Best Trio That Doesn't Use Enchanter

[Zuranthium]

Don't need a knight for that, just use root proximity aggro if the Rogue's evade isn't sufficient to keep the Monk on top of the aggro list most of the time.

[Danth]

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

There's no point in the concept of "what trio can kill the toughest mob" since you can just add +1 of anything to kill said mob easier or faster.

If my wife and I are perfectly content duo'ing and we're not inclined to invite random twits along, then the question of low-numbers capability is very much relevant. That applies to trios as surely as a duo.


There is no content I know of that monk/shaman duo that shadowknight/shaman cannot. Monk's advantage is reduced to that of increased speed, something I acknowledge but can't get excited about. Is there any content a monk-based trio can do that a knight-based trio, cannot? After all, we're limited to the content that actually exists in-game, not hypotheticals. If killrate is the main advantage, that's not something I care overmuch about. Since we're limited to extant content, it could be the defacto case of several compositions having about the same ceiling.

[fortior]

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

Counterpoint: It's a hell of a long road until the average Monk acquires a Fist of Nature, and by then the trio is already fully leveled and likely close to maximally geared anyway. At that point, how much difference does it make anyway? Especially considering Necro/Shaman can both root on demand (versus Monk proc root) and won't be hurting for mana.

I mean, I feel like the focus of these hypotheticals is either "what trio levels the best" or "what trio can kill the toughest mob", so I don't see how the Tuna fist proc is relevant to either consideration. Am I missing something?

If you're talking monk/necro/shaman then necro can FD aggro on demand and shaman is perfectly fine tanking slowed mobs while the monk builds aggro to maximize regen healing. I really don't think a trio needs the snap aggro of a knight, since honestly usually in an xp group with regen spells/abilities it's a waste to only have 1 player get beat on, and in a group hunting super tough stuff, well, at that point you have clickies and proc weapons and what-not to take care of it.

I think the snap aggro of a knight is much more valuable as the group/raid gets bigger, because with aggro 100% fixed, you can just add more rogues until you win, as long as the knight can stay up. But monks are also better at staying up...

[zelld52]

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

There is no content I know of that monk/shaman duo that shadowknight/shaman cannot.

Pretty accurate assumption. Monk get Instant FD which is helpful in "oh shit" moments, makes splitting a bit easier. But SK get Death Peace at 60, and much more HP to deal with "oh shit" moments.

Monk has way more DPS than Knight - and doesn't require any mana - so no meditate breaks needed on a monk. Monk also has a 25% self-heal every 6 minutes and bind wound to 70% - but shaman gets Torpor at 60 and all other healing is irrelevant.

At end-end game with great gear - monk does have the edge on damage mitigation. Block (monk only skill) stops way more incoming damage than Parry (every other melee gets this instead). Monk also get Stonestance which is 60% dmg reduction on a 6-minute cooldown. Not enough to last a whole fight, but enough to stop a monk from dying. ?Possibly? better than lifetaps because it doesn't require mana or cast time?

All that stuff is pretty much nitpicking the differences though - the only real benefit to Monk over SK is the increased damage output - and faster kills. (Helped by not needing mana)

[Snaggles]

Unless you compare apples to oranges the average knight has far more hps than the average monk. Like 50% more. Plus a 12pt DS that stacks with Ring8. Plus a lot of other tricks.

It’s not quite as powerful but I’d argue a sk/mage/sham group is an alternative to the necro /sham / monk. Unless the latter is undead charming I bet they are pretty close.

[Zuranthium]

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

Unless you compare apples to oranges the average knight has far more hps than the average monk. Like 50% more.

That's really not true. Knights only have 30% more base HP, before accounting for +HP items and +HP buffs. Buffs obviously affect everyone the same, so that lowers the differential, and in Velious people are using pretty much the same +HP items, so that lowers the difference even more. It's really just 12-15% difference in the end, depending on gear.

In the context of a trio with no Cleric, then a Paladin could actually get to that 50% difference because of self HP buffs, but what's the point really? Max HP loses a ton of value without Complete Heal. Monks stop more damage than Knights at their base tanking ability, because they block more attacks. That's more important.

[Snaggles]

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

That's really not true. Knights only have 30% more base HP, before accounting for +HP items and +HP buffs. Buffs obviously affect everyone the same, so that lowers the differential, and in Velious people are using pretty much the same +HP items, so that lowers the difference even more. It's really just 12-15% difference in the end, depending on gear.

In the context of a trio with no Cleric, then a Paladin could actually get to that 50% difference because of self HP buffs, but what's the point really? Max HP loses a ton of value without Complete Heal. Monks stop more damage than Knights at their base tanking ability, because they block more attacks. That's more important.

In the mid-tier game people gear differently. If you have your 5th Vulak slot the HPs between knights and monks tend to get more close.

My ranger has solid gear but more MR with a bit of STR over raw hps. My paladin only stam/hps with many slots without any MR or STR. The difference is about 1200 base hps. If the ranger (or monk) was more HP focused that gap might only be 600 or so.

Nobody is going to dispute monks being able to tank admirably. Hit for bit better than knights. I just don’t think on blue cons they will do 2x the dps and the hybrid spellbook is worth something. If you have the patience to babysit it, the top SK pet alone is a notable dps bump.

[Duik]

Did DSM die?

[Toxigen]

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

That's really not true. Knights only have 30% more base HP, before accounting for +HP items and +HP buffs. Buffs obviously affect everyone the same, so that lowers the differential, and in Velious people are using pretty much the same +HP items, so that lowers the difference even more. It's really just 12-15% difference in the end, depending on gear.

In the context of a trio with no Cleric, then a Paladin could actually get to that 50% difference because of self HP buffs, but what's the point really? Max HP loses a ton of value without Complete Heal. Monks stop more damage than Knights at their base tanking ability, because they block more attacks. That's more important.

also mend

[Zuranthium]

I don't count Mend as an advantage, because knights have their own self-heals. Even more accurately, Paladins with their healing spells and lay hands can "tank better" than a Monk over a given timeframe, but that's not the entirety of how the game works. Paladins are doing a lot less DPS than a Monk, so they end up taking more damage in the long run, since things die slower.