Quote:
Originally Posted by fischsemmel
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Just curious if there is any reason, other than "because I want to" or "because X is a less common class," to play a pal/sk/rang/rog instead of a monk.
Sounds like monks do nearly the damage of a rogue (while being more versatile in their damage dealing... slow 2h vs 2 1h, decent even without weapons, not needing to be behind the NPC, etc.), while tanking as well as (or better than?) a pal or sk, and with the great utility of mend and better bw and feign and sneak. And then there is fact that the monk class requires less xp than other hybrids.
Seems like the only saving grace for a SK is playing an ogre for the ridiculous stats and stun resist, and that the only reason to play a paladin or ranger is to be unique. I guess rogues have a very slight leg up on monks for damage-dealing and in the exp department... but at what cost?
|
Since someone said people are giving reasons to play a monk. Here are a few reasons to play those other classes you mentioned.
At times, the weight limitation is frustrating and find myself wishing I could loot a bunch of stuff without the AC penalty. Monks have no spells like snare, healing, ac/hp buffs, fear, lull which are useful in certain situations. Monks have no snap aggro. Monks cannot evade like a Rogue, they do too much damage and mob starts whacking them, they have a couple options take the beating which they can just not as well as a tank, or feign death. And no Feign Death is not the same as Evade, I feign and pop back up and start attacking, the mob almost always turns to face me if someone hasn't passed me on the aggro list. On my Rogue, I evade, and keep attacking. And Monks cannot track or pick locks.
All that being said, the primary reason I play my Monk over the classes above is because he soloes better than the classes above and built in pause button in Feign Death. Shadow Knight is about the only class that would be close.