I think monks should get some new stuff or either have some old stuff broken down into different things. My first idea is that empower offensive/defensive should last longer than 24 hours or that either each stance should just be offensive or defensive within itself and become permanent until you leave the stance (or kind of like werebeast transform/revert). My second idea is that monks should get anatomy based things like blademasters (anatomy mastery and so forth).
Having ideas like:
Instead of having critical strike for monks have some kind of critical kick, where you can direct which part of the body you want to kick and certain places has certain perks for kicking. The first kick would do the desired affect on chance like blademaster and the double kick would just hit like normal. Example: A directed kick to the knee does enfeeblement, or a directed kick to the head blinds or adds an extra round lag for spells. Not exactly sure which each directed kick should do, but I'm just trying to throw out some ideas. Monks do not get much except for dirt kick, air thrash (kind of pointless because it only lasts one hour and everyone flees immediately), kick/double kick, and trip. Perhaps monks should lose the automatic chakera stuff and make those happen on command. Just thinking that monks and blademasters should be able to do the same types of things with anatomies, but one with weapons and the other with hands (maybe some different affects as well).
Any thoughts?
Why do you want to have 2 same classes? Sorry, that sounds absolutely stupid to me.
I am not talking about two of the same classes, but I think monks should have some more things to do. Such as command chakeras that have affects like blademasters critical strikes have attacks.
While I agree that monks could use some more flavor, and be a class that relies less on pure and unadulterated luck to get true victories, I do have to agree with foxx in that to change the monk class, we would have to be very creative in order to ensure that it's not too similar to blademasters.
I don't, however, agree with flat out calling ideas, especially thoughtful ideas, "absolutely stupid".
Just remember that if Foxx calls your idea stupid, chances are, you have a pretty cool idea.
I think monks could use some flavor adjustment myself, although I'm not sure if I'm for an actual toning up or down. Maybe the Buddha stance could be massively reworked to be made useful.
Buddha is amazingly useful, but in specific situations. I have watched a certain lich trying to fight someone in buddha, and could literally do nothing. Same with Shamans. Buddha makes it very hard on a caster.
So your advice is to use buddha against shaman? 
Here's my opinions, make chakra a skill so that it goes off more than just luck. 100% chakra and 100% anatomy means it hits on a more regular basis. The 24 hour limit on offensive and defensive is FINE. Monks are meant to be in only one type of stance for a time and this limits their abilities. In a way I feel that Monks should be a little OP. The offensive stances should just destroy offensively but this will make them weaker to mages and their defense will blow. The same goes for the other ways to go, a monk in defense should have sick bonuses to that. Being offensive and defensive limits what skills you can use, I don't know how many times I wish I could've done this or that and been in the wrong stance for it. I see stances as a way to hone a monk towards a certain point, they should be better than others once they reach it but weaker in other fields.
Yeah Buddha is great against a caster, but here comes that berserker or warrior who's been looking for you forever. Monks have the capabilities to fight against any type of character. But they have downfalls too. Look at all that a monk looses to others just in a cabal. No weapons = no cabal weapons, even warmaster which uses all sorts of weapons isn't as much of a benefit to a monk as others. The class gets shafted from both ends and needs something done.
Foxx, please try to be more constructive.
Now back to the thread. Buddha stance definitely needs to get some kind of boost. Cant think of anything that would not be OP at the moment. I still think monks should get anatomy expertise and anatomy mastery's. It would be cool if you could actually specialize into one races weaknesses. And chakera probably should be made into a skill, maybe toned down slightly, but increased with some kind of affects to go along with the strike. I still like the idea of being able to kick at a precise location on your enemy causing some kind of affect, that would be a pretty cool addition to monks. Or why not just make some kind of "weapon" that monks could wear on their hands (example being perhaps glass covered gloves or like boots with a dagger at the toe, but having the weapons still allow the martial arts and kickboxing).
So your advice is to use buddha against shaman?
Shaman invoker lich vamp necro.
Sadly I kind of see what Foxx means. Your suggestions are turning monks into unarmed blademasters.
Monks, like zerks, require alot more to play than people give them credit for. People think it is about dirt lag lag lag. It CAN be, just like a zerk fight CAN be rage bod bod bod bod. Just it is not very often.
