114 réponses à ce sujet

[UnDoomedMan]

Monk could be easily explained as the Spirit Warrior.



The class, specialization, whatever it is could channel energy just like a Spirit Warrior, but just have it cover their whole body instead of their weapons.



Hell, I could turn Stone Armor into a way to be a monk. My fists are now made of stone of equal (or higher depending on spellpower) hardness as any golem, I should get damage up the wazoo from that.



I did a completely unarmed character up until archdemon once, who was a rogue. Just used rogue feats, and back'stabbed' alot, but due to the fact that my damage sucked all I could do was tank. (Pure Dex Rogue, ended at arch demon with around 120+ defence)



I could easily see ways to explain how I beat a high dragon with my hands. I already can explain why my dwarf rogue can take 4-5 hits from it while NUDE - because it's a game, it doesn't need to be realistic. If you want a realistic game... http://triptronix.ne.../outsidecj0.jpg

[maxernst]

I agree with those that say that it just doesn't suit the setting. I made the same choice when I created a Rolemaster campaign set in 7th century Italy--I dropped the monk classes, martial arts, adrenal moves. Actually, I removed a lot of classes and abilities I felt didn't fit with what I wanted to do.



Having a coherent setting is more important to me than covering all the fantasy archetypes.

[CybAnt1]

Different strokes for different folks.



I have played many variants of my favorite monk char, Wun Hung Lo, in many games. (OK, yes, the name borders on the offensive, but then my KOTOR char was Lordo DaSchwartz, which you may recognize as a Spaceballs reference.) I played a Samurai back in the Wizardry days. I played both a kensai and a ninja in NWN2. (OK, my ninja was a shadow thief/shadowdancer/assassin, technically speaking.)



I don't personally think that a coherent fantasy setting based on the Middle Ages has to be coherently culturally isolationist to medieval Europe solely ... but fine I get why others feel that way. As I've said, it seems odd to me Thedas has no black or Asian people, maybe the devs will deal with what could be a slightly politically incorrect observation at some point.



But here's the deal; you feel that way, I don't. With mods, we don't have to agree. Win win. Mostly I'm hoping someone might do this as a mod.



Again, here's my current class concept. Call it Spirit Sage. Char has nothing to do with religion per se, but is 'spiritual' (magical) in nature. I'd have it use Oriental weapons or fist weapons but first they have to make those. Maybe that can be skipped. Otherwise will fight unarmed by using spirit magic to harden fists/feet into armor piercing weapons. Defense may be by using spirit to 'harden' their bodies, or mostly focusing like rogues on dodge/evasion. Wears only robes, cowls, bracers, maybe like mages. Possibly also this class should wear tattoos that give various bonuses. In addition to unarmed combat, char focuses on healing, lore, group buffs (like yells of inspiration), abilities that counter demons & evil.



I'd so play it. And if it's a mod ... you don't have to.

[soteria]

Amonithil wrote...

soteria wrote...

Never read it, so I can't really comment on the context or the situation.  Try providing an example of lore in the game, please.  The only Silent Sister we see fighting in the game is using a 2h weapon.  If fighting bare-handed was the norm for that order as people seem to say, then why is she using a weapon?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned by a dev to be an engine limitation, just as said silent sister was also meant to be bald in the game, but it was not be supported by the engine. This meant they gave her a two handed weapon as there was no animation available for unarmed fighting, if you chose to fight her. I'm not going to look for a quote by the devs, but I think that was the reason given.

Amon

But there are animations for barehanded fighting--just remove your weapons to see.  I guess she'd still be really weak, though.

[Kileyan]

My favorite unarmed fighter was from a fantasy novel that had zero to do with real life eastern culture inspiration. That said I really never did play D&D monks or the NWN's versions, just didn't appeal to me.



What bugs me most about these topics is that Bioware created an entirely new world, not part of D&D, not in our real world. Yet people want to insist that for the sake of realism is must basically be 12th century Europe.



I have no problem with them introducing katanas, exotic weapons, monks, whatever.



I want Bioware to create an exotic new place, not just reinvent the same darn settings over and over. I've seen this European setting over and over. I'm already a bit blah about playing in France the dragon ages.

[Valaz]

monks are fun takes me back to nwn2 with khelgaar.

Yep definitely needs a monk class/specialization.

[tmp7704]

Eh. You can actually play unarmed fighter in DA already -- just unequip your weapons. And you can run around without armour too. You'll just take ****ton more damage. You can even shave your character's head bald if you please.

So what exactly is a problem that needs modding to address? That unarmed, unarmoured character isn't performing equally well as a guy with sharp piece of metal and clad in metal? Who would've thought... and why is that a problem, really?

