Monk scouts ?

[Kota]

how would y'all feel if they just made monks into scouts ? it's very clear to me that they don't want us to be tanks.  we are the only ones in the fighter tree w/o a HP buff.  they give plate tanks more uncontested avoidance (wrong on so many levels) than monks.  think about it....we tank on par with similar geared scouts tbpfh anyway.  monks are the half a/$$ class of eq2 w/o a doubt.  half a/$$ dps and half a/$$ tanking.  at this point i have completely given up on sony ever making us respectable tanks.  it would be much easier for them to make us a scout class.  what would it take for them to make us a scout class ?rescue =          becomes evacgroup taunt =  becomes trackintercede =      becomes stealthdial up the damage on our ca'sdial down our hpseriously, if they made us scouts and gave us the rogue aa tree we would be better tanks than we are now.  no lie.personally, i'm sick of monks being half a/$$ at everything

[acctlc]

I dunno about being a scout..but I want DPS!  If I wanted a tank I'd roll plate...make me a fair dpser I'd be happy <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Amz]

<cite>Arieva@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dunno about being a scout..but I want DPS!  If I wanted a tank I'd roll plate...make me a fair dpser I'd be happy <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /></blockquote>If you wanted to DPS, you should have rolled a scout or a mage. I made a monk way back when they started with the fighter subtype, and I'd be happy to be a tank if they would [Removed for Content] well fix us.

[GymRat]

<cite></cite>I have to agree I want to tank. I rolled a monk though because the idea of avoiding getting hit vs absorbing it appealed to me. I rolled my monk the day EQ2 went live and by the time I was lvl 30 SOE decided avoidance was broken, rather than fix it they just nerfed the hell out of it....its been screwed up ever since. I know there are some uber geared Monks who have/can tank some raid zones but there is no way in hell you could ever convince me we can hold a candle to plate tanks on high lvl raids. Even if you hit max avoidance which I believe is 80% thats vs lvl 70 mobs and the [I cannot control my vocabulary] in T7 is lvl 72++. Every time you get hit with a mit of lower than say 57% or so you get absolutely creamed. Healers just cant keep up with that kind of damage. We post on it, we [I cannot control my vocabulary] about it, we scream about it, we even whine at times about it but nothing gets done. Face it Brawlers they are never going to make any significant changes to validate this class either by dps or tanking abilities. Brawlers are a great exploration class, a decent solo class, an average dps class, and an average grouping class. Live with it or move on because SOE has proven they really dont care one way or the other.<blockquote><cite>Arieva@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dunno about being a scout..but I want DPS!  If I wanted a tank I'd roll plate...make me a fair dpser I'd be happy <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" /></blockquote>If you wanted to DPS, you should have rolled a scout or a mage. I made a monk way back when they started with the fighter subtype, and I'd be happy to be a tank if they would [I cannot control my vocabulary] well fix us.</blockquote>

[Kota]

  they are never gonna make us more than half a/$$ tanks.  they would be doing monks a favor by making them scouts.  70% of the ppl who offer ideas to fix monks ask for more dps anyway.  we have about as much dps as we're gonna get from the fighter tree.  this puts our dps somewhere in the range of half a/$$.  they would be doing themselves a favor too by making monks scouts.  they put our dps in range of other melee dps classes and call it a day.  imo, our avoidance/mitigation is of scout quality so it would not need changed. 

[Captain_Xpendab]

<cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>  they are never gonna make us more than half a/$$ tanks.  they would be doing monks a favor by making them scouts.  70% of the ppl who offer ideas to fix monks ask for more dps anyway.  we have about as much dps as we're gonna get from the fighter tree.  this puts our dps somewhere in the range of half a/$$.  they would be doing themselves a favor too by making monks scouts.  they put our dps in range of other melee dps classes and call it a day.  imo, our avoidance/mitigation is of scout quality so it would not need changed.  </blockquote>Don't assume that they'd give you more DPS if they made you a scout.<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />Capt. XpendableFormer Bard

[Kota]

yeah maybe they'd give us banjo's and we could cast Cacophony of Blades, Y'all.  something of a bard thing.  ok, prolly not. 

[Anjin]

<cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>  they are never gonna make us more than half a/$$ tanks.  they would be doing monks a favor by making them scouts.  70% of the ppl who offer ideas to fix monks ask for more dps anyway.  we have about as much dps as we're gonna get from the fighter tree.  this puts our dps somewhere in the range of half a/$$.  they would be doing themselves a favor too by making monks scouts.  they put our dps in range of other melee dps classes and call it a day.  imo, our avoidance/mitigation is of scout quality so it would not need changed.  </blockquote><p>A few points here:</p><ul><li>Fighter tree?  Do you mean Brawler or Monk tree?</li><li>Our avoidance is better than scouts.</li><li>Our mitigation is worse than scouts.</li><li>Similar to berserkers, dps is paramount to retaining aggro.</li></ul><p>I think there should be far greater specialisation in the brawler/bruiser/monk trees as far as dps vs tanking goes - the monk EoF options are too limp.</p><p>Why would you really want evac, track and stealth unless you're on a PvP server?  Invariably you'll have evac potential in your group, track in your group and monks have invis anyway (invis = stealth as far as mobs are concerned iirc).  This is of course unless you want to named farm.</p><p>Lastly, if you really like rogues so much, honestly, roll one.</p>

[Dige]

<cite>Amzin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arieva@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dunno about being a scout..but I want DPS!  If I wanted a tank I'd roll plate...make me a fair dpser I'd be happy <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />"></blockquote>If you wanted to DPS, you should have rolled a scout or a mage. I made a monk way back when they started with the fighter subtype, and I'd be happy to be a tank if they would [I cannot control my vocabulary] well fix us.</blockquote><p>As did I, from release until DoF class change. We had very nice dps. So no, we shouldnt have to make a wiz or scout to do damage. Monks purpose was an alternate form of dps with enough dodge / mitigation to draw snap aggro when needed and to burn mobs down. They were like this in eq1 and were for a bit in eq2.</p><p>Going back to the way it was as far as dps was, would be fine in my opinion. If you want to tank make a plate wearer, thats the point of them, dps or tanking. The Monk class being a tank is absurd. SoE turning into that was [Removed for Content].</p>

[Couching]

Doesn't matter for me as long as we can get fix in either tanking or dps.At the moment, we didn't have advantage over scout in tanking. They have better mitigation and better aggro and we have better hp and better avoidance.In fact, they are better tank since if a tank who can't get mobs on him is useless.That's why in high end raid, some guild let swashy as off tank rather than any fighter class. LOL, how ironic it is.

[Kota]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>  they are never gonna make us more than half a/$$ tanks.  they would be doing monks a favor by making them scouts.  70% of the ppl who offer ideas to fix monks ask for more dps anyway.  we have about as much dps as we're gonna get from the fighter tree.  this puts our dps somewhere in the range of half a/$$.  they would be doing themselves a favor too by making monks scouts.  they put our dps in range of other melee dps classes and call it a day.  imo, our avoidance/mitigation is of scout quality so it would not need changed.  </blockquote><p>A few points here:</p><ul><li>Fighter tree?  Do you mean Brawler or Monk tree?</li><li>Our avoidance is better than scouts.</li><li>Our mitigation is worse than scouts.</li><li>Similar to berserkers, dps is paramount to retaining aggro.</li></ul><p>I think there should be far greater specialisation in the brawler/bruiser/monk trees as far as dps vs tanking goes - the monk EoF options are too limp.</p><p>Why would you really want evac, track and stealth unless you're on a PvP server?  Invariably you'll have evac potential in your group, track in your group and monks have invis anyway (invis = stealth as far as mobs are concerned iirc).  This is of course unless you want to named farm.</p><p>Lastly, if you really like rogues so much, honestly, roll one.</p></blockquote>fighter tree = all the classes that have rescue and intercede.  4 trees: fighter, scout, mage, priest *here we go again* before eq2 ever launched soe stated that all fighters were going to be tanks.  yes i know our avoidance is better than scouts and they have more mit.  i'm saying as far as tankability our avoid/mit puts us online with scouts for the most part.yeah dps would help a monk retain aggro but why would you want that ?  have a real tank aggro mobs.  we have already established that monks are the worst 'tanks' in the game.  hands down.  and they are not gonna change this.yes i play on pvp and would love track.  yeah our invis can be handy, but i was just suggesting trading out our 'tank' abilities for scout abilities.lastly, i like my monk, but i'm sick of the half a/$$ nature of monks.  what is a monk ?  half dps ?  half tank ? these 2 halves don't equal a whole in upper end eq.  there is no need for any half anything in upper end eq.  i'm not asking for soe to make monks the cornerstones of raiding.  i started this post to explore the possibility of abandoning the facade of monks belonging to the fighter/tank tree.  i like to raid and i like to feel like i'm making a difference, and being the absolute last resort tank and parsing lower than every scout that knows what buttons to mash isn't doing it.  i like the monk class but i wanna see it become something.  the writing is on the wall.  monks aren't tanks.

[x0rtrun]

I stopped playing EQ2 about a year ago because I was getting kind of frustrated with where monks were heading. Now I've come back and realize it's much the same. I enjoy playing my monk solo, but grouping is kind of disheartening. Before I quit I was a great group tank and people really enjoyed having me tank for them. Doing named stuff was a big challenge, and raiding was out of the question, but at least I could grind out some XP in a pick up group. It wasn't much, but it was fun enough. Now I've been back for a few weeks and I can't even get a group. When I did get a group they weren't sure if they wanted me to tank. I convinced them to let me try, and I tried my best, but in the end I wasn't able to stand up when we got a couple adds. We ended up wiping a couple times and people got bored and bailed. A plate tank of the same level would have had no problem. We really are a mediocre class in the balance of things. I've never agreed with having brawlers be in the fighter tree, but I went with it and tried hard to embrace being a monk tank. But looking at the heritage of the EQ1 monk, we belong more in the scout tree as a sturdy DPS class (rather than chain, we have avoidance). But the class system is broken; built around a design document rather than real-world playability. The devs have three options in front of them: One, leave everything as is and continue to neglect the monk community. Two, make us acceptable tanks on par with the plate classes through whatever means necessary (ie better mit on armour, different avoidance mechanism). Or, thirdly, give up on monks as tanks and make us melee DPS. Sadly, I think they'll just keep ignoring the issue as has become tradition. Personally though, I'd rather just have us moved into a DPS role. It would make plate tanks happy because they would be in greater demand, and it would make monks happy, because we'd have a real role in the game again, and it would make everyone else happy because they could finally have a use for monks period. This is really too bad because I really do enjoy being a tank.

[BChizzle]

At a certain point SOE is going to have to just choose on whether we are DPS or tanks and live with that decision.  When it happens half the people will be [Removed for Content] off the other half will be happy and the other half will be [Removed for Content] even more they can't be both dps and tank.  (yes I know its 3 halfs)

[Amphibia]

I don't think we will ever become decent tanks. And we are not needed as that anyway. I think more DPS is the way to go....

[x0rtrun]

They could probably fix tanking if they just changed the way "avoidance" works. It's a complicated mechanic and it may be simply impossible to get it right by just tweaking the way it works now. How bout this, just change avoidance from just an X chance to outright miss you into a chance to partially deflect some of the incoming damage, plus a small chance to be outright missed. It becomes more pseudo mitigation. Make it just for brawlers, or make it for all fighters, I don't care, just fix it.

[mattmandude]

I'm on the same page as most of you, but I think you're really underestimating our tanking ability. I'm not saying that we're great tanks, but I definately have no problem tanking any instance (besides unrest which gives me trouble towards the end of course), and can do it without any wipes (assuming the group I'm with isn't terrible).<div></div><div>Seriously though, I tank better than swashies, they may take the hits better, but I can still control aggro and such better than a Swashy can. </div><div></div><div>Again, I'm not saying that we're great tanks, it could just be that the Swashies I've seen tank don't know how to properly tank, and I do. Perhaps some monks can accomodate for the fact that the monk is hard to tank with, by using skill /shrug</div><div></div><div>But honestly, lets not let our misery overdue how bad we actually are at tanking, because then we just look like complaining prats <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div>

[Amphibia]

Oh, we can tank. Usually it takes a little more of the healers to keep us up in hard zones, but it's doable. But it is also duable with a swashbuckler or brigand... heck, even a conjuror pet sometimes. The point is that we are not very good at anything. And sadly, Mr. Jack-of-all-trades isn't a very popular guy in this game, because there is always someone else who can do what he does, and do it so much better. Being able to tank is nice, but personally I didn't roll my character to do that. If I had really wanted to tank, I would have gone for the real thing right away - a plate tank. I just wish they could give us more DPS. I feel we should do more damage than we currently do...

[Cirth_Beer]

<cite>x0rtrunks wrote:</cite><blockquote>They could probably fix tanking if they just changed the way "avoidance" works. It's a complicated mechanic and it may be simply impossible to get it right by just tweaking the way it works now. How bout this, just change avoidance from just an X chance to outright miss you into a chance to partially deflect some of the incoming damage, plus a small chance to be outright missed. It becomes more pseudo mitigation. Make it just for brawlers, or make it for all fighters, I don't care, just fix it.</blockquote>They said (soe) that the way we were tanking was good in their eyes :o (http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=376799) so i dont see any hope in the raid tanking way... maybe they should just make us scout in fact.

[x0rtrun]

I'm not saying we are incapable of tanking. We can tank, we just can't tank very well. And yes, we have to make up for that with skill, but really, we should have to. If all fighters are supposed to be able to tank equally but in different ways, why isn't our way as good as the others? The truth is, we can get by, but it doesn't make us desirable in groups or raids. I was LFG for over an hour last night while I soloed. Eventually I found a warden to duo with, but I never got an invite for a group. Twice I was told "sorry, the group wanted/needed a plate tank". There's a strong bias in game against non-plate tanks, and until we can actually stand toe to toe with them, we won't be taken seriously as a viable tank option. I don't want to be godly, I just want to be equal and useful.

[mattmandude]

Yeah I know where you're both coming from, I too wish we could have more DPS (the burst is nice in groups, I can usually outparse some casters and scouts if the encounter is fast, but the sustained raid DPS needs quite a boost).<div></div><div>I've always been able to get a group, but that might be because I don't sit around LFG, I always tank the instances/zones I want to do, so I'm always the one putting the group together (and if anyone complains or asks for a plate tank, I put them in their place, hah).</div><div></div><div>So, I say leave our tanking ability where it is, because although it would be neat to be able to tank raids, I would rather just roll a gaurdian. But if we're not tanking raids, then WE NEED THE DPS to make us useful... seems pretty simple to me.</div><div></div><div>Just thinking about it though, when doing heroic instances, I actually prefer to tank over letting teh ubar geared gaurdian/zerker tank.. I think it goes faster when I do /shrug</div>

[BChizzle]

At the end game where we have all fabled stuff we are actually better tanks for group zones.  We do crazy dps and it is no trouble keeping us alive with 1 healer.

