Dude... if you think you beat things into "submission" with axes, you've never seen an axe.
Trust me, while you'd be looking for that pressure point with a staff, somebody else will just bash you with an axe and be done with it.
Also, the barbarian in the diablo universe is no mindless brute.
He's a weapon master, one of the best meelee fighters in the diablo universe.
Bah... why do I even explain that to you? Stay with the staff idea... whatever makes you happy.
Jeez! Stop taking the words so darn litterally! Fine here, CHOP THEM TO BITS WITH THE AXES, my Monk will take him down in a few short milliseconds with the pressure points, idk how they work or anything. I mean frick! You take it all so litterally. And yes, the staff idea makes me far happier, because the staff is the most versatile weapon ever, imo. Plus with all the add-ons and such, it can basically become anything with all the variations.
And btw, the Barbarian is my favorite class in D2, I'm not dissing him, but just watching my barbarian hack 'n' slash his way through a menagerie of beasts is far more repetive than a monk flipping and spinning around, taking them down with a punch to the face, or jabbing his fingers through his skull. I'm not saying the Barbarian is bad, but he's not a weapon master either. So, he can swing a halberd just like he can swing a two-handed axe, woopty doo... I like to see it take a modicum of skill rather than just relentless slashing. He is a mindless brute, that's all he is! That doesn't mean he isn't THE most beastly mindless brute EVER, but all he does is run through hacking and slashing his way through all the different monsters. You can't say he isn't a mindless brute. He has the whole, history and whatnot, but they're all just slash slah slash stab hack stab stab hack slash slash hack hack hack hack stabbity stab mcstaberstein they don't really take time to think about what they're doing. They just attack.... In a fight, my money would be on the Monk, the Barb would be on the ground writhing in pain before he could get close enough to hit him. And if he's a Throwing Barb, the Monk would just catch all the axes and daggers and through them back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
I'm not saying the Barbarian is bad, but he's not a weapon master either. So, he can swing a halberd just like he can swing a two-handed axe, woopty doo... I like to see it take a modicum of skill rather than just relentless slashing. He is a mindless brute, that's all he is! That doesn't mean he isn't THE most beastly mindless brute EVER, but all he does is run through hacking and slashing his way through all the different monsters. You can't say he isn't a mindless brute. He has the whole, history and whatnot, but they're all just slash slah slash stab hack stab stab hack slash slash hack hack hack hack stabbity stab mcstaberstein they don't really take time to think about what they're doing. They just attack.... In a fight, my money would be on the Monk, the Barb would be on the ground writhing in pain before he could get close enough to hit him. And if he's a Throwing Barb, the Monk would just catch all the axes and daggers and through them back.
What? Dude... he has Weapon Masteries.
Or do you say he just begins to hit more mindlessly. Give me a break...
And your analogy on a fight between two fictional characters when you obviously have no idea how both of them work is just... well... due to a lack of a better word... "lacking in common sense".
You assume that all the barbarian does is attacking with no skill and that's it. That's an assumption wrong at its core.
And the whole "monk would just catch all the axes and daggers" thing... I don't even know where to start.
I've been training in martial arts for 15 years now, AND I've seen many shaolin demonstrations, both live and on TV, and never ever ever EVER have I seen "catch the axe" technique.
When somebody throws an axe at you, you dodge. You don't try to catch it with your bare hands (or as you would probably envision it... with your teeth, just for the badassery of it).
And another thing - you know who the bo (staff as you call it) is good against? Unarmored opponents. You know... those who... have no armor (not death knights for example).
You know why there was never an army full of people with staves? Cause people wear armor to battle. (Again the death knights example)
Also, and that's a very very big disatvantage of the staff, it BREAKS after a hard strike to a hard surface (for example, head of an opponent). There was this dude called Newton who came up with this idea that any force you apply returns at the same amount of force in the opposite direction. Bad bad news for the staff.
Sure, it'll take the opponent out as well, but when you fight a swarm of demons taking out one and staying with a broken half weapon is not an optimal situation.
There are so many other holes in your theories I'd keep on trying to correct them, but I'll just leave this whole axe catching staff wielding barbarian slaying with no effort monk to you.
If you ever in real life try to fight with a staff against a sword (yeah, I have done that, stupid weapon training in martial arts... who fights with swords these days?) I'd like to hear your opinions on how the staff is the most versatile weapon, as you say.
P.S.
Oh... also... a staff is completely useless in close quarter combat. Almost forgot about that part. If you have a staff and someone closes in on you and grabs you - you might as well throw that thing away and begin a wrestling match.
Almost forgot about this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
hmmm when i saw this thread i was thinking of hellfire. for those of u who dont kno hellfire was another creation of blizard where they toook diablo 1 and added new stuff+1 new character called the monk. but ya i got that deadliest warrior episode on my xbox 360. monk wooped him. if there were too be a holy class monk would rock
fa real? i still got it on my old labtop and where it had the cinematics it said blizzard. hmmm well i nevr did any research on it or junk but but it was same thing as it looked 2 me. just sayin monk isint a bad idea
I wonder why spinning around in perfect circles dual wielding two handed swords and move at the same time to become a whirlwind of death and carnage is not tecnical, it's just brutality.
