Goodbye Monks - Officially useless now

[zabor]

Taken from Ask SOE #37http://eq2vault.ign.com/View.php?view=asksoe.Detail&category_select_id=43Sassee: Part of the changes coming to spells and combat arts is to adjust how much damage the various classes do in relation to each other. Can you tell us how the different subclasses will rank in relative damage potential? Steve "Moorgard" Danuser: Without giving the precise DPS numbers we intend each class to have, I can list how the classes will relate to one another in damage output. There are basically five groupings that classes fall into, from highest amount of damage output to the lowest. First group: Wizard/WarlockAssassin/RangerSecond group: Conjurer/Necromancer (using damage pet) Brigand/SwashbucklerThird group: Coercer/Illusionist, Conjurer/Necromancer (using tank pet) Troubador/Dirge Bruiser/Monk Fourth group: Berserker/Shadowknight Paladin/GuardianFifth group: Fury/Warden Defiler/Mystic Inquisitor/TemplarKeep in mind that these aren't absolutes. A Guardian who concentrates on damage output and upgrades his or her offensive abilities could surpass a Berserker who focuses on defensive capabilities. These are simply the general guidelines we're following where, all things being equal, the classes will be organized. The thing with class balance, though, is that all things are *never* equal. So much of the damage output of a class depends on how that class is played that it simply isn't possible for anyone to guarantee that a given class will always perform at a certain level under every circumstance. However, the above list should at least give players an idea of the direction our numbers will be taking.---------------------------As I don't believe we will be tanking as good as one of those 100 guardians out there, we are stuck in a DPS role competing with bards and illus. Great! We do as much dps as them without having their utility.

[Jezekie]

Class hierarchy is pretty much as expected. Monks and Bruisers will likely "out damage" Bards and Enchanters in raw output, but Bards and Enchanters will be measured by their utility buffs to enhance other group members damage, if that makes sense. Least is how I understand it. <div></div>

[Ashleyyy]

<P>I'm not really surprised at that ranking, personally. Surprised that we're grouped with chanters for damage rankings, but that ranking (after scouts, wizzies and conjurers, but before the platemail tanks and healers) does not surprise me at all. The beauty of our class is our flexibility. We can tank <EM>or</EM> we can do decent damage. We can't expect to have the best of all worlds; no class can expect that. We're not useless at all; in fact we're very use<EM>ful, </EM>you just have to know how to utilize what we've got.</P> <P> </P>

[Cusashorn]

<DIV>I look at this list and you know what I see?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I see the way classes are set up *RIGHT NOW*. You're pathetic if you think that monks DESERVE TO BE THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST IN THE GAME!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even I realize that mages are intentionally suppose to out-DPS us. Thats how it currently is in the game right now. I don't see any problem with these new changes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Stop whining. the WHHAAAAAAMBULANCE is running out of fuel.</DIV>

[Edyil]

<P>I agree with Ashleyy.  In fact, if I were going to create the list myself, this is how I'd have it ordered.</P> <P>However, we are in the "Utility" group.  I will accept that as long as we actually have utility.  If our only utility is that we can either tank or do Damage, then fine AS LONG AS WE CAN TANK.  If not, then they better add a hell of a lot of utility to compensate for the lack of Tankage and Damage.</P>

[Ashleyyy]

<DIV>It's all just a spectrum, really. You could almost flip it in perfect reverse and say, "This is a list of mitigation, from highest to lowest." You have to lose some to gain some, you know what I mean? Wizzies have an amazing amount of DPS, but one bonk from a heroic mob would knock them flat. A guardian may not do much damage, but they can sit there and absorb damage like no one else. And those are just the severe opposite ends of the spectrum. If there was one class that could take severe amounts of damage and have serious DPS, there would be no point in having other kinds of classes, or in grouping. And personally I think grouping is the best part of an mmorpg, if you don't want to play with other people, go play Xbox!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But I digress. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't think any class is useless, they're all just very different and unique; each lends it's own advantage to a group.</DIV>