[Kota]

i wouldn't define monk dps as 'crazy' by any means.  unless you're comparing it to lesser geared ppl.  tanking heroic content in fabled gear doesn't merit any cool points either.  any melee class in fabled gear can tank heroic content.  monks take damage marginally better than scouts. and noticably worse than plate tanks.  i've tanked and healed all the heroic content i can think of, and this is my observation.  if you want to see numbers, put together a group of your good buddies.  include a rogue and a plate tank.  run unrest 3 times with all 3 of you tanking.  analyze the parse.  see how much dps you did while tanking, and see how much damage you took.  also see how much damage the rest of your group took.  do this for all 3 of the tanks.  if all 3 of you are fabled, you will find that you took about as much damage as the scout while tanking.  the plate tank took a good deal less.  your group took more damage while you were tanking than they did when the other 2 were tanking.  we tank like scouts, but dps like fighters.  they already proved that we will never be real tanks, so at this point i am convinced that the only way to fix monks is to make them a dps class.

[Amphibia]

<cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>i am convinced that the only way to fix monks is to make them a dps class.</blockquote>Can only speak for myself, but I'm all for that!

[Zabjade]

<span style="color: #00cc00;">I can never make Hide-nor-hair of the Scout CA basics they all seem to be about being invis and sliding to a certain side of a target. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span>

[Bladewind]

<p>You can turn any other fighter into a dps class by making the appropriate AA choices.  Brawler AAs are so watered down that you cannot make a significant stride in either direction to define a role for yourself.  On top of that, we, for whatever brilliant reason, are avoidance tanks who have the lowest true avoidance of all tanks vs any content that is remotely challenging.</p><p>People need to get off the idea of trying to shoe-horn us into one role or the other.  Every other fighter gets to choose on a player to player basis via AAs, why not us?</p><p>Watered-down AA choices + broken primary mechanic = crap at either role, tanking or dps.  The solution is not to boost base dps.  The solution is to make dps AAs based on weapon damage like what other fighters receive and to give brawlers the highest uncontested avodiance in every stance relative to mitigation tanks.  If the shoe was on the other foot and we had higher mitigation than plate tanks, there'd be a mob with torches and pitchforks descending upon the SOE building in San Diego.  The system is broken due to poor implementation and a seriously flawed perception of our current class abilities on the part of the developers in control.  This notion that avoidance tanking does not work because it is inherently flawed is a steaming pile.  I've seen it work flawlessly in several other games.  If avoidance tanks in this game actually had the most avoidance, they would work fine again (yeah, we worked dandy for a long long time before we were broken), too.</p><p>I personally rolled my monk to be a tank on day 1, when that was our only role.  Since then, AAs have allowed all fighters to shape themselves into a dps or support role instead of a main/off tank role if they so chose.  Choice is great.  You want to be a dps monk, fantastic.  Plenty of us always have and still want to be tanks.  Don't crap on us just to get a half-[Removed for Content] solution that will doubtlessly leave us even worse off than we are now.  Provide a unified front demanding all aspects of the class be fixed.</p><p>Just like warriors and crusaders can choose between main tanking and 1-2 other roles, we should be able to as well.</p>

[Kota]

<cite>Cirth@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>They said (soe) that the way we were tanking was good in their eyes :o (http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=376799) so i dont see any hope in the raid tanking way... maybe they should just make us scout in fact.</blockquote>they aren't gonna make us tanks dude

[Timaarit]

Aye, they wont. I mean, how many other tanks have deaggros? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />But as they already count us as scouts, then they REALLY should be consistent with that and give us the DPS too. As it is, our utility is far worse than any other scout has and our DPS is only better than what bards have. Comparing to our utility, we should be doing DPS that is equivalent to predators.

[BChizzle]

<cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wouldn't define monk dps as 'crazy' by any means.  unless you're comparing it to lesser geared ppl.  tanking heroic content in fabled gear doesn't merit any cool points either.  any melee class in fabled gear can tank heroic content.  monks take damage marginally better than scouts. and noticably worse than plate tanks.  i've tanked and healed all the heroic content i can think of, and this is my observation.  if you want to see numbers, put together a group of your good buddies.  include a rogue and a plate tank.  run unrest 3 times with all 3 of you tanking.  analyze the parse.  see how much dps you did while tanking, and see how much damage you took.  also see how much damage the rest of your group took.  do this for all 3 of the tanks.  if all 3 of you are fabled, you will find that you took about as much damage as the scout while tanking.  the plate tank took a good deal less.  your group took more damage while you were tanking than they did when the other 2 were tanking.  we tank like scouts, but dps like fighters.  they already proved that we will never be real tanks, so at this point i am convinced that the only way to fix monks is to make them a dps class.</blockquote>So in heroic group zones when I walk in and parse 2k zonewide and out dps some wizzy and parse 4-5k on some group fights doesn't count as crazy dps?

[Timaarit]

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wouldn't define monk dps as 'crazy' by any means.  unless you're comparing it to lesser geared ppl.  tanking heroic content in fabled gear doesn't merit any cool points either.  any melee class in fabled gear can tank heroic content.  monks take damage marginally better than scouts. and noticably worse than plate tanks.  i've tanked and healed all the heroic content i can think of, and this is my observation.  if you want to see numbers, put together a group of your good buddies.  include a rogue and a plate tank.  run unrest 3 times with all 3 of you tanking.  analyze the parse.  see how much dps you did while tanking, and see how much damage you took.  also see how much damage the rest of your group took.  do this for all 3 of the tanks.  if all 3 of you are fabled, you will find that you took about as much damage as the scout while tanking.  the plate tank took a good deal less.  your group took more damage while you were tanking than they did when the other 2 were tanking.  we tank like scouts, but dps like fighters.  they already proved that we will never be real tanks, so at this point i am convinced that the only way to fix monks is to make them a dps class.</blockquote>So in heroic group zones when I walk in and parse 2k zonewide and out dps some wizzy and parse 4-5k on some group fights doesn't count as crazy dps?</blockquote>Nope it doesn't. You also have to adjust it to the skill and gear of the wizzy. For example I can beat certain wizard guildie of mine with my monk every time. But then there is another one that I will lose to every single time. Same goes for swashies, one will outparse me by 50% in 95% of the fights and with another I can parse almost equal DPS. I also haven't seen a monk outparse me in an equal groupsetting.So if you win a badly played wizzy doesn't mean you can do crazy DPS. If you can get even with a good wizzy, they you could.Also note that if you had a zerker, inq and dirge in the group and no one to buff your wizard, you probably can outparse the wiz. On the other hand if there was an illusionist, fury and a guardian or crusader tanking, well you wouldn't parse beyond 1,5k while the wiz would be at 3k.BTW, I have already parsed 6k on a fight that lasted 10 seconds with my monk. Too bad the swashy did 8k and the warlock 13k on that one. So no, 4k on a single fight is not crazy DPS, it is pure luck.

[Gaige]

<cite>Xael wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amzin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arieva@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dunno about being a scout..but I want DPS!  If I wanted a tank I'd roll plate...make me a fair dpser I'd be happy <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />"></blockquote>If you wanted to DPS, you should have rolled a scout or a mage. I made a monk way back when they started with the fighter subtype, and I'd be happy to be a tank if they would [I cannot control my vocabulary] well fix us.</blockquote><p>As did I, from release until DoF class change. We had very nice dps. So no, we shouldnt have to make a wiz or scout to do damage. Monks purpose was an alternate form of dps with enough dodge / mitigation to draw snap aggro when needed and to burn mobs down. They were like this in eq1 and were for a bit in eq2.</p><p>Going back to the way it was as far as dps was, would be fine in my opinion. If you want to tank make a plate wearer, thats the point of them, dps or tanking. The Monk class being a tank is absurd. SoE turning into that was [I cannot control my vocabulary].</p></blockquote>Congrats on being ignorant <3

[DjinnKato]

<p>Bad Idea.</p><p> I rolled a Fighter for a reason.   I want to be a fighter.</p><p>I dont mind not tanking as well as plate tanks but I still would like to tank better than a scout on epics which right now is just not the case.</p>

[Timaarit]

Well I do mind not tanking as well as plate tanks. So we need either predator DPS or zerker tanking ability. You see predators are better at mitigating damage then we are and they are also better at holding aggro since their DPS is way higher. Also zerkers are way better at mitigating damage and holding aggro via DPS. So we should either be at least equal tanks to the fighter that outdps's us or have at least equal DPS to the scouts that can tank better than us.There really aren't any other options.

[Kota]

<cite>DjinnKato wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bad Idea.</p><p> I rolled a Fighter for a reason.   I want to be a fighter.</p><p>I dont mind not tanking as well as plate tanks but I still would like to tank better than a scout on epics which right now is just not the case.</p></blockquote>monks aren't fighters.  i mean, they are in the fighter tree, but they aren't fighters.  alot of us have been trying over the years to get our tanking ability tuned up.  did you see the marathon post titled 'monks needs a boost' ? yeah, after all that, monks still tank like scouts, and have less *real* avoidance than plate tanks.  after all that, we got a smudge of spell haste added to our haste.  the definition of stupid:  repeating your actions, over and over, expecting to get different results.  now tell me, why is it a bad idea to try to get us put into an actual role ?  we still suck at tanking.  i'm sure they saw the thread(s), but just didn't think it was a good idea to make us real tanks.  why not try a new angle.

[Amphibia]

I wish they could just make monks offensive fighters then - meaning low defense/tanking ability compared to plate tanks, but much higher DPS. Shouldn't be so difficult to make happen, since we have the low defense and bad tanking ability already.....  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[Hydor]

<cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DjinnKato wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bad Idea.</p><p> I rolled a Fighter for a reason.   I want to be a fighter.</p><p>I dont mind not tanking as well as plate tanks but I still would like to tank better than a scout on epics which right now is just not the case.</p></blockquote>monks aren't fighters.  i mean, they are in the fighter tree, but they aren't fighters.  alot of us have been trying over the years to get our tanking ability tuned up.  did you see the marathon post titled 'monks needs a boost' ? yeah, after all that, monks still tank like scouts, and have less *real* avoidance than plate tanks.  after all that, we got a smudge of spell haste added to our haste.  the definition of stupid:  repeating your actions, over and over, expecting to get different results.  now tell me, why is it a bad idea to try to get us put into an actual role ?  we still suck at tanking.  i'm sure they saw the thread(s), but just didn't think it was a good idea to make us real tanks.  why not try a new angle.</blockquote><p>I just realised that the biggest problem Monks have is Monks themselves!</p><p>Thinking about all the posts I ve read I realise people just don't have any faith in the class. Monk's aren't fighters? That says it all.</p><p>Let me tell you what Monks are. Monks ARE TANKS. We can tank fine. We can do our job very very well. The problem is not that we suck as a class. The problem is that we suck compared to other fighters. We can tank very well but all other fighters can tank even better. We can produce decent DPS for fighters but so can the rest. The only real big disadvantage we have compared to other fighters is that don't have effecient aggro control against multiple mobs. As far as anything else is concerned we are a little behind which is not fair we are still GOOD!</p><p>Scouts can tank as well as brawlers or better. I am not sure this is true but it's debatable. The fact that it is debatable is allready unfair for brawlers. So nerf scout tanking or boost brawlers. You want to be "scouts"? fine, what sort of scouts? Predators? It's never gonna happen. Rogues? Even if we had the potential to do a rogue's DPR they would still be better because they debuff as well. Maybe you want to be bards then?</p><p>I am not sure what I want. More DPS? How much more do you think it would take to make a Monk desirable in a raid? Better tanking? You ll never get a tank's or offtank's spot as a Monk unless there is noone else to take that place. Utility? Maybe. More utility could be good.</p><p>Would I like to be a scout? No. Would I like more DPS? Considering how things are now and assuming nothing else changes I believe Rogue DPS would be fair. </p><p>Anyway, I am not going to join a side here. The reason I posted is that I see that many people don't have any faith in the class. Many people don't know or have forgotten what we are capable of. If you really despise this class that much there are plenty of other choices. My point is WE DON'T SUCK. WE ARE GREAT. The problem is that all other fighters are even better. That's what we need to fix.</p>

[Couching]

<cite>Hydor@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DjinnKato wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bad Idea.</p><p> I rolled a Fighter for a reason.   I want to be a fighter.</p><p>I dont mind not tanking as well as plate tanks but I still would like to tank better than a scout on epics which right now is just not the case.</p></blockquote>monks aren't fighters.  i mean, they are in the fighter tree, but they aren't fighters.  alot of us have been trying over the years to get our tanking ability tuned up.  did you see the marathon post titled 'monks needs a boost' ? yeah, after all that, monks still tank like scouts, and have less *real* avoidance than plate tanks.  after all that, we got a smudge of spell haste added to our haste.  the definition of stupid:  repeating your actions, over and over, expecting to get different results.  now tell me, why is it a bad idea to try to get us put into an actual role ?  we still suck at tanking.  i'm sure they saw the thread(s), but just didn't think it was a good idea to make us real tanks.  why not try a new angle.</blockquote><p>I just realised that the biggest problem Monks have is Monks themselves!</p><p>Thinking about all the posts I ve read I realise people just don't have any faith in the class. Monk's aren't fighters? That says it all.</p><p>Let me tell you what Monks are. Monks ARE TANKS. We can tank fine. We can do our job very very well. The problem is not that we suck as a class. The problem is that we suck compared to other fighters. We can tank very well but all other fighters can tank even better. We can produce decent DPS for fighters but so can the rest. The only real big disadvantage we have compared to other fighters is that don't have effecient aggro control against multiple mobs. As far as anything else is concerned we are a little behind which is not fair we are still GOOD!</p><p>Scouts can tank as well as brawlers or better. I am not sure this is true but it's debatable. The fact that it is debatable is allready unfair for brawlers. So nerf scout tanking or boost brawlers. You want to be "scouts"? fine, what sort of scouts? Predators? It's never gonna happen. Rogues? Even if we had the potential to do a rogue's DPR they would still be better because they debuff as well. Maybe you want to be bards then?</p><p>I am not sure what I want. More DPS? How much more do you think it would take to make a Monk desirable in a raid? Better tanking? You ll never get a tank's or offtank's spot as a Monk unless there is noone else to take that place. Utility? Maybe. More utility could be good.</p><p>Would I like to be a scout? No. Would I like more DPS? Considering how things are now and assuming nothing else changes I believe Rogue DPS would be fair. </p><p>Anyway, I am not going to join a side here. The reason I posted is that I see that many people don't have any faith in the class. Many people don't know or have forgotten what we are capable of. If you really despise this class that much there are plenty of other choices. My point is WE DON'T SUCK. WE ARE GREAT. The problem is that all other fighters are even better. That's what we need to fix.</p></blockquote>You are making contradiction statements in the your post.You have already admitted that other fighters out tank us. And also, you have admitted that other fighters can deal decent dps as we do. You have also admitted that Devs should nerf scout tanking capability or boost brawlers. ok, even you, who said we should have faith on monk, have already admitted how suck we are <b>COMPARING</b> to others. It's a simple logic. No matter how good you are, if everyone is better than you are, you are a loser. That's how monk suffers.

