again can someone point out how this monk has a fun game play style compared too lets say the barbarian....what makes this monk more fun too play then the barbarian, is it the fact that he uses hands instead of axes.
I never said he was more fun than any character, except, in my own personal case, I did say that I think I would rather play the Wizard over him because of my personal taste that has culminated over the decade.
from what i saw he runs around hitting things, what so different about that compared too the barbarian.
The obvious difference is speed, which has also been noted by developers. He has skills that let him zip all over the screen in combat, skills that let him fire fists a thousand a second... It's self-explanatory, really. If that's the way you like to play, it would obviously be fun. If it isn't, then you probably want a different character.
if they made a monk who did flips in battle, leaped off walls, used the bad guys as projectiles (throwing them) broke bones,
I'm following you so far- barely, but I am.
ripped out hears (like monks do)
WAAAIIIT! WTF? What's a hear? Monks rip them out, do they?
walk on water (tip toe) etc but he doesn't he does what all other classes do walk around attacking things....show me the amazing unique game play.
You must be confusing my post with someone else's, but I guess if I were to say the game play was unique in some way (although I never lauded it as you so presumtuously shoved in to my carefully-typing fingers), it would, once again, be the battle-dependent speed of attack and immersion.
The Wizard obviously is better at a range. The Barbarian goes right up the monsters' asses, but his attacks are cumbersome and slow (but not ineffective). The Witch Doctor seems to favor just mass chaos- bits of summons here and there, throw in an explosive Molotov... You name it. The Monk is unique from them in that he is speedy and up-front in combat, with skills that mirror this gameplay.
And Bannik, for the love of all things small and furry, please stop double-posting. It's very clearly against the rules and I'm sick of acting as your personal editor when you fail to do so of your own volition and merge them all. I will start giving infractions for it if I have to, and we can go from there. I normally don't for something like that, but you just keep doing it /not for discussion
I don't really mind him. I am not going to play him in all likelihood since there is a very narrow category of classes I like playing in any game and he does not fit in it. He's just as generic as every other character in the game so far, even when the issue of the name is removed, compared to other classes and characters in other games. What I do think, however, based on what many people have already said and what I saw (if I were in to this kind of character), is that he obviously looks very fun to play, and that's all that matters, here. This isn't supposed to be some high-end literature where the characters must be very distinct, unique, and developed. It's a game and it just needs to be fun. If you don't think you'll enjoy a character, don't play it. That's why they offer a wide range of characters- to accommodate varying tastes. Of course not everyone is going to enjoy or play all of the characters that much (if at all)- that's why they give a good many options.
He called him a demon of deceit or something. He was a changeling. I wonder if this is that demon everyone was talking about a little while ago- what was it? There were two... agh...
You know when a child is growing up how things that they first hear are the most dominant in their thoughts? Like, for instance, if a child has heavily racist parents, that will leave a permanent psychological impression on him/her? Well, at least for me, the first time I ever heard the word "monk" was in a Catholic monastic light of view- the bald guy in a robe that fasts for a month in a dark abbey translating Bibles.
Now, of course, I know there's other kinds of monks. However, that will leave a permanent subconscious footprint on me so that, even though I know there's another truth, my opinion has been saturated, already. Does that make any sense? Because I don't think it does. Oh well :rolleyes:
I dont think your getting it. they ARE boring. Their monks.
In your nonfactual opinion, which, while not wrong, cannot be forced on other people.
how can u say i dont think martial arts? and assasins? your not reading correctly.
assassins actually know fighting martial arts.
Most monks don't, they Strive for quiescence of body, mind and intention, using Taijiquan
Shaolinquan leap monks are only trained in strength and force to help boost stamina to keep healthy.
get your facts straight then contiue to talk. Im glad blizzard wont be implementing the monk class in Diablo3
Hail Paladin the proper and logical holy warrior.
You have yet to address:
I don't think you're getting it, this is a fantasy game. Like Magistrate said monks have been used in many fantasy games. Even DnD.
