Is monk vs warrior dps really classic right now?

[Splorf22]

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

The monk has a better weapon and better haste than you, on top of more double attacks and likely attacking from the rear while you're attacking from the front and losing dps to mob dodge/parry/riposte. Throw in flying kick and yeah, no wonder he's doing twice the damage.

If you people would read my post you would see we both attacked from front/behind equally. If anything I was spending more time in the back. He has 3% better haste and a weapon with a 20% better ratio than Staff of Battle. And actually I had shaman STR/DEX on a good part of this fight, so the actual difference is even higher [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And fisch, my logic is this: Post-nerf, Verant intended monks to take about 10% more damage than Warriors. Since Monks also get all sorts of toys like FD, they probably didn't intend Monks to do 100% more damage than warriors as well, which would make Warriors . . . kinda useless. Yet Monk damage was not nerfed. In fact I seem to remember reading somewhere that their intention was 1 / 1.2 / 1.4 warrior/monk/rogue (of course that doesn't mean they actually pulled it off, this is Verant after all).

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

, they probably didn't intend Monks to do 100% more damage than warriors as well

Would you quit throwing around this 100% number? You do not have equivalent gear as the monk. You were using scrubbish dual wield dps vs his 2hb. Go parse with your staff of battle for just 1 hour. Even with a 20% handicap due to inferior weapon and haste, you'll find the monk is nowhere near double your dps.

[Splorf22]

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

Would you quit throwing around this 100% number? You do not have equivalent gear as the monk. You were using scrubbish dual wield dps vs his 2hb. Go parse with your staff of battle for just 1 hour. Even with a 20% handicap due to inferior weapon and haste, you'll find the monk is nowhere near double your dps.

In my experience the Staff of Battle is not so great for DPS - its more but not massively more. Let me go check my logs and see what I can find.

edit: OK here is me at 45 in the Dreadlands again (i hate that zone but after going LFG for a while I usually end up fungi soloing/web browsing). This time I was berserk and fear kiting and I'm pretty sure I was using only the Staff of Battle (all damage is Crush or Kick). Note that I'm getting 5% crippling blows and my dps is still 20 (20% o f which is crippling damage according to the parser).

Sakuragi -vs- Combined: A drachnid widow: -- DMG: 27743 -- DPS: 20 -- Scaled: 20 -- Crush: 27116 -- Kick: 552 -- Hit: 75 -- Non-crit rate: 94.6% -- crit rate: 0.6% -- crippling rate: 4.7% -- Attempts: 683 -- Hits: 485 -- Missed: 189 -- Defended: 9 -- Accuracy: 72% -- Avg Hit: 57 -- Max hit: 459 -- DMG to PC: 2106

[fischsemmel]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And fisch, my logic is this: Post-nerf, Verant intended monks to take about 10% more damage than Warriors. Since Monks also get all sorts of toys like FD, they probably didn't intend Monks to do 100% more damage than warriors as well, which would make Warriors . . . kinda useless. Yet Monk damage was not nerfed. In fact I seem to remember reading somewhere that their intention was 1 / 1.2 / 1.4 warrior/monk/rogue (of course that doesn't mean they actually pulled it off, this is Verant after all).

I'm confused about the point of this thread. What is it you are getting at?

You said, "I find it really hard to believe monks are supposed to be doing twice the dps of warriors in classic EQ."

Does that mean that you expect/want monks to be changed on p99 right now, in the vein of "monks should be doing less damage relative to warriors here on p99 because that's how it was in classic"?

Or does that mean that you are pondering the intentions of the designers of classic eq, in the vein of "I wonder if the classic designers actually wanted monks to do as much damage as they ended up doing," but you don't actually expect/want anything to be done about it on here?

Or what?

[nectarprime]

I've always understood that it is a given that a monk will out DPS a warrior, as a monk is a DPS class and the warrior is a tank.

[fischsemmel]

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

I've always understood that it is a given that a monk will out DPS a warrior, as a monk is a DPS class and the warrior is a tank.

Splorf has conceded as much. He's concerned about how MUCH more damage a monk dealt/is dealing/should be dealing compared to a warrior.

[melkezidek]

Another thing you need to look at 2hand gains alot more from Riposte then 1 handers do. So if he is getting swung at his dps is going to go up just from the big hits. IMO try using a comparable 2 hander.

[Szeth]

If he is getting swung at, he is attacking from the front, thus being Riposted AGAINST as well, so it would come out even (depending on mobs riposte skill)

[melkezidek]

True but the monk is still gaining more DPS from being attaked then the warrior using 2 1 handers.

[Splorf22]

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

True but the monk is still gaining more DPS from being attaked then the warrior using 2 1 handers.

Riposte occurs about 1-2% of the time. It is not a significant factor here. Anyway I'm going to have to grab an appropriate monk in DL and use the staff of battle 100% for an hour or two I guess. I'm quite convinced its not an amazing upgrade dps-wise, but I've been wrong before.