[Kalem]

<p>Back in EQ monks weren't tanks. They were a dps class. SOE adopted the class archetype system in EQoA (most probably don't know about that game). In that game monks were bundled with the melee archetype. Here's an excerpt from the archetype description of that game:</p><p>"Melee: The Bard, Monk, Ranger and Rogue classes make up this arch-type. The Melee classes are skilled fighters, not only in the many offensive capabilities they have, but also in the ways they have to control the flow of combat around them. They work with their group mates to support Tanks in overcoming the group's foes while assisting in protecting the groups Casters and Priests."</p><p>In my opinion, that game got it right.</p><p>In order to simplify class balance, the game designers of EQ2 went with the archetype system that we have today. They tried to keep it really simple, with scouts, healers, tanks, and mages. Having come from EQ, I understood why they wanted this system. Class balance was virtually non existent there. But I knew from the get go that it just didn't feel right. They changed the EQ ranger to a scout, with positional attacks, and changed the jack of all trades bard also into a scout. The bard of EQ2 doesn't resemble in any way shape or form the bard of EQ1. I never understood the move to have monks bundled with the other tanks. But the system they had created meant that class that would be considered melee dps, would HAVE TO be placed under the scout umbrella. I suppose, they couldn't see monks and bruisers in a role which required positional attacks, poisons, and all that good stuff.</p><p>I really wish they would have gone with the EQoA class system. There you could have melee dps, but still be individual enough so that you weren't like every other melee class.</p><p>For those of you who wanted to tank from the get go, and don't understand why others wish they had higher dps, and don't want to re-roll to a scout, keep in mind that many of us remember the way the monk class of old was played, and many chose it knowing it was a tank class, but they did so because they loved the class for what it was.</p><p>Yes...this is EQ2, and monks and bruisers (even though they didn't exist in EQ1), have a new role, many still wish the class could be played as it was in the old days.</p><p>I think with some retooling of the brawlers AA's, the designers can give monks and bruisers the opportunity to move into a real melee dps role. Perhaps give AA options to sacrifice tanking abilities in favor of gaining more dps. That way those that would like to tank could continue to do so, while those that prefer to dps could truly take up that role.</p>

[Amz]

I can't believe you guys. There are already sooooo many dps classes out there, just go play one of them. Monks started off as tanks, are still <i>almost </i>tanks, and should be buffed up to be real tanks again. I don't want to become just another dps class in a sea of dps classes.I know it's depressing how the devs think we're ok as-is, but if we just give up now than there was no point to all the trouble that we've gone through trying to get changes made. If our AA's ever get revamped, maybe there'll be more of an option for dps for you guys, but if you think monks aren't fighters, than no offense, but get the hell outta my class.Edit: Kalem, I played a monk in EQ1 as well, and on average I tanked better there as a monk than I do in EQ1. Although depending what expansion you were on, monks ranged from more useless than there are here to being near gods, but every class in EQ1 cycled through the balance tree, which you sort of mentioned. Monks consistent purpose there was being a puller, which is a job that doesn't really exist in EQ2. We still have the exploring ability of EQ1 monks that made them fun, but the old class and raid position simply doesn't exist. And with so many dedicated DPS classes in this game, there's no reason to make monks another dps class.I'm not saying we should be exactly the same as guards/zerkers/knights. We should be just under them in tanking ability, and over them in DPS. Right now, we're under them in both, and have less group buffs, and less utility than knights. And for the comments about the archtype system. . . it's flawed because of how strictly they adhere to it. There's no reason, from a coding/design standpoint, that they can't make a scout class that doesn't use positional attacks and doesn't have track, they just decided that certain things had to be a blanket over the whole archtype.

[Gaige]

<cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Back in EQ monks weren't tanks. They were a dps class. SOE adopted the class archetype system in EQoA (most probably don't know about that game). In that game monks were bundled with the melee archetype. Here's an excerpt from the archetype description of that game:</p></blockquote>As far as EQ1 goes monks were tanks until end game warriors complained about a few monks in hard to get gear tanking better than them.  Verant then nerfed the monk's AC a ton, effectively killing any tanking ability they had.  The class then evolved into a dps/pulling class.  I never played EQOA though...

[Aull]

Very interesting! Let me say that I do not play a monk, but my cousin has one....I have a bruiser. I feel his monk is awesome straight up from the front damage machine, or should I say far better than my bruiser at the damage dept. My best friend has a monk that he no longer plays because he feels that something happened to the monk class that he didn't like and now plays an assassin. He loves the assassin and says that he can do just about as much with the assassin than he could do with the monk, but misses the fd that the monk has. In everyday Norrath I feel the brawlers rule over the plate fighters, with the exception of multiple mob encounters. It does seem to all change in the raid scene on the named mobs, where most guilds want a guardian doing all the tanking there. I witnessed a lvl 65 monk who showed me how powerful barefisted fighting is for a monk (using the strgth line aa's) and I couldn't believe what I seen. He would have four mobs killed by the time my berserker killed one. Very impressive...at least to me it was! So I really don't know (again I do not play a monk) where I hear that dps isn't there on a monk. Sure compaired to the scouts it is probably not as great, but doesn't most of the scouts/rouges dps come from behind? I think scout/rouges have very strong combat arts, but monks should have better auto attack capabilites and be able to unleash that from any position of a fight. Again I don't play a monk, but I feel that making them scouts would cause even more confusion somewhere down the line. I read that most need the avoidance fixed and feel that they are probably correct. By the nature of it leather should be easier to move with and less weight to contend with so a brawler should hit harder and avoid way better than a plate wearer...correct?....am I wrong to say that? Again I feel that monks are awesome, and I read as much about other classes so maybe I can be a benefit to them if I group with them. I do feel that when a plate tank isn't available that a brawler should be able to fill the void in a time of need. Very interesting threat here. I will be checking back. Thanks for your time.

[Hydor]

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hydor@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>DjinnKato wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bad Idea....</p></blockquote>monks aren't fighters....</blockquote><p>I just realised that....</p></blockquote>You are making contradiction statements in the your post.You have already admitted that other fighters out tank us. And also, you have admitted that other fighters can deal decent dps as we do. You have also admitted that Devs should nerf scout tanking capability or boost brawlers. ok, even you, who said we should have faith on monk, have already admitted how suck we are <b>COMPARING</b> to others. It's a simple logic. <b>No matter how good you are, if everyone is better than you are, you are a loser</b>. That's how monk suffers. </blockquote><p>/agree. </p><p>That doesn't mean that we are no good though. That's what people have forgotten. Being great is not good enough if all others are greater. We don't seem to disagree really. Just reminding to people who have forgotten that Monks are not as bad as everyone says. Being no good is very much different from being a little (debatable how much) worse. That's my point.</p>

[Anjin]

<p>A few notes here:</p><p>At least 1 poster here in favour of "Monk Scouts" is on a PvP server, which makes them totally biased to a very limited style of play.</p><p>Predators are awful tanks.  Rogues are the decent scout tanks.</p><p>If the overall raid DPS is greater by having the raidwide buffs of a monk and his/her dps in the raid rather than the ano DPS class, then it's worth having a monk in the raid - until you can determine if this is or isn't the case, you can't say if the upcoming changes are worthwhile or not.</p><p>Few posters here seem to appreciate the differences between scout ca's and fighter ca's.  DPS Fighters always stand behind the mob due to things like limit ripostes, frontal ae's etc.  Predators and Rogues are VERY positional and require to be in different positions/distances around/from the target to use their CA's (and thus affecting their ability to tank effectively).  The lazy monks wouldn't know what hit them if they actually had to move during an encounter. </p><p>I would far prefer monks to have better debuffing/utility capabilities than higher DPS.  As far as tanking is concerned the following would be great:</p><p>Uncontested avoidance dealt with.Increase in +melee skills for defensive and mid stances.Since we can't use a shield, a block bonus for using a 2h weapon and an adornment to increase block chance on 2h crushing weapons.Upgrade to Dragonbreath that also increases hate if mobs are facing the monk.Changing mountain stance to be a stifle rather than a stun.</p><p>Even a few of those would make a massive difference to the tanking ability of a monk.  </p>

[x0rtrun]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>  As far as tanking is concerned the following would be great:</p><p>Uncontested avoidance dealt with.Increase in +melee skills for defensive and mid stances.Since we can't use a shield, a block bonus for using a 2h weapon and an adornment to increase block chance on 2h crushing weapons.Upgrade to Dragonbreath that also increases hate if mobs are facing the monk.Changing mountain stance to be a stifle rather than a stun.</p><p>Even a few of those would make a massive difference to the tanking ability of a monk.  </p></blockquote>I couldn't agree more. Those are all excellent ways to make us more useful. I hope a dev sees those and has an epiphany. And as for this: "The lazy monks wouldn't know what hit them if they actually had to move during an encounter."I have to disagree. I use my stuns and knock downs to great effect and dance around the mob all the time. IMO that's a big part of being an "avoidance tank"

[Anjin]

<cite>x0rtrunks wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have to disagree. I use my stuns and knock downs to great effect and dance around the mob all the time. IMO that's a big part of being an "avoidance tank"</blockquote><p>Well, you're not lazy then! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The point I was trying to make though was not the tanking aspect, but lazy arsed monks that want DPS at their fingertips while not appreciating how decent scouts have to work for their DPS (rangers excluded!).</p><p>In a raid scenario where a monk will invariably only be DPS, they only need to stand behind the mob to carry out every CA. </p><p> I mentioned block chance in my previous post - I know that deflection is a "our" block, but how deflection is uncontested as opposed to the blocking abilities offered by shields and shield adornments?  I don't know but would like to!</p>

[Amphibia]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>A few notes here:</p><p>At least 1 poster here in favour of "Monk Scouts" is on a PvP server, which makes them totally biased to a very limited style of play.</p></blockquote>So I guess my opinion doesn't count then? That isn't all we do on a PvP server, though. Thing is, I play both an illusionist and a monk, and I can only dream to ever be able to have the monk as my main if I want to do anything besides running around PvP'ing solo. It's so unbalanced it's not even funny. The raidwide buff is a start, but that also means that nobody would ever have room for more than 1 monk in a raid. Can't compete DPS-wise sadly, and the utility spot is already occupied by someone else. But 2 or 3 dirges? Hell yeah. Or 2 wizards, illusionists, swashbucklers, brigands... etc, not a problem at all. See where I'm going with this?

[Dorieon]

<cite>Anjin wrote</cite> <blockquote><p>Uncontested avoidance dealt with.</p><p><span style="color: #cc0000;">I would love this but as the devs already addressed they are "scared" (my word not theirs) to make our avoidance count because they think we would be overpowered in group/solo. But I still have my fingers crossed.</span>Increase in +melee skills for defensive and mid stances.</p><p><span style="color: #cc0000;">Love it.</span></p><p>Since we can't use a shield, a block bonus for using a 2h weapon and an adornment to increase block chance on 2h crushing weapons.</p><p><span style="color: #cc0000;">This would be nice but if they fixed uncontested avoidance we wouldn't need it. </span></p><p>Upgrade to Dragonbreath that also increases hate if mobs are facing the monk.</p><p><span style="color: #cc0000;">Interesting idea. I use dragonbreath all the time and would love to see the damage raised because really its kinda blah as is. The extra hate would also help our group encounter hate problems.</span></p><p>Changing mountain stance to be a stifle rather than a stun. </p><p><span style="color: #cc0000;">I am really really hoping that this is on the dev's list of spells they are going to combine. What I am afraid of is that they will combine Spirit like Mountain and Mountain Stance and leave the stun. That imo would be a slap in the face.</span></p></blockquote><p>As to the actual monks as scouts idea, I am completely against it. I love tanking, there is alot of skill involved in brawler tanking and when you can do it well people notice. I agree that since we are fighters it shouldn't be harder to tank than a plate class. Different yes but not harder. Would I like more dps? Yes, but only what they nerfed away from me. Our problem is that way back when we had scouts upset with our dps (and come on scouts it was high but you guys still had us beat) and we had plate tanks upset that we could tank in leather. So the devs over reacted and nerfed both. That really hurt. But now they have no idea how to "fix" us and we are stuck in the relative purgatory of EQ2. If people don't know you as a player they are hesitant (sometimes all out against) us tankng. So that leaves us with dps and with all the true dps classes out there, why take a monk/brawler. Our fix isn't to give us scout dps, it is to give us back the dps they took away. Whether it is back in our CA's or an upgrade to our subpar (that is to say 60-70% suck) AA lines I really don't care. Heck leave us as is and give us back our ability to stun/stifle epics. That imo would increase our raid desirability greatly. </p><p>Whatever happens, I do not want scout dps. Maybe I like my monk as is, maybe I am lazy and just don't want to relearn my class (because if we had the dps they would nerf our tanking to avoid whining).</p>

[Cornbread Muffin]

<cite>Dorieon@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>(because if we had the dps they would nerf our tanking to avoid whining).</blockquote><p>They don't really have to. We could comfortably do brigand DPS which gives us a combination of weak tanking and solid DPS that is above the other fighters who have mediocre DPS and good tanking. The brigands have a choice of weak tanking and solid DPS already so it wouldn't kill them to have brawlers be the same way. The typical brigand setup is solid DPS and superb debuffs, where we give up the debuffs in favor of tanking ability. They can choose to not max their DPS as much and pick up weak tanking, though. Neither brigands nor a higher DPs brawler would do enough DPS to catch up with people who don't have that secondary ability (tanking/great debuffs) - casters and predators, mostly. Illusionist fills a similar role already as well - buffs and DPS. Not wizard/warlock DPS, but good dps nonetheless.</p><p>Brawlers could be the same way with AAs. Where brigs are dps/debuff and can use AA to boost their tanking or their DPS, we could be dps/tanking and can use AA to boost our tanking or our DPS. Of course, that would require them to give us a good tanking line and a DPS line that was worth a [Removed for Content]. But it wouldn't break anything.</p><p>They could then probably dial our avoidance and hp down ever so slightly and we'd be right on the money.</p>

[Anjin]

<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>A few notes here:</p><p>At least 1 poster here in favour of "Monk Scouts" is on a PvP server, which makes them totally biased to a very limited style of play.</p></blockquote>So I guess my opinion doesn't count then? That isn't all we do on a PvP server, though. Thing is, I play both an illusionist and a monk, and I can only dream to ever be able to have the monk as my main if I want to do anything besides running around PvP'ing solo. It's so unbalanced it's not even funny. The raidwide buff is a start, but that also means that nobody would ever have room for more than 1 monk in a raid. Can't compete DPS-wise sadly, and the utility spot is already occupied by someone else. But 2 or 3 dirges? Hell yeah. Or 2 wizards, illusionists, swashbucklers, brigands... etc, not a problem at all. See where I'm going with this? </blockquote><p>Firstly, the biased pvp player concerned wanted evac and tracking.  I.E. wants the best pvp tools for his monk.</p><p>At the moment in a 'best raid' scenario there is no room for a bruiser or a monk.  With the changes there may be room for a monk AND a bruiser in a raid.  I'm not sure I get how 2/24 instead of 0/24 is not good?  You'll find with raids that incorporate 2 brawlers, the non utility dps will suffer - eg the 2nd, wiz, warlock, swashy, ranger, assassin, - and if our raidwide buffs considerably increase dps, you'll find that brawlers are chosen instead of the 1st wiz, warlock, ranger or assassin.</p><p>Something that would be nice would be the hate transfer aa line to be higher so a monk could take the place of a swashy in the MT group - combined with the avoidance chance on the MT, this could be a great role for monks.  It would also provide the raid with an emergency tank in the MT group (with all the mt group buffs).  All it would take would be a macro for each healer, the dirge and maybe coercer to transfer their single target tank buffs to the monk.</p><p>There are honestly so many options that can be explored to make a monk a real asset to a raid.</p>

[Kota]

actually the changes i want aren't for pvp purposes.  i do pretty well in pvp with my monk.  my concerns are solely PVE. 

