Pal VS SK end game

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am not sure why people use the argument of "we can just pull mobs into camp without FD" as an argument for Paladins. Honestly any time you can do that you are playing trivial content. You could swap the Paladin for a Warrior and you wouldn't notice a difference.

[mattydef]

If we are assuming that specific tasks in a group are already covered than i'm gonna assume my group already has a monk to pull and FD with, and also add more DPS. Paladin still brings back up heals to the group to save a healer or enchanter...not to mention LoH for emergencies.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If we are assuming that specific tasks in a group are already covered than i'm gonna assume my group already has a monk to pull and FD with, and also add more DPS. Paladin still brings back up heals to the group to save a healer or enchanter...not to mention LoH for emergencies.

But if you have an SK you don't need a Monk, and can reduce your group numbers to increase XP gain. This is because the SK can FD pull and tank at the same time.

If you can just pull mobs into the group without FD, you don't need the extra heals hehe. The content is already super easy.

[Toxigen]

If you want to play a tank that relies on FD you should just be playing a monk and do some actual damage.

Can't wait til DSM comes in with a wall o' text trying to convince me that SKs are better than monks in X, Y, and Z.

[mattydef]

I would also bring up the fact that a well timed stun to interrupt a gate/heal/ice comet makes a hell of a difference but they'll just come back and say something like "oh yea well the cleric in the group can do that". Everything a pally brings to a group is apparently disregarded because "another class can do it", but when you point out that another class does what SKs can do but better, they make excuses about how an SK is still somehow more valuable.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If you want to play a tank that relies on FD you should just be playing a monk and do some actual damage.

Can't wait til DSM comes in with a wall o' text trying to convince me that SKs are better than monks in X, Y, and Z.

In a group setting you are correct, a Monk who can tank and pull is going to out-perform an SK in most situations. But in solo situations SK's are generally better than Monks due to how much utility they have with their spells. Fear kiting is more efficient than face tanking as a Monk. Even though their DPS is higher, they have more downtime.

SK's are not stigmatized in group settings, so you don't have much of an edge when getting groups as a Monk. Fungi Tunic camp will take a Monk or an SK as a puller.

When determining if you should play SK or Monk, it really just depends on how much grouping/raiding you want to do. If you solo a lot and group/raid occasionally, SK will be better. Otherwise, Monk is better.

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

I would also bring up the fact that a well timed stun to interrupt a gate/heal/ice comet makes a hell of a difference but they'll just come back and say something like "oh yea well the cleric in the group can do that". Everything a pally brings to a group is apparently disregarded because "another class can do it", but when you point out that another class does what SKs can do but better, they make excuses about how an SK is still somehow more valuable.

SK's can fear to interrupt gate, so Paladin's don't have a monopoly on spell interrupts.

But as I keep saying, if you are in a group where you can just pull mobs without FD, you probably aren't being bothered by spell casters hehe. Just murder them before they can cast and move on, or let the spell land because you are resisting it anyway.

You need to use a different argument than "FD isn't needed" to justify a Paladin, because literally any class can just pull mobs into camp hehe.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Everything a pally brings to a group is apparently disregarded because "another class can do it", but when you point out that another class does what SKs can do but better, they make excuses about how an SK is still somehow more valuable.

To this point specifically, that is not what I am doing at all. You need to realize only 3 classes in the game can FD pull (Monks, SK's, and Necromancers). There are 6 classes that can root and lull (Enchanters, Paladins, Druids, Rangers, Clerics, Necromancers). SK's and Bards can lull, but can't root. There are 6 classes that can heal (Shamans, Clerics, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Necromancers).

The overlap on a Paladin's abilities is much greater than the overlap on an SK's abilities, which is why your group is much more likely to have a Paladin's spell's covered already. That is the point. You are less likely to have an FD class than a class that can root/lull/heal.

And as I keep saying, if you don't need FD to pull, then I am not sure what a Paladin brings to the table other than being a tank. Any class can just agro mobs and bring them into a camp.

[Keebz]

As a 60 monk and SK, monk is definitely better as frankly it's broken, but SK is underrated, probably because it's mostly played by shitters. A few points for SK: 1) way easier to gear 2) surprisingly capable puller in not ToV 3) can tank non-velious dragons

As for paladin vs sk raiding, since the soul fire nerf, it's paladin basically every time, except maybe PoF or when you need a pet for something.

For group and solo content, SK is excellent and really fun. Paladin might be able to heal through some shit that sk can't, but they also can't pull fungi or other high end stuff so who cares.

[Danth]

DSM, problem with being both a tank and puller in the same group is it slows the group down. Full groups don't tend to like that. Usually a regular group will want a person doing one or the other, but not both. That is not class-specific and applies to anyone.

In a generic full group I'd usually rather have my paladin's toolset than my shadowknight's. Either class does fine in good groups, but the paladin has better capability to cover for mistakes or weaknesses in other folks if things aren't ideal. That being said, this thread was referring to "end game." That's a nebulous term, but realistically on P1999 exceedingly few people are hanging out in full groups at level cap. A few farm teams might, but it's a small portion of the population. Otherwise full groups are mostly for leveling.

At level cap the overwhelming majority of players are either raiding, or doing stuff smallman in solo/duo/trios. Raids have already been discussed at length. Which class is better in a smallman group depends mostly on who the other partners are. Paladin pairs better with enchanter. Shadowknight pairs better with shaman. On balance I prefer the shadowknight's toolset when not in a full or nearly full group. It's a strong class and a good choice for a player who's notion of end-game is more smallman focused than raid focused.

Danth

[Troxx]

I always enjoy your posts Danth; insightful and to the point.