Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Future MMORPGs: Do we really need a Monk class?

124

Comments

  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123
    edited March 2017
    Zuljan said:
    I've been eating my popcorn, enjoying this argument, but I just can't help myself; this is the 5thish person that has mentioned historical fact about monks, telling the OP his argument is invalid....Monks are tied to religious connotations, which is why they should be ruled out (as per nomenclature). This is the same reason they changed Crusader to Paladin (the term crusader is used in different context too but still tied to religion). Really don't get why the OP is getting bashed
    Clerics are tied to religion. Druids are tied to religion. Mystics are tied to religion. Witchdoctors are tied to religion. Priests... PRIESTS are tied to religion. 

    Besides that, you must have misunderstood the original post. He wasn't saying that the monk class should be abolished because they are tied to religious connotation. And crusaders exist in many, many fantasy board games and video games.

    I really just don't understand your point of view at all and it feels like, even with all that popcorn and argument watching, that you didn't understand what you were reading. Show me where anyone said that a class should be removed from fantasy entertainment because it contains a religious connotation. Also, re-read the original post. He brought up historical accuracy to support his own viewpoint. Here is a quote:

    "Fists don't make sense evidenced by the monks getting their ass kicked by real armies when they tried that (Mongols). It only worked during assassination operations or against other unarmed/unarmored opponents."

    And disagreeing with someone is not bashing them. You quoted me and then said that you wondered why the OP was being bashed. I disagree with him and discussed my reasons why, but there was no bashing.
    1) Neither a cleric nor a druid are tied to any formally recognized religion (i.e. you running around in your backyard with a WoW druid outfit doesn't make druids tied to religion)
    2) The other names you listed aren't even in Pantheon, which is why you never see such names in EQ etc because they are respectful of culture/religion unlike other Western companies not caring (what are you reading?)
    3) His second sentence is literalllllly historically referencing monks to Buddhism and Confucianism, and later he points out not needing to use Asian/ethnic-specific classes??  (what are you reading????).
    4)As I've already mentioned, half of his argument was because of the connotation of monk, not just the monk as a class (what are you reading?)

    @craftseeker

    My lawn needs mowing guys. EDIT: also spilled some of this popcorn I was eating
    Post edited by Zuljan on
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    Fists don't make sense evidenced by the monks getting their ass kicked by real armies when they tried that (Mongols).

    I dont think there are armies in this game.
  • JurisDictumJurisDictum Member UncommonPosts: 31
    I guess my comment about the Mongols is unfair. I was just trying to say that in life and death struggle -- people use weapons. Even the warrior monks used weapons. And I guess I have the belief that armored knights tended to perform much better on the battle field than unarmored warriors...especially If they tried to use fists.

    But the whole point is kind of moot because monks rarely use fists in MMORPGS anyway...not since vanilla EQ. I guess as a light dps class -- monk makes enough sense. But I think most people agree the tank aspect does not.

    Mythology should conform to its own logos. Big strong fighters with heavy armor tend to have more hit points and take less damage from hits.

    We got Paladins as tank/healers. There are Direlords as warriors/cc (or spell damage). And we got Warriors as either tanky DPS or more just plain tanks. Then we have Rogues as light offensive. Bards as ulility/offense. We even have Rangers as a possible tanky/dps (they tend to annoyingly separate them into bow ranger vs melee ranger).

    I guess I'm just pointing out that there is already lots of tanks and lots of damage. The only thing unique about the concept of monk is lore based. Not game-play based.

    From my perspective -- the class mainly serves to separate Asian-inspired lore and weapons from European inspired lore. In modern times -- I think we could just integrate the two across class boundaries, and let people flavor their character how they want.
     



  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,430
    What we call "monk" should be more precisely called "martial artist", but "monk" has stuck and is besides a lot shorter.


    And I guess I have the belief that armored knights tended to perform much better on the battle field than unarmored warriors...especially If they tried to use fists.
    Well ... duh !

    If it was otherwise, the warrior that trains every day since early childhood, which is what we call a "knight", wouldnt have bothered to wear armor, now, would they ?

    I repeat: the reason martial arts is so big in Japan and China is simply because in those areas iron is rare and thus valueable. Thus even a "fully armored knight" in Japan still wasnt wearing iron armor, but some kind of leather armor.

    Good luck doing much damage on a full late mediveal times / renaissance field plate armor with nothing but bare fists. Even regular swords dont do much on those anymore, thats why weapons like the warhammer or the greatsword became so popular in the late mediveal times.


