The level of reading comprehension on these forums is just 0. How can you read post titled "Is monk vs warrior dps really classic right now" and think "I know, that guy is pissed about warrior vs monk tanking!" ? Or maybe, just maybe, the post is about warrior vs monk dps!! And how I'm really curious how the devs decided that classic monks did TWICE the damage of classic warriors, i.e. based on what parses?
I already knew that monks were OP in classic EQ. My main is an enchanter; I thought I'd do something a little different. If you have a class that takes 10% less dps than warriors, does 30-50% more, and has mend/fd/hide/sneak . . . that class is OP. If you give them all that and they do more damage than rogues as well. . . why would anyone play anything else?
Now maybe Orruar is right and all i have to do is equip my staff of battle and I'll get +50% dps. It doesn't jive with what I've seen so far, but hey my human brain is faulty. I'll have to try to get the numbers sometime.
But all of this ignores the point that I'm trying to make here, which I will restate because some of the people here don't get hints unless they are applied with a sledgehammer: is it really classic for monks to do so so so much damage than warriors?
|