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 mai 2010 - 01:45 .

[CybAnt1]

Well I can see I won't interest you in this one, tmp. That's cool. I'll still use Shapeshifter Plus.



There are other modders.

[Kileyan]

tmp7704 wrote...

Eh. You can actually play unarmed fighter in DA already -- just unequip your weapons. And you can run around without armour too. You'll just take ****ton more damage. You can even shave your character's head bald if you please.

So what exactly is a problem that needs modding to address? That unarmed, unarmoured character isn't performing equally well as a guy with sharp piece of metal and clad in metal? Who would've thought... and why is that a problem, really?

Don't be silly. Are you really arguing realism or just being snarky and trolling?

[CybAnt1]

BTW, Diablo 3 is going to have a Monk char. Don't like action RPGs, but I'll wait to see if Diablo 3 is less ... diabloesque ... than its predecessors.

Check out the trailer.

I'd say the trailer is the point.

http://us.blizzard.c...movies/monk.xml

Is what he's doing realistic? Who gives a crap. And BTW, he does have a staff.

EDIT: here's more of the Diablo 3 monk in action.

http://us.blizzard.c...onkgameplay.xml

Modifié par CybAnt1, 06 mai 2010 - 02:12 .

[tmp7704]

I'm sorry, i simply can't really get into the whole "unarmed combat should be totally equal" concept because these wishes tend to totally ignore one aspect which is as far as i can tell not implemented in pretty much all these game systems... and that's range advantage of the person armed with melee weapon.

Simply put, trying to fight unarmed against a person who is wielding the sword or similar weapon is like a boxing match where one opponent has ~1m longer arms. See how well these usually go. And now add to that the guy's "arms" are made of metal which can cut your own limbs off, or puncture holes in you. All from range where you can't actually strike them back.

The games never take that into account -- if a fight happens, the guy with sword will just stand there all dumb allowing the unarmed guy to close into range where they can actually strike, and only then they start to trade blows, at point blank. It's just too idiotic for me. Imagine if the archers in game only ever shoot you with their arrows once you actually got within punch range of them? Yup, it's that stupid.

It just isn't something that even magic can make look ok.

[CybAnt1]

Sure, and in the real world, you can't push people back by spraying people with blood, either.



(And there is that whole thing of carrying 100 suits of plate mail in your backpack, too.)



That seems senselessly stupid to me also, but DA says you can through ... what else? ... "blood magic".



I understand your objection. I get it.



Don't do it. Someone else will.

[Revya]

Havokk7 wrote...

Given how common metal armour seems to be, I suspect there is no lore basis for an unarmed combatant. Someone with fists and clothing is going to get creamed by someone in metal armour using a sword.

D&D got around this by postulating that magical "chi" powers gave the monk class more armour than normal clothing.

In our world, there was little-to-no unarmed fighting tradition in the Eurpoean Middle Ages (the age of swords bows and armour). Most of our planet's unarmed tradition comes from the East where there were considerations like scarcity of metal, social and legal restrictions against using armour and weapons, and religious teachings that placed a high importance on physical health and fitness. I don't see any of those factors in the fictional world that Bioware have created.

B

P.S. I know I am over-generalising here.

P.P.S. Would an Arcane Warrior who uses spells like Rock Armour come close to the archetype you want?

Actually you are very wrong, there was a very indepth unarmed fighting tradition to go along with sword play, etc. The problem was that after gunpowder everything relating to these treditions where discarded and there is also very little documentation relating to it.

[Valaz]

tmp7704 wrote...

Eh. You can actually play unarmed fighter in DA already -- just unequip your weapons. And you can run around without armour too. You'll just take ****ton more damage. You can even shave your character's head bald if you please.

So what exactly is a problem that needs modding to address? That unarmed, unarmoured character isn't performing equally well as a guy with sharp piece of metal and clad in metal? Who would've thought... and why is that a problem, really?

Do your research into monks, possibly your being sarcastic but still monks need there own skill set to be viable.

[Revya]

[quote]CybAnt1 wrote...

[quote]
But we already have a class
specialization (spirit warrior) that can charge weapons with spirit
energy that bypasses armor. And it's not a mage, so there goes the
"only mages do magic" claim. 

[/quote]

You do not know how
much that class pissed me off...[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

[tmp7704]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Sure, and in the real world, you can't push people back by spraying people with blood, either.

(And there is that whole thing of carrying 100 suits of plate mail in your backpack, too.)

That seems senselessly stupid to me also, but DA says you can through ... what else? ... "blood magic".