[Anjin]

<p>Is there a problem for brawlers in heroic PvE scenarios?  I don't really think so.  It's raiding where the brawler ias unable to warrant a raid position because they're not specialised.</p><p>Our superior avoidance gets screwy when fighting yellow and orange con mobs (although in heroic encounters we can deal with that to a certain extent).  For PvP, monks do amazingly well, far better for "tanking" (aka being the target for pvp melee attacks) than scouts as at lvl 70 you'll only be fighting even con or lower (scouts also only get a single target taunt iirc)</p><p>PvP Brawlers actually have an amazingly good deal, and are one of the few classes that can actually solo pvp reasonably well (even though they don't have tracking or evac).  Brawlers pack a considerable pvp punch and are able to stun/stifle/fear targets.</p><p>If you find you're grouped with say a warrior class and they're chosen as the "tank" for the group, that's your problem, not the problem with the class.  How many guardians and zerkers get spanked when they pvp solo (and I mean 1 v 1 encounters).</p><p>Having high avoidance makes Monks a great PvP class and I think it's a bit stupid to want avoidance diminished just to get more dps.  IMO you'd actually RUIN the class for PvP.</p>

[mellowknees72]

<cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>how would y'all feel if they just made monks into scouts ? it's very clear to me that they don't want us to be tanks.  we are the only ones in the fighter tree w/o a HP buff.  they give plate tanks more uncontested avoidance (wrong on so many levels) than monks.  think about it....we tank on par with similar geared scouts tbpfh anyway.  monks are the half a/$$ class of eq2 w/o a doubt.  half a/$$ dps and half a/$$ tanking.  at this point i have completely given up on sony ever making us respectable tanks.  it would be much easier for them to make us a scout class.  what would it take for them to make us a scout class ?rescue =          becomes evacgroup taunt =  becomes trackintercede =      becomes stealthdial up the damage on our ca'sdial down our hpseriously, if they made us scouts and gave us the rogue aa tree we would be better tanks than we are now.  no lie.personally, i'm sick of monks being half a/$$ at everything</blockquote><p>Absolutely, positively NO.  If I wanted to be a (#*$)#($ scout I would have rolled one.  In fact, I HAVE one, and I never play her (except to craft).</p><p>Monks are fighters, pure and simple.  I do just fine tanking with my monk.  I do just fine healing a monk tank when I'm in a group with one on my healer.  My opinion is that we make perfectly good tanks; however, there is a general perception that we're lousy tanks for whatever reason...and unfortunately, people often believe and are swayed by the opinions of others.</p><p>NO, NO, NO.  If the monk class was changed to a scout, I would have kittens sideways.  And I seriously would look for a different game to play.  That WOULD be game-breaking for me, anyway.  Screw DPS - I don't care how much damage output I have per second...I made a FIGHTER so I could TANK (which I do, successfully, ALL THE TIME), and I don't want to see that changed.</p>

[Anjin]

<p>I honestly think the reason that some PvP Monks want more dps (and to be more scoutlike) is that they actually don't want to tank, they want to be pure dps.  They also don't want to reroll into something that is more suited to their cravings because they can't be bothered to lose their lvl, faction and pvp gear.</p>

[Ackron]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>A few notes here:</p><p>At least 1 poster here in favour of "Monk Scouts" is on a PvP server, which makes them totally biased to a very limited style of play.</p><p>Predators are awful tanks.  Rogues are the decent scout tanks.</p><p>If the overall raid DPS is greater by having the raidwide buffs of a monk and his/her dps in the raid rather than the ano DPS class, then it's worth having a monk in the raid - until you can determine if this is or isn't the case, you can't say if the upcoming changes are worthwhile or not.</p><p>Few posters here seem to appreciate the differences between scout ca's and fighter ca's.  DPS Fighters always stand behind the mob due to things like limit ripostes, frontal ae's etc.  Predators and Rogues are VERY positional and require to be in different positions/distances around/from the target to use their CA's (and thus affecting their ability to tank effectively).  The lazy monks wouldn't know what hit them if they actually had to move during an encounter. </p><p>I would far prefer monks to have better debuffing/utility capabilities than higher DPS.  As far as tanking is concerned the following would be great:</p><p>Uncontested avoidance dealt with.Increase in +melee skills for defensive and mid stances.Since we can't use a shield, a block bonus for using a 2h weapon and an adornment to increase block chance on 2h crushing weapons.Upgrade to Dragonbreath that also increases hate if mobs are facing the monk.Changing mountain stance to be a stifle rather than a stun.</p><p>Even a few of those would make a massive difference to the tanking ability of a monk.  </p></blockquote>HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD

[Amphibia]

I can say this right now, I did NOT roll a monk to tank. They're not that good at it, and a warrior type would have been a far better choice. I wanted a versatile class that did good DPS. I never expected track and evac, and can do fine without that. I got to be versatile at least, but I really wish we had more DPS. Should I have to reroll? I sure hope not, concidering those 70 (soon 80) levels and all that effort I invested in him... I don't want us to lose our tanking ability either -  because just like I rolled my monk for DPS, some rolled theirs for tanking. What would have been awesome, was if the different AA spec had a greater impact on playstyle. So if I want to be more of a offensive fighter, I could choose to give up some of my tanking ability for more DPS. And vica versa. We have that to some degree already, but there is lots of room for improvement on that, in my opinion. As for PvP, do you play on a PvP server Anjin? I hope you do, if you're going to talk about that. First off - in PvP, you can't just talk about brawlers. There is a big difference between those two classes. Bruisers are conciderably stronger than monks, so personally I avoid them when fame is involved. I also avoid shadowknights, wardens, furies, templars, inquisitors, defilers and mystics. That's a pretty long list. Maybe it's because I'm a crappy player, but I've been solo PvP'ing in tier 7 for quite a while now, and I actually think we could use a boost there too. We should at least be on par with the bruisers...

[Ackron]

<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bruisers are conciderably stronger than monks, so personally I avoid them when fame is involved.</blockquote><p>I've been a monk and a bruiser on Venekor PVP.</p><p>Monks are gods compared to bruisers.  Bruiser i did 2500 dps and no where near the survivability of a 1500 dps monk with tsunami and outward calm.  The AA that decreases threat on melee hit clears target for the monks ( i petitioned forever) and does not for the bruiser.  Monk AA lets you cure 122 lvls of trauma and arcane AND 122 levels of ele and noxious.  Way better in pvp than bruiser cure.  Monks heal can be thrown on other players and cures noxious, bruisers are selfish, no cure, and only slightly higher heal.  Overall bruisers are garbage compared to a monk in pvp, and now that drag is only 2 seconds in pvp, i dont know where there is a benefit to bruiser over monk.</p>

[Amphibia]

Bruisers are garbage in PvP? That was a new one. I've honestly never heard anyone say that before. Closed mind, anyone? Mez? Sonic fists and Stonedeaf? For not to mention considerably higher dps? All that is crap? Please.... I can't beat a bruiser ever unless they're really crappy. And I think part of the reason is that my DPS is simply too slow compared to theirs. In PvP, time is also an issue. Every time you engage someone, the clock is ticking - how long will it take before someone else decides to join in? The cure is nice against classes that use roots and slows, but usually I rely more on potions than that since the recast is so eff'ing long. Good for escaping gank squads though. There is one thing I can think of that monks do better than bruisers: They run faster! And goodness knows that is needed on Nagafen...

[mattmandude]

I've always thought monks to be better in PvP than bruisers.. in fact the only classes that give me trouble usually are SK's, furies (even furies can be easy sometimes though), and <i><b>skilled</b></i> illusionists.But besides that, I second the idea of Monks having more utility for raids. While an increase in DPS would be nice too, I'd like to see us have some more original flare in the raid setting.

[Kota]

<cite>Pipes@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sullen@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>how would y'all feel if they just made monks into scouts ? it's very clear to me that they don't want us to be tanks.  we are the only ones in the fighter tree w/o a HP buff.  they give plate tanks more uncontested avoidance (wrong on so many levels) than monks.  think about it....we tank on par with similar geared scouts tbpfh anyway.  monks are the half a/$$ class of eq2 w/o a doubt.  half a/$$ dps and half a/$$ tanking.  at this point i have completely given up on sony ever making us respectable tanks.  it would be much easier for them to make us a scout class.  what would it take for them to make us a scout class ?rescue =          becomes evacgroup taunt =  becomes trackintercede =      becomes stealthdial up the damage on our ca'sdial down our hpseriously, if they made us scouts and gave us the rogue aa tree we would be better tanks than we are now.  no lie.personally, i'm sick of monks being half a/$$ at everything</blockquote><p>Absolutely, positively NO.  If I wanted to be a (#*$)#($ scout I would have rolled one.  In fact, I HAVE one, and I never play her (except to craft).</p><p>Monks are fighters, pure and simple.  I do just fine tanking with my monk.  I do just fine healing a monk tank when I'm in a group with one on my healer.  My opinion is that we make perfectly good tanks; however, there is a general perception that we're lousy tanks for whatever reason...and unfortunately, people often believe and are swayed by the opinions of others.</p><p>NO, NO, NO.  If the monk class was changed to a scout, I would have kittens sideways.  And I seriously would look for a different game to play.  That WOULD be game-breaking for me, anyway.  Screw DPS - I don't care how much damage output I have per second...I made a FIGHTER so I could TANK (which I do, successfully, ALL THE TIME), and I don't want to see that changed.</p></blockquote>if you really think monk tanking is fine, you have prolly never grouped with a good plate tank, or even a good rogue.  a good plate tank will make a good monk look stupid in tanking, and a good scout will equal a monk, but hold aggro better.  i rolled a monk to be an offtank personally, and tbpfh, i wish they would have read the entire thread titled 'monks need a boost'  and acted on it.  fact = they said they aren't gonna do anything about monk tanking.  fact = a LOT of ppl, prolly more so than not, play monks for dps.  i don't give a flying flip which way they go with monks, dps, or tank.  i just wanna be good at one or the other, rather than be a slack a/$$ at both.  they already said they are too incompetent to make monks good tanks, so imo the easier route will be to make monks dps.

[Anjin]

<p>Tell me why you think a rogue is be a better tank than a brawler please.  I'm peeved with all this "rogues are better tanks" crap, I want YOU to enlighten me.  Don't be shy!</p><p>You provide facts, and you might have a case. otherwise you're basically trolling.</p>

[Nokrahs]

monk = scout ?not really...monk = brawler = archtypeno figher, no scout, no healer and no mages...till SOE figures out what a monk in EQ2 is I will just continue playingthis experimental class since monks are so much entertainment.on a sidenote : I rolled the monk as a "fighter" to tank stuff and advancein power trough levels/spells/gear/archievements like any other figher classout there but in the long run it did not turn out as I expected.however, the monk is fun to play and thanks SOE not a scout becauseI played swash (70) and briga (55) and I consider the scouts boring comparedto my main char (monk) in every single way.I'm not crying for a "fix" here but had to post this since I don't want mymonk turned into a scout nor a plate tank type char because monks are specialand should remain special with their strong and their weak points (eventually more strongpoints in the future since some other classes are just too blessed with power and it wouldlook good having something called "balanced classes" at some point).

[Couching]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Tell me why you think a rogue is be a better tank than a brawler please.  I'm peeved with all this "rogues are better tanks" crap, I want YOU to enlighten me.  Don't be shy!</p><p>You provide facts, and you might have a case. otherwise you're basically trolling.</p></blockquote>What's the role of tank? Holding aggro, survivability and dps. Yes, dps is also important for tank no matter in raid or group.For rogue, they have better aggro no matter in single target or multiple targets. For survivability, rogue has better mitigations and brawler has higher hp and avoidance.It's really hard to say which class is better if we only compare aggro management and survivability.But with considering dps, rogue is better tank than brawler no matter in group or raid.Proof? High end guilds let swashy as off tank killing adds in avatar or mayong rather than fighters. Yes, they don't even want zerker or pal since heroics adds didn't hit rogue hard and you need to kill them asap before next wave of adds. Tactician armor in MMIS is another great example. Most guilds let swashy or brig tank this mob since rogue has enough aggro generated by dps to taunt it off healers. Basically, rogue can tank any mob that brawler can but brawler can't tank some mobs that rogue can in raid. For group, any heroic encounter has been done by rogue or brawler tanking, including Nizara or castle of MM. See, if you still think brawler is better in tanking, fine. The realty is high end raid leaders let rogue tank over brawler. It's really sad.

[Anjin]

<p>A few points (in no particular order):</p><p>Monks can and have tanked more epics than rogues.</p><p>The ONLY reason why a scout tanks Tacticians Armour is due to it being immune to fighter taunts.</p><p>The Mayong adds are weak lvl 74 heroics that go down so quickly that they require no tanking ability.  Probably the best way to deal with them is having a pally with amends on a warlock.</p><p>Now lets look at the 2 major factors of being a tank (aside from pulling ability): survivability & aggro control (retention and regain).</p><p>Survivability</p><p>Monks have tsunami, outward calm, high avoidance, temp mitigation buffs, high hp, self heal and self cure.Rogues have higher mitigation and shield blocking.Win for the monk!</p><p>Aggro control</p><p>Monks have single target and group taunts, tsunami, crane flock, hate proc, hate transfer and rescue.Rogues have a single target taunt and high dps (although considerably lower in defensive stance and only be able to use frontal ca's)Win for the monk!</p><p>Honestly couching, I know monks do need help in the tanking department, but I do think you're going way too far in saying a rogue is a better tank than a monk.</p><p>In a raid a rogue will be getting say 2.2k dps and a monk 1.6k dps - so 600 dps difference.  Now you remove the non frontal ca's from the rogue, how much would they be getting then (both will go in defensive stance and therefore lose melee skills).  Then you add the hate generation from dragon stance and monk hate transfer (the single target taunts roughly cancel each other out), then you add the hate gain from tsunami (which would never be used by a dps monk), then you add the hate gain from self heal.  Can you honestly say that a tanking rogue can generate more hate than a tanking monk?!  Yes a dps rogue might be able to pull aggro from a monk, but only because they are in dps mode, not tanking mode.  Likewise I bet you a monk can pull aggro from a tanking rogue (without using taunts).</p>

[Couching]

Pal with a high dps warlock = good aoe aggro, but pal dps is still lower than swashy. That's why swashy is preferred.For aggro control, can't understand how you could think monk has better aggro than rogue. If monk really has better aggro control, it will be brawler rather than rogue tanking Tactician armor. The taunt and our hate proc is only a tiny part of hate. The main hate comes with dps rather than taunt. Not to say multiple targets control, monk is way worse than rogue. Moreover, rogue gets group taunt from rogue tree.For survivability, have you seen 15k+ hp rogue in raids? Rogue has similar hp as brawler if rogue gets extra hp bonus from rogue tree. It's a simple. Rogues can get group taunt, extra hp bonus (they get 8% hp bonus), passive taunt (proc damage when rogue is damaged), mitigation and boost on avoidance from rogue tree. Don't forget, they are meant to be dpsers rather than tank. Moreover, they can still get extra 200 dps from poison. What we can get from brawler tree as tank? 4% hp and avoidance. LOL.Seriously, there is no doubt rogue is better than brawler if rogue has right aa for tanking. They have better mitigation, better dps (they still have better dps in tanking comparing to our dps in tanking) and much better aggro control. The hp gap is tiny since they have 8% hp boost comparing to our 4%. The only argument is if a dps spec rogue is better tank than monk? That's the case in your reply. A dps spec rogue didn't have group taunt, didn't have passive taunt, didn't have 8% hp boost comparing to monk.Though, dps spec rogue still has better aggro control no matter single target or multiple encounters. Their aoe CAs are way better than monk. Not to say, they have 48% frontal aoe by main hand weapon. Oh, and they have 66% double attack from main hand (can't use 2nd weapon on off hand, though, it's better dps than DW).In survivability, it's hard to say better hp and avoidance is better than better mitigation. Ok, even monk has better survivability from higher avoidance, hp, tsunami, outward calm than rogue, I won't give it a [Removed for Content] since we <i>should</i> be better. For dps, no doubt, rogue >> monk in tanking. I am not comparing the dps from a tanking rogue to a dps monk. I am comparing dps to both tanking rogue and monk. Even comparing dps spec rogue and monk, dps spec rogue has better aggro control and dps than monk. I won't say monk is better tank. Monk is just not worse than a dps spec rogue but by far worse than a tanking spec rogue.

