I really can't see the point in a monk class

FabresFour

Guys, is it just me or does the "Monk" class I see so many people asking for make no sense at all? At least in the current state of the game?

I really can't imagine a monk with two swords, with magic staves or a bow. Normally it would be a melee staff, or something like that. If they were ever going to release a "monk" class, the least would be to release before, or alongside, a pugilist weapon skill tree. It seems so strange to imagine a monk with any other current weapon in the game.

Honestly, weapon(less) > class, in that regard. At least in my opinion..

(And honestly, a DK with pugilist "weapons" would be an awesome monk)

XSTRONG

I think a new class this year would be boring

Dr_Con

Monk makes no sense, people just want to run around punching things but using their fists is, surprise surprise, too weak, so they want a whole system to facilitate this meme-style of gameplay.

cyclonus11

Melee staff (bo staff), batons, fist wraps.

There are also spells that some of the hand-to-hand NPCs use, which could be a foundation for a skill tree.

Harry_Toes

I think they are thinking of other RPG games and wanting to apply those classes to ESO.

Monk is a standard DnD class - I don't really remember it ever being a thing in ESO in single player games.

spartaxoxo

Dr_Con wrote: »

Monk makes no sense, people just want to run around punching things but using their fists is, surprise surprise, too weak, so they want a whole system to facilitate this meme-style of gameplay.

I mean Zamarak uses Desert Wind martial arts. It's not without merit.

Dark_Lord_Kuro

If we must i would rather have it as a "weapon" line than a class, no need to waste a possible class on 18 different kind of punch

whitecrow

Will they drop bananas?

Auldwulfe

There are several references to Khajiit using a bare handed fighting style, as well as some Redguard mentions, if I remember correctly.

As for a whole class... maybe not so much.... but a few weapon lines would be good
I'd suggest a Pugilist style with a token you place on your hand that gives you some weapon damage --- maybe not as much as other weapons, but enough to make it work - it would not need to actually have artwork for it, as the bare hands are there, but as a token that lets you complete sets, and acts as a weapon for intents and purposes ....

I could see them then using the original flurry with swift punches, and maybe a block strike, similar to the shield rush use in close combat, that stuns for a second or two... and so on.
If they added that, a spear line, and maybe a physical staff combat line, it would add a LOT to the game, without overloading things..... and it would open up design diversity with the current classes .... until I deleted him, I did have a Nord Warden / Werewolf, where my back bar in normal form was just skills, and bare hands -- I used to run around beating on skeevers, etc.... it made for a fun time after a day of work.

I think we could accomplish a lot with just adding some weapon lines.

Auldwulfe

kargen27

I'm of the opinion any new class would just be redundant. The skill names and animation will be different but will be the same in what they do.
If they do give us a new class of course I am going to want two more character slots so I can level up a couple of them but I'm not real excited about getting more classes or races.

Aardappelboom

I don't see the point in a new class for ESO, period. There's enough classes, I'm all for new skill lines though.

adyreonb14_ESO

Don't need a class for monk, just a different weapon set. Could be "fist" weapons to give a bare/glove hand look and skills for it. Then you could use the bare/glove hand weapons with Nightblade, Templar, etc. class.

SeaGtGruff

Dr_Con wrote: »

Monk makes no sense, people just want to run around punching things but using their fists is, surprise surprise, too weak, so they want a whole system to facilitate this meme-style of gameplay.

Actually, you can do a fair bit of damage in overland content by punching with your fists. I know, because I've done it for fun before during New Life, while running around Eastmarch without any gear of any kind equipped. I don't think you'll be able to take down any world bosses that way, but you can certainly take down overland mobs and possibly quest bosses as well.

Harry_Toes wrote: »

I think they are thinking of other RPG games and wanting to apply those classes to ESO.

Monk is a standard DnD class - I don't really remember it ever being a thing in ESO in single player games.

Monk has been a standard class in the Elder Scrolls series ever since the very first game, Arena. I don't remember what its limitations were in the later games, but in Arena the most significant limitation is that it cannot use armor of any kind. (It can use weapons, even though the animation for enemy Monks depicts them as attacking with their feet.) That isn't as bad as it sounds, because you can lower (i.e., improve) your Armor Rating a great deal by wearing a belt, bracelet, torc, and amulet, as well as by raising your Agility, and certain artifacts improve your Armor Rating while you've got them equipped.

disintegr8

kargen27 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion any new class would just be redundant. The skill names and animation will be different but will be the same in what they do.
If they do give us a new class of course I am going to want two more character slots so I can level up a couple of them but I'm not real excited about getting more classes or races.