[ShashLigai]

<P>I agree whole-heartedly. I want <U>more</U> flexibility in my character. I don't want to be a cookie-cutter Monk, Mage,  or whatever. I think the idea is to create a unique character (we're talking RP here), so that when I log on other players say, "Oh good Fred's on, lets get him in our group. We need someone who can ...". </P> <P>Its not what you play, how you play it that matters.</P>

[BrainMu]

<P>ohh if their gonna add more utility to us .. i would like to see an invis or sneak ... but have it more like an intimitdation kinda thing so we don't actually go invis.</P> <P>like - "Wow, thats one [Removed for Content] off little dude ... don't think i'll mess with him"</P> <P>just a random thought.</P>

[Edyil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BrainMuck wrote:<BR> <P>ohh if their gonna add more utility to us .. i would like to see an invis or sneak ... but have it more like an intimitdation kinda thing so we don't actually go invis.</P> <P>like - "Wow, thats one [Removed for Content] off little dude ... don't think i'll mess with him"</P> <P>just a random thought.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>Would be fun for RP value.</P>

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>zaboron wrote:As I don't believe we will be tanking as good as one of those 100 guardians out there, we are stuck in a DPS role competing with bards and illus. Great! We do as much dps as them without having their utility.<hr></blockquote>Oh, don't jump to conclusions. This post says nothing about how well Monks will tank.Personally, from the changes that <i>have</i> been seen on Test (currently turned off) it looks to me like Monks will be able to tank about as well as Guardians, if you define "tanking" as dissipating the damage mobs do to you (through a combo of Mitigation and Avoidance).Now, I think that Monks will still have to work harder to keep aggro than Guardians, which is another crucial aspect of tanking, so in that regard, no, Monks won't be tanking as well as Guardians. That doesn't mean that you won't be <i>able</i> to tank, you'll just have to work harder at it.If you're worried about the Big Combat Revamp then go make a Monk on Test and level him up a bit (say to level 35 or so). With the 50% exp bonus I'm told it doesn't take very long. Then, when the changes are implemented on Test, you can check them out yourself - maybe even get some feedback to a rep.

[Gaige]

Nice list, I've been saying that for months now.

[Subnuclearfrog]

I agree we are in the middle of the pack and that's ok by me. It's a game and everyone has a role and place in the game. Of course there are some things I like and some I don't, however life goes on.

[sglant]

<P>We are good dmg dealers, and we are capable tanks. What more do you want?</P> <P>We arent the best DPS; we arent the best tanks.... we are a mix of both. How well do you see an assassin taking dmg? </P> <P> </P> <P>I am very happy with Monk right now. In fact, on the last King raid in CL, I was 2nd in total dmg (50 ranger had 119k, I had 110k) in the whole raid. That to me says we have use, if for anything, damage. </P> <P>Do I wish our heal was better? Yes</P> <P>Do I wish our Invis was better? Yes</P> <P>Do I wish our CAs were on lower timers? Yes...</P> <P>However, you cant have everything, and expect it all to be 'balanced' ... just wont happen.</P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<DIV>Well our invis is broken, it should upgrade every 14 lvls.  So that much is getting fixed.  I can't comment about the heals or the timers though.</DIV>

[Reposa]

This Tier thing is pathetic.. not to sound annoyed (I am) but no way in hell should a bard or enchanter be in the same tier as a Brawler.  I really don't expect to "totally" out damage predators or rogues.. but I do expect to be "almost" on par with them.  I'll garuntee there are probably 50% more Brawlers out there than Predators or Rogues, and I'll also garuntee 90% of Brawlers out there chose the class because they wanted to do damage.  When I try to figure out why I have taunts, I really can't.  I just think devs really couldn't come up with a place to put monks, so we ended up in the fighter arena.  I don't want to tank, and I think the only reason any brawler would is because they are clouded by the whole taunt thing.. they see em and they think they should be able to use them effectivly on raids... well to hell with that.. Monks, in lore, or in any other MMO are a "high-damage" class.  To provide absolutly no utility except some avoidance and DPS, and to be grouped with Bards, and Enchanters, who provide the ultimate utility, is an insult. <div></div>

