Ranger or Monk?

[Rupertox]

A Monk isnt that easy Man, i can tell you that ia hardest than a ranger, if you want to be a good Monk, of course.

[koros]

Lol no it's not.

[Ryba]

The only thing difficult about classic EQ was putting in the time. There is no such thing as a hard class to play, just different amounts of your free time getting consumed. Either way, you press 3 buttons and hope the random number generator is feeling benevolent today.

Rocket surgery, amirite

But only one class in classic has no unique role whatsoever, and it is one of your options. And it isn't the monk.

[Rupertox]

Or

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

The only thing difficult about classic EQ was putting in the time. There is no such thing as a hard class to play, just different amounts of your free time getting consumed. Either way, you press 3 buttons and hope the random number generator is feeling benevolent today.

Rocket surgery, amirite

But only one class in classic has no unique role whatsoever, and it is one of your options. And it isn't the monk.

Lol here is a guy that doesnt know how to Play a Monk.

A Monk well played can PULL whatever, or about whatever, same as can drag whatever from wherever, like from example, kING camp Cr in sebilis, trust me, a good Monk makes diff.

[fadetree]

Playing any character really well takes some doing. But, its more noticeable with some classes. In my opinion, Rangers are 'harder' in two senses :
1. The exp penalty and lack of groups make it difficult to keep going. When you see a ranger > 55 you know that person has some toughness and resourcefulness. Or masochism, take your pick.
2. Rangers don't have a standard role in groups, or a particular unique mechanic like FD. You can be very noticeably good, but you really have to know the class and use ALL of its capabilities in creative ways.

[mtb tripper]

id go ranger specifically for the uniqueness

[webrunner5]

I would wait till Velious comes out to roll a Ranger. Without the STUPID XP penalty and with fear animal they will be easy to level.

There is NOT going to be that many level 50 thru 60 areas for people to fight or level in at the start. TMO, FE, BDA with have them tied up for 6 months or more.

So, why not get one at say level 25 or 30 and start there. A hell of a lot more zones to play in.

[Rupertox]

Im talking about playing the character, not about winning exp, by the way, Human Monk 20% exp penalti, iksar Monk 44%....

[Cyph]

My suggestion is roll both and see which you prefer. I've grouped with plenty of both and they've worked well. In fact, regardless what class you play, I believe that any class played well is worth its weight. A ranger can deal decent damage as well as being better placed to provide root/snare whilst a monk can also deal damage as well as pull/FD.

[Pan]

Having played a ranger on live (exclusively as main) from release until L85, three things come to mind.

1) The Kunark era is the absolute nadir of the power curve for the class.
2) Playing the class well is a lot tougher than others (monk, shaman here). The ranger toolkit has incredible breadth and there a whole lot of potentially gamechanging skills that not all rangers seem to have/get.
3) A well-played ranger brings TONS to the table...but you're most likely to notice what's missing once he/she leaves the group rather than perceive what's going on in real time. A good ranger is like grease in the cogs.

It's not easymode and it's pretty nuanced.

And finally...if, at the end of the day, you end up with a 'toon that's nothing more than a weak monk, you need to re-roll. You're just doing it wrong.