For me barbarians are just like Gats (from Berserk). A unhuman dedication to fight, incradible powerfull strength, perfect weapon skill and godly physical resistance - all this buffed by rage and anger. It's like the perfect warrior in every single aspect (thats why his the only one that can handle all the demon legions without any kind of magical skill).
Contains my semi completed Monk Skill Tree for the Blizzcon comp. It might help some of you come around to the idea of how cool a monk could be in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Pray for the mercy of a quick deatH-
[THREAD LINK="http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=441700&postcount=19"]MONKS OF SANCTUARY[/THREAD LINK] - (Won Comp & was a correct guess for the 4th Class announced at Blizzcon09! :cool:)
[THREAD LINK="http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21601&highlight=nomad"]NOMAD (5th Class Spec)[/THREAD LINK]
[THREAD LINK="http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21601"]DHAMPIR (5th Class Spec)[/THREAD LINK]
And I just totally typed an entire article proving me to be completely right and you completely wrong... but... my dog ate it.
And it's gone.
And I'm soooo not typing it again.
But as you can obviously see by my eaten article, I am totally right.
And you're not.
And we all know that Blizzard has based everything they've ever done 100% based on irrefutable fact. Forgot about that, sorry. Of COUSRSE the monk has to be based on fact, just like the Sorceress and the Druid and the Necromancer. Tch, my bad man.
I can prove to you that the staff is a better weapon. It has far more uses than just beating up someone with it. You can use it to hold them at a distance, throw it between their legs to trip them while you're running, sweep their feet to trip them, you can deflect blows, you can do MANY other things as well. Use your imagination. The axe is much shorter and stout, so doesn't have the reach a staff does. It's also much heavier, because of the metal end. It has a couple things the staff can't do. Hacking, slashing, hooking, and throwing. The hooking is using the groove on the bottom part of the axe head to get someone's leg or arm and trip them or disarm them with it. Other than that, the axe isn't that good of a weapon, IMO, because a weapon needs more than to be just a weapon. It needs other uses. The halberd is a far more effect weapon because it has a much longer reach, and it combines some of the strengths and weaknesses of both. The staff is a far flimsier weapon than the axe, because it isn't as thick as the axe handle is. Whereas the axes range of blocking an attack is far shorter than that of the staff, because it IS shorter. I could write a book on why the staff is better than almost every other weapon in history (excluding the more recent weapons, guns, grenades, etc etc).
And who said it just has to be the Bo Staff? It's not like you wouldn't get better stafflike weapons throughout the game. My favorite Monkish weapon is (the name escapes me for the time being, but if I come across it I shall edit it in) a staff with a Half-Moon blade on the end. It just looks awesome. There are many other stafflike weapons in the Monk's arsenal. I'm too lazy to list them all, because that would be a very long list. Google is good if you want to find out.
The Barbarian is not a Weapon Master compared to the Shaolin Monk. Monks spend their whole lives training their Martial Arts, their weapon skills, and their balance with nature/oneself (the first two basically are a way to hone the latter). It's silly to think this big hulking man, who by the way if we're going to be literal is DEFINED as a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person or a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine, actually trained his entire life with his weapons. If so he'd be far better off at the start of D2 than using those crappy little handaxes to kill a zombie in 3 hits. The Monks are far more trained in their weapons than a Barbarian. It just doesn't make logical sense to say someone DESCRIBED AS UNCIVILIZED is a better weapon master than A FREAKING SHAOLIN MONK, who are renowend worldwide for their fighting finesse, who train their whole goddamn lives just to compete with the other Monks who have been training THEIR whole goddamn LIVES.
So, go back to your little three pronged arguement against why a Monk isn't as good a fighter as a Barbarian, "I've never seen a monk do THAT!" "Barbarians were Weapon Masters because he had a skill called weapon specialization!" and "Well Diablo is completely based on fact, even though they raise dead, kill demons, have angels help them, and shoot fire/lightning/ice from their fingertips."
There, I retyped the whole thing in Notepad you little prick. It was a pain in the ass to type again, and I was far too lazy to do it at the time. I never said it proved me completely right, I just said I wasn't gonna waste time typing it all again. It was really long, and the keyboard I was typing with had a spacebar that stuck, but there it is. All nice and typed up just for you, because you wanted to be a douchebag and pissed me off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
I may be a little prick, but your mother likes me. If you know what I mean.
And she also prefers other items, rather than the staff.
My mom is a slut. She's divorcing my dad for no reason. She was cheating on him. So yeah, I'll join you in making fun of her, it doesn't hurt me at all.
And I know what you mean Silver Soldier, but it's easier to break than an axe or a sword. Comparatively it's easy to break is what I really mean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
My mom is a slut. She's divorcing my dad for no reason. She was cheating on him. So yeah, I'll join you in making fun of her, it doesn't hurt me at all.
