Is monk vs warrior dps really classic right now?

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The monk has a better weapon and better haste than you, on top of more double attacks and likely attacking from the rear while you're attacking from the front and losing dps to mob dodge/parry/riposte. Throw in flying kick and yeah, no wonder he's doing twice the damage.

If you people would read my post you would see we both attacked from front/behind equally. If anything I was spending more time in the back. He has 3% better haste and a weapon with a 20% better ratio than Staff of Battle. And actually I had shaman STR/DEX on a good part of this fight, so the actual difference is even higher [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And fisch, my logic is this: Post-nerf, Verant intended monks to take about 10% more damage than Warriors. Since Monks also get all sorts of toys like FD, they probably didn't intend Monks to do 100% more damage than warriors as well, which would make Warriors . . . kinda useless. Yet Monk damage was not nerfed. In fact I seem to remember reading somewhere that their intention was 1 / 1.2 / 1.4 warrior/monk/rogue (of course that doesn't mean they actually pulled it off, this is Verant after all).