That's my point. When someone clearly wants to play a barbarian and is debating warrior or shaman they don't need people saying to reroll an ogre. That's not helpful.
Every race/class combo is fun and viable to someone....

Don't expect to tank well unless you're twinked as a monk. You will be struggling to hold aggro in groups. Warriors do at least have taunt. SK/PAL got that snap aggro which is why in almost every group on the road to 60 you will see a knight tanking.

In 90% of the cases you will be the puller as a monk, 10% you'll tank waiting for a knight/warrior. Which is fun. You get to learn how a zone works, how it looks, which will make most other characters you roll more fun.

You won't be this super-class some prop up monks to be. If I had a choice between an equally twinked monk or knight, I'd choose the knight every time. Monks are great DPS and Pullers and CAN tank if you can't find a proper tank. Be sure to ask for someone to root if you're going to tank as a monk because otherwise the mobs WILL ping-pong and the healer will have to keep 5 people alive rather than one(which drains mana fast).

Mini-rant here... I HATE HERO MONKS WHO THINK THEY'RE THE TANK. Seriously, stop it. You're wasting my mana, you have FD, you can manage your aggro. Stop waving your T-staff shaped E-peen in the face of everyone, just stop it.

If you duo with a shaman you can't go wrong with either warrior/sk/monk, where the monk edges out the other two due to the combination of DPS/Pulling(splitting mobs)/good-enough-tank.

I want to see those "Shadow Knights are useless" folks provide a full list of places a Monk/Shaman can duo where a SK/Shaman cannot. I'd like some actual perspective rather than vague claims.

Danth

min-max mindset; If X class can do something 0.1% more efficient than Y class, Y class is useless and anyone rolling Y class should be berated and humiliated. Bonus points if they mention why a particular race is also 0.05% more effective and you are "retarded and/or an idiot" for not choosing it.

For instance, there were no effective monks or necromancers before Kunark. They were completely useless and the sole demographic rolling those were retards/idiots.

You'd be surprised just how well monks do tank if you bothered to parse it. It's actually pretty sad; but it's classic. Comparing equivalently geared characters, they take less damage than either knight class or even warriors outside of defensive discipline.

What they don't have is reliable aggro ... But warriors don't really have that either. Their hit point pools are somewhat low, but that's not really important unless you've got a cleric that is using complete heal.

Monks are just one of those overpowered classes in this era of EQ.

Knights are great and a blast to play.
Warriors do their job well.

But yeah monks really do take the lowest damage outside of discipline.

Gearing options for monks are great in kunark era and ridiculous in velious era. You can get some great +ac pieces that are pretty lightweight for sub 100p. If you have 1k to spend on a char, the monk can actually be pretty well equipped, while knights and wars will struggle. Knights and wars are fine, as the content of this game isn't that hard, and you'll do great in most situations with them.

A negative I would have for the knight classes is that they can't regen mana well while fighting, so you will have added downtime between fights that you wouldn't if you were monk/war, unless you are grouped with enc/bard. I think, ultimately, that's the biggest enemy to newer players (downtime,) and it's probably a reason you guys quit before.

Didn't dispute that but in terms overall effectiveness in tanking(as in the role of the tank) monks fall short.

Doesnt matter if you take less damage when the mob in question is attack your chanter/healer. As a Paladin I have FoL/Stun/heal/root and are able to swiftly regain control of the fight + every other class can comfortably heal/DPS without the fear of getting attacked. SKs have a similar yet different set of tools to do the same.

That's my entire point. While the mitigation numbers favour monks there's more to tanking than simply taking a little bit less damage.

If you're fulfilling a tank role, then chances are you have at least 1 support class with you that can root so the monk can root tank. It's great that paladins/rangers/SK's have all these tools, but if you use them a lot you're gonna have to sit and med (without an enc.) It's better to have support classes use all those tools since they can regen mana during the fight, but a lot of healers get in the "just sit there and wait to heal" mentality instead of taking a larger role in xp groups. On a similar note, had a cleric buying stun command off me, and he didnt wanna offer very much because he said that spell was "useless to him." lol.

Sometimes warriors and monks that need a way to emergency aggro on a mob. If, for example a silky or lower level group member is being beaten up on.

Taunt can achieve this, but it is far from reliable. As such, a more serious pseudo solution (and available to both classes) is root nets.

I regularly group with a monk. He pulls, tanks, and does dps well. In terms of healing, he doesn't need much. Mend helps a lot, as does his iksar regen. He holds aggro well enough, and if not, root isn't much mana.
Sometimes we'll get a tank to join us. There is a distinct difference. While the tank does require more healing, his aggro allows me to med more. I usually have plenty of mana either way.

Now, when the monk pulls a wizard, that's another story. He has pretty poor resists. Usually the tank can stun and their gear has more resists. That's the kicker. If you're fighting casters, the monk usually isn't as good an option.

This is in smaller groups (2-4). In a full group I don't think that would matter as much. The monk holds aggro over the wizards when we invite them. Heck, the rogue can keep aggro over the wizard.
If you're not fighting raid mobs, the difference is negligible. It's all about knowing your group and their potential. Paying attention helps exponentially. :)