Well, the blood magic is supposed to be part of this setting as defined by its authors. Just like the existence of elves, dragons, werewolves and lot of other things which don't exist in our realm. This is imo quite a different thing from universe-wide, unexplained and never addressed stupidity affecting every guy with a sword, The inventory thing is a better example given it is indeed case of stupid game mechanics ... but stupid things already being there are hardly good justification for making the overall experience even more stupid, aren't they?

In any case yes, i'm fairly sure sooner or later someone will make a mod like that so it's just matter of time.

[CybAnt1]

I get your point, tmp. BTW, I agree, in a realistic combat simulator, the guy with the sword should be hitting the guy with the dagger more often and quicker, not the other way around. But you may have noticed DA, like many other games, doesn't work that way. The dagger has the lower attack speed and hits first. You'll notice your "universal stupidity" doesn't just affect unarmed combat.



I find it weird we're having this argument in a game where missile weapons turn corners to hit people (man I've loved that in other games, I once watched an axe that was thrown at me turn three corners before hitting me), when you go to attack somebody running away you often stand in place and miss because they're moving, and when BTW one of the new abilities in Awakening makes EVERYONE ELSE AROUND YOU MOVE SLOWER (Arrow Time). How does THAT work, exactly?



Whateva. Shrug.

[tmp7704]

I think it just shows we all have our lines where the immersion breaks drawn a little different, nothing more than that

On a more constructive note, this thread/request may be better off in the 'Toolset project announcement/recruiting' forum section... or at least, it's more likely to catch an eye of someone who might be interested in making it? Not sure, really.

[maxernst]

Kileyan wrote...

My favorite unarmed fighter was from a fantasy novel that had zero to do with real life eastern culture inspiration. That said I really never did play D&D monks or the NWN's versions, just didn't appeal to me.

What bugs me most about these topics is that Bioware created an entirely new world, not part of D&D, not in our real world. Yet people want to insist that for the sake of realism is must basically be 12th century Europe.

I have no problem with them introducing katanas, exotic weapons, monks, whatever.

I want Bioware to create an exotic new place, not just reinvent the same darn settings over and over. I've seen this European setting over and over. I'm already a bit blah about playing in France the dragon ages.

Well, I'm not--in large part because I can't recall seeing any fantasy CRPG that was set in an identifiable historical time and place.  They're almost all set in the legendary middle ages that never existed.  For one thing, they almost never have an analog for the most powerful organization in Europe at the time--the church.

I love the chantry.  In a single swoop, they both gave us an analog for the glue that held medieval society together and a mechanism for preventing all power from being held by mages--which seems like the most likely outcome of a high-magic setting.  I also love the pervasive racism in the game.  Not that I love racism itself, of course, but these settings where a half-dozen different species of intelligent life mix rather amiably never strike me as convincing.  People have a hard time getting a long with people who look different and act different than they do.  I don't think human nature should change because magic happens to exist.  I found Dragon Age one of the more convincing settings I've played in, in large part because it is based on real societies and its characters seem more like real people. 

I have no problem with genuinely exotic settings that are built that way. I actually prefer the settings of Morrowind and Arcanum (though not the games).  Morrowind especially because it also echoes historical structures but in subtler ways.  But there was a very clear game design deciision made to base DA:O on actual medieval Europe (other than the blight, obviously!), and I don't want to see them move away from what appears to me to be a core principle.

Introducing a whole bunch of exotic weapons and martial artists would make the game MORE like other fantasy games we've already played, not less.  I don't want to play in the Forgotten Realms again.  Not to mention the fact that I think there are way more interesting ways the time and money can be spent.

[Reznik23]

Fusho wrote...

Monks

I allways prefer monks in any given RPG game. If there isnt such a class, i usually settle with whatever comes the closest to it. In Dragon Age, Arcane Warrior is probably the closest thing to it.

In my recent Dragon Age game i made an Arcane Warrior elf , dual wielding whilst wearing robes. Mixed with supportive/Passive Spells and with high deffense score and insane passive damage output. It is a bit stale however, but it works just fine.

And that made me start thinking. Could that be made via the toolset?
Sadly, im not keen on the Dragon Age Toolset and i was wondering if the following could be done?

The concept:

class:                 Monk

Base class:      Mage

Specialization: Arcane Warrior

Weapons:          Staffs. (Implement melee staffs with the animation from the other two-handed weapons)

Stats:                  Magic (Attack Score), Dex (Deffense Score) & Mana Regeneration. (As the Arcane Warrior)

Abilities:             Stuns, Haste, Minor Heal or Buffing Abilities, Picklocks, Stealth, Melee Damaging Abilities

Party Role:         Stunner, Damage Dealer, Debuffer.