    That doesnt matter for a game though. All that matters is that the game is challenging and fun.

    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,145
    Zuljan said:
    Zuljan said:
    I've been eating my popcorn, enjoying this argument, but I just can't help myself; this is the 5thish person that has mentioned historical fact about monks, telling the OP his argument is invalid....Monks are tied to religious connotations, which is why they should be ruled out (as per nomenclature). This is the same reason they changed Crusader to Paladin (the term crusader is used in different context too but still tied to religion). Really don't get why the OP is getting bashed
    Clerics are tied to religion. Druids are tied to religion. Mystics are tied to religion. Witchdoctors are tied to religion. Priests... PRIESTS are tied to religion. 

    Besides that, you must have misunderstood the original post. He wasn't saying that the monk class should be abolished because they are tied to religious connotation. And crusaders exist in many, many fantasy board games and video games.

    I really just don't understand your point of view at all and it feels like, even with all that popcorn and argument watching, that you didn't understand what you were reading. Show me where anyone said that a class should be removed from fantasy entertainment because it contains a religious connotation. Also, re-read the original post. He brought up historical accuracy to support his own viewpoint. Here is a quote:

    "Fists don't make sense evidenced by the monks getting their ass kicked by real armies when they tried that (Mongols). It only worked during assassination operations or against other unarmed/unarmored opponents."

    And disagreeing with someone is not bashing them. You quoted me and then said that you wondered why the OP was being bashed. I disagree with him and discussed my reasons why, but there was no bashing.
    1) Neither a cleric nor a druid are tied to any formally recognized religion (i.e. you running around in your backyard with a WoW druid outfit doesn't make druids tied to religion)
    2) The other names you listed aren't even in Pantheon, which is why you never see such names in EQ etc because they are respectful of culture/religion unlike other Western companies not caring (what are you reading?)
    3) His second sentence is literalllllly historically referencing monks to Buddhism and Confucianism, and later he points out not needing to use Asian/ethnic-specific classes??  (what are you reading????).
    4)As I've already mentioned, half of his argument was because of the connotation of monk, not just the monk as a class (what are you reading?)



    My lawn needs mowing guys. EDIT: also spilled some of this popcorn I was eating
    1. What...? Catholicism has clerics. Buddhists have clerics. Islam has clerics. Priests are part of almost every religion (funny how you left that one out). Modern day Druids exists in various forms:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Druidism . What a terrible premise your argument is based upon. That monks should not be able to be a class in MMORPGs because it is tied to formal religion. With so many other classes tied to formal religion, you'd think you would see your folly, but you just aren't able to for some reason. Instead you insist that clerics/priests/druids/witch doctors/whatever don't exist in formal religions today. How is it even possible that you could be making that argument?

    2. This isn't just about Pantheon. According to the OP, it is about abolishing the monk class in all MMORPGs.

    3. I don't even know what you're going on about here. He can link monks solely to Buddhism or Confucianism, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to. And even if you do pretend like those are the only 2 religions monks are based on in fantasy settings, that's still a terrible reason to exclude the class. If a fantasy setting wants to include some kind of a spiritual class that is loosely based on any single or set of religions, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    4. You said half his argument was about connotation, but it wasn't. He was arguing (and still is) that the role can be handled deftly by allowing fighter type classes to handle everything they do. The main counter to this is that monks are not only fighters, but they also include a spiritual aspect (as both you and the OP presume anyway). You might as well argue there should be no Paladins because fighters can handle everything they do.
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    What we call "monk" should be more precisely called "martial artist", but "monk" has stuck and is besides a lot shorter.


    And I guess I have the belief that armored knights tended to perform much better on the battle field than unarmored warriors...especially If they tried to use fists.
    Well ... duh !

    If it was otherwise, the warrior that trains every day since early childhood, which is what we call a "knight", wouldnt have bothered to wear armor, now, would they ?

    I repeat: the reason martial arts is so big in Japan and China is simply because in those areas iron is rare and thus valueable. Thus even a "fully armored knight" in Japan still wasnt wearing iron armor, but some kind of leather armor.

    Good luck doing much damage on a full late mediveal times / renaissance field plate armor with nothing but bare fists.

    If you want to go real life logic, the way to beat that guy is to pull him off his horse.  With that much armor no man can move quickly enough.  With hand to hand you could beat him.  Get him on the ground and remove that helmet and he is dead.  Full plate does not do well without the horse.
  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,430
    Wrong.

