![]() |
#12
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
The point is, all things considered, a monk brings more to the table in a greater breadth of situations. As a tank, a monk has more versatility in smaller comps (duo, trio). In full groups, monks can fulfill the tank role adequately while simultaneously bringing dps. You have to compare the marginal usefulness of snap agro to what a monk brings-- mitigation that is roughly the same, efficient pulling, and excellent dps. Snap agro allows your shaman to slow the mob 10 seconds earlier, is that worth losing the monk's massive dps? In most situations, probably not. That said, I play a shadowknight, because I have fun with the class and I enjoy being the underdog so I can go on the forums and bitch about how monks are OP. | |||
|
#13
|
|||
|
![]() As a cleric, I would take a Pally over a monk in my group every day of the week and twice on Sundays!
Dalron - Cleric of the 14th Circle of Light | ||
|
#14
|
|||
|
![]() Me too. Any high aggro melee is going to do better with a snap aggro tank.
__________________
The Ancient Ranger
Awake again. | ||
|
#15
|
|||
|
![]() If the Monk is pulling he already has agro. You can't cast most spells till the mob is under 80% health I don't care who is the tank. Monks have crazy damage in this game like it or not. I'll take the monk thank you.
| ||
|
#16
|
|||
|
![]() Must not be a cleric, lol. I don't care about their damage, they have way too many negatives that offset it for me!
| ||
|
#17
|
|||
|
![]() Or, I might add, a ranger can snap aggro as well. Don't tank as well as Sk/Pally of course, but comparable to a monk and can aggro like a mofo.
__________________
The Ancient Ranger
Awake again. | ||
|
#18
|
|||
|
![]() I want the mob to die, and die quick. So I will still take the Monk, sorry.
| ||
|
#19
|
|||||
|
![]() Quote:
A) Late slows B) Agro on slow Will be mitigated by the fact that the monk is doing excellent dps to the mob. As I said, there are countless situations where each class's distinctions have varying levels of usefulness and hybrid tanks will excel in some situations. My point is, the monks ability to mitigate at roughly the level of a paladin/sk and provide excellent dps and pull without mana use make them a superior choice in the majority of circumstances. If that isn't enough for you, just look at what happened on live after Velious. Luclin gutted monk survivability, added more dps for shadow knights, and gave paladins(lol) more stuns(mitigation, agro). Even Velious itself attempted to bring sk's/paladins up to par by restructuring their defensive skillcaps, but ludicrous monk itemization ensured monks still reigned supreme in that era. Quote:
Ranger: Defense: 200 Dodge: 170 Parry: 220 Riposte: 150 Rogue: Defense: 252 Dodge: 210 Parry: 230 Riposte: 225 Shaman: Defense: 200 Dodge: 75 A ranger's mitigation isn't even close to a monk, paladin, or shadowknight. It is likely inferior even to a rogue. Add in the epic slow proc and things get interesting. And again, I'm not bashing the merit of these classes. Hybrids are my favorite classes to play; I hate monks, I think they're boring. It's just important that you understand reality. | ||||
Last edited by Ephirith; 10-16-2012 at 03:29 PM..
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
![]() Well, so far I've not had much trouble tanking when I've needed to. I have watched monks tank and haven't been convinced that it wasn't comparable. And yes, was after 40.
__________________
The Ancient Ranger
Awake again. | ||
|
![]() |
|
|