Lore: As far as I can recall there were a story about the first assassins was monks under the chantry. So background story to the class could be made and work in my openion.

Bare in mind this is just a start-out idea. Perhaps the people here itching to play a monk class. could narrow down something as an implemented class?

Allso - unless theres a really skilled toolset wizard out there - i doubt it would be easy to any sort of unarmed combat work, therefor i went the staff wielding route, in hopes it would be easier to make.

A monk-type, carrying nothing but a staff & some shall we say "esoteric higher skills"??
I like it - I like it a lot!!

[Reznik23]

Reznik23 wrote...

Fusho wrote...

Monks

I allways prefer monks in any given RPG game. If there isnt such a class, i usually settle with whatever comes the closest to it. In Dragon Age, Arcane Warrior is probably the closest thing to it.

In my recent Dragon Age game i made an Arcane Warrior elf , dual wielding whilst wearing robes. Mixed with supportive/Passive Spells and with high deffense score and insane passive damage output. It is a bit stale however, but it works just fine.

And that made me start thinking. Could that be made via the toolset?
Sadly, im not keen on the Dragon Age Toolset and i was wondering if the following could be done?

The concept:

class:                 Monk

Base class:      Mage

Specialization: Arcane Warrior

Weapons:          Staffs. (Implement melee staffs with the animation from the other two-handed weapons)

Stats:                  Magic (Attack Score), Dex (Deffense Score) & Mana Regeneration. (As the Arcane Warrior)

Abilities:             Stuns, Haste, Minor Heal or Buffing Abilities, Picklocks, Stealth, Melee Damaging Abilities

Party Role:         Stunner, Damage Dealer, Debuffer.


Lore: As far as I can recall there were a story about the first assassins was monks under the chantry. So background story to the class could be made and work in my openion.

Bare in mind this is just a start-out idea. Perhaps the people here itching to play a monk class. could narrow down something as an implemented class?

Allso - unless theres a really skilled toolset wizard out there - i doubt it would be easy to any sort of unarmed combat work, therefor i went the staff wielding route, in hopes it would be easier to make.

A monk-type, carrying nothing but a staff & some shall we say "esoteric higher skills"??
I like it - I like it a lot!!

Oops, sorry I should clarify wher I say staff here, I don't mean a mage's magic staff, but rather a long kung-fu (or rather Friar Tuck)  style pole for armed combat.

[CybAnt1]

You can make classes with the Toolset. It's been done.



Somebody's already made a 4th Cleric class. You can play it. I tried it. It breaks lore, the class has spells like "Hand of the Maker". Guess the Maker changed his mind about directly intervening in the world after all. It also is a bit buggy when it comes to spells & dialogue.



It does show it's doable though, and this is one thing the game creators left open for modders to do. I imagine it takes a bit of work. Quite a few 2DA's etc. to edit.

[Nannasin]

First I believe there should be a monk specialization.  There are many ways to attempt to implement it considering bioware also created jade empire.  Can be rogue based, fighter based or even mage based so people looking for realism can just think on that.

In terms of lore, here is where it really needs to be implemented.  The lore states that the silent sisters was formed from a female dwarf who won an arena tournament unarmed.  the book and the game exhibit silent sisters though in different circumstances.

I would love a monk based specialization. It could be easily based on debilatitating effects allowing for more damage after special moves are done ie stunning fist like moves.

[purplesunset]

I'll just address one tiny point that the poster called "Cybant" has brought up:

When people say "I can't do X because it goes against lore/setting!"

what they really mean is, "I can't be bothered to do X, and here's a convenient but inadequate excuse."

The "goes against lore" excuse is problematic because the boundaries of lore are often more flexible than that statement implies. If those boundaries  were not flexible then the writers would risk backing themselves up into a corner when it comes to future installments (in this case, DLC, expansions, sequels).

[Kileyan]

purplesunset wrote...

I'll just address one tiny point that the poster called "Cybant" has brought up:

When people say "I can't do X because it goes against lore/setting!"

I don't like that answere because Bioware took great pains to create a brand new fantasy world. They were out from under the restraints of AD&D, they could do whatever they wanted. A totally fresh world no related to Forgotten Realms, Neverwinter, the coast or or real world

If we are now going to be told that this or that can't be done because the setting is so limited that it must represent medeviial France, well that sucks and is a backwards step.

Anything can happen, any class or weapon can appear, there is no France, Japan or Mongols. There is zero reason to limit things. I don't want France: The Dragon Ages. I want a brand new world where anything is possible. Wasn't that the whole point of creating a brand new franchise?

Modifié par Kileyan, 08 mai 2010 - 05:42 .