[Jzi]

<DIV>bards are a scout archtype, and enchanters a mage archtype, their utility is the reason they are in tier 3, not tier 1 or 2 with their peers. They always were supposed to have some form of dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>monks/bruisers are a fighter archtype, they sacrifice the heavy armour for dps hence they move up into a teir no other fighter holds. if you can tank better from this change then all well and good, but monks are not a dps class, they were never intended to be in eq2, nor were bruisers/zerkers etc etc etc if guardians are the only viable tank and templars the only viable healer, then eq2 has again gone the route of eq1 and failed in its class balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Jziad on <span class=date_text>06-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:49 AM</span>

[Jay]

<DIV>I'm with Ashley. Monks are <STRONG>extremely </STRONG>useful. If being ranked alongside two DPS archetypes (scouts and mages) is the problem, I have to echo her sentiments - what more do you want? You want to be better damage than a warlock and better tanking than a guard? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Sorry, but you guys have a great balance of skills, and if you're worried about a bard outdoing you for utility, just ask them to taunt next time. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I can't speak for anyone but me, but I consider aggro management to be kinda useful. As Ash said, the monk's strength is her versatility. Guardians, berserkers, rangers, warlocks, etc are all very specialized classes. They're designed to do one thing really well. Monks are not designed to be so focused on a singular purpose, and that frees them from a rigidity that can limit those other classes. Adapt!! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And to whomever thought you should be on par with predators and sorcerors for damage - sorry, but no, you cannot have the best of both worlds. As long as you expect to be capable of ANY tanking, you cannot expect to claim the lion's share of the damage like one of the top-end DPS classes. As soon as I'm allowed to taunt, group buff, feign dead, and stand toe-to-toe with a ^^ mob that's four levels higher than me, you can have some of my DPS. Until that point, that's all I've got. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And really, if you're having fun playing your class, what the hell difference does some quote or list make?? You're as useful as you make yourself. Your class has some incredible abilities and huge potential; learn to use it and enjoy the game. Good luck.</DIV>

[Reposa]

<div></div>Honestly, who says that all mages should out DPS all fighters?  Just because classes are grouped into certian archtypes does not nessecarily mean they should be exactly like their counterparts.. Class balancing means weighing one classes <b>dps</b> vs. <b>defense</b> vs. their <b>utility</b> (i.e. wizards provide massive damage with little utility while chanters provide poor damage with massive utility).  A class like a wizard would read something like +10, +1, +1, while a chanter should read +2, +2, +8. Class balancing doesn't mean making classes the same with small variances (wizards dont need group buffs, if they're going to be a major DPS class, they should be that and nothing else, they don't need to echo their counterparts). <b>DPS food chain (sorted by DPS): (DPS, Defense, Utility), the numbers are crude, and merely an example and opinion, each field is on a scale of 1-10 with a maximun of 12 total.</b> <b>should provide nothing but pure dps, both in long and short periods of time, low defense and utility</b> wizard (10, 1, 1) warlock (10, 1, 1) <b>should provide huge DPS in a short amount of time, low defense, some debuff utilities</b> assassin (9, 2, 1) brigand (8, 2, 2) swashy (8, 2, 2) <b>should provide small damage over short periods of time, with very high damage over longer periods of time, below average-average defense, low utility</b> ranger (8, 2, 2) bruiser (8, 3, 1) monk (7, 4, 1) <b>should provide steady DPS, low defense, with resistance debuffs and buffs</b> necro (7, 1, 4) conj (7, 1, 4) <b> should provide average dps, above average defense, some utility</b> zerker (4, 6, 2) sk (4, 6, 2) <b> should provide below average dps, below average defense, and the ultimate non-healing utility</b> dirge (3, 2, 7) troub (3, 2, 7) coercer (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> illusionist (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <b> should provide low dps, very high defense, some utility</b> pally (2, 7, 3) - the extra utility point comes from the ability to heal others guardian (2, 8, 2) <b>should provide relatively low dps while maintaining the ability to heal, buff, and debuff, offense and defense varies depending on sub-class</b> fury (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> defiler (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> inquisitor (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> warden (1, 3, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> mystic (1, 3, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> templar (1, 3, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Reposado on <span class=date_text>06-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:18 AM</span>