And I know what you mean Silver Soldier, but it's easier to break than an axe or a sword. Comparatively it's easy to break is what I really mean.
Fair enough.
I'd like to continue a civil discussion here, so... here goes.
I wish to add another example of an advantage of an axe over a staff.
You can use a SHIELD with it!
Also, just to add some more info to the discussion - monks main weapons were NOT staves.
They trained in swords, knives, spears, spiked chains, half swords (big wide knives)... and... also, yes, staves.
But still, monks were not the only people who have dedicated themselves to fighting.
The vikings, for example, had an entire warrior culture where they trained for the great war in the afterlife and their warriors were completely devoted to one thing - fighting. And they didn't just do it seamlessly, they were good at it.
That's the only reason they were able to sack and terrorize most of europe (their seamanship aside, they fought on land, boats just made them reach their destinations faster).
Also were the romans, and the greeks, who were professional soldiers and warriors. And they were not monks.
In fact there is a theory that says martial arts all began in greece (pankration) and traveled to the east only when Alexander the great invaded india, where it developed to the direction we see today.
You see, monks may be the flashiest and most famous martial artists in our current culture, but they are not definitly the best there ever was (I'd even say they are far from it since a true warrior must test himself in real battles, while they lack the opportunities as long as they stay put in their temples), and certainly not the only ones.
Now - what has this to do with our discussion you ask?
Because if you read the lore of the barbarian (also, just so you know - the word barbarian does not mean one uncivilized. It's origin was anyone who did not have greek as a native language) they are a very developed nation with high military culture.
They are not bands of thugs and robbers terrorizing the country side. They are a civilization who practices martial skills in order to defend the most holy of Sanctuaries artifacts.
Well... they sort of failed at that but never mind that.
Just because the barbarian is big, huge even, does not mean he has no skill.
My own martial art trainer is over 100 kgs of pure muscle, and trust me, his skills are not effected by that for a second.
If you say that if a monk will meet a huge person who only has muscles and a couple of axes in a fight, yes, the monk with the staff wil probably be victorious.
But if you put a monk against a battle hardened weapon master like the barbarian in the diablo universe (and that is exactly what he is), clad in full plate armor and wielding weapons that weigh more than the monk himself - I'd put my money on the barbarian any time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
I'd like to continue a civil discussion here, so... here goes.
I wish to add another example of an advantage of an axe over a staff.
You can use a SHIELD with it!
Also, just to add some more info to the discussion - monks main weapons were NOT staves.
They trained in swords, knives, spears, spiked chains, half swords (big wide knives)... and... also, yes, staves.
But still, monks were not the only people who have dedicated themselves to fighting.
The vikings, for example, had an entire warrior culture where they trained for the great war in the afterlife and their warriors were completely devoted to one thing - fighting. And they didn't just do it seamlessly, they were good at it.
That's the only reason they were able to sack and terrorize most of europe (their seamanship aside, they fought on land, boats just made them reach their destinations faster).
Also were the romans, and the greeks, who were professional soldiers and warriors. And they were not monks.
In fact there is a theory that says martial arts all began in greece (pankration) and traveled to the east only when Alexander the great invaded india, where it developed to the direction we see today.
You see, monks may be the flashiest and most famous martial artists in our current culture, but they are not definitly the best there ever was (I'd even say they are far from it since a true warrior must test himself in real battles, while they lack the opportunities as long as they stay put in their temples), and certainly not the only ones.
Now - what has this to do with our discussion you ask?
Because if you read the lore of the barbarian (also, just so you know - the word barbarian does not mean one uncivilized. It's origin was anyone who did not have greek as a native language) they are a very developed nation with high military culture.
They are not bands of thugs and robbers terrorizing the country side. They are a civilization who practices martial skills in order to defend the most holy of Sanctuaries artifacts.
Well... they sort of failed at that but never mind that.
Just because the barbarian is big, huge even, does not mean he has no skill.
My own martial art trainer is over 100 kgs of pure muscle, and trust me, his skills are not effected by that for a second.
If you say that if a monk will meet a huge person who only has muscles and a couple of axes in a fight, yes, the monk with the staff wil probably be victorious.
But if you put a monk against a battle hardened weapon master like the barbarian in the diablo universe (and that is exactly what he is), clad in full plate armor and wielding weapons that weigh more than the monk himself - I'd put my money on the barbarian any time.
That was also a definition of the Barbarian, but it isn't the only one. And the Monks had plenty of chances to defend themselves, as they would travel around temple to temple with supplies, or even just heading to town, and bandits would try and take all their stuff. They had their butts handed to them. On a silver platter. With potatoes and carrots. It was slow roasted.
I am mostly norwegian (like 4/5 or 2/3 or something like that) and I know my Viking ancestry, and I consider them fierce warriors. One of the defintions for warrior is as you said, a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier. That being said, another defintion is a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics, by this definition, Monks were most certainly great warriors. And maybe in Diablo lore the Barbarians were weapon masters, but seeing as you like to take everything literally from real life, barbarians were in fact, uncivilized, more often than not.
