Thinking Monk, Will I be nerfed I DONT do Ikky?

[VincentVolaju]

So Ive finally got some time to get back into the game again for a while at least for a few months anyway. Figured I would just start over now that Kunark is out and there is a lot more items to twink etc.

Since Ive got a little money, I figured Id try a melee class. Leaning towards Monk at the moment but I don't really like the idea of being an evil race and having to worry about being KOS to random NPCs all over etc. But if I don't go Ikky, will I be taking a huge nerf? Like how much of a difference is there really between Human and Ikky?



PS: Also, is it true that the amount of Monks on the server is absurd, and that I will prob hardly ever get a group because there is just always so many already sitting in LFG?

[Swish]

PS: Also, is it true that the amount of Monks on the server is absurd, and that I will prob hardly ever get a group because there is just always so many already sitting in LFG?

Monks are a dime a dozen it seems, but everyone loves them in a group for pulling and their limitless dps (compared with a wizard who has to stop to med for example).

Not sure what its like at the top end (50+), but further back I rarely see a monk struggling to group. As for the iksar vs human issue, I've never played one to know :P

[Loke]

First, let me address the who idea of there being too many monks. There are a ton of fucking monks, no doubt about it. However, a competent monk who actually knows what they're doing is worth their weight in gold and if you get a reputation for knowing your class finding a group or guild will be absolutely no problem. If you want to be DPS, make a rogue. If you want to be a puller, which in a raid setting is essentially the same role as a quasi-raid leader, then roll a monk. To a monk, the role of DPS is secondary.

As far as human or iksar - I rolled a human before iksars were playable so I didn't really have a choice. However, if I were in your shoes I'd probably make a human again. If you're a min/max type of player, you should roll an iksar because based purely on statistics and abilities, they are superior. I personally feel at the end game the difference is minuscule, but I'm sure there is someone out there that would disagree with me. I played a human monk for years on live and have played one for well over a year here and have never had a problem overcoming my human inferiority.

I know it is a generic statement, but play what you want to play and what you think will be fun. Just know that as a monk if you're idea of a good time is sitting in camp and DPSing, you might have a hard time when you reach the level of gaming where your peers have certain expectations based on your class that exceed the role of simple DPSing.

[VincentVolaju]

First, let me address the who idea of there being too many monks. There are a ton of fucking monks, no doubt about it. However, a competent monk who actually knows what they're doing is worth their weight in gold and if you get a reputation for knowing your class finding a group or guild will be absolutely no problem. If you want to be DPS, make a rogue. If you want to be a puller, which in a raid setting is essentially the same role as a quasi-raid leader, then roll a monk. To a monk, the role of DPS is secondary.

As far as human or iksar - I rolled a human before iksars were playable so I didn't really have a choice. However, if I were in your shoes I'd probably make a human again. If you're a min/max type of player, you should roll an iksar because based purely on statistics and abilities, they are superior. I personally feel at the end game the difference is minuscule, but I'm sure there is someone out there that would disagree with me. I played a human monk for years on live and have played one for well over a year here and have never had a problem overcoming my human inferiority.

I know it is a generic statement, but play what you want to play and what you think will be fun. Just know that as a monk if you're idea of a good time is sitting in camp and DPSing, you might have a hard time when you reach the level of gaming where your peers have certain expectations based on your class that exceed the role of simple DPSing.


Yeah I see what your saying, Ive been thinking about Rogue also however apparently they cant solo at all. I plan on grouping most of the time but when I cant find a group I dont really know what else Id be doing if I can't solo lol. The main reason why I was thinking Monk over Rogue was because they are able to solo a bit.

However, I am not a min/max player at all, and honestly I am not even sure Ill get to lvl 60 in the next few months, so end game content isn't even really a concern to me. I mainly just want a high dps class that I can twink out a bit and have a good time grouping w/ people while leveling up.

After reading a bit through the forums it just sounded like Monks were #1 DPS, could solo well and could even tank a bit. But yeah the idea of them being over populated + having a lot more responsibility then just high DPS is kind of a turn off also =/.