[Dandeli]

<DIV> <DIV>I'm not too worried about the tiers. Everyone seems to take it as OMG we are the bottom of TIER3 DPS. I'll never out damage a bard that is bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], OMG Coercer is higher then me I quit.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Nah how I see it is, yeah in general thats where people will be over all. But look now, there are monks that literally suck at dps. They're happy when they hit 100dps and they're 40+. Then theres other monks doing 180-220dps without trying that hard. A big factor will always be the player, how hard they work their character up, yadda yadda. If your casual, you'll probably be happy with a 100dps. The closer you are to raiding, the harder you work to improve your character, yadda yadda, I'm sure the closer the DPS tiers will come together. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It seems like, omg you heard they're stealing your plastic chair at work, QUIT YOUR JOB, BLOW UP YOUR CAR, DIVORCE YOUR HUSBAND!<BR>Without even seeing they might be giving you a cushy leather chair in the end.... dont be so end of the worldish and wait and see. <BR><BR>I'm honestly convinced that if in the combat update, no other classes were changed, except monks were made better tanks, and givin more dps, monks would still find something to complain about in the combat update...</DIV></DIV>

[Edyil]

Overall I'm pleased with the Monk community response.  It shows unity and an understanding of our subclass and respective role.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Skha]

<span><blockquote><hr>Reposado wrote:<div></div>Honestly, who says that all mages should out DPS all fighters?  Just because classes are grouped into certian archtypes does not nessecarily mean they should be exactly like their counterparts.. Class balancing means weighing one classes <b>dps</b> vs. <b>defense</b> vs. their <b>utility</b> (i.e. wizards provide massive damage with little utility while chanters provide poor damage with massive utility).  A class like a wizard would read something like +10, +1, +1, while a chanter should read +2, +2, +8. Class balancing doesn't mean making classes the same with small variances (wizards dont need group buffs, if they're going to be a major DPS class, they should be that and nothing else, they don't need to echo their counterparts). <b>DPS food chain (sorted by DPS): (DPS, Defense, Utility), the numbers are crude, and merely an example and opinion, each field is on a scale of 1-10 with a maximun of 12 total.</b> <b>should provide nothing but pure dps, both in long and short periods of time, low defense and utility</b> wizard (10, 1, 1) warlock (10, 1, 1) <b>should provide huge DPS in a short amount of time, low defense, some debuff utilities</b> assassin (9, 2, 1) brigand (8, 2, 2) swashy (8, 2, 2) <b>should provide small damage over short periods of time, with very high damage over longer periods of time, below average-average defense, low utility</b> ranger (8, 2, 2) bruiser (8, 3, 1) monk (7, 4, 1) <b>should provide steady DPS, low defense, with resistance debuffs and buffs</b> necro (7, 1, 4) conj (7, 1, 4) <b> should provide average dps, above average defense, some utility</b> zerker (4, 6, 2) sk (4, 6, 2) <b> should provide below average dps, below average defense, and the ultimate non-healing utility</b> dirge (3, 2, 7) troub (3, 2, 7) coercer (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> illusionist (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <b> should provide low dps, very high defense, some utility</b> pally (2, 7, 3) - the extra utility point comes from the ability to heal others guardian (2, 8, 2) <b>should provide relatively low dps while maintaining the ability to heal, buff, and debuff, offense and defense varies depending on sub-class</b> fury (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> defiler (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> inquisitor (2, 2, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> warden (1, 3, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> mystic (1, 3, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> templar (1, 3, <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Reposado on <span class="date_text">06-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:18 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>This is exactly the order in which I'd like to see the classes too after the big combat fix.</span><div></div>