Well, I guess there really isn't any other name for it. I don't know why it bugs me, really. It's kind of one of those unexplainable things.
It would be good, though, if you could be successful with the character if you focused on a single aspect. Like, it should be diverse enough to function as a casting-only, melee-only, or combination character. Why? Well, I just like casters, and that's my opinion
Who wouldn't want to see holy magic flinging all about, casting down the minions of evil at every turn?
Psh, no one
Monks - don't - fight (Monks are peaceful and against violence- sorry to you bullet proof monk fans out there) and any game that has a monk class ( guildwars) usually is boring. and Diablo3 isn't going to be boring.
This isn't real life. Monks have been used in DnD and RPG games for countless years- they are different than their real-world counterparts and will stay such. So, let me reiterate that- these are not based on RL monks.
And if they're boring to you, well, that's your opinion. Don't degrade other people's ideas unless you actually have a factual basis to back it up.
It's a great idea that I think would compliment to the games strategy and fast paced tone and also lore. Give it to us blizz!
Well, I'd probably never play it. I just don't like that name. The idea is good, though- I want to say this was brought up in some form other places, but so many character suggestions are made everyday on these forums I could be mistaken
I never said he was more fun than any character, except, in my own personal case, I did say that I think I would rather play the Wizard over him because of my personal taste that has culminated over the decade.
The obvious difference is speed, which has also been noted by developers. He has skills that let him zip all over the screen in combat, skills that let him fire fists a thousand a second... It's self-explanatory, really. If that's the way you like to play, it would obviously be fun. If it isn't, then you probably want a different character.
I'm following you so far- barely, but I am.
WAAAIIIT! WTF? What's a hear? Monks rip them out, do they?
You must be confusing my post with someone else's, but I guess if I were to say the game play was unique in some way (although I never lauded it as you so presumtuously shoved in to my carefully-typing fingers), it would, once again, be the battle-dependent speed of attack and immersion.
The Wizard obviously is better at a range. The Barbarian goes right up the monsters' asses, but his attacks are cumbersome and slow (but not ineffective). The Witch Doctor seems to favor just mass chaos- bits of summons here and there, throw in an explosive Molotov... You name it. The Monk is unique from them in that he is speedy and up-front in combat, with skills that mirror this gameplay.
And Bannik, for the love of all things small and furry, please stop double-posting. It's very clearly against the rules and I'm sick of acting as your personal editor when you fail to do so of your own volition and merge them all. I will start giving infractions for it if I have to, and we can go from there. I normally don't for something like that, but you just keep doing it /not for discussion
You know when a child is growing up how things that they first hear are the most dominant in their thoughts? Like, for instance, if a child has heavily racist parents, that will leave a permanent psychological impression on him/her? Well, at least for me, the first time I ever heard the word "monk" was in a Catholic monastic light of view- the bald guy in a robe that fasts for a month in a dark abbey translating Bibles.
Now, of course, I know there's other kinds of monks. However, that will leave a permanent subconscious footprint on me so that, even though I know there's another truth, my opinion has been saturated, already. Does that make any sense? Because I don't think it does. Oh well :rolleyes:
In your nonfactual opinion, which, while not wrong, cannot be forced on other people.
You have yet to address:
It would be good, though, if you could be successful with the character if you focused on a single aspect. Like, it should be diverse enough to function as a casting-only, melee-only, or combination character. Why? Well, I just like casters, and that's my opinion
Who wouldn't want to see holy magic flinging all about, casting down the minions of evil at every turn?
Psh, no one
This isn't real life. Monks have been used in DnD and RPG games for countless years- they are different than their real-world counterparts and will stay such. So, let me reiterate that- these are not based on RL monks.
And if they're boring to you, well, that's your opinion. Don't degrade other people's ideas unless you actually have a factual basis to back it up.
Well, I'd probably never play it. I just don't like that name. The idea is good, though- I want to say this was brought up in some form other places, but so many character suggestions are made everyday on these forums I could be mistaken