    Field plate armor is NOT the same as full plate armor, which was used in tornaments and was designed to offer ultimate protection. Full plate armor weights about twice as much as field plate armor and hinders the freedom of movement of the wearer, assuring no harm would come to them in a situation when they trained for the real thing.

    But a reallife field plate armor with padding, as it was used for actual combat, was a tailor-made suit for the person that weights about 20-30kg, depending upon quality of the product. Thats 30kg distributed over the whole body. On a well trained and strong soldier that trained for combat since age five or some such.

    Modern soldiers carry about 50kg of gear, and thats carried mostly on the back.

    Thus you can swim in water and do summersaults in field plate armor. And you can run after and overtake fleeing peasants, on foot. There is really no issue whatsoever about this.

    What else would ever make sense ? The point of armor is that you have an advantage, not that you're inferior.

    Peasants and other light to not armored combatants have been common on mediveal battlefields. They provided support. Thus a knight had to be able to fight them effectively as well, not just other knights.



    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    Ok you got me on the weight of field plate armor.  But thats just a sided issue.

    We know that knights can kick the ass of untrained peasants.  Thats not under discussion.  Does field plate armor make monks trained in hand to hand fighting irrelevant?  The answer is no.  If you wear armor light enough to do somersaults (as you say) it wont be making trained hand to hand combat irrelevant.


  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603


    Basically from a lore perspective -- unless we are going to add a dozen specific Asian classes -- it would make more sense just to let warriors be Asian and use Asian weapons. They do this in most games even EQ -- Katanas etc. Just add in bow staffs and katas or whatever.

    F

    We don't need these kinds of ethnically-specific classes these days. I realize this post will get a lot of hate -- but i occasionally try to think outside the box.

    Yeah, but in "thinking outside the box" why can't you also adopt the idea that a Monk is just a person who has dedicated themselves to a belief or lifestyle and they don't have to be based on anything "Asian".

    Maybe they don't use weapons at all, just magic. Or maybe they worship a god with a hammer as his/her icon and they devote themselves to the use of the hammer, or maybe they don't fight at all and have dedicated themselves to the healing arts ...

    and making wine ...






  • PemminPemmin Member UncommonPosts: 623
    edited March 2017
    svann said:
    Ok you got me on the weight of field plate armor.  But thats just a sided issue.

    We know that knights can kick the ass of untrained peasants.  Thats not under discussion.  Does field plate armor make monks trained in hand to hand fighting irrelevant?  The answer is no.  If you wear armor light enough to do somersaults (as you say) it wont be making trained hand to hand combat irrelevant.


    except knights were also heavily and professionally trained in hand to hand as well. particularly grappling and boxing.  its quite possible a monk would lose even if it was unarmored combat. knights were professional soldiers..... not the flashy buffoons that entertainment media make them out to be.

    knights were basically medieval tanks....bare fists and feets would have 0 effect.
    even knight vs knight came down poking via  half swording(also could use hilt like hammer) or daggers into the "gaps" that knights were 100% aware of and took measures to protect.

    the weakness of a knight was that is was cost prohibited(it would be like literally buying an actual tank today)

    the way a monk beats a knight.....get a lucky poke with a spear(monks did use weapons) or out number the knight and sacrifice a couple buddies to get at the weak point with something sharp
  • JurisDictumJurisDictum Member UncommonPosts: 31
    edited March 2017
    I really don't understand the point you "it's not necessarily Asian" guys are trying to make. It obviously inspired by Asian flavored lore and anyone who argues otherwise is being willfully ignorant. Yes, you can think of your character as not Asian. You may design your character to not be Asian (but you will likely be using Asian weapons). That's completely beside the point.

    The point was: this class is not distinct from a game role perspective. It is only unique from a flavor perspective. For example: separating Barbarian/Berzerker/Warrior and every other overlapping fighter class you can imagine. Its just splitting the same game role with different aesthetics.

    But this forum has made me realize one thing: there is a niche from a game role perspective it could fit in:

    Squishy Healer/Melee dps.

    That's all I can think of. The rest is taken by other classes already as far as I can see.


  • nate1980nate1980 Member UncommonPosts: 1,939
    Monks are based on the Shaolin warrior monks of China...Also known as Shaolin warriors. Due to various Confucian and Buddhist ideals, they learned to fight with blunt weapons and fists instead of swords and pikes. Likewise, armor and shields never caught on in a land with few pikes or swords.