I agree fully with this. I have 16 max level characters, all with maxed out horse training, all level 50 in all craft lines and all at are least 8 traits researched in wood, cloth and smithing. The thought of deleting any of them and starting again for a new race or class is just madness.

It's been a long time since a new class was added and I'd rather see modifications to existing classes and/or races, but I know that some players who focus on one race/class might not like that.

Ratzkifal

A monk class would have to get a massive weapon damage bonus when not having a weapon equipped. The skill lines also need to take into account that you wouldn't use weapon skills to gain certain buffs etc.
Unless we get Khajiiti martial arts mixed with spells (like the Elsweyr NPCs), my preference would be to add an unarmed skill line and then play a Templar to become a "monk".

Freelancer_ESO

Monk was a class that you could play as in Oblivion, Morrowind, and Daggerfall.

Monk

Quick and cunning with the empty hand, they are strong in spirit. They prefer to solve conflict by arrow or by fist.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Classes#Monk

Monks are students of the ancient martial arts of hand-to-hand combat and unarmored self defense. Monks avoid detection by stealth, mobility, and agility, and are skilled with a variety of ranged and close-combat weapons.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Classes#Monk


Monks are specially trained in mental disciplines. This intense mental awareness includes the ability to turn the body into a lethal machine.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Classes#Monk

Tandor

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

NotaDaedraWorshipper

It fits khajiit's claw dances. But then the class becomes specifically khajiit.

I definitely don't want a monk class, because an unarmed skill should be available for all classes.

The_Titan_Tim

Adding an Unarmed weapon skill line w/gauntlets scaling your damage or an entirely new unarmed weapon type would be a lot more feasible than an entire Monk class, what would their support abilities look like? Restoring Light? Are they going to have Backlash too?

More skill lines benefit every class, where a new class does nothing for people that play the other ones.

Supreme_Atromancer

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

zaria

Dr_Con wrote: »

Monk makes no sense, people just want to run around punching things but using their fists is, surprise surprise, too weak, so they want a whole system to facilitate this meme-style of gameplay.

This, people tend to use weapons in combat. Yes fighting without weapon is relevant, you might not be armed or be allowed to have weapons. Lots of the weird ninja weapons is agents having to use improvised weapons.

Now I rater turn this on its head, magic users uses staffs, well make the tip pointy for stabbing, bayonets are still a thing and they was much more relevant with lower rate of fire.
Optionally put it on the rear if it interfere with the magic.
I tend to have pointy staffs for front bar and wider ones for healing or back bar just so I can spot the bar i'm on.
You might want to get Shadiversity into this discussion 😺

The_Titan_Tim

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

zaria

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

Agree, now bard could be nice but as an skill line on buffs and specials. like the AoE agro if you don't update the instrument experience skill, this however adds an group debuff 😺

NotaDaedraWorshipper

zaria wrote: »

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

Agree, now bard could be nice but as an skill line on buffs and specials. like the AoE agro if you don't update the instrument experience skill, this however adds an group debuff 😺

Bard makes even less sense than monks and barbarians. TES is not D&D.

Supreme_Atromancer

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

Agree, now bard could be nice but as an skill line on buffs and specials. like the AoE agro if you don't update the instrument experience skill, this however adds an group debuff 😺

Bard makes even less sense than monks and barbarians. TES is not D&D.

I'm not advocating for bards, but TES has its spiritual roots in D&D. Tamriel had its origin in a D&D homebrew world.

Barbarians and Monks have both appeared in previous games, I 'm not convinced that they make little sense.

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

I don't disagree. Any way of allowing us to make a viable barbarian would be awesome.

I champion class for this particular concept mostly because if it were skill-line based as you suggest, you still have the conceptual obstacle of a class kit you're largely having to ignore. The base class power identities (nightblade, sorc, templar, necro, warden, dk) are all pretty much antithetical to the concept of "Barbarian". Being required to ignore your entire class concept to get something that might feel Barbariany is not ideal design.

The_Titan_Tim

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

Agree, now bard could be nice but as an skill line on buffs and specials. like the AoE agro if you don't update the instrument experience skill, this however adds an group debuff 😺

Bard makes even less sense than monks and barbarians. TES is not D&D.