Ughh, FML. Not sure what to do lol.

[MotorX007]

/agree. If you don't plan on learning to pull etc don't roll a monk. You would be fine for the first 20 lvls or so, but then when it comes to grouping a lil harder content you will most definitely be looked to for splitting for the group. And if you are unable to/choose not to do that, you will get that rep and loose the ability to find groups very quickly.

[VincentVolaju]

/agree. If you don't plan on learning to pull etc don't roll a monk. You would be fine for the first 20 lvls or so, but then when it comes to grouping a lil harder content you will most definitely be looked to for splitting for the group. And if you are unable to/choose not to do that, you will get that rep and loose the ability to find groups very quickly.

Yeah, bleh... Thats the only melee class that can solo decently though right? What about Rangers, lol?

[bakkily]

well, on live i lvld a monk, and loved it, was a human

on here after lvling a iksar, was fun and all, but iksar monks have a -40 exp penalty, and usally i dont play evil classes, because most of all the areas for boats, you cant use them unless you have a invis on yer self

but if you were to choose which race, id say look at the pros and the cons, a iksar shaman is great, but i think a human monk is better, its yer choice, and remember to have fun

[Doors]

Monks are the shit. Doesn't really matter if they're too many of them on the server, the class is broken in classic. FD is priceless and has a short cooldown for monks.

Iksar is probably the better race. I like humans though just because you don't need to grind out a shit ton of rep then.

[hrafn]

I like humans though just because you don't need to grind out a shit ton of rep then.

never heard that on EQ.

[Numbers_]

Yeah, there are a lot of monks on the server, but I think how many is a little exaggerated. I actually had a harder time finding groups at a lower level as a shaman. Nine times out of ten i'll get a group after the first call out that i'm LFG.

You really only need one healer, one tank, one crowd control, but you need more than one dps class and dps that doesn't use mana and can instantly drop aggro is pretty nice to have around.

As far as human vs iksar goes...

The regen and ac is very nice, no doubt. I solo a lot and the regen helps with my downtime. Everything else being equal an iksar will kill more things faster than a human monk in the same amount of time (due to less downtime from regen and higher ac). The question is - does the experience penalty equal things out with the human or make the human actually faster to level solo (since they have to kill less to level).

It's 20% (human) vs 44% (iksar), that seems pretty significant and they don't have to fix faction.

[Estu]

If you don't want to deal with pulling duty, go for a rogue. You won't be able to solo, but here's what I would do: get on your rogue, look for a group for a bit, try to form one, etc. If you have no luck, get on an alt that you have just for soloing, like a mage or necromancer. On the alt, keep searching for a group for your rogue while you solo. Do /who all searches on zones you're interested in. Then once you find a group, pop back on the rogue.

[Slugga]

i rolled a human monk after Kunark particularly because i like Human monks, lol. Me and an Iksar buddy of the same lvl/gear dueled the other day and i smoked him 2 times in a row. there will not be a HUGE disadvantage of being human at 40 or 50 or 60, but that iksar regen is probably nice (dont expect it to be like wearing afungi though) but im sure the KoS allover sucks. Maybe try a Ranger, they're fun too. Wont have to pull, have some solo capabilities.....

[mwatt]

You absolutely CAN solo a twinked Rogue to 50 at least. It's just harder than most classes. You have to pick your fights carefully and know how to play your Rogue very well, but it can be done, slowly.

[Tiggles]

Go back to wow/ez server

[VincentVolaju]

Yeah if I do Monk I think Ill def. do Human, originally I was only worried about the KOS, I didnt know they had an exp penalty too. Id rather have 20% less exp + free roaming for the most part, rather then a little extra regen/ac.

However, thats if I do Monk at all. Im really torn now between Rogue and Monk lol.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Yeah, bleh... Thats the only melee class that can solo decently though right? What about Rangers, lol?

Given enough room and arrows, rangers can solo any non-summoning, non-casting mob up to a few levels above themselves. Good luck with that, though.