[Kota]

rogues can add 13% btw couching.  end sta ability adds 5% to go well with the 8% from an earlier ability.  even ranger/assass can add 12%.  we get 4.  yaaaaay.  and no hp buff.  yaaaaay x2.  ty very little sony.BTW....  for monks being in the fighter tree, aka tank tree, does anyone besides me think it's just stupid that a scout can compare to a monk as a tank ?  even more ridiculous that a scout is a better choice in just about every situation i can think of.  templar avoidance stacks with monks avoidance.  scout pwns monk as a tank.  pwns monk bad. add a second scout with aggro transfer, and what do you have..? a monk that isn't doing anything but maintaining a buff on the scout tank. 

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Now lets look at the 2 major factors of being a tank (aside from pulling ability): survivability & aggro control (retention and regain).</p><p>Survivability</p><p>Monks have tsunami, outward calm, high avoidance, temp mitigation buffs, high hp, self heal and self cure.Rogues have higher mitigation and shield blocking.Win for the monk!</p><p>Aggro control</p><p>Monks have single target and group taunts, tsunami, crane flock, hate proc, hate transfer and rescue.Rogues have a single target taunt and high dps (although considerably lower in defensive stance and only be able to use frontal ca's)Win for the monk!</p><p>Honestly couching, I know monks do need help in the tanking department, but I do think you're going way too far in saying a rogue is a better tank than a monk.</p></blockquote>And you would be incorrect on both departments.A monk will have high avoidance only in defensive stance. This will reduce monks DPS by over 50% and thus the aggro control too. Monk does not have a useful mitigation buff, the small buff gives about 500 to 750 depending on AA's and it roots the monk. The bigger one is totally useless since it stuns the monk. I have never heard of a monk that actually uses this for any other pursposes than maybe soloing when all CA's are down to reduce incoming damage. And that I heard when t5 was the highest.Aggro control? You are wrong again. A rogue does so much more DPS that even with aggro transfers and other hate gains, the rogue will have aggro over the monk. This happens to me all the time when I group with a swashy. I can only keep aggro on a single target if I am on offensive. And in this case, I will have less mitigation and about the same avoidance as the swashy has. Needless to say I have no chance on keeping the aggro on the adds exept for the duration of Crane Flock. After that, the swashy tanks even though his aggro transfer is on me and he is using every deaggro he has.I suppose you dont know any rogues that can actually play their class.

[Anjin]

<p>OK, a few points here:</p><p>Even with the extra health a rogue gets from their AA tree, their health is considerablye lower than that of a monks.</p><p>Examples below of health leaderboards for the classes:</p><p>Monks1 Taucher 10,628     2 Sellara 10,542     3 Hamoto 10,175     4 Slapp 10,150     5 Hellhound 10,127     6 Linpow 10,122     7 Normack 9,948     8 Xyaliaa 9,928     9 Pauzze 9,891     10 Slaan 9,885</p><p>Swashbucklers   1 Axumi 8,778     2 Backin 8,652     3 Clemobi 8,572     4 Teahupoo 8,565     5 Koldsteel 8,477     6 Bratos 8,458     7 Retnekin 8,406     8 Gooni 8,399     9 Zarne 8,310     10 Nuala8,270</p><p>Brigands   1 Ibeo 8,918     2 Zeebs 8,887     3 Please 8,864     4 Tholar 8,831     5 Winonaa 8,579     6 Ixer 8,518     7 Kruhl 8,492     8 Hairball 8,440     9 Mjay 8,435     10 Timotej 8,431</p><p>And this includes tank specced rogues btw.</p><p>As far as aggro control is concerned, a rogue can take aggro from a tanking monk and a monk can take aggro from a tanking rogue.  You quickly point out how much dps a monk will lose (in defensive stance which I only use for training) but don't say how much dps a swashy will lose in defensive stance and being infront of the encounter.  It all comes down to classes toning down their dps early on in the encounters - in a trivial (aka heroic) encounter, a rogue is unlikely to tone it down because he/she knows they have tanking capabilities, likewise a dps monk.  Also single groups are far less likely to have a dirge in them, so it's going to be tough for any tank to hold aggro with some clown that wants to show off their dps.</p><p>I would never tank in defensive stance, only mid and offensive stances.  Mid stance generally with offensive only while tsunami is up with tougher encounters.</p><p>Against a multi mob encounter other tanking capable classes just need to basically taunt and dps to keep aggro, monks have that plus using tsunami, outward calm, heals and serious mob encounter rotation etc to do the job well - we can do it, but it's a shedload harder than other classes.</p><p>Against a single mob encounter, monks will keep aggro better than any scout tank.  Again, if you aren't using every tool at your disposal to do it, it's your problem if you don't.</p><p>Rogues are way too close to brawlers in tanking ability but offer far more for any raid, so something is definately amiss there (every scout/fighter class has better class aa choices than brawlers).  I've never denied that brawlers do need substantial work on them to make them comparable to fighter tanks.</p><p>The main problem I see with the thread is all this comparison with scouts - who gives a [Removed for Content] about that, we should be comparing ourselves to other fighters and striving for equality there.  I'd rather we get upgraded than rogues nerfed.</p>

[Deathspell]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite>Aggro control? You are wrong again. A rogue does so much more DPS that even with aggro transfers and other hate gains, the rogue will have aggro over the monk. This happens to me all the time when I group with a swashy. I can only keep aggro on a single target if I am on offensive. And in this case, I will have less mitigation and about the same avoidance as the swashy has. Needless to say I have no chance on keeping the aggro on the adds exept for the duration of Crane Flock. After that, the swashy tanks even though his aggro transfer is on me and he is using every deaggro he has.I suppose you dont know any rogues that can actually play their class.</blockquote>Well, if that swash keeps stealing aggro from you time after time then he doesn't know how to play his class either.It's a misconception that losing aggro is always a tank's fault. It is possible ofcourse that the tank player doesn't know how to tank, but stealing aggro usually means that dps classes do not know their limitations of their spells and fail to adjust for each situation.

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>As far as aggro control is concerned, a rogue can take aggro from a tanking monk and a monk can take aggro from a tanking rogue.  You quickly point out how much dps a monk will lose (in defensive stance which I only use for training) but don't say how much dps a swashy will lose in defensive stance and being infront of the encounter.  It all comes down to classes toning down their dps early on in the encounters - in a trivial (aka heroic) encounter, a rogue is unlikely to tone it down because he/she knows they have tanking capabilities, likewise a dps monk.  Also single groups are far less likely to have a dirge in them, so it's going to be tough for any tank to hold aggro with some clown that wants to show off their dps.</p><p>I would never tank in defensive stance, only mid and offensive stances.  Mid stance generally with offensive only while tsunami is up with tougher encounters.</p><p>Against a multi mob encounter other tanking capable classes just need to basically taunt and dps to keep aggro, monks have that plus using tsunami, outward calm, heals and serious mob encounter rotation etc to do the job well - we can do it, but it's a shedload harder than other classes.</p><p>Against a single mob encounter, monks will keep aggro better than any scout tank.  Again, if you aren't using every tool at your disposal to do it, it's your problem if you don't.</p><p>Rogues are way too close to brawlers in tanking ability but offer far more for any raid, so something is definately amiss there (every scout/fighter class has better class aa choices than brawlers).  I've never denied that brawlers do need substantial work on them to make them comparable to fighter tanks.</p><p>The main problem I see with the thread is all this comparison with scouts - who gives a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about that, we should be comparing ourselves to other fighters and striving for equality there.  I'd rather we get upgraded than rogues nerfed.</p></blockquote>While it is true that a monk an take off aggro from a tanking rogue, it is not reality in the ase onerned. A rogue an take aggro from a tanking monk without trying. A monk however has to use every known trik to grab aggro from a tanking rogue including hate proc stance, taunts and tranquil vision.So a monk that is only DPSing, will not be able to take aggro off from a tanking rogue while a rogue just DPSing will take aggro off from the monk. This includes single targets.As for the comparison, you live in a dreamland if you for a moment think that monks tanking will be increased. It just will not happen. The devs have had 20+ GU's time to do it and things have only gone worse.As for the thing who gets nerfed and who gets updated. Well you just made a strawman. I have never requested rogues to be nerfed. I'd much rather see monks upgraded DPS wise so that we would be outDPSing the classes that can outtank us and have more utility. This means close to predator DPS. In any case the DPS has to be higher than that of rogues.As for the fear of monks becoming the new kings of soloing. Well, I have seen a swashy solo every heroic mob, including the nameds, in Loping Planes. How many monks can do the same?

[Couching]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>OK, a few points here:</p><p>Even with the extra health a rogue gets from their AA tree, their health is considerablye lower than that of a monks.</p><p>Examples below of health leaderboards for the classes:</p><p>Monks1 Taucher 10,628     2 Sellara 10,542     3 Hamoto 10,175     4 Slapp 10,150     5 Hellhound 10,127     6 Linpow 10,122     7 Normack 9,948     8 Xyaliaa 9,928     9 Pauzze 9,891     10 Slaan 9,885</p><p>Swashbucklers   1 Axumi 8,778     2 Backin 8,652     3 Clemobi 8,572     4 Teahupoo 8,565     5 Koldsteel 8,477     6 Bratos 8,458     7 Retnekin 8,406     8 Gooni 8,399     9 Zarne 8,310     10 Nuala8,270</p><p>Brigands   1 Ibeo 8,918     2 Zeebs 8,887     3 Please 8,864     4 Tholar 8,831     5 Winonaa 8,579     6 Ixer 8,518     7 Kruhl 8,492     8 Hairball 8,440     9 Mjay 8,435     10 Timotej 8,431</p><p>And this includes tank specced rogues btw.</p><p>As far as aggro control is concerned, a rogue can take aggro from a tanking monk and a monk can take aggro from a tanking rogue.  You quickly point out how much dps a monk will lose (in defensive stance which I only use for training) but don't say how much dps a swashy will lose in defensive stance and being infront of the encounter.  It all comes down to classes toning down their dps early on in the encounters - in a trivial (aka heroic) encounter, a rogue is unlikely to tone it down because he/she knows they have tanking capabilities, likewise a dps monk.  Also single groups are far less likely to have a dirge in them, so it's going to be tough for any tank to hold aggro with some clown that wants to show off their dps.</p><p>I would never tank in defensive stance, only mid and offensive stances.  Mid stance generally with offensive only while tsunami is up with tougher encounters.</p><p>Against a multi mob encounter other tanking capable classes just need to basically taunt and dps to keep aggro, monks have that plus using tsunami, outward calm, heals and serious mob encounter rotation etc to do the job well - we can do it, but it's a shedload harder than other classes.</p><p>Against a single mob encounter, monks will keep aggro better than any scout tank.  Again, if you aren't using every tool at your disposal to do it, it's your problem if you don't.</p><p>Rogues are way too close to brawlers in tanking ability but offer far more for any raid, so something is definately amiss there (every scout/fighter class has better class aa choices than brawlers).  I've never denied that brawlers do need substantial work on them to make them comparable to fighter tanks.</p><p>The main problem I see with the thread is all this comparison with scouts - who gives a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about that, we should be comparing ourselves to other fighters and striving for equality there.  I'd rather we get upgraded than rogues nerfed.</p></blockquote>You miss a lot of points when comparing monk and rogue hp in eq2players.<i><b>Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players. </b></i>For example, I have 10.1k hp with only 43% mitigation. When I am off tanking in raid, I switch to tanking suit with 9.5k and 49.9% mitigation (self buff). See, I lost 600 hp but i got 6% extra mitigation and 6% mitigation is by far better for monk tanking in raid than 600 hp. Same thing happened on rogue. For most rogue, they are wearing dps suit rather than hp suit or tanking suit in game. Moreover, the sta difference between top hp monk and rogue in eq2plaers are about 150 sts = about 700  hp. (Brig in my guild has 8400 + hp in dps suit without tank spec, if he has spec to sta line (tank line, with 13% boost and 51 sta from tank aa, he can break 9k easily without changing to tank suit).For aggro, I don't see why you keep saying a dps monk can steal aggro from a tanking rogue? It's not happened in raid. For example, rogue in my guild tanking Tactician armor never lost aggro to any dpsers or fighters except healers. See, if rogue didn't lost aggro to dpsers who did 3k+ damage in raid, how could a monk steal aggro from him?For rogue to tank mutiple targets, it's a no brain and much easier, 48% aoe from main hand weapon and 66% double attack. It's really pointless to debate that monk is better in tanking multiple targets in raid.If monk is better, top end guilds won't use swashy to tank multiple adds in avatar or contested mayong encounters.