I'm not advocating for bards, but TES has its spiritual roots in D&D. Tamriel had its origin in a D&D homebrew world.

Barbarians and Monks have both appeared in previous games, I 'm not convinced that they make little sense.

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The only class I really want to see is a Barbarian/Shaman, because I feel like weapons alone can't really capture this power fantasy, and a martial "power source" belongs in a class. Right now we don't have a viable way to play something that doesn't rely on magicka to some degree. Such a class would allow this, but also not be restricted to it.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the general consensus in this thread. I think a Monk power fantasy is a GREAT idea, it has Elder Scrolls heritage, is an instantly recognisable fantasy archetype, and is just a fun concept. BUT I think the whole concept could be captured really well with a weapon line. Stamsorcs especially, but also stamblades, magblades, and maybe even DKs armed with such a weapon line could all feed great Monk-style concepts, imv.

I'd love to see it implemented as a stam-based option for "dual runes" (unarmed slottables) that also allowed mag-based (skyrim-style "equipped" spells) stuff like firebolt, frostbolt, channelled wards, etc.

Tandor wrote: »

All a new class would do would be to fuel the arguments about balance. I can see it now, all that stuff about the new class being overpowered in order to sell the Chapter, then it'll get over-nerfed, prompting another round of requests for class change tokens, and so it goes on, leading to lots of "I don't like this new class, I want that new class" and we're back here again.

Yeah, but the thing is, people *always* complain. I guarantee you 100% that no matter what they do this year, there will be complaints, uproar and controversy. 100%. At some stage, you (plural) gotta stop holding fun hostage to the fear of the spectre of balance and dare to make something cool.

Even a Barbarian class would make no sense as why would they not just update Fighter’s Guild with all new abilities akin to Spellcrafting to Mage’s Guild.

I don't disagree. Any way of allowing us to make a viable barbarian would be awesome.

I champion class for this particular concept mostly because if it were skill-line based as you suggest, you still have the conceptual obstacle of a class kit you're largely having to ignore. The base class power identities (nightblade, sorc, templar, necro, warden, dk) are all pretty much antithetical to the concept of "Barbarian". Being required to ignore your entire class concept to get something that might feel Barbariany is not ideal design.

Perhaps, presuming we’re still talking about a potential Fighter’s Guild revamp akin to Spellcrafting Mage’s Guild, it could be pretty awesome, I’m not talking an update to the 6 abilities, but adding even more, maybe 12 more, and all new passives.

I would personally like a new approach to new classes, where instead of locking them behind new characters, why not introduce 3 skill lines for everyone to have access to?

Nothing is worse than grinding a new character’s skill lines, like Fighter’s Guild, Mage’s Guild, Psijic, Undaunted, Assault, Support, Soul Magic and their respective skills and morphs. Buying bag space, then having to wait 180 days to have a fully trained mount… Most people will not whale out hundreds of dollars to instant-upgrade their utilities.

Adding more to already made characters is the play, as it benefits everyone, not just the then 1/7th of the playerbase playing that one particular class.

TX12001rwb17_ESO

You would not beable to fight with out weapons as you would then lose set bonuses unless they added combat wristbands to every set or something that would make unarmed combat viable, in that case though why even bother with a class? just make an unarmed skill line.

Freelancer_ESO

Dr_Con wrote: »

Monk makes no sense, people just want to run around punching things but using their fists is, surprise surprise, too weak, so they want a whole system to facilitate this meme-style of gameplay.

If you aren't in a huge hurry to kill things with fists, you might try a tanky fist warden with the Knight Slayer set (It adds 8,000 damage per heavy attack against everything with over 100k hp). It can be a bit boring from an animation perspective just heavy attacking over and over but, things do die and the healing you get from using Green Lotus is enough to keep your health up.

tonyblack

Though i’m not too familiar with the lore of ESO monks when i think about possibility of class like that it looks more like asian themed ninja/onmyo mage from nioh, where you could use all sorts of weapons while also casting magic/ninjitsu and it’s not about bare fist combat at all. Something like that would be a perfect fit for Akavir themed chapter, though i could imagine it to work with any other zones, considering how Akavir could influence them through invasions and such. If I remember correctly, last time they invaded pact zones and if we getting Telvanni peninsula as next chapter there could be some remains of said invasion.