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?

1235»

Comments

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,124
    Is it really that big of a deal if Monks are a playable class in this game? Believe it or not, Brad has been behind the creation of 3 different MMO's. Everquest, Vanguard and now Pantheon. Both EQ and Vanguard had 16 classes and Pantheon only has 12, currently. Aside from that, DAoC, one of my most favorite MMO's had 3 realms, 2 of which had 16 classes and the other had 15. Of all these games, I actually enjoyed the amount of versatility and along with it, the need of interdependence. If I'm not mistaken, Brad loves group oriented game play and all of his games have had the Monk class. So no, I have to disagree with your point of view as a martial arts class has been around since the mid 70's with the creation of Dungeons and Dragons tabletop RPG.

  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    Wizardry said:

    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.
    I think this post just gave me a contact high. :scream:
  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 281
    Pemmin said:
    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
    Guess you could just give the monks a crossbow. Of course the knights would not be happy.
Sign In or Register to comment.