Am I the only one who doesn't like Monks at all ?

[eRe4s3r]

But the issue is not fantasy or not, the issue is that Monks do not add anything to the game that a fighter isn't already doing better when you integrate them into a party.

 

So in essence the existence of the monk is not the problem. The problem is that as a class, monks have no utility to add to a party that makes them better than another party member in situation X. Said situation X does simply not exist in the game. There is no fight in PoE that gets easier because you have a monk in your party. And there is no quest that gets more interesting or more complex because you have a monk.

 

Or summed up, monks exist in the game, but they are outside of the party paradigm. OP calls it lore, but I would call it party balance. This has nothing to do with monks, but rather with the realization that you have utility classes in PoEt and classes that are.. not utility classes. Aka, useless in a party. Ranger for example also fits this bill. in DnD Rangers have druidic spells and can talk to animals. This makes them a utility class. As it opens up more options and utility in and outside of combat.

 

Anyway, I hope I made sense

[Heijoushin]

I think monks are fine as part of the lore. As numerous people have pointed out, there are western monks, right?

(It's adding the "katanas" and "wakizashis" that steps over the lore line for me!)

 

I also don't think its important that they fill a "role" or "balance out", simply because this is a single player game and I think more choice is better.

 

HOWEVER, mechanically, I've always been disappointed in the monk. In IWD and BG, they use no weapons or armour, making them, in my opinion, boring to play (since collecting cool loot for your characters is half the fun in an RPG)

In PoE, I applaud the fresh take on the class, but I still don't think they're fun to play as a main character. This is discussed in depth in other threads, but in a nut shell, I don't want to have to get hit to use my skills. (unless you roleplay a really masochistic guy, I was contemplating doing that;)

[Atheosis]

 

I've always hated monks in D&D and it's no different in Pillars.  I just don't get why this crap has lingered so long in fantasy roleplaying...

 

Because beating the hell out of mythical creatures with nothing but your own hands and feet is awesome.

 

 

What you call awesome I call dumb.

[Atheosis]

 

I've always hated monks in D&D and it's no different in Pillars.  I just don't get why this crap has lingered so long in fantasy roleplaying...

 

I found the source of your problem.

 

 

With my touchstones being things like Lord of the Rings, Song of Ice and Fire, and Elric, I just have never gotten how they fit.  They fit really well in Asian themed fantasy games though.  That's where they belong and that's where they should stay as far as I'm concerned.

[Ink Blot]

Before anyone jumps right in my face. This is not an issue at all I don't mind monks being in the game. It is just an opinion and I wondered if anyone shares it.

 

First of all they so don't fit into the world. I know they are part of dungeons and dragons but I always pretended they are not. Cool wizards and knights and all this stuff and then you have a shirtless dudes out of karate kid. What is this?

 

They are also so not fun to play. Main reason - attacking with bare hands. In the world of magic weapons and cool armours and all this stuff. Meh.

I've felt this way since they first appeared in D&D. Never, ever been a fan of them. However, since I'm not forced to play one or have one in my party, I can easily ignore they exist. And I do. So no problem.

[dirigible]

I think monks are fine as part of the lore. As numerous people have pointed out, there are western monks, right?

(It's adding the "katanas" and "wakizashis" that steps over the lore line for me!)

 

I also don't think its important that they fill a "role" or "balance out", simply because this is a single player game and I think more choice is better.

 

HOWEVER, mechanically, I've always been disappointed in the monk. In IWD and BG, they use no weapons or armour, making them, in my opinion, boring to play (since collecting cool loot for your characters is half the fun in an RPG)

In PoE, I applaud the fresh take on the class, but I still don't think they're fun to play as a main character. This is discussed in depth in other threads, but in a nut shell, I don't want to have to get hit to use my skills. (unless you roleplay a really masochistic guy, I was contemplating doing that;)

I think you can say the same of chanters. How does having a chanter change your strategy? It doesn't for me, Kana just fulfills a sort of jack of all trades roll.

