It makes no sense because you don't have any idea of wtf are you talking about. You are simply expeculating based at your fancy imagination. Someone stalks other backs during battle is something fucking ridicolous. The *only* thing that can defeat a shield user in battle is another shield user or a fire weapon user. I will try to explain why:
Shields blocks most of the attacks possibilities leaving only a small amount of possible attacks to the enemy. This drastical reduction of possibilities makes very easy to defender dogde the other attacks.
The shield also gives a powerful offensive edge over the enemy, once he can enter in the attack radius of the enemy without been severely counter attacked. Also, shieds makes the act of attack increase his defence (unlike someone that only counts of dogding/parrying that looses almost all defensive power while attacking), because the area covered by the shield increase as the user gets closer to the enemy. Because of that, if a shield user face a unshielded enemy he will have alot more attack oportunity wich means he will kill the enemy first.
And I'm not familiar with the whip scenarium, but I will research a bit when I have time.
Also i'm only talking about a generic shield user and a generic non shield user. The difference will drastically increase when we put a soldier in one side and a non soldier in the other. The very fact that ones trains to kill people and the other trains to live longer and bettes says everything.
EDIT: Sorry the admin warning was posted when i was writing the mensage. Do i have to delete this?
Aight aight, I see what you're saying. And yeah, lol, I was probably wrong about the stalking thing. That was the stretches of my imagination.
Probably, the most scientific we could be, would be to get a group together and discuss the most likely plan of action each would take, given a certain scenario, then the other countering that, and then countering that, and so on and so forth, until someone died.
PS: What's an infraction point?
Edit: Misspelled scenario, noticed when I sent it.
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
This is over. If you aren't actually going to discuss this with me. I'm done arguing with someone who won't do anything but discredit the ONLY WAY WE HAVE TO COMPARE THESE TWO. You can only compare these two by running a simulation through your head. Unless you have invented a time machine. But I doubt it.
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
It's like talking to a wall... A wall that has a smaller wall in front of it.
Monks were awesome, yes. I have NEVER said the ACTUAL monks could, in fact, catch an axe out of the air. And yes, they WOULD break a sweat. I'm not saying they were immortal, jeez. The axe catching thing was just me exagerating.
Okay, incredible pain tolerance. I'm slicing a spartan's arm open. He isn't phased. Wow! I stab him in the throat. He keeps a straight face! It all makes sense now! Spartans were Hercules incarnate!
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
Why? Because everyone knows Spartans were gods and were impervious to pain. Even if you spend your whole life training, having your arm sliced open is gonna hurt, and you're PROBABLY going to drop whatever you're holding. Even as a freaking knee jerk reaction. Give REASONS to support your statement.
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 talking about a fist fight. I'm talking about a fight involving weapons. And the shield may play an important role in a fight, if you're STUPID enough to HIT it. Maybe with the Bo staff he'd lose, let's choose a different weapon shall we? Another one that's mentioned a lot is the 9-section chain whip. He spins it, he attacks, the spartan blocks, the chain bends around it and slices his arm. The spartan, out of pain, drops his shield, giving the Monk perfect attack opportunities. The spartan will be shredded to bits. Do you see the logic? Or do I make no sense because I disagree with what you're saying?
Even with the shield vs the bo staff, if the spartan is covered by it and can't see, the monk can stalk around and get him from behind. Or if he can see, that means there's an opening. The Monk strikes at it, the spartan retreats behind his shield, the Monk moves to the side and gets him right between the ribs. The spartan is startled and turns around quickly. The Monk could lose his grip on the Bo staff and be slaughtered, he could also keep his grip, spin around and trip him with it. Then he drives the Bo staff right into his neck.
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
What constitutes a true fighter? Someone who's actually fought? I know brute force helps, but brute force is in no way a match for a great intellect. But you're really starting to sound like the Hate Mailers on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website. Not the really really really cursy ones, the ones who seem to have a wall of stupidity surrounding their head, preventing any logical thought that skews from their opinions to get through.
And there you go. The Spartans are gone because they are so unbending. Their army got smaller and smaller and they eventually lost. The Monks are still here. They are more flexible and adapted to the times. Yes I disagree with their way of life. Yes I called them not the most intelligent. You know why? They are GONE. The strong and smart survive. If they were smart they'd still be alive.
I'm not claiming my opinion to be fact. I'm presenting my opinion in a way suggesting it to be more plausible than yours and trying to convince you that I am right. And I know a lot of the story of both.
I also think the word "certain" has escaped your vocabulary. A monk would win in a CERTAIN fight, just like a Spartan would win in a CERTAIN fight. And there is such a thing as a certain victory. It's called, "machine gun vs rock." Unless the guy with the machine gun is an idiot. Like REALLY stupid. I'm talking Teen Miss South Carolina stupid. (buh-zing) I do not overrate them. I just find them to be more superior in more aspects when you compare them to other warriors from history. Overall, I think they're the best. If you wanted to get down into the nitty gritty, there are probably plenty better in certain aspects.
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 forgot about an eye test and had to get them checked out. I wasn't done, I just couldn't type anymore. It hurt Anywhosenheimer, you are all focusing on the Bo staff like it's going to be the last weapon in the monk's arsenal. It really should be the first. If you're going to pit a Barbarian against a Monk with a Bo staff, the Barbarian should have a buckler, a hand axe, MAYBE some quilted/leather armor, and a helmet if he's lucky.
The Monks fought without armor because they didn't NEED any.
I know the Spartans are awesome, I'm with you there, but not the best warriors in history. That's why the Monk's lifestyle is still around today, and the Spartan's isn't. *raises eyebrow* If they were so awesome, why aren't we still like them? There are plenty of Monks still out there today.
