![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
![]() Monks are based on the Shaolin warrior monks of China...Also known as Shaolin warriors. Due to various Confucian and Buddhist ideals, they learned to fight with blunt weapons and fists instead of swords and pikes. Likewise, armor and shields never caught on in a land with few pikes or swords.
But they were basically just fighters like any other warrior in any other region. They just had a unique culture that emphasized the blunt/bare weapon loophole. If you beat someone to death with a stick -- its OK because a stick clearly wasn't intended to kill them...yea it was a pretty dumb argument-- but it was the middle ages when this got started. Basically from a lore perspective -- unless we are going to add a dozen specific Asian classes -- it would make more sense just to let warriors be Asian and use Asian weapons. They do this in most games even EQ -- Katanas etc. Just add in bow staffs and katas or whatever. Fists don't make sense evidenced by the monks getting their ass kicked by real armies when they tried that shit (Mongols). It only worked during assassination operations. Which leads me to the fundamental problem with Monks as a concept: Their warrior/rogue hybrids. These two classes combined are hard to balance. They tend to be overpowered tanky-ass rogues like classic EQ. They may also be rogue clones that basically amounts to Asian-inspired rogues. Perhaps they could be warrior-clones -- kind of like warriors only Asian.... They don't really have a place from a game play perspective. Vanguards idea of 4 different humans based on African, Asian, Northern and Middle-Eastern -- was a good idea. That way if you really want to be something like a monk lore wise -- just be an Asian rogue or warrior. We don't need these kinds of ethnically-specific classes these days. | ||
|
|
|