[Anjin]

<p>This is getting very ambiguous because I'm replying to people who are either talking about raids or heroic tanking.  Your Tacticians Armor example is flawed - if a monk was able to use taunts against TA, the monk would quite easily keep aggro because it would have a dirge, swashy/assassin and maybe a coercer in the group.  Not surprising that a rogue can keep aggro on a single target with that much extra hate is it?</p><p>As far as hp is concerned, brawlers inherently get more HP than any other class iirc.  What you said about the gear is just plain petty - there is no way the 1.8k hp difference is going to swing in the rogues favour due to a change in a few items.  If you really think about what you said "<i><b>Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." </b></i>it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?</p><p>Lets look at Avatar/contested Mayong raids - how many of these guilds actually have a monk in the raid?  If a rogue can tank the adds successfully why would you need a monk tbh as the rogue can provide so much more to the raid.  You can't imply that just because a rogue tanks the adds it means they are better tanks than monks - that is absurd.  Are rogues better than berserkers for example?  They tank the adds so they must be!!!!</p><p>Also, in your scenarios, specify brigand or swashy because you're insinuating in your posts that all rogues get ae aa dmg chance, also for example you mention 66% double attack - this is needs to be without a shield which would therefore negate an encounter taunt, the avoidance of a roundshield and a hefty amount of +dps, which obviously wouldn't be great for tanking.</p><p>Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.</p><p>If you're going to provide an arguement in favour of enhancing monk tanking (due to rogue tanking) the devs are basically going ignore if it you misrepresent the facts (and it would be amazingly counterproductive to monks in general).  If you can come up with real life scenarios <u>without</u> misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.</p>

[Anjin]

<p>"As for the comparison, you live in a dreamland if you for a moment think that monks tanking will be increased. It just will not happen. The devs have had 20+ GU's time to do it and things have only gone worse.As for the thing who gets nerfed and who gets updated. Well you just made a strawman. I have never requested rogues to be nerfed. I'd much rather see monks upgraded DPS wise so that we would be outDPSing the classes that can outtank us and have more utility. This means close to predator DPS. In any case the DPS has to be higher than that of rogues."</p><p>You know that monks are more <u>likely</u> to get their tanking upgraded than their DPS close to that of a predator AND with more utility than a rogue.  And you say I'm living in dreamland?</p>

[Anjin]

<p>"A monk will have high avoidance only in defensive stance. This will reduce monks DPS by over 50% and thus the aggro control too. Monk does not have a useful mitigation buff, the small buff gives about 500 to 750 depending on AA's and it roots the monk. The bigger one is totally useless since it stuns the monk. I have never heard of a monk that actually uses this for any other pursposes than maybe soloing when all CA's are down to reduce incoming damage. And that I heard when t5 was the highest."</p><p>Considering aa dmg does approximately 50% or our dmg, and you say that by going into a defensive stance we would lose over 50%, it seems that defensive stance actually creates negative dps!!!  Wow!  Also, the self buff with root is useful, although agreed that the stun buff is [Removed for Content].  Mid stance is the way to go (and still provides superior avoidance), so your rant about defensive stance has no value whatsoever. </p><p>Brawlers also have the ability to enhance mitigation (and increase crit chance) if under 30% health, which although not something to plan around, is indeed useful when surviving after a spike.</p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>You know that monks are more <u>likely</u> to get their tanking upgraded than their DPS close to that of a predator AND with more utility than a rogue.  And you say I'm living in dreamland?</p></blockquote>Incorrect. We will get more DPS much more likely than we will get upgraded tanking capability. Devastation Fist will increase our DPS while fighting heroic content for example. It will however, have minimal impact on our tanking ability.So yes, you are living in a dreamland.

[Anjin]

<p>"Incorrect. We will get more DPS much more likely than we will get upgraded tanking capability. Devastation Fist will increase our DPS while fighting heroic content for example. It will however, have minimal impact on our tanking ability.So yes, you are living in a dreamland."</p><p>Since when will the upgrade to Devastation Fist give monks dps close to that of a predator and with more utility than a rogue.  Also, do you realise how much DPS (leaving aside the 10 sec stifle) DF will give us?  With a recast time of 3 mins and damage approx 4k, this gives us an extra 22 dps and remember, this is leaving aside the 10 second stifle.</p><p>Simply put - <b>stop trolling, Timaarit</b>.  </p>

[Couching]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>This is getting very ambiguous because I'm replying to people who are either talking about raids or heroic tanking.  Your Tacticians Armor example is flawed - if a monk was able to use taunts against TA, the monk would quite easily keep aggro because it would have a dirge, swashy/assassin and maybe a coercer in the group.  Not surprising that a rogue can keep aggro on a single target with that much extra hate is it?</p><span style="color: #336600;">Taunt is the least and most inefficient way to keep mobs on you. Check this thread and high end  MT will show you how to hold mobs. The most aggro comes from dps rather than taunt. Your excuse of taunt is failed.<a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/10114-raid-tanks-dont-use-taunts-9.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...e-taunts-9.html</a></span><p>As far as hp is concerned, brawlers inherently get more HP than any other class iirc.  What you said about the gear is just plain petty - there is no way the 1.8k hp difference is going to swing in the rogues favour due to a change in a few items.  If you really think about what you said "<i><b>Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." </b></i>it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?</p><span style="color: #336600;">My point is simple. You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing monk hp suit to rogue dps suit. That's why you get wrong number that we have 1.8k ahead of rogue. Wrong. I have 10.1k hp with hp suit in eq2players. I have only 8.9k hp with dps suit and 9.5k with tank suit. Brig in my guild has 8.4k hp in dps suit without sta line (tank line).  If he has sta line, he can hit 9.2-9.3k hp with dps suit easily. Show me how monk is superior than rogue in hp. He will have more hp if he switched to tank suit rather than dps suit. You have no idea of high end rogues.</span><p>Lets look at Avatar/contested Mayong raids - how many of these guilds actually have a monk in the raid?  If a rogue can tank the adds successfully why would you need a monk tbh as the rogue can provide so much more to the raid.  You can't imply that just because a rogue tanks the adds it means they are better tanks than monks - that is absurd.  Are rogues better than berserkers for example?  They tank the adds so they must be!!!!</p><span style="color: #336600;">Again, you have no idea of how tanking it is. Tanking = survivability, aggro and dps. In avatar or contest mayong encounter, yes, rogue is superior than any fighter including zerker as off tank. Take it or not, it's realty.Why? Bcz in this scenario, aggro and dps are more important than survivability.  </span><p>Also, in your scenarios, specify brigand or swashy because you're insinuating in your posts that all rogues get ae aa dmg chance, also for example you mention 66% double attack - this is needs to be without a shield which would therefore negate an encounter taunt, the avoidance of a roundshield and a hefty amount of +dps, which obviously wouldn't be great for tanking.</p><p>Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.</p><span style="color: #336600;">Dude, claim down and read my post again. In my post, it's clear that rogue with 66% double attack is in dps spec. [Removed for Content] did I say he is in tank spec? I said even dps spec rogue has better encounter aggro even he didn't have group taunt. Group taunt is useless comparing to their 48% frontal aoe from main hand weapon and 66% double attack. How hard to understand it?</span><p>If you're going to provide an arguement in favour of enhancing monk tanking (due to rogue tanking) the devs are basically going ignore if it you misrepresent the facts (and it would be amazingly counterproductive to monks in general).  If you can come up with real life scenarios <u>without</u> misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">shrug. You have no idea of what your posting. </span></p></blockquote>

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Considering aa dmg does approximately 50% or our dmg, and you say that by going into a defensive stance we would lose over 50%, it seems that defensive stance actually creates negative dps!!!  Wow!  Also, the self buff with root is useful, although agreed that the stun buff is [Removed for Content].  Mid stance is the way to go (and still provides superior avoidance), so your rant about defensive stance has no value whatsoever. </p><p>Brawlers also have the ability to enhance mitigation (and increase crit chance) if under 30% health, which although not something to plan around, is indeed useful when surviving after a spike.</p></blockquote>So you really have no knowledge about this? I will do approximately 1500DPS when soloing in offensive stance. And my DPS is about 750 when I am soloing in defensive stance. This is mostly due to reduced crushing skill which makes me miss far more when I am in defensive stance. So nice try...As for the int line, if your healer knows his/her work, you will not be under 30% health like ever. That line is only good for soloing.

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>"Incorrect. We will get more DPS much more likely than we will get upgraded tanking capability. Devastation Fist will increase our DPS while fighting heroic content for example. It will however, have minimal impact on our tanking ability.So yes, you are living in a dreamland."</p><p>Since when will the upgrade to Devastation Fist give monks dps close to that of a predator and with more utility than a rogue.  Also, do you realise how much DPS (leaving aside the 10 sec stifle) DF will give us?  With a recast time of 3 mins and damage approx 4k, this gives us an extra 22 dps and remember, this is leaving aside the 10 second stifle.</p><p>Simply put - <b>stop trolling, Timaarit</b>.  </p></blockquote>Sigh, who is trolling again, rogues have far more utility than monks. Also DF has to land. If you are in defensive stance, you are likely to miss it.But I suppose you dont tank much.

[Couching]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>"Incorrect. We will get more DPS much more likely than we will get upgraded tanking capability. Devastation Fist will increase our DPS while fighting heroic content for example. It will however, have minimal impact on our tanking ability.So yes, you are living in a dreamland."</p><p>Since when will the upgrade to Devastation Fist give monks dps close to that of a predator and with more utility than a rogue.  Also, do you realise how much DPS (leaving aside the 10 sec stifle) DF will give us?  With a recast time of 3 mins and damage approx 4k, this gives us an extra 22 dps and remember, this is leaving aside the 10 second stifle.</p><p>Simply put - <b>stop trolling, Timaarit</b>.  </p></blockquote>Actually, we are not going to get dps or tanking upgrade but utility. We will still be sub par tank and sub par dps but with extra utility.

[Vatec]

<cite>Deathspell wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite>Aggro control? You are wrong again. A rogue does so much more DPS that even with aggro transfers and other hate gains, the rogue will have aggro over the monk. This happens to me all the time when I group with a swashy. I can only keep aggro on a single target if I am on offensive. And in this case, I will have less mitigation and about the same avoidance as the swashy has. Needless to say I have no chance on keeping the aggro on the adds exept for the duration of Crane Flock. After that, the swashy tanks even though his aggro transfer is on me and he is using every deaggro he has.I suppose you dont know any rogues that can actually play their class.</blockquote>Well, if that swash keeps stealing aggro from you time after time then he doesn't know how to play his class either.It's a misconception that losing aggro is always a tank's fault. It is possible ofcourse that the tank player doesn't know how to tank, but stealing aggro usually means that dps classes do not know their limitations of their spells and fail to adjust for each situation.</blockquote>Or, just as likely, they know their limits but simply don't care ... because they know they can tank the mob if they pull agro.  In group content, I never bother holding back.  If I draw agro, I'll Evade and Surveil.  If that doesn't make the mob go away, I'll just drop into Dance of Leaves stance (Master I, no penalties because I took the AA that removes penalties) and tank them until they die.  It might annoy the healers, but it gets the job done.  It's a good thing that scouts can tank a bit, because it gives a group that extra margin of safety if something goes wrong (i.e., the Alchemist mezzes the tank, the healer draws agro, etc.).  In most groups I've found that, if the healer draws agro, it's faster for me to Cheap Shot the mob than to wait for the tank to regain agro, for example.  Likewise, if the group wipes and I escape, it's good that I can tank a mob or two while raising the healer(s) and then while they raise the tank, rebuff, etc.Note, I've chosen my AAs for soloing/tanking, so it's not like my Ranger came out of the box this way ;^)

[Anjin]

<p>I honestly don't give a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about you and your soloing.  I was taking about fighting epics.  Oh - and if you want to look at 15k every 3 mins, it's a whopping 83 dps, again excluding the stifle.</p><p>When I mentioned Eagle Shriek, I said it's handy for spike dmg (which happens a lot in tough encounters).  So it wouldn't be handy for you soloing trivial encounters. </p><p>Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?! Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.</p><p>Edit: My apologies, I misread your post and thought you were talking about 15k for DF.</p>

[Vatec]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I honestly don't give a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about you and your soloing.  I was taking about fighting epics.  Oh - and if you want to look at 15k every 3 mins, it's a whopping 83 dps, again excluding the stifle.</p><p>When I mentioned Eagle Shriek, I said it's handy for spike dmg (which happens a lot in tough encounters).  So it wouldn't be handy for you soloing trivial encounters. </p><p><span style="color: #006600;">Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?!</span> Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.</p></blockquote>To get numbers for purposes of comparison?  When did he say he soloed in defensive stance as regular thing?  He simply said that, if he solos in defensive stance, his DPS drops from 1500 to 750.I strongly suggest you take a chill pill.  You're starting to lose your sense of perspective....

[Anjin]

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>This is getting very ambiguous because I'm replying to people who are either talking about raids or heroic tanking.  Your Tacticians Armor example is flawed - if a monk was able to use taunts against TA, the monk would quite easily keep aggro because it would have a dirge, swashy/assassin and maybe a coercer in the group.  Not surprising that a rogue can keep aggro on a single target with that much extra hate is it?</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">Taunt is the least and most inefficient way to keep mobs on you. Check this thread and high end  MT will show you how to hold mobs. The most aggro comes from dps rather than taunt. Your excuse of taunt is failed.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/10114-raid-tanks-dont-use-taunts-9.html" target="_blank">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...e-taunts-9.html</a></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">1. Agreed, if you do have the right dps.  A guardian is more likely to spam encounter taunts that a zerker because a zerker does more ae dmg.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">2. You overlooked what I said about aggro not being taken away from rogues. Against TA they are the MT, therefore they get every available buff to increase their ability to hold aggro.</span></p><p>As far as hp is concerned, brawlers inherently get more HP than any other class iirc.  What you said about the gear is just plain petty - there is no way the 1.8k hp difference is going to swing in the rogues favour due to a change in a few items.  If you really think about what you said "<i><b>Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." </b></i>it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">My point is simple. You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing monk hp suit to rogue dps suit. That's why you get wrong number that we have 1.8k ahead of rogue. Wrong. I have 10.1k hp with hp suit in eq2players. I have only 8.9k hp with dps suit and 9.5k with tank suit. Brig in my guild has 8.4k hp in dps suit without sta line (tank line).  If he has sta line, he can hit 9.2-9.3k hp with dps suit easily. Show me how monk is superior than rogue in hp. He will have more hp if he switched to tank suit rather than dps suit. You have no idea of high end rogues.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">At the end of the 3 lists I said that there were rogues listed that were tank specced (STA line).  It was said earlier in this thread that rogues have higher HP than monks - they don't.</span></p><p>Lets look at Avatar/contested Mayong raids - how many of these guilds actually have a monk in the raid?  If a rogue can tank the adds successfully why would you need a monk tbh as the rogue can provide so much more to the raid.  You can't imply that just because a rogue tanks the adds it means they are better tanks than monks - that is absurd.  Are rogues better than berserkers for example?  They tank the adds so they must be!!!!</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">Again, you have no idea of how tanking it is. Tanking = survivability, aggro and dps. In avatar or contest mayong encounter, yes, rogue is superior than any fighter including zerker as off tank. Take it or not, it's realty.Why? Bcz in this scenario, aggro and dps are more important than survivability.</span></p><p><span style="color: #336600;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">Tanking = survivability and aggro.  DPS is just a sub set of aggro (albeit the best as it helps to take down the mob quicker).  The tanking you're talking about is basically soloing or duoing heroics (with full group buffs etc) </span>  </span></p><p>Also, in your scenarios, specify brigand or swashy because you're insinuating in your posts that all rogues get ae aa dmg chance, also for example you mention 66% double attack - this is needs to be without a shield which would therefore negate an encounter taunt, the avoidance of a roundshield and a hefty amount of +dps, which obviously wouldn't be great for tanking.</p><p>Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">Dude, claim down and read my post again. In my post, it's clear that rogue with 66% double attack is in dps spec. [I cannot control my vocabulary] did I say he is in tank spec? I said even dps spec rogue has better encounter aggro even he didn't have group taunt. Group taunt is useless comparing to their 48% frontal aoe from main hand weapon and 66% double attack. How hard to understand it?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Since when does a brigand get hurricane? Or does the rogue class only consist of the swashbuckler class.  Forget about DPS builds as they don't come close to monks as far as survivability.  You might as well say a warlock can hold aggro better than a monk so they should tank.</span></p><p>If you're going to provide an arguement in favour of enhancing monk tanking (due to rogue tanking) the devs are basically going ignore if it you misrepresent the facts (and it would be amazingly counterproductive to monks in general).  If you can come up with real life scenarios <u>without</u> misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">shrug. You have no idea of what your posting. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I know exactly what I'm posting thanks.  Strangely enough I think you do too.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote>

