Future MMORPGs: Do we really need a Monk class?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree, Juris. Monks have always lacked luster for me in EQ and WoW.

Now Vanguard monks...that was a monk.

Had heals, barriers, vicious melee and everything. They were the only healer that was able to tank endlessly without mana. Very monk-like design.

[maskedmelonpai]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now Vanguard monks...that was a monk.

Had heals, barriers, vicious melee and everything. They were the only healer that was able to tank endlessly without mana. Very monk-like design.

you thinking disciple, Azz ^^ they was the monk-healer and yeah never needed much mana if they did things right.

monks in vanguard were pretty awful to begin with but became liek super genki-damaesque burst dps machines.

that anither thing that set monks apart from ordinary warriors: ki or spiritual energies. warrior just about smashin heads and slashin guts. monk all about focus and discipline and manipulation of life energies to augment they self and not get smashed heads or slashed guts.

also, mongols were successful because they had iddy biddy bows they could shoot while running around on they horses (which they had lots of), not just because some buddhist celebates who could break stones with they face had soft spots too>.>

feeling slightly less triggered this morning...

[JurisDictum]

I just want to point out: its pretty fucking stupid to argue a class that uses "ki energies" and martial arts called monk is not Asian. That's all Asian as fuck and a clearly inspired by Asian shit.

Not as many offenders on this forum, but I got a lot of it for the same post on this one:

http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/...-monk-class/p1

[Secrets]

At least they're not called Kung Fu Masters. That would be a bit blatant.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

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.

While I'm for allowing Asian-themed Warriors, I feel like you're looking at this from a very historic perspective, and I'd argue that's the wrong perspective. MMOGs aren't medieval times simulators, they're elf simulators, ie. fantasy world simulators. And fantasy worlds have a long tradition of bare-handed fighters. They started out as Asian in origin, but now they're part of the Western fantasy model. As proof I submit that the original (advanced) dungeons and dragons had a monk class, and so did the very first Final Fantasy game (well, it was called "black belt", but same diff).

So whether monks came from Asia or not originally (and they clearly did), there is now an archetype in western fantasy game worlds of the bare-handed fighter, and I don't see that going away.

[JurisDictum]

This is from Wikipedia:

Dungeons & Dragons

The original monk character class was created by Brian Blume, inspired by the fictional martial arts of the Destroyer series of novels.[2] The monk was introduced in 1975's Blackmoor supplement.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition

The monk was available as a character class known as a "mystic" in the game's "Basic" edition, introduced in the Dungeons & Dragons Master Set.

In 1985, the next official revision of the monk appeared as a character class in the first edition Oriental Adventures rulebook, by Gary Gygax and David Cook.[7] This version retained most of the class as presented in the first edition Players Handbook, but replaced the abstract hand-to-hand attacks with a more specific rules system to emulate different styles of martial arts (such as karate, judo, etc.). According to a reviewer for White Dwarf, this version of the monk was "altered to fit into an Eastern pattern", and was "at last in the proper context".[8]

------

I have to admit I never knew this. I always assumed that they were aware of the eastern origins of the monk class from that start. But it looks like it was just a Kill Bill style character that inspired the whole thing (just an assassin that knows karate).

After that they started thinking "where does all this come from....oh yea -- duh -- Asia." After that they proceeded to make it a more "oriental" themed class.

So its true that there is an origin of monk as a class that is basically martial arts wielding assassins. But I still claim it would be better just to let rogues pick up martial arts as part of their kit. Maybe a subtype of Rogue for example.

Meanwhile, throughout most of RPG history monk has clearly been a reference to the Asian-trained karate guy in the group. When I played AD&D as a kid, it was the 2nd edition and monk wasn't in the players handbook. So I couldn't imagine why some one would argue otherwise.

[stonez138]

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition

The monk was available as a character class known as a "mystic" in the game's "Basic" edition, introduced in the Dungeons & Dragons Master Set.

This is not correct. Basic edition is D&D not AD&D. There is no monk in D&D basic edition and in AD&D the monk class existed before oriental adventures. Oriental adventures introduced Yakuza and I and I want to say samurai maybe but monk for sure existed before oriental adventures.

[stonez138]

AD&D 1st edition players handbook has the monk as a subclass of the rogue.

[Pyrion]

Just look at the other classes for just a moment in a historical context:
Bard: (sure, in the old days they could make your ears bleed... but c'mon).
Paladin: Those were probably just intolerant assholes
Cleric: People whose profession it was to suck dry the gullible
Magician: Yea, sure, they had a pet... it probably had a female name and was their wife.
Necromancers: Just some sickos with necrophilic tendencies.
Warrior: Most likely serving in an army. Most likely not taunting but doing the opposite, not attracting attention.

EQ is not about portraying the classes in an accurate historical context. You are given an idealized view on everybody. You want to be a fantasy hero, not some real life loser.

[Jizzebel]

Lee Sin