[Lornick]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zaboron wrote:<BR>Taken from Ask SOE #37<BR>http://eq2vault.ign.com/View.php?view=asksoe.Detail&category_select_id=43<BR><BR>Sassee: Part of the changes coming to spells and combat arts is to adjust how much damage the various classes do in relation to each other. Can you tell us how the different subclasses will rank in relative damage potential?<BR><BR>Steve "Moorgard" Danuser: Without giving the precise DPS numbers we intend each class to have, I can list how the classes will relate to one another in damage output. There are basically five groupings that classes fall into, from highest amount of damage output to the lowest. <BR><BR>First group: <BR>Wizard/Warlock<BR>Assassin/Ranger<BR><BR>Second group: <BR>Conjurer/Necromancer (using damage pet) <BR>Brigand/Swashbuckler<BR><BR>Third group: <BR>Coercer/Illusionist, Conjurer/Necromancer (using tank pet) <BR>Troubador/Dirge <BR>Bruiser/Monk <BR><BR>Fourth group: <BR>Berserker/Shadowknight <BR>Paladin/Guardian<BR><BR>Fifth group: <BR>Fury/Warden <BR>Defiler/Mystic <BR>Inquisitor/Templar<BR><BR>Keep in mind that these aren't absolutes. A Guardian who concentrates on damage output and upgrades his or her offensive abilities could surpass a Berserker who focuses on defensive capabilities. These are simply the general guidelines we're following where, all things being equal, the classes will be organized. <BR><BR>The thing with class balance, though, is that all things are *never* equal. So much of the damage output of a class depends on how that class is played that it simply isn't possible for anyone to guarantee that a given class will always perform at a certain level under every circumstance. However, the above list should at least give players an idea of the direction our numbers will be taking.<BR><BR>---------------------------<BR>As I don't believe we will be tanking as good as one of those 100 guardians out there, we are stuck in a DPS role competing with bards and illus. Great! We do as much dps as them without having their utility.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What I don't think some of you are getting out of that list on the teir 3 dps is the utility dps<BR> classes (bards/chanters) are effectively being given credit for their dps by giving it to other<BR> classes.  In other words, the dude that made the 10, 1, 1 wizard, 8, 3, 1 bruiser etc etc, is<BR> saying pretty much the exact same thing.  The problem really is what everyone is seeing on<BR> parsers is throwing everything out of whack.  Let's say this is your group make-up:<BR></P> <P>Guardian<BR>Warlock<BR>Monk<BR>Dirge<BR>Illusionist<BR>Fury</P> <P>The parse for a particular fight might come out like this for dps (numbers totally made up here)</P> <P>Warlock 10,000:0:200.0<BR>Monk       9,500:850:190.0<BR>Guardian 8,500:3,300:170.0<BR>Dirge       5,500:0:110.0<BR>Illusionist 4,500:0:90.0<BR>Fury         1,000:0:20.0</P> <P>While I'm pulling those numbers out of my butt, that's a pretty accurate breakdown of what the average breakdown of the groups dps would look like.  Even though the dirge and illusionist is listed in the same dps bracket by Moorgard, you can see that it won't come out anything like that in parses since the dirge and illusionist dps is effectively transfered to other players in the group.  </P> <P>I think this might illustrate my point a little better.  Let's say hypothetically we could make a dps parser that actually accounted for buffs/debuffs and effectively gave credit to the player doing the buffs/debuffs.  So even though the monk is hitting harder, more often, with procs, instead the damage was given to the dirge and illusionist who allowed him to do those things the parser might look something like this: (same fight)</P> <P>Warlock 9,500:0:190.0<BR>Illusionist 7,500:0:150.0<BR>Dirge      7,000:0:140.0<BR>Monk       7,000:0:140.0<BR>Guardian 6,000:0:120.0<BR>Fury        1,000:0:20.0</P> <P>You see how that falls into line with the teirs of dps that Moorgard has listed?  Now that group didn't have any brigand in it, but if there was in the original group the brigand would have significantly higher dps then the warlock due to the dirge and illusionist, but when you give dps credit to the dirge and illusionist he would fall a little under the warlock.  Like:</P> <P>Brigand 8,500:0:170.0</P> <P>Is that all starting to make sense to you guys now?  Enough with the doomsday stuff.<BR></P>

