Class: Monk

[rumsey]

Personally, I think there should be more class allies combined than faction and/or Neutral allies. As long as they're designed with forethought and balanced, you will see more variety. With my Monk class, Shaorin Monk doesn't really replace Puwen or Blake, it's just an ally you'd use for a deck focused on Fate, Destiny, and Legacy. Nameless Hero is an ally that would be the first 4-drop for Humans I guess. And for Sword Saint, it doesn't replace Raven, it's just a Monk alternative like Shaorin Monk. The cards were designed so you can play without the main Fate mechanic; although the deck probably wouldn't fair as well; so you can use the Human allies exclusively. And given a greater card pool, the class can be more balanced where the Fate-less flavour can do just as well as the themed decks.

Any One-eyed Dragon would have to run all of those cards. Building a Monk deck without using Fate pretty much means you're a god damned moron since their Hero abilities hinge on Fate, you are basically saying "Hey, I'd like to play a Hero with no ability." In which case, this whole entire paragraph was a cop out.

Your monk class too, looks amazing, but look at it this way, if your class came into action now, with all the cards complete, and working together, would you use a human ally? No, because it wouldn't fit in as well as the monk cards do. That's my point..

Also your point doesn't sound like any improvement. Your idea is every Human and Shadow deck uses the same allies, which we'll assume is true for the sake of argument (but which isn't). So you think it would be better to use class specific allies that would mirror this monk class, but I say that's even worse. So now every Monk is exactly the same, every Nishaven is exactly the same, Every Wulven is exactly the same... how is that any sort of improvement? Everyone would still have the same deck.

But its kind of pointless to argue since not all shadow decks ARE the same. Some decks make better use of Bad Wolf and Keldor, while others prefer Medusil and Deathbone. Some decks stack 4 PBs, other use 0. You build your deck based on which ally's ability will better synergize with your abilities, or compensate for weaker areas in your abilities. As a larger pool of allies and abilities becomes available, I'm sure we'll see greater deck variation across the board (whether they be assigned by race or class).

[AnAdolt]

@MattOG
I think the Monk class may be just that "look awesome". I'm somewhat sure but not extremely confidently on how well Fate and Legacy works together. But I was more heavy-handed with their design with the Fate mechanics simply because I believe in themed classes.

I won't cripple my designs based on the current norm. Most of the current classes seem makeshift due to their design being less central and thematic. I changed all of my Rogue suggestions to flow like Monks because I think that's how classes should be designed. I don't care for winning contests, I'll submit suggestions which I feel are right in principle.

As for the faction and Neutral card pool, I actually think it's better kept. I do agree the current implementation is a bit dry because of the card pool. However, I think we'll see better usage of faction cards and Neutral cards in the second set, when they'll likely be more complex. Such as, with the introduction of faction favouring cards and/or Neutral favouring cards. But overall, I agree with you that we should move towards having more class specific cards because we already have an abundance of faction and Neutral cards. rumsey and I have was actually having this very same discussion we're having, the other day.

@rumsey
Yes, One-eyed Dragon was designed for a Fate-oriented Monk deck while Jen Eris Lee works better on a more Fate-less deck. Like I said, currently, there is more emphasis on a Fate deck because that's the underpinning theme of the Monk class but you can build a Fate-less deck and with more cards, these decks can be balanced to be just as strong.

[Drakkon]

Nice stuff, AnAdolt. I wouldn't mind seeing this implemented.

[Kaylie]

Yeah another KungFu fan!!! FoShanWuYinTui!!!

I loved your ideas and those insane costing and output skills.. Check out my martial artist card suggestions under card suggestions too. I can them Ashurans, since monks are too goody2shoe for our Gothic Shadow Era

[ROAR]

Nice one AnDolt. I like this... sort of asian twist coming into the game. Well thoughtout cards too and the thing I like the most is that it brings about a whole new element to the game.

The reason we have so little variance in the decks is NOT because we have so few cards. It's because every human/shadow has access to every human/shadow ally. You could bring out 100 new allies tomorrow, and guaranteed in 2 weeks, you'd see every human deck running the same allies, because the best ones are found, and everyone uses them.

While I do agree with this statement - I believe it shouldn't happen if the addition of 100 allies are followed by 100 new abilities/items etc. Having a generally larger card pool (allies, abilites, items etc) will bring about new decks with different tactics and stretagies. In this case having same allies avaliable to a variety of heroes shouldn't matter too much.

I have a sheet I call "Shadow Era - Redesigned", where I've pretty much split everything into classes. Class allies, abilities, weapons. I've added about 20 (so far) new cards, and it was looking pretty good. Then I realised that with the human/shadow split, it was never going to happen.

Although at the same time... I am very pro to having specific allies fall under specific heroes. If something like this is ever developed, having cards that have extra benefit to these class allies will help make interesting deck designs and also stop everyone from using the "generic" avaliable-to-all-human-allies. For example. Say in your hunter deck, you've got hunter specific allies called "rangers". If these ranger's abilities help other rangers or hunter has abilities that benefit rangers eg. cards like "when ranger comes into play draw a card" or "target ranger gains stealth" etc etc then you might actually have decks designed around rangers. (I suppose it is similar to having sliver decks or goblin decks in MtG)

I think the issue currently is both the fact that there is a small card pool as well as there are not enough specific sub class allies.

[AnAdolt]

Thanks for your words of praise, everyone. While of course I'm happy to hear people like the ideas, I was also expecting some criticisms too. I guess no one dareth make them while I hold my ban lance and seemingly stare them down as they're trying to type their comment on their keyboard.

[Fiend]

Thanks for your words of praise, everyone. While of course I'm happy to hear people like the ideas, I was also expecting some criticisms too. I guess no one dareth make them while I hold my ban lance and seemingly stare them down as they're trying to type their comment on their keyboard.

Your suggestions suck. Happy?

Kidding, don't poke me. :P I like the Monk suggestions, but I don't think it can be implemented until SE gets more cards out on the current classes. IMO.

[AnAdolt]

As heroes have already been preset for the first set, Monks were designed with this well in mind and intended for the second set. That's partly why I maintained introducing new mechanics that simply wouldn't be feasible with the current timeline for the first set. After the first set has been finished and its cards readjusted for the last time, they will work on the second set and that'll be the earliest something like Monks can see the light of day.

[glenn3e]

Sold me at the "No Shadow Kick"....

[AnAdolt]

Hahahaha. I so ripped that one. It's a cool name though so it's good to pay tribute.