The problems that have with you saying that the Barbarian is a better fighter, is the fact that you claim they are Weapon Masters. A weapon master to me means someone, who from BIRTH, has practiced with a single weapon. I consider no one to be a true weapon master, as the Barbarian focuses in a far more broad range of weaponry, he isn't a Master with a singular weapon. By this the Monk is also not a Weapon Master.
And no, Martial Arts were NOT, in fact, created in Greece or Ancient Rome, as for some reason you deem to be correct. It was created in Mesopotamia, and then traveled to China, where it blossomed. The actual definition for a Martial Arts is any form of organized fighting. Yes, it was practiced in Greece and Rome and just about EVERY other civilization out there.
Why you think that because I bring up him being large means I think he has no skill? I think he has no skill, and he happens to BE large. The best Martial Artist I've personally ever met was a large man. I don't know what he'd weight in kg, but he weighed at least 300 pounds.
I undestand Monks trained in MANY other types of weaponry (I said this) other than the staff. I just think the most badass weapons of the Shaolin Monks was the staff/polearm weaponry, and the 9-section chain whip. I used the staves because they seem to be the most unique, while being the most easily expanded throughout the game. I mean, what can you do with the chain whip? More chain whips? They get boring.
Now, back to the vikings. I know all about them. I think that the only reason they were really able to ransack europe the way they did was BECAUSE of their seamansihp (which was probably some of the greatest at the time), otherwise they just would've died because of exhaustion from marching or disease or various other things. That's all I have to say on the viking thing, but it leads me to my next point...
The Barbarians are pretty much Vikings, without the boats. Vikings were violent, crazed berserkers. The Barbarians are violent, crazed berserkers. And remember, we're not using any kind of fantasy game lore, we're using real life history. It all has to be 100% true. Don't forget that.
Now saying that the Monk isn't a true warrior, or far from it, is just flat out wrong. A true warrior does NOT have to prove himself in battle. I feel like I've typed something like this before, but I've had customers up here so I can't remember. If so it's up there.
I believe the Monks to be the best 1 on 1 fighters in history. I mean there aren't armies of monks, so it's not like they could take on an army of roman soldiers, but if it was one versus one, I think the monk would win. This is IMO. So, it's debatable.
But I can't type more right now, I'll be back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
I believe the Monks to be the best 1 on 1 fighters in history. I mean there aren't armies of monks, so it's not like they could take on an army of roman soldiers, but if it was one versus one, I think the monk would win. This is IMO. So, it's debatable.
Well - I honestly believed that the best warriors in history were spartans. Nooo... not the 300 spartans everyone seen in the movies. But the true spartans, who were trained from the age of six in conditions that even the shaolin monks would have a hard time adapting to (there are not many child fatalities amongst the shaolin, and there were numerous amongst the spartans).
A spartan warrior was a feared combatant all over the ancient world. There was a reason sparta had no walls
And look, I know people who have defeated shaolin monks in real life in 1 on 1 combat (believe it or not, but I do) and... well... maybe that's why I'm not that impressed.
Sure, they have flashy skills and they jump high, but you take one of them to the ground and they are dead. Bah, never mind
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
Sure, they have flashy skills and they jump high, but you take one of them to the ground and they are dead. Bah, never mind
It's funny how you just stop saying stuff and say nevermind when you run out of points to say. And how were the 300 not true spartans? That ACTUALLY happened. Not the way the movie does it, but they were beast. And your friend/acquaintance/tv character/cartoon guy(s), probably did defeat a monk. But not the ones who spend their whole lives, who are BORN into the monastery, then train until they're old wise cripples who can leap over tall buildings. Lol.
The Spartans were awesome, yes, no one is denying that fact, for fear they developed time travel secretly, :O, but the most beast warriors? Are you kidding me? They would've had their butts handed to them by many of history's warriors. That is, if they were fighting on even ground, no armor, no weapons etc etc. With armor and a sword, the Spartan would beat pretty much everyone.
If you can take one to the ground they're dead. Okay fair enough. Good luck getting them there. They have a unique arsenal of weaponry that most of history's warriors had never seen until fighting them. So they would have to learn on the fly how to defend against these weapons, whereas the monks had all of their weapons and then the more basic ones, like swords and spears, so they would have known how to defend against it. They have a distinct advantage because of their weaponry.
Had to go get eyes dilated for an eye test... Can't type anymore... Ack!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
The staff is both an offensive and defensive weapon.
You can not only hit things, but use it to block weapon hits, as well as trip up your opponent.
A barbarian who's all tangled up in a staff ain't going to be much good with most of his weapons.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Good points good points, except we're talking "Diablo" here, not freaking "Enter the Dragon". If i hear "monk", and i think "Diablo", then i think about a monk, as in a christian one or something similar, and they aren't skilled in martial arts as far as i know.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
If a monk, or similar character doesn't make it to D3, it's probably not due to Blizzard having not tried, but it didn't work, whether it be due to a lack of a quality tree or otherwise.
