

Anyway, I don't think I can add much more to explain my point of view in this thread.

[Greensleeve]

 

 

Monks of any kind are typically quite devoted to rigorous forms of self-discipline and ideals. You're telling me that people who meditate on the embracement of suffering in life bear absolutely no resemblance to monks of the real world? I find this hard to believe.

 

You are starting to disappoint me, you are not reading what I write, just in order to have an argument.

I already stated that the self-discipline and ideals part is of course a core part of the monk.

 

If the monk could not fight at all, it would also find resemblance in the real world. Would this be a good concept for a monk in PE? According to your logic that everything is fine, as long as there is a match in the real world, then a monk class that has no use in the game and just uses up a party slot would be fine, too.

 

And using flagellation as excuse for the combat mechanics merely shows that the concept of flagellation is not understood. It's part of meditation and rituals, not something people do while fighting for their life and it has nothing to do with masochism, where the person seeks out the pain itself. A monk who would be able to sacrifice HP temporary before a fight to receive a buff f.e. would reflect the concept of flagellation ten times better than a rage counter (and even add a strategical element to the class, not just a tactical).

 

 

Anyway, I don't think I can add much more to explain my point of view in this thread.

 

 

See, the problem is that we cannot even agree on the basic premises. You just categorically claim that the Monk's Wound mechanic are Rage counters. Those of us who think it's a cool way to treat Monks say "Look, it's totally something that can be flavoured as something very disciplined. Calling it Rage counters is premature and unnecessary." 

 

So please, tell us how the Wounds MUST be Rage counters, because we have shown how they very easily can be used in a far more disciplined fashion. If your point ends up "Well yeah, they CAN be treated that way... But they're just Rage counters." you've lost. You're not arguing your point, you're not showing why your interpretation is the only one, or a valid one, or even a good one. So please. We have tried to show you why this still fits the Monk concept. Show us why it absolutely CAN'T, because that is the point you're arguing. That it is more or less impossible for Wounds to feel Monk-like. 

[Nonek]

It doesn't sound like the monk is going to be one of the main damage dealers, but rather have a lot of interesting effects and spectacular abilities made possible by the enemies aggression, using their own strnegth against them if you will. With barbarian I can only think of massive damage to the foe and himself, a berserk who feels no pain, while dishing out massive damage because of his undisciplined rage. The differences are subtle but there, to me anyway.

 

I can understand how you want a different mechanic, and if you find this egregious keep campaigning for a change. It could be worse however, look at the situation in Dragon Age 2 where my warrior with an enormous sword is being out damaged by a six stone pirate stripper, weilding a pair of butter knives. Whoever thought that would be a good idea needs a lesson in basic physics, and a vigorous bout of fisticuffs to the ears.

[Lephys]

You are starting to disappoint me, you are not reading what I write, just in order to have an argument.

I already stated that the self-discipline and ideals part is of course a core part of the monk.

 

If the monk could not fight at all, it would also find resemblance in the real world. Would this be a good concept for a monk in PE? According to your logic that everything is fine, as long as there is a match in the real world, then a monk class that has no use in the game and just uses up a party slot would be fine, too.

 

And using flagellation as excuse for the combat mechanics merely shows that the concept of flagellation is not understood. It's part of meditation and rituals, not something people do while fighting for their life and it has nothing to do with masochism, where the person seeks out the pain itself. A monk who would be able to sacrifice HP temporary before a fight to receive a buff f.e. would reflect the concept of flagellation ten times better than a rage counter (and even add a strategical element to the class, not just a tactical).

I am terribly sorry to disappoint you so, but I am quite confused now. You literally said "I don't mind the mechanic, I mind the label." So, I asked what made the label so inaccurate, then pointed out how I felt the label effectively portrayed a reasonable amount of what it is to be a Monk. I honestly am not grasping how I've not read what you wrote, or have just come up with an arbitrary argument.

 

The fact that aspects of the P:E Monk have a "match in the real world" was not a line of reasoning I was trying to convey as being the basis for anything. You're argument is that a Monk -- a title from the real world -- is not accurately portrayed by P:E's design that they're labeling a "Monk," correct? So, I simply pointed out what I see as a connection between the real-world Monk concept and the P:E one. If I'm wrong or have missed something, please tell me how, if you would be so kind. There's no need to say that I'm ignoring you and arguing stuff that's not even pertinent. I don't even think my response would make any sense at all if it were a standalone argument, and not simply a direct response to your concerns with the Monk label.

 

Also, again I'm going to have to disagree on the whole flagellation thing, as I don't see the P:E Monk as someone who "seeks out pain," any more than a Monk is seeking out pain via flagellation. Self-flagellation is completely voluntary, whereas one cannot face physical conflicts (combat) without inevitably suffering physical trauma.

 

It's a little bit like one soldier fighting another soldier. They're both just doing their job. Neither seeks the death of the other. They have nothing against one another. But, two powerful men are leading armies, and they are each sworn to fight on behalf of one or the other. And thus they kill. They don't just run around killing people because they enjoy it. Which is why, when a Monk enters is faced with combat, he'll convert portions of the inevitable damage he receives into some form of boosted retaliation. He is diverting damage to not-damage. A cut becomes a not-cut.

 

It would be quite different if Monks just went about getting sliced up, and flagellated themselves mid-combat, licked daggers and all that jazz... Not to say there won't be any insane Monks in P:E. But, I would bet that many in the Monk order proper would say that those individuals are not truly Monks. *shrug*

[jamoecw]

there was a village that managed to subdue a small viking raiding party, they placed those they captured in their giant clay communal oven (which was common back then) as a makeshift jail cell.  one of the vikings had a bone disease that was aggravated by the heat of being in a hot box.  due to the suffering he was feeling he smashed through the wall and rallied the vikings to victory.

 

this is a real story that some think is how we came to view the shirtless, rage filled viking berserkers.  in essence his pain led him to be able to do what a normal person could not.  that is a rage counter (at least how it is normally perceived as), pain that allows you to do more than a normal, well disciplined fighter (which is what berserkers really were).

 

having discipline is about doing things everyday that is unpleasant, but achieves some greater goal.  taking damage in a fight does not show discipline, and being able to achieve more by being hurt in a fight typically shows a lack of discipline.

 

i think the class is fine, i think that the typical names don't actually fit what they typically represent, i think that a monk isn't too bad of a name (depending on lore it could be better than barbarian, which means foreigner).  it is opposite from what is typically used so most people will have an issue with it (i did until i thought about it quite a bit).