Well, maybe I can give some insight into the development process.
They go into concepts and designs with the idea of- take realism that people can relate to, and give it drama, entertaining features and aesthetically pleasing layouts to entertain, stun and emerge(or w.e) the player.
So, when people see the monk, the dev team wants people to instantly think of eastern monks that rely on their bodies energy as a weapon, that use swift and precise movements. Those monks don't ever carry any type of shield to my knowledge. That being said, it's fitting for the monk to not use any shields.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
Plz stop compairing the classes just because in some cases there are similar gameplay style.
Monk and Assasin share the martial arts combo style in the way of combo points and release.
I only made the comparison in this particular case because I had seen a character have a katar in one hand and a shield in the other and it didn't seem so strange to me. I'm saying that conceptually it's been done so it's not hard for me to imagine the Monk also equipping a claw weapon in one hand and a shield in the other.
Did the assasin used staves? Do the monk use traps? Anyways there a lore and a gameplay around MONK style charachters that are lite and they dont use heavy shields armors and weapons . Dont know maybe too much DnD but i like the "faith is my weapon , God is my armor"...
Look, I get it. The Monk due to his reliance on agility and speed would not likely bog himself down with armor and shields. I just don't wanna get all fascist about it and say there's no way in hell the Monk can't use a small shield anymore than I want to tell a Barbarian never to use a wand. Those weapons may not work well for such classes, but the choice should be there regardless. And D3 seems more about customization than ever.
Same i would say if i see the wizards with 2h axes.
Right. Wouldn't be in a Wizard's best interest, but why the hell not if you want to anyway? Especially for early on in the game. In D2, did you never wield a weapon that didn't quite seem suited to that class? But it was okay to do so cause a simple melee attack against low level enemies usually did the trick. It was only as you moved up that you really needed to start considering how your class was meant to be played.
Paladin in D2 not only could use the shield but he had simte,charge holy shield etc for it.
How many Barbarians in D2 where using shileds instead of 2h weapons or 2 1h weapons ???
That wasn't totally the Barb's fault though. I mean, ask yourself why not Barb in D2 was ever seen using a 2H axe. Because there were no good 2H axes in that game. You had to settle for a maul in the IK set or two 1h weapons. The Barb also had all those mastery skills for different types of weapons. But how often did you see a Barb on say, Battle.net actually go for a Throwing or Spear Mastery build? Likely you never did because there weren't enough options to become a powerful ax throwing or spear wielding Barb.