The staff is both an offensive and defensive weapon.
You can not only hit things, but use it to block weapon hits, as well as trip up your opponent.
A barbarian who's all tangled up in a staff ain't going to be much good with most of his weapons.
Tangled up in a staff? Dude... it's not a lasso.
Trust me, when you face a guy with an axe and a shield and all you've got is a staff, you're in trouble.
That way the first strike of the staff is blocked and then you face an opponent in a close range (the axe is a closer range weapon) and a staff is useless at close range.
Really, it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
It's funny how you just stop saying stuff and say nevermind when you run out of points to say. And how were the 300 not true spartans? That ACTUALLY happened. Not the way the movie does it, but they were beast. And your friend/acquaintance/tv character/cartoon guy(s), probably did defeat a monk. But not the ones who spend their whole lives, who are BORN into the monastery, then train until they're old wise cripples who can leap over tall buildings. Lol.
The Spartans were awesome, yes, no one is denying that fact, for fear they developed time travel secretly, :O, but the most beast warriors? Are you kidding me? They would've had their butts handed to them by many of history's warriors. That is, if they were fighting on even ground, no armor, no weapons etc etc. With armor and a sword, the Spartan would beat pretty much everyone.
If you can take one to the ground they're dead. Okay fair enough. Good luck getting them there. They have a unique arsenal of weaponry that most of history's warriors had never seen until fighting them. So they would have to learn on the fly how to defend against these weapons, whereas the monks had all of their weapons and then the more basic ones, like swords and spears, so they would have known how to defend against it. They have a distinct advantage because of their weaponry.
Had to go get eyes dilated for an eye test... Can't type anymore... Ack!
Who said I was out of points to say?
It's funny how you always say you have an excuse for not typing stuff.
And you know what the monks never had that most other history warriors did have? Shields. And armor. Very important stuff!
Having no armor or shield will eliminate every advantage you might have for having a shiny weapon.
And about the spartans hand to hand abilities... you have NO idea what you are talking about.
They boycotted the olympic games because in hand to hand contests there were not allowed to gauge out eyes and bite out throats (really, they did).
They were trained in ALL matter of combat in their home city. In fact, in the battle of Thermopylae (the 300 battle) oficial records (yes, they exist) say that when surrounded by persian troops the spartans fought until their weapons broke. And when their weapons broke they fought UNARMED. And they were so good at it they had to be killed by arrows (which was the worst way for a spartan to die amongst their society since you are not killed by a worthy adversary).
Either that or... persians suck. You a persian?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ All of us live in a cage, few of us see it. (S.F.) ~
Trust me, when you face a guy with an axe and a shield and all you've got is a staff, you're in trouble.
That way the first strike of the staff is blocked and then you face an opponent in a close range (the axe is a closer range weapon) and a staff is useless at close range.
Really, it is.
Trust me, in skilled hands, a bo staff is very much like a lasso. You can tie up somebody's legs with a bo.
It wouldn't keep them down, no entanglements can because their only meant to delay to allow either escape or another move while the opponent is distracted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Jeez! Stop taking the words so darn litterally! Fine here, CHOP THEM TO BITS WITH THE AXES, my Monk will take him down in a few short milliseconds with the pressure points, idk how they work or anything. I mean frick! You take it all so litterally. And yes, the staff idea makes me far happier, because the staff is the most versatile weapon ever, imo. Plus with all the add-ons and such, it can basically become anything with all the variations.
And btw, the Barbarian is my favorite class in D2, I'm not dissing him, but just watching my barbarian hack 'n' slash his way through a menagerie of beasts is far more repetive than a monk flipping and spinning around, taking them down with a punch to the face, or jabbing his fingers through his skull. I'm not saying the Barbarian is bad, but he's not a weapon master either. So, he can swing a halberd just like he can swing a two-handed axe, woopty doo... I like to see it take a modicum of skill rather than just relentless slashing. He is a mindless brute, that's all he is! That doesn't mean he isn't THE most beastly mindless brute EVER, but all he does is run through hacking and slashing his way through all the different monsters. You can't say he isn't a mindless brute. He has the whole, history and whatnot, but they're all just slash slah slash stab hack stab stab hack slash slash hack hack hack hack stabbity stab mcstaberstein they don't really take time to think about what they're doing. They just attack.... In a fight, my money would be on the Monk, the Barb would be on the ground writhing in pain before he could get close enough to hit him. And if he's a Throwing Barb, the Monk would just catch all the axes and daggers and through them back.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
What? Dude... he has Weapon Masteries.
Or do you say he just begins to hit more mindlessly. Give me a break...
And your analogy on a fight between two fictional characters when you obviously have no idea how both of them work is just... well... due to a lack of a better word... "lacking in common sense".
You assume that all the barbarian does is attacking with no skill and that's it. That's an assumption wrong at its core.
And the whole "monk would just catch all the axes and daggers" thing... I don't even know where to start.