    But they were basically just fighters like any other warrior in any other region. They just had a unique culture that emphasized the blunt/bare weapon loophole. If you beat someone to death with a stick -- its OK because a stick clearly wasn't intended to kill them...yea it was a pretty dumb argument-- but it was the middle ages when this got started.

    Basically from a lore perspective -- unless we are going to add a dozen specific Asian classes -- it would make more sense just to let warriors be Asian and use Asian weapons. They do this in most games even EQ -- Katanas etc. Just add in bow staffs and katas or whatever.

    Fists don't make sense evidenced by the monks getting their ass kicked by real armies when they tried that (Mongols). It only worked during assassination operations or against other unarmed/unarmored opponents. Which leads me to the fundamental problem with Monks as a concept:

    Their warrior/rogue hybrids. These two classes combined are hard to balance. They tend to be overpowered tanky - rogues like classic EQ. They may also be rogue clones that basically amounts to Asian-inspired rogues. Perhaps they could be warrior-clones -- kind of like warriors only Asian....

    They don't really have a place from a game play perspective. Vanguards idea of 4 different humans based on African, Asian, Northern and Middle-Eastern -- was a good idea. That way if you really want to be something like a monk lore wise -- just be an Asian rogue or warrior.

    We don't need these kinds of ethnically-specific classes these days. I realize this post will get a lot of hate -- but i occasionally try to think outside the box.

    I appreciate it when poster's think outside the box, but you're being narrow-minded and the exact opposite of "outside the box" when you claim that monks are based on the Shaolin Monks. Unless you're referring to the game specifically, in which case I recant my initial assertions. But there were many types of monks over the millenia. Shaolin Monks are just extremely popular due to TV and movies.

    At any rate, I like tons of classes, so that interest me, but I also like games from your point of view. Warriors from different cultures fought differently and used different weapons, and armor, if they wore armor. So having different skill trees based on all those styles and allowing the player to pick the style they prefer would be just as good as having many varied classes.
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    I think if we focused on realism in games they would be boring as sin.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    I suspect a lot depends on the skills of the devs and the tools they have to work with.  Take stealth for example.  Some games put it on a short timer because they say it's OP.  Other games put it on a toggle and have balanced it out well.  Same goes for classes like the Monk.  If a Monk has iron skin, it could take the place of armor.  Iron fists can have the same stats as a mace.  Meditation could be a nice out of combat heal.  I think of Jedi as a warrior monk class.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603
    I really don't understand the point you "it's not necessarily Asian" guys are trying to make. It obviously inspired by Asian flavored lore and anyone who argues otherwise is being willfully ignorant. ...

    The point was: this class is not distinct from a game role perspective. It is only unique from a flavor perspective. For example: separating Barbarian/Berzerker/Warrior and every other overlapping fighter class you can imagine. Its just splitting the same game role with different aesthetics.

    But this forum has made me realize one thing: there is a niche from a game role perspective it could fit in:

    Squishy Healer/Melee dps.

    That's all I can think of. The rest is taken by other classes already as far as I can see.


    I think it's your wording as it seems you are making a blanket statement about what a Monk "is".

    I haven't seen any pictures or extensive information about the Monk so as far as "I" know, within Pantheon, it could be based on a Western Ideal.

    Can you just link where you have seen the actual monk? Is it in one of their streams?

    As far as a game role perspective "sure" it very well could be a squishy healer/melee dps.
  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    Sovrath said:


    Basically from a lore perspective -- unless we are going to add a dozen specific Asian classes -- it would make more sense just to let warriors be Asian and use Asian weapons. They do this in most games even EQ -- Katanas etc. Just add in bow staffs and katas or whatever.

    F

    We don't need these kinds of ethnically-specific classes these days. I realize this post will get a lot of hate -- but i occasionally try to think outside the box.

    Yeah, but in "thinking outside the box" why can't you also adopt the idea that a Monk is just a person who has dedicated themselves to a belief or lifestyle and they don't have to be based on anything "Asian".

    Maybe they don't use weapons at all, just magic. Or maybe they worship a god with a hammer as his/her icon and they devote themselves to the use of the hammer, or maybe they don't fight at all and have dedicated themselves to the healing arts ...

    and making wine ...
    Well, the problem is that developers never "think outside the box" with this stuff.  I think it's pretty apparent that pretty much every game that includes Monk has based it 100% off the Asian martial artist style Monks.  Though, to be fair, EQ2 did attempt to have more of a thug variant in their "Bruiser" or whatever it was called.

