Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dr_Ruminahui" data-source="post: 5263751" data-attributes="member: 81104">It seems Dannyalcatraz and myself are on the opposite side of the spectrum on this... in pretty much every regard.&nbsp;For me, this is the first itteration of the monk that I actually like, and again, for me, it is the first one that captures the spirit of martial arts movies.&nbsp;3/3.5 monks either used their fists, or they used a weapon, as either one option or the other was superior. You didn't see them mixing it up - chopping an enemy down with their sword, and then punching some guy in the chest.&nbsp;For me, for monks anyway, I find the non-weapon attack powers incredibly freeing - for the first time you can have a guy with a sword/axe/whatever mixing it up with kicks, punches, swipes, stabs... however you want to describe the attacks. You don't always have to chop them with your kukri because to do otherwise you are nerfing your character. Indeed, with the advent of ki focuses, its the first time you can have a guy wade into battle unarmed then describe how he picks up weapons/objects and uses them against his enemy's - a defining trope of many martial arts movies to me (from Jackie Chan beating up mooks with a ladder, to Jet Li using his belt to defeat the katana wielding BBEG).&nbsp;Indeed, I find that feet support for weapons does (for me, anyway) EXACTLY what Dannyalcatraz wants in his description of the fight with the blind monks - it allows each monk to specialise with a certain weapon and STILL feel like an all round martial artist. My only complaint with it is that there simply isn't feet support for most weapons - which hopefully will change as time goes by.&nbsp;So, it seems that all the things that ruins the 4e monk class for him are all exactly the things that make it fun and evocative for me...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dr_Ruminahui, post: 5263751, member: 81104"] It seems Dannyalcatraz and myself are on the opposite side of the spectrum on this... in pretty much every regard. For me, this is the first itteration of the monk that I actually like, and again, for me, it is the first one that captures the spirit of martial arts movies. 3/3.5 monks either used their fists, or they used a weapon, as either one option or the other was superior. You didn't see them mixing it up - chopping an enemy down with their sword, and then punching some guy in the chest. For me, for monks anyway, I find the non-weapon attack powers incredibly freeing - for the first time you can have a guy with a sword/axe/whatever mixing it up with kicks, punches, swipes, stabs... however you want to describe the attacks. You don't always have to chop them with your kukri because to do otherwise you are nerfing your character. Indeed, with the advent of ki focuses, its the first time you can have a guy wade into battle unarmed then describe how he picks up weapons/objects and uses them against his enemy's - a defining trope of many martial arts movies to me (from Jackie Chan beating up mooks with a ladder, to Jet Li using his belt to defeat the katana wielding BBEG). Indeed, I find that feet support for weapons does (for me, anyway) EXACTLY what Dannyalcatraz wants in his description of the fight with the blind monks - it allows each monk to specialise with a certain weapon and STILL feel like an all round martial artist. My only complaint with it is that there simply isn't feet support for most weapons - which hopefully will change as time goes by. So, it seems that all the things that ruins the 4e monk class for him are all exactly the things that make it fun and evocative for me... [/QUOTE]

Verification