I've been training in martial arts for 15 years now, AND I've seen many shaolin demonstrations, both live and on TV, and never ever ever EVER have I seen "catch the axe" technique.
When somebody throws an axe at you, you dodge. You don't try to catch it with your bare hands (or as you would probably envision it... with your teeth, just for the badassery of it).
And another thing - you know who the bo (staff as you call it) is good against? Unarmored opponents. You know... those who... have no armor (not death knights for example).
You know why there was never an army full of people with staves? Cause people wear armor to battle. (Again the death knights example)
Also, and that's a very very big disatvantage of the staff, it BREAKS after a hard strike to a hard surface (for example, head of an opponent). There was this dude called Newton who came up with this idea that any force you apply returns at the same amount of force in the opposite direction. Bad bad news for the staff.
Sure, it'll take the opponent out as well, but when you fight a swarm of demons taking out one and staying with a broken half weapon is not an optimal situation.
There are so many other holes in your theories I'd keep on trying to correct them, but I'll just leave this whole axe catching staff wielding barbarian slaying with no effort monk to you.
If you ever in real life try to fight with a staff against a sword (yeah, I have done that, stupid weapon training in martial arts... who fights with swords these days?) I'd like to hear your opinions on how the staff is the most versatile weapon, as you say.
P.S.
Oh... also... a staff is completely useless in close quarter combat. Almost forgot about that part. If you have a staff and someone closes in on you and grabs you - you might as well throw that thing away and begin a wrestling match.
Almost forgot about this one.
The world may never know...
The world may never know...
For me barbarians are just like Gats (from Berserk). A unhuman dedication to fight, incradible powerfull strength, perfect weapon skill and godly physical resistance - all this buffed by rage and anger. It's like the perfect warrior in every single aspect (thats why his the only one that can handle all the demon legions without any kind of magical skill).
Martial tree/ melee
Holy tree
Aura tree
MAKE THE MONK REPLACE THE STUPID PALLYS!!!!!!!!!!! <3
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
Check out my thread http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=450618#post450618
Contains my semi completed Monk Skill Tree for the Blizzcon comp. It might help some of you come around to the idea of how cool a monk could be in the game.
[THREAD LINK="http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=441700&postcount=19"]MONKS OF SANCTUARY[/THREAD LINK] - (Won Comp & was a correct guess for the 4th Class announced at Blizzcon09! :cool:)
[THREAD LINK="http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21601&highlight=nomad"]NOMAD (5th Class Spec)[/THREAD LINK]
[THREAD LINK="http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21601"]DHAMPIR (5th Class Spec)[/THREAD LINK]
And I just totally typed an entire article proving me to be completely right and you completely wrong... but... my dog ate it.
And it's gone.
And I'm soooo not typing it again.
But as you can obviously see by my eaten article, I am totally right.
And you're not.
And we all know that Blizzard has based everything they've ever done 100% based on irrefutable fact. Forgot about that, sorry. Of COUSRSE the monk has to be based on fact, just like the Sorceress and the Druid and the Necromancer. Tch, my bad man.
I can prove to you that the staff is a better weapon. It has far more uses than just beating up someone with it. You can use it to hold them at a distance, throw it between their legs to trip them while you're running, sweep their feet to trip them, you can deflect blows, you can do MANY other things as well. Use your imagination. The axe is much shorter and stout, so doesn't have the reach a staff does. It's also much heavier, because of the metal end. It has a couple things the staff can't do. Hacking, slashing, hooking, and throwing. The hooking is using the groove on the bottom part of the axe head to get someone's leg or arm and trip them or disarm them with it. Other than that, the axe isn't that good of a weapon, IMO, because a weapon needs more than to be just a weapon. It needs other uses. The halberd is a far more effect weapon because it has a much longer reach, and it combines some of the strengths and weaknesses of both. The staff is a far flimsier weapon than the axe, because it isn't as thick as the axe handle is. Whereas the axes range of blocking an attack is far shorter than that of the staff, because it IS shorter. I could write a book on why the staff is better than almost every other weapon in history (excluding the more recent weapons, guns, grenades, etc etc).
And who said it just has to be the Bo Staff? It's not like you wouldn't get better stafflike weapons throughout the game. My favorite Monkish weapon is (the name escapes me for the time being, but if I come across it I shall edit it in) a staff with a Half-Moon blade on the end. It just looks awesome. There are many other stafflike weapons in the Monk's arsenal. I'm too lazy to list them all, because that would be a very long list. Google is good if you want to find out.
The Barbarian is not a Weapon Master compared to the Shaolin Monk. Monks spend their whole lives training their Martial Arts, their weapon skills, and their balance with nature/oneself (the first two basically are a way to hone the latter). It's silly to think this big hulking man, who by the way if we're going to be literal is DEFINED as a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person or a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine, actually trained his entire life with his weapons. If so he'd be far better off at the start of D2 than using those crappy little handaxes to kill a zombie in 3 hits. The Monks are far more trained in their weapons than a Barbarian. It just doesn't make logical sense to say someone DESCRIBED AS UNCIVILIZED is a better weapon master than A FREAKING SHAOLIN MONK, who are renowend worldwide for their fighting finesse, who train their whole goddamn lives just to compete with the other Monks who have been training THEIR whole goddamn LIVES.