    Any Monk class that is running around without armor and punching and kicking things is clearly pulled straight from that culture.

    The European version of combat "Monk" for instance was more of a Paladin(think: Holy Knight).  They wore armor and used metal weapons same as all other warriors.  So, it's obvious to what the developers are adhering.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603
    Lokero said:
    Sovrath said:


    Basically from a lore perspective -- unless we are going to add a dozen specific Asian classes -- it would make more sense just to let warriors be Asian and use Asian weapons. They do this in most games even EQ -- Katanas etc. Just add in bow staffs and katas or whatever.

    F

    We don't need these kinds of ethnically-specific classes these days. I realize this post will get a lot of hate -- but i occasionally try to think outside the box.

    Yeah, but in "thinking outside the box" why can't you also adopt the idea that a Monk is just a person who has dedicated themselves to a belief or lifestyle and they don't have to be based on anything "Asian".

    Maybe they don't use weapons at all, just magic. Or maybe they worship a god with a hammer as his/her icon and they devote themselves to the use of the hammer, or maybe they don't fight at all and have dedicated themselves to the healing arts ...

    and making wine ...
    Well, the problem is that developers never "think outside the box" with this stuff.  I think it's pretty apparent that pretty much every game that includes Monk has based it 100% off the Asian martial artist style Monks.  Though, to be fair, EQ2 did attempt to have more of a thug variant in their "Bruiser" or whatever it was called.

    Any Monk class that is running around without armor and punching and kicking things is clearly pulled straight from that culture.

    The European version of combat "Monk" for instance was more of a Paladin(think: Holy Knight).  They wore armor and used metal weapons same as all other warriors.  So, it's obvious to what the developers are adhering.
    That's great but I haven't seen the Pantheon monk so as far as I know it very well could be running around with armor, etc. Going to their site doesn't really provide pictures or skills or "whatever".
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,397
    Yeah. Unarmed fighting is just an Asian thing. It's why the Bruce Lee movies bombed in NA and why we don't have a martial arts studio in every strip mall :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603
    Iselin said:
    Yeah. Unarmed fighting is just an Asian thing. It's why the Bruce Lee movies bombed in NA and why we don't have a martial arts studio in every strip mall :)
    Though, funny enough, where I live there are like 6 of them in a 3 or so mile radius. (Boston Area).

    Probably more scattered about.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MoiraeMoirae Member RarePosts: 3,318
    Voodoo, Necromancy, and all the rest, are not real. Humanity has created some stupid things over the years, these are just another. They are, however, intensely amusing. 
  • GolelornGolelorn Member RarePosts: 1,392
    edited March 2017
    Wow. Its a game. A monk is whatever the game designers say it is. Quit trying to use real world context for a fantasy game. Holy schmokes, dudes
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    Im thinking a monk could do more wrastlin a knight in plate than the average plinky arrow could.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,834
    edited March 2017
    Golelorn said:
    Wow. Its a game. A monk is whatever the game designers say it is. Quit trying to use real world context for a fantasy game. Holy schmokes, dudes
    You always have to use some plausible realism in ideas otherwise there is no lomits to how bad or retarded a game can look.
    I will use the extreme...

    Ok so we have pink flying cows that drop bombs on players from the sky,we should be able to call those cows goldfish right,it is Fantasy.

    We are surrounded by swords and armor,perhaps typical of the 16th century.Well one player is wielding a rocket launcher and can blow up and kill the entire enemy in one shot,no problem with,it is Fantasy?

    How about heals don't heal,instead you cast spell that says healing for 300 but when you cast it,instead it causes 300 dmg and you kill your own player.

    How about we don't even call it casting,we call it driving a car for 300 dmg,no problem right,it is Fantasy we can call anything whatever we want?

    I know let's just have 1 quest,kill one giant rat and you auto get max level,no problem right,we can do whatever we want ,it isFantasy?
    You go to cast a Fireball and instead pop tarts go flying at the enemy?

    I could go on and on,we have ideas for a reason,we use plausible ideas to formulate other ideas and it always needs to make sense.One wouldn't think to himself..well if i think about how many pieces of apple pie i can eat,that should help me realize the theory of magnetism.

    If some idea is not plausible,it looks just wrong.


    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Thoth_MosheThoth_Moshe Member UncommonPosts: 240
    Monks dont need weapons and armor just as wizards dont.
    Image result for goku
Sign In or Register to comment.