[Anjin]

<cite>Vatec wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I honestly don't give a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about you and your soloing.  I was taking about fighting epics.  Oh - and if you want to look at 15k every 3 mins, it's a whopping 83 dps, again excluding the stifle.</p><p>When I mentioned Eagle Shriek, I said it's handy for spike dmg (which happens a lot in tough encounters).  So it wouldn't be handy for you soloing trivial encounters. </p><p><span style="color: #006600;">Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?!</span> Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.</p></blockquote>To get numbers for purposes of comparison?  When did he say he soloed in defensive stance as regular thing?  He simply said that, if he solos in defensive stance, his DPS drops from 1500 to 750.I strongly suggest you take a chill pill.  You're starting to lose your sense of perspective....</blockquote><p>I thought he was talking about a 15k devastation fist hit.  Nonetheless, our defensive stance has been ridiculed many times on the monk forums, and is just plain awful - especially for soloing.  If you do want to look at the DPS differences between tanking and dps, compare mid and offensive.</p><p>Finally, how well you dps in mid stance (and offensive stance) will be affected by how high your crushing skill is.  A player with +crushing adornments etc will have greater dps from using the mid stance than one without.</p>

[Couching]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>This is getting very ambiguous because I'm replying to people who are either talking about raids or heroic tanking.  Your Tacticians Armor example is flawed - if a monk was able to use taunts against TA, the monk would quite easily keep aggro because it would have a dirge, swashy/assassin and maybe a coercer in the group.  Not surprising that a rogue can keep aggro on a single target with that much extra hate is it?</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">Taunt is the least and most inefficient way to keep mobs on you. Check this thread and high end  MT will show you how to hold mobs. The most aggro comes from dps rather than taunt. Your excuse of taunt is failed.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/10114-raid-tanks-dont-use-taunts-9.html" target="_blank">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...e-taunts-9.html</a></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">1. Agreed, if you do have the right dps.  A guardian is more likely to spam encounter taunts that a zerker because a zerker does more ae dmg.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">2. You overlooked what I said about aggro not being taken away from rogues. Against TA they are the MT, therefore they get every available buff to increase their ability to hold aggro.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #0066ff;">You were saying that monk dps in tanking is superior than rogue dps in tanking. If it is true, why no body let monk tank TA since we have superior dps than rogue in tanking? Why a monk with every available buff to increase their ability to hold aggro can't hold TA but rogue can?</span></span></p><p>As far as hp is concerned, brawlers inherently get more HP than any other class iirc.  What you said about the gear is just plain petty - there is no way the 1.8k hp difference is going to swing in the rogues favour due to a change in a few items.  If you really think about what you said "<i><b>Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." </b></i>it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">My point is simple. You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing monk hp suit to rogue dps suit. That's why you get wrong number that we have 1.8k ahead of rogue. Wrong. I have 10.1k hp with hp suit in eq2players. I have only 8.9k hp with dps suit and 9.5k with tank suit. Brig in my guild has 8.4k hp in dps suit without sta line (tank line).  If he has sta line, he can hit 9.2-9.3k hp with dps suit easily. Show me how monk is superior than rogue in hp. He will have more hp if he switched to tank suit rather than dps suit. You have no idea of high end rogues.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">At the end of the 3 lists I said that there were rogues listed that were tank specced (STA line).  It was said earlier in this thread that rogues have higher HP than monks - they don't.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0066cc;">Sigh, the example you made has crap gears, if he didn't have sta line, his hp is less than 8k for sure. The only reason he is on top 5 of rogue hp list is because he has extra hp bonus from sta line. However, we are not comparing high end monk with crap geared rogue with sta line. You need to compare monk and rogue/sta line with equal gear.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0066cc;">Just as I said, my guild brig has 8.4k hp without sta line. He can hit 9.2-9.3k with sta line in dps suit. I have only 10.1k hp in hp suit, 9.5k in tank suit and 8.9k in dps suit. I can assure you the hp difference between monk and rogue is tiny if rogue has sta line with equal quality gears.</span></p><p>Lets look at Avatar/contested Mayong raids - how many of these guilds actually have a monk in the raid?  If a rogue can tank the adds successfully why would you need a monk tbh as the rogue can provide so much more to the raid.  You can't imply that just because a rogue tanks the adds it means they are better tanks than monks - that is absurd.  Are rogues better than berserkers for example?  They tank the adds so they must be!!!!</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">Again, you have no idea of how tanking it is. Tanking = survivability, aggro and dps. In avatar or contest mayong encounter, yes, rogue is superior than any fighter including zerker as off tank. Take it or not, it's realty.Why? Bcz in this scenario, aggro and dps are more important than survivability.</span></p><p><span style="color: #336600;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">Tanking = survivability and aggro.  DPS is just a sub set of aggro (albeit the best as it helps to take down the mob quicker).  The tanking you're talking about is basically soloing or duoing heroics (with full group buffs etc) </span>  </span></p><p><span style="color: #0033cc;">No, it depends on epic encounters. In some encounters, survivability is more important. In some encounters, dps and aggro is more important.</span></p><span style="color: #0033cc;">For example, survivability is more important while off tank epic adds and aggro/dps are more important while off tank heroic adds in raids.</span><p>Also, in your scenarios, specify brigand or swashy because you're insinuating in your posts that all rogues get ae aa dmg chance, also for example you mention 66% double attack - this is needs to be without a shield which would therefore negate an encounter taunt, the avoidance of a roundshield and a hefty amount of +dps, which obviously wouldn't be great for tanking.</p><p>Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">Dude, claim down and read my post again. In my post, it's clear that rogue with 66% double attack is in dps spec. [I cannot control my vocabulary] did I say he is in tank spec? I said even dps spec rogue has better encounter aggro even he didn't have group taunt. Group taunt is useless comparing to their 48% frontal aoe from main hand weapon and 66% double attack. How hard to understand it?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Since when does a brigand get hurricane? Or does the rogue class only consist of the swashbuckler class.  Forget about DPS builds as they don't come close to monks as far as survivability.  You might as well say a warlock can hold aggro better than a monk so they should tank.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0066cc;">I didn't say brig has hurricane. Ok, I can make it specified that swashy has hurricane if it makes you happy. By the way, I have admitted that a dps spec rogue has less survivability than monk. However, as long as healer can keep it up, he is fine. A tank with better survivability but can't hold mobs is a joke. </span></p><p><span style="color: #0066cc;">In fact, we have let nec tanking Taranix for fun without problem. Of course, taranix is [Removed for Content] and we are not going to let our nec tanking harder mobs.</span></p><p>If you're going to provide an arguement in favour of enhancing monk tanking (due to rogue tanking) the devs are basically going ignore if it you misrepresent the facts (and it would be amazingly counterproductive to monks in general).  If you can come up with real life scenarios <u>without</u> misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.</p><p><span style="color: #336600;">shrug. You have no idea of what your posting. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I know exactly what I'm posting thanks.  Strangely enough I think you do too.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

[EQ2Luv]

The amount of things to quote and reply too has grown to large, so I'll just say that overall I'm with Couching and Timaarit.  I don't think anyone is asking for the nerf of rogues.  We're just pointing out to people like the dev who nerfed devastation fist that its messed up to say that we aren't a pure dps class, and yet have pure dps (plus major utility) classes that are able to out tank us, even though tanking presumably is supposed to be our primary role.  We'd like to get boosted as tanks but there is a thread in the bruiser forum in which the devs say that they are against the idea of putting brawler tanking ability on par with plate tanks.  If they won't give us one thing (tanking) we'd like them to give us something else (dps).  As far as the rogue HP thing--I believe the 13% hp boost rogues get will also boost the HP from healer buffs, in which case thats another 300 or so HP in favor of the scout if he's got templar and defiler buffs.  150 if he has one or the other. 

[mellowknees72]

<cite>EQ2Luv wrote:</cite><blockquote>As far as the rogue HP thing--I believe the 13% hp boost rogues get will also boost the HP from healer buffs, in which case thats another 300 or so HP in favor of the scout if he's got templar and defiler buffs.  150 if he has one or the other.  </blockquote>Whatever they do (if anything), it should not be to make brawlers into scouts in leather. /nod.

[Vatec]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vatec wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I honestly don't give a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about you and your soloing.  I was taking about fighting epics.  Oh - and if you want to look at 15k every 3 mins, it's a whopping 83 dps, again excluding the stifle.</p><p>When I mentioned Eagle Shriek, I said it's handy for spike dmg (which happens a lot in tough encounters).  So it wouldn't be handy for you soloing trivial encounters. </p><p><span style="color: #006600;">Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?!</span> Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.</p></blockquote>To get numbers for purposes of comparison?  When did he say he soloed in defensive stance as regular thing?  He simply said that, if he solos in defensive stance, his DPS drops from 1500 to 750.I strongly suggest you take a chill pill.  You're starting to lose your sense of perspective....</blockquote><p>I thought he was talking about a 15k devastation fist hit.  Nonetheless, our defensive stance has been ridiculed many times on the monk forums, and is just plain awful - especially for soloing.  If you do want to look at the DPS differences between tanking and dps, compare mid and offensive.</p><p>Finally, how well you dps in mid stance (and offensive stance) will be affected by how high your crushing skill is.  A player with +crushing adornments etc will have greater dps from using the mid stance than one without.</p></blockquote>I have a fair idea how bad brawler defensive stances are, at least at the lower levels.  I think I used my Bruiser's defensive stance once (when tanking Windstalker Rumbler).  The result of that was that the mentored down 70 Assassin drew agro and died.  But at least the raid didn't wipe :^P  I can't imagine using defensive stance on a regular basis.  By comparison, my Ranger uses defensive stance almost exclusively except when in a group.  I will never claim I can do a better job tanking than a brawler, but then again, I'm not a Swashbuckler or Brigand, either.  I jokingly refer to those two classes as "light tanks" because they actually have the tools to do the job.  Whether or not they're better than Bruisers and Monks, especially when raid-buffed, is a different story.  I claim no knowledge of high-end raiding.  But logic tells me they're probably better at holding agro since they're capable of stealing agro from most tanks.  Surviving the agro is another story entirely....

[Vatec]

The truly sad thing is, this is almost exactly the same situation that existed two years ago.  SOE doesn't know how to make an avoidance tank work without breaking the combat system, unfortunately.  The simplest answer would be to give brawlers the same uncontested avoidance as a plate tank (via deflection) and the same mitigation as a plate tank (via self-buffs with diminishing returns).  Of course, then brawlers would be "too good" against heroic and solo content, or so they believe.  I.E., what got avoidance nerfed in the first place.Since SOE can't seem to make avoidance tanking work, and they're not willing to give brawlers more DPS because then they'd compete with pure DPS classes, the only thing left is utility of some kind.  The hate transfer abilities probably are a clue as to which direction they're heading with utility....As long as my brawlers can tank heroic content and have some kind of raid utility, I'll be happy, I guess :^P

[Timaarit]

<cite>Deathspell wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Anjin wrote:</cite>Aggro control? You are wrong again. A rogue does so much more DPS that even with aggro transfers and other hate gains, the rogue will have aggro over the monk. This happens to me all the time when I group with a swashy. I can only keep aggro on a single target if I am on offensive. And in this case, I will have less mitigation and about the same avoidance as the swashy has. Needless to say I have no chance on keeping the aggro on the adds exept for the duration of Crane Flock. After that, the swashy tanks even though his aggro transfer is on me and he is using every deaggro he has.I suppose you dont know any rogues that can actually play their class.</blockquote>Well, if that swash keeps stealing aggro from you time after time then he doesn't know how to play his class either.It's a misconception that losing aggro is always a tank's fault. It is possible ofcourse that the tank player doesn't know how to tank, but stealing aggro usually means that dps classes do not know their limitations of their spells and fail to adjust for each situation.</blockquote>Nope again. He knows his class. That is why he isn't holding back. He knows he can tank the heroic stuff even while in offensive. I'd just like to know how anyone beyond a guardian using reinforcement can keep aggro off from someone doing double the DPS of the tank in general groups. Sure you can do it if you have enough hate transfers but since the swashy can tank anything just as well, why bother.But nice attemp to divert the focus, knowing how to play is not the issue. Issue is that a monk has to work to grab aggro off from a tanking rogue. A rogue will pull aggro off from tanking monk even without trying. And when you consider how well they can take damage, why shouldn't they?

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>I thought he was talking about a 15k devastation fist hit.  Nonetheless, our defensive stance has been ridiculed many times on the monk forums, and is just plain awful - especially for soloing.  If you do want to look at the DPS differences between tanking and dps, compare mid and offensive.</p><p>Finally, how well you dps in mid stance (and offensive stance) will be affected by how high your crushing skill is.  A player with +crushing adornments etc will have greater dps from using the mid stance than one without.</p></blockquote>Oh I have + to crushing skill all right. But fact is that even in offensive stance I am missing a lot when soloing blue cons. With greens I can get to 99,9% hit rate. But going defensive will radically reduce that in addition to the lower haste. Now against greens, the hit rate is still quite high and DPS loss is not 50%. But against blue cons (and I am talking about heroics) I will be missing almost 30%. Against yellow cons, my hit rate in offensive is about 70%, in defensive, I am hitting about 30%.Now the same does apply to basically every melee class in game, that is why we use the offensive stance for DPS purposes. However my monks aggro depends almost 95% on my ability to hit targets. Incidentally my ability to soak damage by avoiding or mitigating damage is good only when I am on defensive, classes that can use a shield will have better ability even on offensive stance. A monk in offensive is just begging to be killed, a rogue in offensive can still use a shield for higher avoidance and take advantage of the chain armor.But as said, 20+ GUs and things have only gotten worse for monks.BTW, I had to spec for mongoose stance on our EoF tree since I was constantly peeling on raids. I was peeling even when our swashy was doing double my DPS. So whenever you still dream that monks tanking would be improved, just look at that ability. I mean how many REAL tanks have deaggros?

