Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Future MMORPGs: Do we really need a Monk class?
JurisDictum
Member UncommonPosts: 31
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.
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.
Comments
"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
I think the monk-inspired lore could be split over a few different classes and regions on the map -- rather than compiled into a specific class. I don't to see this kind of flavor out of MMOs by any means...just less restricted to one class.
I'm not sure how their skill systems is set up, so I don't know if they have certain skills that require certain weapon loadouts or not.
Lore-wise, if they are race-locking classes anyway, then I think they should perhaps lock monk to be Skar only, or something, It sort of makes sense for them as vicious, "by any means" warriors.
Personally, I prefer less rigid classes and more specializations. I'd like to see a base Warrior class that can evolve into a Rogue or Monk or whatever.
Frankly, it adds something to the game to have to discover and achieve those types of specializations. Plus, early on, classes like Rogues typically just start as weak Warriors anyway.
But, I'm pretty sure they are past that point in their designs, and have no intention of un-solidifying their classes. So, I guess it's really a moot point.
Balancing hand-to-hand combat can be tricky in games, until you understand the one great equalizing element.. All weapons kill.. Sword, Axe, Mace, Fist.. The type of damage means very little in the grand scope of things.. What has to be emphasized is the manner in which such damage is delivered..
In your example, Monks fared poorly against Mongol invaders.. This is accurate.. Standing up to horse-riding, bow-using, full-tilt charging raiders with just your fists is tantamount to suicide.. Now, change the situation.. Dismount the rider.. Now its fist to sword.. Still favors the raider, due mostly to weapon reach.. Change the situation further.. The Monk is trained to evade and dodge melee attacks.. To step inward and block swings at the wrist.. Now the match is even.. Change it further.. The monk is like your warrior/rogue.. He chooses stealth and precise strikes at opportune times.. The raider caught unaware is at a great disadvantage.. We haven't even brought monk-weapons into the scenario yet..
Monks (or whatever use of Martial fighter you wish to include) can serve as a distinct class all their own.. They must use their skills in ways completely different from tanks.. I believe the tank-y use of Monks in games like WoW and EQ2 has been a disservice to the manner in which the class should be presented..
Anyway.. This is my opinion on the matter..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
I could see it being more sensible in an action game. In that scenario, you would be manually dodging/blocking(with your staff or whatever), and if you took a hit on that unarmored body, you'd get wrecked. That would be appropriate.
To be honest, though, I see Monk as a fairly out of place class in a tab-target, auto-attack game, in general. They just come off as entirely cheesy in typical MMOs, what with the auto-dodging, auto-blocking, impenetrable defenses they seem to end up with.
I think if they are playing a part in a game like this, then they should be one of the squishiest classes around(one step above a wizard), rather than the polar opposite we always end up with. Maybe just giving them really tiny health pools would be a good start.
European mediveal ages also knew martial arts. It was just less common and less developed, because metal was much easier and cheaper to get in Europe than in Japan. But otherwise theres nothing specifically asian about martial arts. The idea is universally known all over the world.
I think the main issue with a monk class in games is that nobody knows what they are supposed to be and every game finds a different answer to this question.
Sometimes they are healers (Guild Wars, Vanguard Disciple), sometimes they are tanks (Vanguard Drunken Monk Subclass), sometimes they are magekillers (DnD3), sometimes they are damage dealers (Vanguard Dragon Monk Subclass, Lineage 2 Tyrant), sometimes they are something else (original Vanguard Harmonious Monk subclass: debuffer; this subclass got dropped later).
All in all I think Monks should be something of their own, but fall in the general class of physical damage dealers. They arent tanks and they arent healers and they're certainly not spellcasters either, even if they are natural allies of clerics and might have some magiclike abilities. They are turning their body into a weapon and they are especially skilled weapon users, though specialized into weapons with a certain finesse, such as swords.
I would also love to see it if Monks, in Pantheon, would get to wear monk robes, instead of medium armor.
They couldnt be tanks because they only got as many hitpoints as cleric (8 per level plus CON bonus) and couldnt reach high AC. They got however fast natural movement, exceptional evasion, later quite a bit of high magic resistance, at level 20 or so even immunity to non-magic weapons, and a higher number of attacks but at a low base bonus.
In other words, they got optimized to fight mages, specifically. High number of attacks at relatively low damage = high chance to disrupt the mage. Low attack bonus = hard time to hit stuff, but mages are easy to hit. Fast movement = can get to the mage quickly. High evasion and later even magic resistance = can take on quite a number of spells with little or no damage.
If I can suspend disbelief and fight a 3 story dragon with a 3 foot long sword, then I can also suspend disbelief and imagine a person being able to punch really hard.
Unfortunately, I don't think this true sort of hybrid has ever been realized fully in games. I remember playing a Monk in FF XIV:ARR and thinking it was probably one of the worst classes I had ever seen; one woefully ineffective heal, no group support, nothing. Now, that is partially a function of that game itself, but even D3's Monks have been honestly terrible for the entire life of the game (well, most of it) even though they do have some heal and support options.