So, go back to your little three pronged arguement against why a Monk isn't as good a fighter as a Barbarian, "I've never seen a monk do THAT!" "Barbarians were Weapon Masters because he had a skill called weapon specialization!" and "Well Diablo is completely based on fact, even though they raise dead, kill demons, have angels help them, and shoot fire/lightning/ice from their fingertips."
There, I retyped the whole thing in Notepad you little prick. It was a pain in the ass to type again, and I was far too lazy to do it at the time. I never said it proved me completely right, I just said I wasn't gonna waste time typing it all again. It was really long, and the keyboard I was typing with had a spacebar that stuck, but there it is. All nice and typed up just for you, because you wanted to be a douchebag and pissed me off.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
I may be a little prick, but your mother likes me. If you know what I mean.
And she also prefers other items, rather than the staff.
My mom is a slut. She's divorcing my dad for no reason. She was cheating on him. So yeah, I'll join you in making fun of her, it doesn't hurt me at all.
And I know what you mean Silver Soldier, but it's easier to break than an axe or a sword. Comparatively it's easy to break is what I really mean.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
Fair enough.
I'd like to continue a civil discussion here, so... here goes.
I wish to add another example of an advantage of an axe over a staff.
You can use a SHIELD with it!
Also, just to add some more info to the discussion - monks main weapons were NOT staves.
They trained in swords, knives, spears, spiked chains, half swords (big wide knives)... and... also, yes, staves.
But still, monks were not the only people who have dedicated themselves to fighting.
The vikings, for example, had an entire warrior culture where they trained for the great war in the afterlife and their warriors were completely devoted to one thing - fighting. And they didn't just do it seamlessly, they were good at it.
That's the only reason they were able to sack and terrorize most of europe (their seamanship aside, they fought on land, boats just made them reach their destinations faster).
Also were the romans, and the greeks, who were professional soldiers and warriors. And they were not monks.
In fact there is a theory that says martial arts all began in greece (pankration) and traveled to the east only when Alexander the great invaded india, where it developed to the direction we see today.
You see, monks may be the flashiest and most famous martial artists in our current culture, but they are not definitly the best there ever was (I'd even say they are far from it since a true warrior must test himself in real battles, while they lack the opportunities as long as they stay put in their temples), and certainly not the only ones.
Now - what has this to do with our discussion you ask?
Because if you read the lore of the barbarian (also, just so you know - the word barbarian does not mean one uncivilized. It's origin was anyone who did not have greek as a native language) they are a very developed nation with high military culture.
They are not bands of thugs and robbers terrorizing the country side. They are a civilization who practices martial skills in order to defend the most holy of Sanctuaries artifacts.
Well... they sort of failed at that but never mind that.
Just because the barbarian is big, huge even, does not mean he has no skill.
My own martial art trainer is over 100 kgs of pure muscle, and trust me, his skills are not effected by that for a second.
If you say that if a monk will meet a huge person who only has muscles and a couple of axes in a fight, yes, the monk with the staff wil probably be victorious.
But if you put a monk against a battle hardened weapon master like the barbarian in the diablo universe (and that is exactly what he is), clad in full plate armor and wielding weapons that weigh more than the monk himself - I'd put my money on the barbarian any time.
That was also a definition of the Barbarian, but it isn't the only one. And the Monks had plenty of chances to defend themselves, as they would travel around temple to temple with supplies, or even just heading to town, and bandits would try and take all their stuff. They had their butts handed to them. On a silver platter. With potatoes and carrots. It was slow roasted.
I am mostly norwegian (like 4/5 or 2/3 or something like that) and I know my Viking ancestry, and I consider them fierce warriors. One of the defintions for warrior is as you said, a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier. That being said, another defintion is a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics, by this definition, Monks were most certainly great warriors. And maybe in Diablo lore the Barbarians were weapon masters, but seeing as you like to take everything literally from real life, barbarians were in fact, uncivilized, more often than not.
The problems that have with you saying that the Barbarian is a better fighter, is the fact that you claim they are Weapon Masters. A weapon master to me means someone, who from BIRTH, has practiced with a single weapon. I consider no one to be a true weapon master, as the Barbarian focuses in a far more broad range of weaponry, he isn't a Master with a singular weapon. By this the Monk is also not a Weapon Master.
And no, Martial Arts were NOT, in fact, created in Greece or Ancient Rome, as for some reason you deem to be correct. It was created in Mesopotamia, and then traveled to China, where it blossomed. The actual definition for a Martial Arts is any form of organized fighting. Yes, it was practiced in Greece and Rome and just about EVERY other civilization out there.
