Monks - The second best tank in the game?

[Lhancelot]

So, essentially what I have gotten from all the information here on monks is this:

1. When top geared, a monk can tank not only effectively for a group but better than the tanking classes due to extreme skill caps, avoidance, blocks, and defensive abilities sk/pals do not have. And besides not having a taunt button, a monk can hold aggro just as well as a warrior when in top-end gears.

2. When not in top-gears, a tanking monk can struggle with aggro, and so for lesser equipped monks, or group members not able to manage the aggro problems a monk could have a paladin or sk is better. A warrior might be better only because they do have taunt.

3. If a group manages with a lesser geared monk or one that isn't all that great at tanking, that group probably would do just as well with a ranger, bard, or any other melee that has some ways to hold aggro and can manage to take hits.

That's what I seem to understand regarding monks, tanking, and groups. Is that a fair assessment then?

[maskedmelon]

Mostly naked monk can tank up through KC with a shaman. Substitute cleric for healer and will probably have down time because most clerics will continue to waste mana on divine light rather than ch the monk. It's like their brains are broken and have reserved CH for war/pal/sk. Also absence of slow can make healing more challenging, but still not impossible. Add a necro to the retard cleric and the lack of slow becomes no problem again. OR boot the stupid cleric and roll with two necro. Not all clerics are awful of course ^^

Paladin is incredibly fabuloso when you are in a bad group, particularly one without a monk. It is amazing how much a good paladin can augment a bad group. If you are in a good group, you've no need of a paladin. Same goes for shadow Knights.

Warriors are useful for when your monk is your only melee, so that the monk can continue pulling while the warrior finishes tanking. If you have two monks, warrior not so useful, though they will make ch more efficient and if you are grouped with a retarded cleric, they may actually use it.

Generally speaking though, if you are in a group with a couple of super rogues who can't (and really shouldn't) restrain themselves and monk doesn't have sufficient aggro proc (AC, SWH, TStaff), then get a ranger. They will mitigate more poorly, but will offer better damage than a pal/sk and best snap aggro outside a bard who would work equally well if you don't have another haste/slower already.

[Erati]

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

So, essentially what I have gotten from all the information here on monks is this:

1. When top geared, a monk can tank not only effectively for a group but better than the tanking classes due to extreme skill caps, avoidance, blocks, and defensive abilities sk/pals do not have. And besides not having a taunt button, a monk can hold aggro just as well as a warrior when in top-end gears.

2. When not in top-gears, a tanking monk can struggle with aggro, and so for lesser equipped monks, or group members not able to manage the aggro problems a monk could have a paladin or sk is better. A warrior might be better only because they do have taunt.

3. If a group manages with a lesser geared monk or one that isn't all that great at tanking, that group probably would do just as well with a ranger, bard, or any other melee that has some ways to hold aggro and can manage to take hits.

That's what I seem to understand regarding monks, tanking, and groups. Is that a fair assessment then?

Monk aggro should never be an issue in a small group setting unless you have a rogue with you who doesnt know how to evade.

Tstaff would fix most aggro issues tho even if you are around bad group mates

[Sage Truthbearer]

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

Monk aggro should never be an issue in a small group setting unless you have a rogue with you who doesnt know how to evade.

Tstaff would fix most aggro issues tho even if you are around bad group mates

Yeah, but you have to remember that the average person who plays P99 is joining pick-up groups filled with random strangers of varying skill levels who leave the group every 30 minutes and get replaced by a new stranger. It's a roll of the dice if any of these people know how to manage their aggro correctly. Some are great, some are horrible.

I leveled a Paladin 1-60 mostly in PuGs, and having snap aggro is not only incredibly useful but almost necessary for making these kinds of groups run efficiently. Yeah, Monks can mitigate incoming damage way better than me but for group content that gets steamrolled anyway, mitigation doesn't matter as much as being able to quickly and reliably generate aggro.

[Jimjam]

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

Yeah, but you have to remember that the average person who plays P99 is joining pick-up groups filled with random strangers of varying skill levels who leave the group every 30 minutes and get replaced by a new stranger. It's a roll of the dice if any of these people know how to manage their aggro correctly. Some are great, some are horrible.

I leveled a Paladin 1-60 mostly in PuGs, and having snap aggro is not only incredibly useful but almost necessary for making these kinds of groups run efficiently. Yeah, Monks can mitigate incoming damage way better than me but for group content that gets steamrolled anyway, mitigation doesn't matter as much as being able to quickly and reliably generate aggro.

This is a good point. You'd think having root in group, and most classes having ways to manage aggro would be enough to make aggro management moot for any class, but no.