 

My monk is a good offtank and a great source of dps. He can provide an endless supply of cc, he can jump to any target on the battlefield instantly, and he can do great single-target damage.

 

With my touchstones being things like Lord of the Rings, Song of Ice and Fire, and Elric, I just have never gotten how they fit.  They fit really well in Asian themed fantasy games though.  That's where they belong and that's where they should stay as far as I'm concerned.

How do Paladins fit? Or Clerics? Or Druids? Or Bards? Or Psionics?

 

[bootsnpots]

I like the monks a lot. My only complaint of monks in this game is the micromanaging required to use them.. when you stack up 6 wounds and your next 6 attacks you have to pause, click on your ability youre spaming, then click on the same enemy, then unpause, to spend your wounds. I mean it's not a lot but when you have 2 or 3 casters going it just feels really unnecessary to have to power up each and every attack on the monk. That being said my monk was one of my most crucial party members on my first playthrough on normal, being my 2nd tankiest next to my fighter, and having high/reliable single target dps. I had fights where almost my whole party went down and my monk 1v3d the half hp mob leader and his 2 full hp minions. And Ive had boss fights where ive had to reload just cuz i missed a key heal from my priest and my monk went down early lol. They really get strong later as their unarmed dmg increases. I definately recommend always having a priest by their side or at their backs tho since they do have to take dmg to really dish it out.

[Byeohazard]

I am on my first play through with my original character which is a monk. Perhaps it is because I am no expert or just don't know any better but I am really having a good time.  The stats on my monk as far as damage and kills etc are the highest in my party...again,  I am far from an expert with setting up characters and classes etc  ( I may even be called sloppy)...all I know is I am having fun.

[dirigible]

I like the monks a lot. My only complaint of monks in this game is the micromanaging required to use them.. when you stack up 6 wounds and your next 6 attacks you have to pause, click on your ability youre spaming, then click on the same enemy, then unpause, to spend your wounds. I mean it's not a lot but when you have 2 or 3 casters going it just feels really unnecessary to have to power up each and every attack on the monk. That being said my monk was one of my most crucial party members on my first playthrough on normal, being my 2nd tankiest next to my fighter, and having high/reliable single target dps. I had fights where almost my whole party went down and my monk 1v3d the half hp mob leader and his 2 full hp minions. And Ive had boss fights where ive had to reload just cuz i missed a key heal from my priest and my monk went down early lol. They really get strong later as their unarmed dmg increases. I definately recommend always having a priest by their side or at their backs tho since they do have to take dmg to really dish it out.

I totally agree, but you can hold shift to queue actions. I just wish there was a way to modify the AI.

I'd like to be able to tell my monk "when you have 4 or more wounds, just spam Torment's Reach"

[CoM_Solaufein]

Never cared for monks as a class in any game.

[dirigible]

Never cared for monks as a class in any game.

Most of the time, they're implemented in a really crappy way. The vast majority of games make unarmed attacking completely unviable, which makes you wonder why its even an option. Others give monks a sort of half-hearted nod which ultimately feels boring and pointless (I'm looking at you, elder scrolls series).

 

So far my only problem with them in PoE is that they don't feel very integrated with the setting. There's no monk companion, no monk enemies, and there's only one very short quest which involves monks at all (that I've found, so far).

[CoM_Solaufein]

Indeed. What individual is going to attack an armored foe who has a two handed sword, with nothing but their bare hands and feet. Monks are better off in a Far East type of setting, not a Middle Ages European type of setting.

[Ink Blot]

Indeed. What individual is going to attack an armored foe who has a two handed sword, with nothing but their bare hands and feet. Monks are better off in a Far East type of setting, not a Middle Ages European type of setting.

Not sure I agree with your reasoning here. What unarmed individual is going to attack a samurai type warrior armed with a sword that can cut through armor? (Please folks, I don't want to get into the finer points of samurai, katanas, etc. I just hope my point is clear).