Why you think that because I bring up him being large means I think he has no skill? I think he has no skill, and he happens to BE large. The best Martial Artist I've personally ever met was a large man. I don't know what he'd weight in kg, but he weighed at least 300 pounds.
I undestand Monks trained in MANY other types of weaponry (I said this) other than the staff. I just think the most badass weapons of the Shaolin Monks was the staff/polearm weaponry, and the 9-section chain whip. I used the staves because they seem to be the most unique, while being the most easily expanded throughout the game. I mean, what can you do with the chain whip? More chain whips? They get boring.
Now, back to the vikings. I know all about them. I think that the only reason they were really able to ransack europe the way they did was BECAUSE of their seamansihp (which was probably some of the greatest at the time), otherwise they just would've died because of exhaustion from marching or disease or various other things. That's all I have to say on the viking thing, but it leads me to my next point...
The Barbarians are pretty much Vikings, without the boats. Vikings were violent, crazed berserkers. The Barbarians are violent, crazed berserkers. And remember, we're not using any kind of fantasy game lore, we're using real life history. It all has to be 100% true. Don't forget that.
Now saying that the Monk isn't a true warrior, or far from it, is just flat out wrong. A true warrior does NOT have to prove himself in battle. I feel like I've typed something like this before, but I've had customers up here so I can't remember. If so it's up there.
I believe the Monks to be the best 1 on 1 fighters in history. I mean there aren't armies of monks, so it's not like they could take on an army of roman soldiers, but if it was one versus one, I think the monk would win. This is IMO. So, it's debatable.
But I can't type more right now, I'll be back.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
Well - I honestly believed that the best warriors in history were spartans. Nooo... not the 300 spartans everyone seen in the movies. But the true spartans, who were trained from the age of six in conditions that even the shaolin monks would have a hard time adapting to (there are not many child fatalities amongst the shaolin, and there were numerous amongst the spartans).
A spartan warrior was a feared combatant all over the ancient world. There was a reason sparta had no walls
And look, I know people who have defeated shaolin monks in real life in 1 on 1 combat (believe it or not, but I do) and... well... maybe that's why I'm not that impressed.
Sure, they have flashy skills and they jump high, but you take one of them to the ground and they are dead. Bah, never mind
It's funny how you just stop saying stuff and say nevermind when you run out of points to say. And how were the 300 not true spartans? That ACTUALLY happened. Not the way the movie does it, but they were beast. And your friend/acquaintance/tv character/cartoon guy(s), probably did defeat a monk. But not the ones who spend their whole lives, who are BORN into the monastery, then train until they're old wise cripples who can leap over tall buildings. Lol.
The Spartans were awesome, yes, no one is denying that fact, for fear they developed time travel secretly, :O, but the most beast warriors? Are you kidding me? They would've had their butts handed to them by many of history's warriors. That is, if they were fighting on even ground, no armor, no weapons etc etc. With armor and a sword, the Spartan would beat pretty much everyone.
If you can take one to the ground they're dead. Okay fair enough. Good luck getting them there. They have a unique arsenal of weaponry that most of history's warriors had never seen until fighting them. So they would have to learn on the fly how to defend against these weapons, whereas the monks had all of their weapons and then the more basic ones, like swords and spears, so they would have known how to defend against it. They have a distinct advantage because of their weaponry.
Had to go get eyes dilated for an eye test... Can't type anymore... Ack!
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
You can not only hit things, but use it to block weapon hits, as well as trip up your opponent.
A barbarian who's all tangled up in a staff ain't going to be much good with most of his weapons.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
If a monk, or similar character doesn't make it to D3, it's probably not due to Blizzard having not tried, but it didn't work, whether it be due to a lack of a quality tree or otherwise.
Tangled up in a staff? Dude... it's not a lasso.
Trust me, when you face a guy with an axe and a shield and all you've got is a staff, you're in trouble.
That way the first strike of the staff is blocked and then you face an opponent in a close range (the axe is a closer range weapon) and a staff is useless at close range.
Really, it is.
Who said I was out of points to say?
It's funny how you always say you have an excuse for not typing stuff.
And you know what the monks never had that most other history warriors did have? Shields. And armor. Very important stuff!
Having no armor or shield will eliminate every advantage you might have for having a shiny weapon.
And about the spartans hand to hand abilities... you have NO idea what you are talking about.
They boycotted the olympic games because in hand to hand contests there were not allowed to gauge out eyes and bite out throats (really, they did).
They were trained in ALL matter of combat in their home city. In fact, in the battle of Thermopylae (the 300 battle) oficial records (yes, they exist) say that when surrounded by persian troops the spartans fought until their weapons broke. And when their weapons broke they fought UNARMED. And they were so good at it they had to be killed by arrows (which was the worst way for a spartan to die amongst their society since you are not killed by a worthy adversary).
Either that or... persians suck. You a persian?
Trust me, in skilled hands, a bo staff is very much like a lasso. You can tie up somebody's legs with a bo.
It wouldn't keep them down, no entanglements can because their only meant to delay to allow either escape or another move while the opponent is distracted.