If you want a melee class that can solo "decently", then you want a bard or a monk.

[Troy]

Given enough room and arrows, rangers can solo any non-summoning, non-casting mob up to a few levels above themselves. Good luck with that, though.

If you want a melee class that can solo "decently", then you want a bard or a monk.

Truth. Soloing on a ranger with arrows is relatively easy but without being 45+ with a Tolan's bracer you'll be out of arrows in an hour or so. With good gear you can melee stuff down and heal yourself back up on ranger/pally, then sit and med to full - kind of like a wizard with a 40+% xp penalty.

[skorge]

forget about the exp penalty thing because this server stops at level 60 with no AAs ever to be gained...knowing that right there means that you will eventually hit level 60 regardless of how slow you level (sure that human monk will hit it first but does it really matter? theres no more exp to be gained after level 60...ever).

the faction would be more of an issue IMO, however that can be farmed...

the real treat of going of iksar vs human monk is knowing that at level 60 you are a better monk (with the same gear on)...not only will you regen faster you will have more AC.

Here's the regen rates at level 60, btw:

Regen Rate (Human): 7 sitting, 5 FD, 4 standing
Regen Rate (Iksar): 18 sitting, 14 FD, 12 standing

To the guy who said it's not like having a fungi tunic...well as you can see at level 60, it almost is, lol...4 vs 12 regen (fungal regrowth is 15 hps/tick)

[neem]

well, on live i lvld a monk, and loved it, was a human

on here after lvling a iksar, was fun and all, but iksar monks have a -40 exp penalty, and usally i dont play evil classes, because most of all the areas for boats, you cant use them unless you have a invis on yer self

but if you were to choose which race, id say look at the pros and the cons, a iksar shaman is great, but i think a human monk is better, its yer choice, and remember to have fun

you, need, to go, back, to school, man

[VincentVolaju]

Regen Rate (Human): 7 sitting, 5 FD, 4 standing
Regen Rate (Iksar): 18 sitting, 14 FD, 12 standing

To the guy who said it's not like having a fungi tunic...well as you can see at level 60, it almost is, lol...4 vs 12 regen (fungal regrowth is 15 hps/tick)


I can see at level 60 there is a big diff, but is there that much of a difference while leveling like 1-50? I mean, does the ratio between them scale the same, or is it not as noticeable?

Im not too concerned with end game cause I doubt Ill even get to 60 before summers over and Ill have to quit again for a while. So my main thing really is just how much of a diff will it be while leveling lol.

[soup]

I can see at level 60 there is a big diff, but is there that much of a difference while leveling like 1-50? I mean, does the ratio between them scale the same, or is it not as noticeable?

Im not too concerned with end game cause I doubt Ill even get to 60 before summers over and Ill have to quit again for a while. So my main thing really is just how much of a diff will it be while leveling lol.

Before 50 the difference is very small. Even at 60 the difference when standing is 8, half a fungi tunic. Obviously very nice, but not game breaking. At 50 the difference is like 4 when standing (I think it's actually less than that), nothing significant.

If you aren't worried about 50+ min/maxing then you don't even really need to factor the regen into your decision of what race to play.

[VincentVolaju]

Before 50 the difference is very small. Even at 60 the difference when standing is 8, half a fungi tunic. Obviously very nice, but not game breaking. At 50 the difference is like 4 when standing (I think it's actually less than that), nothing significant.

If you aren't worried about 50+ min/maxing then you don't even really need to factor the regen into your decision of what race to play.

Gotcha, this makes the decision much easier lol, thanks!!

[Numbers_]

I think it's fairly obvious you _want_ to play a human. There's nothing wrong with that, go for it ;)

I rolled a Half elf paladin back in 1999. Not the optimal choice, but I ended up liking the way the armor looked in the end better than any other race. I just picked it on a whim and it turned out ok for reasons I didn't expect (didn't think anything about min/max at the time really).

Now the class its self was another story ;)