[dirigible]

What individual is going to attack an armored foe who has a two handed sword, with nothing but their bare hands and feet

Idk, probably the type of individual who would attack an armored foe who has a two handed sword with a dagger. Or a hunting bow. Or a flail. Or any other weapon which in the real world would be completely pointless against such an enemy.

 

This is ignoring the fact that a monk's fists are generally accepted to be extra-lethal. I mean you don't criticize wands by saying "lol who would use a little stick as a weapon, that's dumb". The wand is more than a stick. The fist is more than a fist.

[Messier-31]

Monks are ok as long as they sit still and pray, or whatever monks do in real life.

 

Glad that Forton got scrapped

[Heijoushin]

Monks are ok as long as they sit still and pray, or whatever monks do in real life.

 

Glad that Forton got scrapped

 

Yeah, they should have more religious type mechanics... but priests already have that angle covered so...

 

 

Indeed. What individual is going to attack an armored foe who has a two handed sword, with nothing but their bare hands and feet. Monks are better off in a Far East type of setting, not a Middle Ages European type of setting.

Not sure I agree with your reasoning here. What unarmed individual is going to attack a samurai type warrior armed with a sword that can cut through armor? (Please folks, I don't want to get into the finer points of samurai, katanas, etc. I just hope my point is clear).

 

 

I think it's just more common in Eastern settings that martial arts > anything. But I think he was making two separate points.

[Dongom]

DND monks aren't just dudes who punch stuff, they put supernatural energies  behind their attacks and into their body.  My fav nwn/ie class.

[dirigible]

Monks are ok as long as they sit still and pray, or whatever monks do in real life.

 

Glad that Forton got scrapped

Actually, you're describing priests. You're really saying "I wish Durance got scrapped because Priest is a dumb class".

[Atheosis]

DND monks aren't just dudes who punch stuff, they put supernatural energies  behind their attacks and into their body.  My fav nwn/ie class.

 

They are essentially fantastical Shaolin monks and they are really jarring in most western fantasy settings.

[kozzy]

Monks are my fav class, love em

[Matt516]

Well, I think if they removed the unarmed part of the monk and just had them use weapons, it would be fine, they just turn into warrior monk fanatics that like to hurt themselves (which is what I thought they were supposed to be). But they would have to change a lot, like the icons, animations, some of the lore.

They can use weapons with almost all of their abilities. Just FYI. The unarmed damage is there as a bonus (and what a bonus - they outdamage other fast weapons of comparable quality by lvl 4!).

[dirigible]

The unarmed damage is there as a bonus (and what a bonus - they outdamage other fast weapons of comparable quality by lvl 4!).

When I noticed how many cool enchantments were popping up on weapons, I worried that my monk's fists would become obsolete.

Level 11, now, and I don't worry about that any more. Fists stronk.

[lastpawn]

I don't see them as Shaolin-style monks (or how we westerners typically think of Shaolin). If I did, maybe I'd think they're a bit off conceptually. I think they're quirky but fine. I think Paladins are more off, I mean they're... guild fighters who believe in their guild a lot?

 

I do think Monks are a bit off in terms of gameplay mechanics, but that's a different story.

[Ganrich]

I think Monk's are the sleeper class. They are a little more difficult from a positioning standpoint. They require you to put a little thought into their attributes, as well. If you want to be in the middle of combat you need Perc/resolve. If you are going to move around the field an knock out the enemies at the edges of the combat then you can be more DPS in the stats. I clean the edges and keep a few wounds to move in and use a couple Torment's Reach attacks on the cluster around Eder.

 

On whether Monks fit the setting... This isn't Europe. The Monk fits if Obsidian says it does. I think they fit in just as much as the rest of the classes. There weren't any Wizards casting Fireballs in Europe either. So I could argue they don't fit the setting. I don't believe that though.

[Messier-31]

Actually, you're describing priests. You're really saying "I wish Durance got scrapped because Priest is a dumb class".

 

No, I am saying something else:

 

Priests in fantasy lore

 

 

Monks in fantasy lore