I have never said Spartans aren't awesome, and hand to hand I'm sure almost no one could beat them.
Something from a previous post of yours, there are very few child Shaolin deaths whereas the Spartans had many. What the hell does that prove? That they were far harsher than they needed to be and killed off a lot of their young? The Shaolin had more Shaolin Monks because none of them DIE. Killing off children is by no means a measure of strength. Next you'll be saying it's manly to rape a woman.
The Spartans (and I mean no offense) were NOT the smartest bunch out there. I'm not trying to be insulting but the Athenians were smarter, and you know it. That being said, a great strategic mind is what can change the tide of a battle. The Shaolin Monks train both their minds and their bodies. Meaning that they will undoubtedly be far more intelligent than your average warrior.
Brute force doesn't win battles, it sure as hell can help if directed in the correct way, but in a fight between a Barbarian and a Monk with a Bo staff, the Monk would beat the crap out of the Barbarian, because the Barb has very little armor on.
And yes I put up why I'm cutting off my arguement halfway through, so you don't think I missed a few points, so you can't claim that I didn't know how to argue my way out of them, I just ran out of time, or had something to do, so I had to post it.
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
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
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 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
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
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aight aight, I see what you're saying. And yeah, lol, I was probably wrong about the stalking thing. That was the stretches of my imagination.
Probably, the most scientific we could be, would be to get a group together and discuss the most likely plan of action each would take, given a certain scenario, then the other countering that, and then countering that, and so on and so forth, until someone died.
PS: What's an infraction point?
Edit: Misspelled scenario, noticed when I sent it.
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
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
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
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
Monks were awesome, yes. I have NEVER said the ACTUAL monks could, in fact, catch an axe out of the air. And yes, they WOULD break a sweat. I'm not saying they were immortal, jeez. The axe catching thing was just me exagerating.
Okay, incredible pain tolerance. I'm slicing a spartan's arm open. He isn't phased. Wow! I stab him in the throat. He keeps a straight face! It all makes sense now! Spartans were Hercules incarnate!
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
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
He agrees with you, he's sensible. Nice logic.
Moving on.
I'm not talking about a fist fight. I'm talking about a fight involving weapons. And the shield may play an important role in a fight, if you're STUPID enough to HIT it. Maybe with the Bo staff he'd lose, let's choose a different weapon shall we? Another one that's mentioned a lot is the 9-section chain whip. He spins it, he attacks, the spartan blocks, the chain bends around it and slices his arm. The spartan, out of pain, drops his shield, giving the Monk perfect attack opportunities. The spartan will be shredded to bits. Do you see the logic? Or do I make no sense because I disagree with what you're saying?
Even with the shield vs the bo staff, if the spartan is covered by it and can't see, the monk can stalk around and get him from behind. Or if he can see, that means there's an opening. The Monk strikes at it, the spartan retreats behind his shield, the Monk moves to the side and gets him right between the ribs. The spartan is startled and turns around quickly. The Monk could lose his grip on the Bo staff and be slaughtered, he could also keep his grip, spin around and trip him with it. Then he drives the Bo staff right into his neck.
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
And there you go. The Spartans are gone because they are so unbending. Their army got smaller and smaller and they eventually lost. The Monks are still here. They are more flexible and adapted to the times. Yes I disagree with their way of life. Yes I called them not the most intelligent. You know why? They are GONE. The strong and smart survive. If they were smart they'd still be alive.
I'm not claiming my opinion to be fact. I'm presenting my opinion in a way suggesting it to be more plausible than yours and trying to convince you that I am right. And I know a lot of the story of both.
I also think the word "certain" has escaped your vocabulary. A monk would win in a CERTAIN fight, just like a Spartan would win in a CERTAIN fight. And there is such a thing as a certain victory. It's called, "machine gun vs rock." Unless the guy with the machine gun is an idiot. Like REALLY stupid. I'm talking Teen Miss South Carolina stupid. (buh-zing) I do not overrate them. I just find them to be more superior in more aspects when you compare them to other warriors from history. Overall, I think they're the best. If you wanted to get down into the nitty gritty, there are probably plenty better in certain aspects.
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 Monks fought without armor because they didn't NEED any.
I know the Spartans are awesome, I'm with you there, but not the best warriors in history. That's why the Monk's lifestyle is still around today, and the Spartan's isn't. *raises eyebrow* If they were so awesome, why aren't we still like them? There are plenty of Monks still out there today.
I have never said Spartans aren't awesome, and hand to hand I'm sure almost no one could beat them.
Something from a previous post of yours, there are very few child Shaolin deaths whereas the Spartans had many. What the hell does that prove? That they were far harsher than they needed to be and killed off a lot of their young? The Shaolin had more Shaolin Monks because none of them DIE. Killing off children is by no means a measure of strength. Next you'll be saying it's manly to rape a woman.
The Spartans (and I mean no offense) were NOT the smartest bunch out there. I'm not trying to be insulting but the Athenians were smarter, and you know it. That being said, a great strategic mind is what can change the tide of a battle. The Shaolin Monks train both their minds and their bodies. Meaning that they will undoubtedly be far more intelligent than your average warrior.
Brute force doesn't win battles, it sure as hell can help if directed in the correct way, but in a fight between a Barbarian and a Monk with a Bo staff, the Monk would beat the crap out of the Barbarian, because the Barb has very little armor on.
And yes I put up why I'm cutting off my arguement halfway through, so you don't think I missed a few points, so you can't claim that I didn't know how to argue my way out of them, I just ran out of time, or had something to do, so I had to post it.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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