Heh fury and air thrash. Well invokers would still have staff and second attack.
Feral monks?
I'd like a werebeast monk. Go beast form but still have defenses, sweeet.
Heh, news to me that werebeasts have silver vuln. Makes sense, I've just never seen it used or had it used on me. 
Course I havn't read help files since beta...maybe I should.
It's like drow and elf vuln, they can't touch it and it's only able to be used against them if you can throw(thieves, ninja, ranger, bard).
except that blademasters cant air thrash
so in essence, You can Fury someone get it to then air thrash them, death. A monk laglocking a mage is ruthless. I agree that feral would be overpowered as a monk, given their autodefense mastery and a few other nice things. I just wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way about it that I do lol. I think a feral monk is similar to going squirrel hunting with an rpg, hell yes its gonna be fun, but jeezus its overkill.
Wow, nice thought! Squirrel hunting with an RPG! That should be ****ing fun!
Just cause it's overkill doesn't mean it shouldnt happen! It could be loads of fun for everyone!
Point for feral monks: Defense mastery is parry, dodge, not first parry/second parry
Point against feral monks: 24 dex with four defenses and bashmunity/tripmunity.
Conclusion: No feral monks.
Well said.
Crazy. Never knew that.
Then again, I don't think I've ever died to a werebeast anyways, so I guess I didn't need to know. ^_~
Point against halfling blademaster: 25 dex with four defenses and bashmunity/tripmunity with magic resistance.
I am personally against halfer blademasters.
I'm against blademaster's in general. Pain in the neck to train, and they can still get owned plenty easily, just like any other class. I'd rather play something else with less training, and still (in my opinion) just as strong.
Halfer blademasters can either a) get lagged really easily or 
be FAR less offensive against melees. I see that as very similar to monks, except even offensively, monks don't get lagged quite as badly, and ALL their defensive stances allow it.
I was just curious on everyone elses thoughts. Don't turn this into an argument. Leave it a debate.
What the hell? Someone said that because the ferals are a blademaster, they should be able to become a monk. So my point is, Sliths and Dwarves can be blademasters, so by that logic, they should be able to become monks aswell.
Granted, I misunderstood Psycho's post(My bad man, I read it as you insinuating that the game substitute monks for blademasters, not players substitiute blademasters for monks, I get ya now and I agree with you), but seriously, Emp_Newb, crawl off my *** for a minute and read my post. I don't see where you get any tone out of my post that would be any different than anyone elses in this thread.
You want a debate, but you don't want people to post opposite opinions to yours? I guess I just don't understand what the hell you're talking about as far as my posting etique went in this thread. So here goes, a full answer to why I think feral monks are a bad idea...
Feral Monks are a bad idea because, if nothing else, role play. Monks are all about self control and being civilized in some way, they get mercy, and are guardians of knowledge. Ferals are wild humans, corrupted and tainted by chaos, who became brutal and uncivilized, their skill fury is the use of their emotion in combat. Ferals seem to be the contradiction to monks.
Debate enough? Or am I still batting arguement?
WC
Argument, only one E.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
when I first started I tried ar too. They had slith monks. Insanity' date=' utter insanity. I have already said it would be an overpowered combo. I was just curious on everyone elses thoughts. Don't turn this into an argument. Leave it a debate.[/quote']
Hate to break it to ya, bub, but arguments are debates and vice versa.
The problem becomes when very few, if any, know how to do it constructively. If you don't want an argument, don't ask for a debate.
Roleplay aside, I think people need to stop comparing monks to blademasters in general. 
Sure they both have the anatomies/encumberance system, and they share a few similar traits but other than that, they play a little differently. If they didn't, only one of the classes would exist. 
Dey
Look at what they are based on IRL.
Monks are based on, well monks.
Monks can be found in many oriental countries,
they are generally reclusive, contemplative,
and are also buddhist (which type of buddhism
is usually country and area specific)
BLMS's are based on Samurai. Samurai are not
reclusive, they are very active in society. They
are also buddhist, but historically speaking, Zen
buddhist, that is the religion of war. BLM's also
do not use martial arts, at least not to the extent
of monks. They are trained in some hand to hand
combat, but rely heavily on the blade, and infact
stances of combat.
Anatomy and encumberance they have in common
and thats about it.