Geek Mod On:
What I didn't like in D&D monks is that they are totally out of context. His the only eastern class in a group of of 10 western classes - ok, many defend that figther, rogue and ranger are both weatern and eastern. Still, his the only true eastern class in a group of other 7 true western class, shatering the context of the game.
In the forgotten relms the monks are cleary weatern monks, but why they learn matial arts instead of divine spells ?
The problem is that they putted the monk in the third edition just because he was very popular in the AD&D complement books. They should had added also Samurai and Ninja or added the monk only in the oriental adventures.
Geek Mode Off
The situation is very different in D3, however. The more the diversification, the better.
Although they are not the complete trees. But we are almost certainly getting the tree system back, in one shape or another.
Thats execly what i tryed to say lol...
Those skill trees are very different from D2. Theres no "passive" tree or a tree dedicated to only one kind f skill. Every tree have everything. For exemple the barb tree are not divided in battle cry, masteries and combat. every tree have battle cries, masteries and combat skills.
I'm noit really sure if we still have the tree system. If we do, I think all class will have divison similar to the barbarian and the wiz (all trees have both passives, offensive, suport and defensive skills).
If diablo would follow reality, anyone without a shield would die very very easy. Games don't only add fictional stuff but twsit reality to creat a better gameplay.
About a monk in D3? Yeah. I believe we can have one because he fits the melee and the benevolent role at once (like the paladin), still with very differently. A mele clas that use staff as main weapon would be very nice to bring some new air to rpgs imo.
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.
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?
Imo the fight analysis are pretty simple - the best warrior are the ones that methods that everyone feared and tryed to use (because it was the best strategy).
The armorless choice and staff are just a matter of tradition, culture, not combat efficiency. Did you ever see a army of unarmored soldiers using staffs or any other monk weapon ?
Monks train matial arts not to become the best figthers or to creat a mighty arm that can defeat anything. Matial arts are used to self defence, self perfection and discipline. In other words, monks did not learn combat to know how to defeat a enemy, they train it to as a way of self improvement or something. If their were focusing on defeat a enemy they would surely use more bladed weapons, get some armor and start raid other peoples to test their combat power.
Really, a monk would be slaugthered in seconds by a Spartan.
EDIT: A detail i forgot is the Shield. Monks don't use shields and shield are far more powerfull then people think when talking about duels. A staff or the bare ahnds are simply used when your oponent have a wall of metal on his service. Another good exemple of how things like "dicipline" and stuff are not that important in combat wise is how many expecialists said about a battle between a samurai and a knight rmy.
Samurais are far more dedicated, diciplined and trainded then knights. Still they would loose in a war. Why ?
Because knights use shields. The samurai weapon would simply break in any atempt to hit the knight and then he would be slaugthered when disarmed.
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).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What I didn't like in D&D monks is that they are totally out of context. His the only eastern class in a group of of 10 western classes - ok, many defend that figther, rogue and ranger are both weatern and eastern. Still, his the only true eastern class in a group of other 7 true western class, shatering the context of the game.
In the forgotten relms the monks are cleary weatern monks, but why they learn matial arts instead of divine spells ?
The problem is that they putted the monk in the third edition just because he was very popular in the AD&D complement books. They should had added also Samurai and Ninja or added the monk only in the oriental adventures.
Geek Mode Off
The situation is very different in D3, however. The more the diversification, the better.
Thats execly what i tryed to say lol...
Those skill trees are very different from D2. Theres no "passive" tree or a tree dedicated to only one kind f skill. Every tree have everything. For exemple the barb tree are not divided in battle cry, masteries and combat. every tree have battle cries, masteries and combat skills.
If diablo would follow reality, anyone without a shield would die very very easy. Games don't only add fictional stuff but twsit reality to creat a better gameplay.
About a monk in D3? Yeah. I believe we can have one because he fits the melee and the benevolent role at once (like the paladin), still with very differently. A mele clas that use staff as main weapon would be very nice to bring some new air to rpgs imo.
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?
The armorless choice and staff are just a matter of tradition, culture, not combat efficiency. Did you ever see a army of unarmored soldiers using staffs or any other monk weapon ?
Monks train matial arts not to become the best figthers or to creat a mighty arm that can defeat anything. Matial arts are used to self defence, self perfection and discipline. In other words, monks did not learn combat to know how to defeat a enemy, they train it to as a way of self improvement or something. If their were focusing on defeat a enemy they would surely use more bladed weapons, get some armor and start raid other peoples to test their combat power.
Really, a monk would be slaugthered in seconds by a Spartan.
EDIT: A detail i forgot is the Shield. Monks don't use shields and shield are far more powerfull then people think when talking about duels. A staff or the bare ahnds are simply used when your oponent have a wall of metal on his service. Another good exemple of how things like "dicipline" and stuff are not that important in combat wise is how many expecialists said about a battle between a samurai and a knight rmy.
Samurais are far more dedicated, diciplined and trainded then knights. Still they would loose in a war. Why ?
Because knights use shields. The samurai weapon would simply break in any atempt to hit the knight and then he would be slaugthered when disarmed.
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).