Sadly I kind of see what Foxx means. Your suggestions are turning monks into unarmed blademasters.
Indeed, and there is no need for two classes that are so similar. I thought using your common sense you would realise what I meant, but I guess nowadays commons sense ain't so common. 
I Find monks overpowered. with the right armor they become monsters.
Tsaiba walked through Scorvale when he was in buddha. He had alot harder time in dragon. A whole lot harder time. I couldn't do anything to him when he put up Buddha.
You know what the primary difference between warriors and berserkers is?
Rage versus riposte and a warrior lore.
Hrm...simplistic, but I guess I can see where the sentiment arises from...
You know what the primary difference between invokers and battlemages is?
Mana charge versus a dancing blade.
Uh.
You know what the primary difference between rangers and necromancers is?
Ranger Paths versus maledictions.
Uh....
You know what the primary difference between paladins and dark-knights is?
Heroism versus a charmie.
Uh.........
I'm all for tweaking monks a bit, but there's no need to talk crazy here 
It's talking just as crazy as suggesting that giving a monk control of its abilities in a way that will remove the luck factor is the same as creating a no-weapon blademaster alternative.
How about instead of making monks better, we make a new class. We call them Pirates!
You know, I haven't made my annual Pirates submission thread yet for 2009...
Not true, would you like to take away bodyslam from a Berserker because it'd to much like the bash of a Warrior? There's more ideas stated here than just giving a monk control of his abilities but since you're focusing on that one let's think. A monk can do what in combat now? Dirk Kick, Kick/Double Kick, Air Thrash, Trip, disarm but barely any weapon skills? Trip isn't that effective due to the high curve of the PB most people will be flying when you get near them or will flee to fly. Personally if I see any class looking for me in my pk range I do anything I can to negate their lag skills. Monks just don't have as large of a strategy in them as other classes, there's things there but they're not what you can count on all the time. Horse kick is great but you can't depend on it, Tiger claw hits hard but you can't use it as a finishing move.
This may be wrong, but when I've played them most of my strategy with a monk was decided by the stance. Choosing it was more than half of the battle. Now this in a way does help monks, you can sit back and let your luck decide and be ready to chase while just using dirt to keep them blind. You can air thrash which will usually just cause an opponent to flee. Monks SHOULD HAVE MORE. They should be able to choose more in how they fight, no they shouldn't have the selection of a blademaster but why couldn't they have some selection?
Fact: If a martial artist is wanting to slow an opponent down what do they do? Kick them in the legs. Why can't monks do so? Just because Blademasters are around that doesn't mean that another class should be held behind due to them being simular. So my ideas are this:
-
Monks should have more active skills in combat. This doesn't have to be like the critical strike of a blademaster but being able to hamper an opponet somehow would be nice. Having to rely as much on luck as skill in combat isn't fair to a class when no other must do so. Every other class is capable of boosting this or that, to increase their key abilities. Monks likewise shoul be able to do so. I do not think they should have the selection style the blademaster has, maybe add in different types of attacks to the styles. One for each, such as: a low kick in crane to slow down / enfeeble an opponent. This will allow the monk to increase his bonuses from the speed and accuracy of this stance. An elbow strike to the temples in Buddha which hampers casters. Give each stance a special attack that is done by command.
-
Does anyone else feel like Monks get shafted in cabals? I've always thought that because of their lack of weapons, armor restrictions, and fighting styles that monks got the short end of the stick here.
-
Neutral Monks, there is no reason why they shouldn't be around. None at all. With strict discipline does NOT come a necessity to join one side or the other. Look at the classes that are restricted to good or evil. Paladin, Cleric, Healer, Shaman, Dark-Knight and Necromancer. Now I may be wrong about the DK, but all but Necromancer are good or evil due to the gods they follow. And even if that's not why a DK falls in with Necro on being evil simply because that's what they ARE. Raising creatures from the dead, trapping souls in your weapon. All evil. Monks have no reason to fall into either category and to be honest a part of me sees how they shouldn't be good or evil and purely neutral. But I do kinda see how they could be both.