D&D has probably shown me the best Monks I've seen, but we are talking tabletop there, a system that is not limited by too few skills (ARR) or awful developers (D3). IMO, part of the problem with this class, and some others, is the overall lack of imagination that has plagued MMO gaming for years now. It has the potential to be an interesting and complex class to play for those who have the skill to do so, but at this point where gamers are little more than consumption machines, I doubt we will ever see anything truly different or complex.
I tend not to try and rationalize minute details from fantasy based games based on real life expectations. I don't expect a Pantheon Monk will be exactly like an EQ Monk, a WoW Monk, a D&D Monk or a real life Monk from any time frame. Similarly, I don't expect a Pantheon Wizard to do the same things that real life Wizards do. See what I did there?
Martial Arts or Wrestling, was actually very well developed in Europe in the middle ages. Wrestling was integral to any Weapon Master's Curriculum, especially if you were going to be armored. Hell, wrestling was even a practiced sport back then.
I do agree that they really shouldn't be tanks, but in EQ they were originally tanks because of their evasion. The massive boost to AC never made sense though. If monks are able to tank at all in Pantheon, I hope they keep their armor value realistic, and when they get hit wearing cloth or leather, it hurts.
Also, feign death. Need I say more?
"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
I might just as easily ask do we need Shaman, Bards, Druids, Clerics or any other class I single out for being unsuitable. Not that I think that, but it's just as arbitrary as saying Monks don't belong.
For me personally, Monk will probably be my go to class for my first character. Monks are awesome.
I think current times has done a disservice to celebrating diversity because it tends to see any focus on differences as negative rather than lauding it for adding vibrance to the world.
There are many MMO classes sourced from racial/ethnic groups: Paladins, Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, Monks, Druids, Berserkers, Shamans. Pretty much all but the "core four." No matter the origin I think having a diverse set of identities and gameplay roles is a fantastic thing.
Some games have monk variants that aren't related to any particular region of the world at all. Aion's Chanter and The Secret World's Fist weapons are two examples. GW2 also has the Daredevil and FFXIV has the Monk as well, both of which those game's managed to fit into their lore without introducing Asian themes.
Aion's Chanter also evolved out of a Priest base class and wore chain mail armor. Continent of the Ninth Seal has a Shaman class that is more of a Priest/Mage hybrid, who has numerous advanced classes, one of which is a Taoist which uses the Staff in melee combat and it becomes a physical/magical melee hybrid. But then in GW2 and FFXIV those classes are rogue and warrior classes respectively.
So point being, there are a lot of ways to do a melee staff or fist weapon class. It doesn't have to be Asian themed or have Asian lore, nor does it have to be a Rogue or Warrior styled class. It can also be a Priest/Cleric style, or a Mage, or any mix of those. There are a lot of ways to do the same basic idea and developers can make it fit into their game with ease.
I wont complain that there is another class of course, just that there are other classes they could added before it.
Monks came into MMOs because eastern martial arts movies were rather popular in the 90s but at the moment those movies lost a lot of popularity since then.
And I think they have already a pretty good collection of classes, even without Bard and Necromancer.
Three variants of heavy amor user, three variants of aggressive spellcaster, three variants of healing spellcaster (assuming Druid is a healer class, which isnt clear yet), and Rogue, Ranger, Monk.
And they dont have Samurai and they dont have Ninja.
As I pointed out before - Monk on the other hand isnt actually specifically asian - martial arts are known around the world. Also in Europe.
Anything like sword fighting or fist fights make little sense when you have guns and tanks but still it is magic and will be sorely missed if taken away.
fantasies
the free play of creative imagination
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes Europe and other cultures have martial arts...but not a warrior monk sect. This is an example of European martial arts:
Basically -- it was just part of warrior training. This is kind of my point. It's not like plated fighters didn't know martial arts either. It really should just be part of the warrior (and possibly rogue) class and not soloed out into a unique martial arts only class...but that's not even what the monk is. It's martial arts + Asian blunt weapons class....again, clearly a reference to Asian warrior monks.
Now Monks have been in MMORPGs for awhile now (EQ actually being one of the first that popularized it). So since then there has been some European concept monks around. But I think it's fair to say that's not genesis of the class.
My point here is mostly about game play and not lore. When you make a rogue and warrior class, then add monk, I feel like it takes potential away from rogues and warriors. Now these classes have to be balanced around the concept of monk as well. Is there really all that much room there? Monks tend to be rogue clones with slightly different utility these days.
Other than that I wouldn't say that classes are too specialized and narrow in Pantheon so far.
Actual Shaolin monks were quite different. Although there is a very colorful and largely fictional story associated with the temple going back to the seventeenth century they were not the magical Kung Fu artists they are regarded as, particularly in the West.
The lack of weapons has more to do with the laws imposed by the Manchu dynasty than Buddhism.