Not sure which class to pick -- Looking for guidance

[thufir]

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

Which is kinda weird given the OP is fresh out of the gate trying to figure out what to start playing. I mean, if we're going to use BiS NToV gear as a benchmark it really doesn't matter which of the afformentioned cases you use. You are going to be able to tank and able to dish out some pain, no matter what. Indeed, not everyone will be able to join a guild who has zero competition for high end mobs.

It is simply unrealistic for the OP(if he chooses a monk) to go into the game expecting to be the tank when in reality he's going to be the puller 90% of the time. Which is the basis of my posts.

Oh I completely agree. You have to be really, really into this game to be playing it for 5+ years and constantly raiding that whole time. Chances are, you (global you) aren't one of those people.

This won't stop them from coming into threads like this and making ex cathedra pronouncements as if every level 60 monk could solo Zordakalicus Ragefire, though (or for that matter, if every freshly created monk will be able to tank right out of the gate without twinking). Just trying to make sure that everyone sees their perspective when they make those statements.

[Sage Truthbearer]

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

there is literally no situation in which i would want a paladin or a shadow knight in a group versus a monk

unless i feel like being lazy/stupid, which is incredibly common among people on this game, so it's a fair point

Right, because everyone who likes to have fun playing EQ differently than the way you do are "lazy/stupid."

How dare they have fun on an 17-year-old Elf simulator casually!

[Colgate]

why can't you pull and tank at the same time

gear has virtually no difference on your avoidance, which is what makes monks good tanks

you truly have no idea how mana efficient it is healing a monk vs a hybrid; 10% longer of the fight without slow does not outweigh how much better monks are at tanking damage

they are truly very overpowered while hybrids are very underpowered

[Colgate]

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

Right, because everyone who likes to have fun playing EQ differently than the way you do are "lazy/stupid."

How dare they have fun on an 17-year-old Elf simulator casually!

that comment refers to the people who don't understand aggro mechanics and get mad when they get aggro after backstabbing or trying to tash/slow right off the bat

[Jimjam]

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

why can't you pull and tank at the same time

gear has virtually no difference on your avoidance, which is what makes monks good tanks

you truly have no idea how mana efficient it is healing a monk vs a hybrid; 10% longer of the fight without slow does not outweigh how much better monks are at tanking damage

they are truly very overpowered while hybrids are very underpowered

In fairness often it is good for the puller to be leaving camp looking for fresh meat before the mob(s) in camp are dead, which is not so easy when puller and tank are the same character.

Low levels monks will get plenty of AC from cloth/mesh armour to tank (so if you go with monk, OP hit upper guk for a while to get mesh armour).

By the time such armour looses its potency you should have saved up some cash to buy the next level of equipment (all/all items with decent AC tend to be low weight, so good for monks, think Azure Sleeves and so on). Fortunately upper guk as well as having nice armour for monks also drops a tonne of gems, which are high value, stackable and low weight. If you are playing a fixed group it might even be worth having one player being the designated aster looter so you can maximise the money you all make off of vendor trash.

It's only really in the 50s where there is a gap in what is affordable, and what is effective.

[Troxx]

The point is monks, while tanks, make exceptionally good tanks. To say they are bad tanks is a lie. When I play my shaman I spend less mana healing a monk than I do a warrior or knight. This should not be discounted. I slow mobs on incoming and tank a few round until the monk has agro. Monks rarely need more than my regrowth buff ... knights/warriors need more heals. In a fast paced group, knights are nice for agro lock.

What they can't be is Ogre which the OP wants to be.

All of the 4 classes in question are fun to play. Monks allow for the greatest flexibility, but they are not the endall beall.

OP should play what is fun to play, not what is best.

My monk is a human. Clearly not the ideal monk race ... but I wanted a human so I made a human monk.

[Danth]

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

To say they are bad tanks is a lie.

I disagree. None of the tank classes in this game are exceptional; they're all missing something. Warriors have great hit point pools, /disc defensive, and tolerable damage reduction otherwise, but low hate generation. Hybrid tanks have great hate generation with good overall toolsets and decent hit points, but ho-hum damage reduction. Monks have great damage reduction, but lousy hit point pools and no snap aggro at all, not even taunt. As a total package they're clearly the 4th place within the tank role among the four classes being discussed.

Does that make the Monk a bad class? Heck no. As a class I rate it as the strongest melee class in the game, certainly stronger than the plate tanks. The tank role, generally, is a rather weak role in this game. Much like healing, you can't tank a monster to death. Most content doesn't strictly require a tank at all (a Shaman can tank all standard leveling content), but all of the dedicated tank classes give up a great deal of power in return for their typically-not-mandatory tank characteristics. On top of that, experience rates depend largely on damage done, further favoring offense. Monks are powerful not because they're great tanks--they aren't--but because they can fill in and get the job done while being powerful damage dealers and ideal pullers, too. It's a great class that can act as an okay tank.

If a player regards the tank job as simply part of the process of making a monster dead, and especially if he's perfectly happy even if he never acts as tank, he should make a Monk. It'll serve well enough when he needs to tank while being a stronger class otherwise. The only players I recommend dedicated tank classes for on P1999 are players who enjoy the tank job as an end to itself. Such players appreciate the plate tanks for being better packages for that job and are okay with the power trade that comes with that choice.

Danth

[Colgate]

lol @ monks aren't great tanks

alright bud, you got a good laugh out of me

[Vexenu]

Monks may make the best tanks in certain ideal situations (i.e. skilled/competent groupmates, non-casting mobs, non-chain pulling groups) but the other tanking classes are superior in a wider range of situations. The hybrids especially. It's very easy for hardcore raiders who play with the same dedicated group to forget that the game is much different for casual and leveling players. Groups are rarely if ever ideal for the casual player, and skilled, attentive groupmates cannot be counted on (honestly, is this really a revelation? I swear I'm not exaggerating when I say that something approaching 50% of the people on the server regularly play under the influence). In those type of situations a skilled player on a Paladin can do a lot more to carry a group than a skilled player on a Monk as far as tanking is concerned. The SK carries well to a lesser extent, and even the Warrior offers more flexibility when SHTF with defensive. Also note that Colgate's Monk is geared in the top .0001% of Monks that ever played EQ. Hardly typical or representative of a new player who wants to level a character up and tank.

[Beastagoog]

as a former main Paladin on red99, and been thru 95% of velly content I can safely say unless you want survivability in PvP there is 0 point to playing a Paladin over: SK/War/Monk.

I'd suggest either a Monk or SK as both have a higher utility and can explore/dps better than a Paladin.

Don't get me wrong a Paladin has his place at the table but it's not as exciting as the others.


Edit: however if you asked me what tank I'd want in a group situation I'd say a Paladin over the rest for sure.