[Kota]

i keep hearing about how crappy our defensive stance is, and i agree wholeheartedly.  i mean....storm stance doesn't proc when you miss, and you get lousy dps.  hold aggro how ?  yeah primitive instinct from a warden will def stance ok, but what is a monk to do with no warden in the group ?  go offensive and take a more severe beating.  monks are such lousy tanks.  so lousy that scouts are infringing on our role as tanks. someone asked why monks are being compared to scouts as tanks.  well, because comparing monks to plate tanks isn't a real comparison.  plate tanks OWN monks as tanks.  "well i'm a monk and i can tank unrest"  WHOOPEDY DOO  we already know that pretty much any melee class can tank unrest with decent gear.  groups are always looking for plate tanks.  "sorry monk, we need a real tank"  groups also look for dps.  "sorry monk, we need a real dps class" the secret is out.  monks pretty much suck.  you can find a better tank, and you can find better dps.  our role on raids ?  backup to the backup to the backup backup tank.  it's only gonna get worse.  getting into a raid as a monk is gonna be like rudy getting to play for notre dame.  and if anyone wants to give me that whole 'there's more to eq than just raiding' line, don't.  any other class can find a place in a raid.  dps, healer, tank, or utility.  i didn't get a message when i created my toon warning me that i wouldn't be worth a lick for raids. <u> i just want a role.  tank or dps.  whatever.</u>  right now i'm mediocre at best, at both of those. 

[Kota]

<cite>Vatec wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since SOE can't seem to make avoidance tanking work, and they're not willing to give brawlers more DPS because then they'd compete with pure DPS classes, the only thing left is utility of some kind.  The hate transfer abilities probably are a clue as to which direction they're heading with utility....</blockquote>dude, they have no clue where they are going with this.  fact.

[Anjin]

<p>All in all it's a balls thread.</p><p>The difference between leather and chain mitigation is far less than chain and plate.</p><p>I'd imagine the reason the devs put in a deaggro line for monks was that our single target dps beats any non-brawler fighter class and couldn't be reduced (eg by a troub).   Back in KoS a brawler could do 1k+ dps just by aa's - the deaggro was fd.</p><p>Brawlers have inherently the highest health than ANY other class.</p><p>The rogue crap isn't rogue, it's swashy.  Yes, rogues get a great tanking line and yes rogues can tank.  But in reality, if a warlock can keep aggro (of course!) and the healers can keep them up, they're perfect for the job.  Just because in a "certain situation" a class can do something doesn't mean they can do it in all situations.</p><p>To Couching - let me know the name of a tank that doesn't use taunts.  Let me know how a 1k taunt isn't worth 50 pwr.  1 DPS = 1 hate.  Let me know of a tank ca that does 1k dmg for less than 50 pwr and can be cast in = or > .25 secs.  Fair enough dps > a taunt as far as dps is concerned, but you're missing the point - the point is to keep aggro as best you can, and that means using EVERY tool you have.  To say taunts are worthless is crap.  If a tank is keeping aggro without taunting the raid isn't dpsing enough.</p><p>On a personal note, I don't want to have rogue or predator dps.  As a monk I would like some unique characteristics.  We brawlers are a unique fighter class.  All I ask SOE is to define brawlers.</p>

[Couching]

For monk, our single taunt is around 1.1k to 1.4k every 8 sec. Assuming you never get resist and average taunt is 1.3k, you can get 7*1.3k = 9.1k hate. It's about 150 hate per sec. Now, even you get max hate gain, 50%, it's about 225 hate per sec. Is it a big deal? Of course not for high end MTs and OTs.For example, high end tank reported that they did 2k+ ZW. With 18% hate transfer from rogue and 50% hate gain from dirge coercer, a ZW 2k tank can hold 3.4k~3.6k dpsers without problem.I didn't even count hate transfer from coercer. Of course, taunt is nice to tag mob in the initial pull or use it in burst fight situation. Though, it's no way to say that taunt is <i>necessary</i>. Nope. It is the conclusion from top end tanks, not me.It's not what I said, it's what they said. Who are they? Top end guilds MTs and OTs. You had read that thread, I am pretty sure you know who they are.Last, rogue can tank in most epic raid rather than certain situation. Of course, they are not best tank and that's why they rarely be main tank in raid. Same thing happened on brawler, we can tank but plate tanks are better. There is no reason to let brawler as main tank if there are plate tanks in raid.In my guild, brig and I are off tanks in raid no matter in instance or contested. I am telling you how high end guilds get benefit from rogue's high dps and adequate tanking capability in high end raids.I am not interested to convince anyone, if you insist rogue is worse than brawler in tanking, fine, don't let them tank in raid. For smart guilds, they use them as off tank in raids and get better performance than any fighter as off tank.

[Timaarit]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>All in all it's a balls thread.</p><p>The difference between leather and chain mitigation is far less than chain and plate.</p><p>I'd imagine the reason the devs put in a deaggro line for monks was that our single target dps beats any non-brawler fighter class and couldn't be reduced (eg by a troub).   Back in KoS a brawler could do 1k+ dps just by aa's - the deaggro was fd.</p></blockquote>Well, I never picked up aggro on the MT's target, I picked it off with Crane Flock on the adds. Now with the deaggro line I dont. Also if that really was the reqason, then zerkers would have deaggro line too. With my monk I was getting aggro only on rare occasions when I did manage to use CT, with my zerker, I am getting aggro with two separate skills plus with the AE proc AA.So no, that is not the reason. My thought about it was that warriors were whining (as usual) about the monk picking aggro and demanding a nerf and that the devs had a moment of clear thought when instead of nerfing monk DPS even more, they just gave monks the deaggro. The thing is that before the deaggro, I was getting aggro while doing <1/2 of the DPS of the scouts that didn't get aggro.It is funny how prejudiced people are, there have been so many warriors whining about brawler DPS even when it is obvious that they have potential to do more if they just spec differently. And it all comes down to the fact that brawlers are in fighter tree even though our tanking ability is mediocre even in scouts standard. But sinc we are in fighter tree, the fact that we are worse tanks than some scouts is totally ignored. All they see is a 'fighter'.

[Anjin]

<p>To Couching:</p><p>You can't have it both ways.  On one side you're saying brawlers are inherently sub par tanks and on the other side saying that brawlers shouldn't use taunts and linking a particular thread.  Now Xenobe has "tanked everything in the game minus some of the avatars" and doesn't lose aggro in epic ae encounters using minimal, if any, taunts.</p><p>I'm even going to defend you a bit here (although you don't actually deserve it) by saying that Xenobe must be a) an exceptional player, b) exceedingly well geared, and c) in a great raid group/raid with major aggro being passed to him/her etc.  So for monks who don't have a, b & c, (or don't generate as much ae hate as bruisers) where does that leave them?  Do you think they don't require taunts to try and retain aggro?</p><p>Basically for the majority of mere mortal monks (infact the majority fighters in general) we're not in Disso, NPU, Strike etc so we have to rely on everything we can get our hands on to retain aggro.</p><p>It's irritating to say the least hearing you going on about extreme circumstances as if they were commonplace.  You're doing brawlers no favours by posting about our problems (yes we do have problems that do need to be addressed) and then providing links to posts where a brawler has "tanked everything in the game minus some of the avatars" and using that as an example of why brawlers shouldn't use taunts in a thread about sub par brawler tanking.</p><p>In trying to "win" a particular point you are infact going against what you were trying to achieve in the first place - seems a bit selfish to me.</p><p>btw, when you provide examples of how much hate taunting generates during an encounter, try and include BOTH taunts rather than just use the single target taunt purely to make your arguement look better.  If 2 taunts can generate 300 hate / second (and that's just on a single target (not the encounter which would be much higher), which would equate to around 15-20% extra tanking self hate gain (and say 7-10% total hate gain), you'd be a fool not to use them (unless you're Xenobe) considering they use minimal pwr and have a minimal cast time so they can easily fit into a ca cycle.</p><p>I know that it's easy when trying to make a point to only include evidence beneficial to your arguement, but unfortunately, if you want somebody (say a developer) to take heed of your points, if they know you've been biased in your "facts" it'll just get ignored.</p>

[Couching]

First, I said brawler is sub par on aggro comparing to rogue. Ok, let me change it, monk is sub par on aggro comparing to rogue. Are you happy now? For survivability, a brawler is better than a dps spec rogue, what's wrong with it?Second, Xenobe is bruiser not monk. If you have a bruiser, you will see how superior a bruiser is in aggro than monk since their bruiser tree is superior than monk in<i> generating aggro</i>. They can improve their encounter taunt reuse speed by 3.5 sec. With brawler agi line, they can use encounter taunt every 14 sec comparing to monk 20 sec or 17.4 sec with agi line.They have control hate, it's a mini rescue. They can increase or decrease 1 hate position every 45 sec. They have  enhance rescue which raise 7 hate positions comparing to monk 2 hate positions. And the most famous skill, Drag.Basically, if they want, it's impossible to lose aggro on single target for bruiser.For aoe dps, their aoe CAs are much better than monk. Do you know how much burst damage Xenobe did to hold 4 mobs aggro in FTH? He said he did 3k or 4k dps on different thread. If you did 3k or 4k dps, do you think you can't hold 4 mobs in FTH on you? Do you think you need to spam your taunt to hold mobs?Anjin, no body stop you taunt. I said it's <i><b>inefficient comparing to dps.</b></i> What's wrong with it?Our debate is who has better aggro, rogue or brawler.<i><b> I said rogue and you disagree since you said rogue didn't have encounter taunt.</b></i>My point is plain and simple. <b>Y</b><i><b>ou don't need to hold aggro by taunt as long as you have enough dps. </b></i>Now, you told me that most fighters didn't have enough dps to hold aggro. It's none of our argument. My point is as long as rogue has enough dps, he has better aggro even he didn't have taunt. Of course, if a tank has enough aggro, he didn't need taunt to hold aggro. What's wrong with it?Besides, don't be fooled by what Xenobe's dps. He has high burst damage mainly because disso raid wide dps is amazing. They have 36k+ ZW dps. In certain fights, they have even 50k+ dps. What' does it mean? It means mobs got killed a lot faster than you can imagine and it helps your dps number a lot in <i><b>parsing</b></i>.In other word, if you want to deal Xenobe's dps, you need not only a, b, c, you need to raid with a, b, c as a whole guild.

[Anjin]

<p>I'm not trying to compare dps to taunted hate.  Of course I'd rather do a 1k hit over a 1k taunt.  That's not what I was saying though.  How about I do a 1k hit AND a 1k taunt.  How about if my taunting doesn't interfere with my dps?  How about if I've actually reached the max sustainable dps I can do, but still need to enhance my overall aggro generation?</p><p>As far as our debate is concerned, it took some work for you to start qualifying the difference between a dps specced rogue and a tanking specced rogue (including the encounter taunt aa skill).  How do you think a brigands ae dps is going to hold aggro that well?  Brigands do far less ae dps that swashbucklers, yet you still put them in the same boat when referring to aggro retention.</p><p>On a side note I'd really like to see the stats (health, mit, avoidance etc) for a tanking specced swashy, brigand and monk (in both defensive (mid for monk) and offensive stances).</p><p>I'll get a zonewide parse for a brigand and a swashy and work out exactly how much dps they'd lose from being frontal only (and also a severe restriction in non positional stealthed attacks).  Also they'd lose a higher percentage of aa dps because their defensive stance reduces +melee skills more than the monk mid stance.</p><p>Defensive/Mid</p><p>Brigand: -23 S, P & C, +29 defence & + 18% mitMonk: +14 S, P & C, +14 deflection ,+13% mit & 20 haste</p><p>Automatically the Brigand loses a HECK of a lot of melee skills (73 less that their offensive stance) .  How will this affect the Brigands aa dps (inc double attack & procs)?  It would be interesting to see a zone parse of a brigand dpsing in defensive stance and a monk dpsing in mid stance just to see how much aa dps they'd be losing.Personally, I think a Brigand would lose a far far greater amount of dps than a monk.  Fair enough, a Brigand can afford to lose more and stay ahead of a Monk, but I reckon the difference will be far less than most think.</p>

[Bladewind]

<p>When I tank on my brig, I can get most of my positionals in due to all of the stuns and position forces that I have (of course, these are useless vs epics).  In an epic situation, all of those positionals become cheap rescues.  The brigand's highest damage CA (ruse line) makes up for a good chunk of the missed back attacks and can only be used while tanking or grabbing aggro (5k hit that also ups the brig's hate position - treat it like a rescue that puts a 1 hit 5k damage shield on the tank).  In a heroic setting, my dps-spec brig's only weaknesses are aoe aggro and max health.  His basic tanking ability is a bit below my monk, who is tank-specced.  If I were to tank spec the brig, I think the only advantage the monk would have would be max health (by a much smaller amount), but the brigand's higher mit and higher uncontested avoidance would marginalize that one advantage.</p><p>I think rogue tanking ability is spot on for the fighter/scout hybrids that they are.  The problem is not that they are too powerful, but that brawlers are gimped due to how little uncontested they have.  If you fix uncontested avodiance and adjust dps AAs to rely on the brawler's weapons, you will see brawlers tanking fine in epic situations.  A tank-specced pure fighter should always tank better than a tank specced hybrid, but, due to gimped epic avoidance and dps AAs, brawlers are at a severe disadvantage to socut/fighter hybrids when it comes to avoiding attacks (our primary ability) and holding hate by inflicting damage (our secondary ability).</p>

[Bladewind]

<cite>Anjin wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>Defensive/Mid</p><p>Brigand: -23 S, P & C, +29 defence & + 18% mitMonk: +14 S, P & C, +14 deflection ,+13% mit & 20 haste</p><p>Automatically the Brigand loses a HECK of a lot of melee skills (73 less that their offensive stance) .  How will this affect the Brigands aa dps (inc double attack & procs)?  It would be interesting to see a zone parse of a brigand dpsing in defensive stance and a monk dpsing in mid stance just to see how much aa dps they'd be losing.Personally, I think a Brigand would lose a far far greater amount of dps than a monk.  Fair enough, a Brigand can afford to lose more and stay ahead of a Monk, but I reckon the difference will be far less than most think.</p></blockquote>The issue, to me, is more that rogues (tank spec), especially brigands, have significantly more mitigation and uncontested aovidance than a tank-spec brawler.  Even if I use temporary buffs on my monk, I cannot get my mit to be as high as it is on my brigand.  The huge uncontested boost a rogue receives from a tank spec puts them ahead of a brawler on avoidance as well.  Tank spec rogues essentially become plate tanks with less mitigation (but still more than what a brawler has).  Like I said above, I think rogue performance is spot-on, and that brawlers need a tweak up.  A tank spec pure fighter should always have a better combination of health, mitigation, and both types of avoidance than a hybrid.  Right now, brawlers have slightly more health, more contested avoidance, a lot less mitigation, and less uncontested avoidance.  If our uncontested were fixed, we'd be generally superior to rogue tanks without making them non-viable.

[Timaarit]

What brawlers need is 25% uncontested avoidance regardless of the stance we use. A warrior can be on offensive and do DPS while using a tower shield with almost 20% uncontested, how the hell is it justified for a brawler to have less uncontested avoidance in any stance.So, 25% uncontested on offensive, middle and defensive stance. That would fix most brawler epic tanking problems without making brawlers that much better in soloing and group tanking.

[x0rtrun]

I got out tanked by a brigand tonight. It was kind of embarrassing cause they were a tiny little female fae. >_< To be fair, they were 2 levels above me, and only did about as good as i could. I could pull agro with offensive stance, but but got beat on pretty good if the RNG was being mean. A scout out tanking a fighter should never happen. Ever. It shouldn't even be a toss up. How do the devs justify this?