[Cyngii]

<DIV>My concern is with group vs. raid dps and how that will be treated.  Looking at MGs tiers versus what i'm currently seeing in groups isn't much different.  With the exception of predators not being on par with sorcerers and summoners not quite being up to rogues things seem to be pretty close to this IMO.  Somewhere along the line with super uber raid buffs things seem to get skewed way out of whack.  LIke they've already done, I'm thinking they need to look at how certain stats buffed beyond imagination effects damage increase and tweak that a little more.  My concern is unless they drop average mob HPs, you'll be looking at 1-2 min fights on average mobs if they bust out a huge DPS nerf bat.  This would make levling/questing quite tedious... IMO i'm not expecting to see a huge drop in small group DPS, but those that raid a lot and frequent the 160-180dps range might see some big differences.   For those that do tear it up on raids, what do you normally hit DPS wise in small groups? </DIV>

[IrulanDunedanc]

If I see Aten Ha Ra in EQ2, I'm gonna run screaming.

[Cyngii]

ROFL imagine that... 2.5 million HP with a max of 24 people in a post nerf bat state <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  That would be a fun one.

[IrulanDunedanc]

Yeah, and no super-efficient CHeal.  Bring a lunch.

[XunSarak]

<P>First of all I would like to say that I love playing a Monk. I have had 6 other characters of various races/classes and still like this one the best by far. I also currently think that monks are under utilized in raid groups. Never really making itinto the MT or MA groups, leaving transcendent vision and sacrifice, etc. pretty useless except to support a rogue (TV) and a warlock/fury/templar (sacrifice. etc.)</P> <P>I deleted the rest of what I was going to say because it began to sound more like a rant. Suffice ti to say that I know how to play my character/class, have the best armor/jewelery/weapons that are available (only 1 fabled piece so far though) and have all spells at adept I with 3 at adept III.</P> <P>put up LFG flag</P> <P>"lvl and class?"</P> <P>"47 Monk"</P> <P>"nvm"</P> <P> </P>

[ganjookie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Edyil wrote: <blockquote> <hr> BrainMuck wrote: <p>ohh if their gonna add more utility to us .. i would like to see an invis or sneak ... but have it more like an intimitdation kinda thing so we don't actually go invis.</p> <p>like - "Wow, thats one [Removed for Content] off little dude ... don't think i'll mess with him"</p> <p>just a random thought.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>:smileyvery-happy:</p> <p>Would be fun for RP value.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Aura of FEAR/RESPECT? (bruiser/monk)</span><div></div>

[Edyil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ganjookie wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Edyil wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BrainMuck wrote:<BR> <P>ohh if their gonna add more utility to us .. i would like to see an invis or sneak ... but have it more like an intimitdation kinda thing so we don't actually go invis.</P> <P>like - "Wow, thats one [Removed for Content] off little dude ... don't think i'll mess with him"</P> <P>just a random thought.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>Would be fun for RP value.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Aura of FEAR/RESPECT? (bruiser/monk)<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Thats a neat idea really and different than the current invis concepts.  For Bruisers, Mobs would shy away as though they were grey to the PC.  For Monks the mobs might nod or bow as the monk walks by.  That would be fun.</DIV>

[Squidwalk]

<P>Umm so what's your problem with that?</P> <P>1. that is pretty much how it is now.</P> <P>2. the monks and bruisers are listed as the highest dps for the fithers. Which is all we really care about. NO FIGHTER should be the highest dps of all classes. We don't need to be. You have to compare us with the other fighter/tanks and what they are doing comparatively. If the monk is the highest dps of the fighters then that is how we are holding agro. Which is pretty much how it is now.</P> <P>I know my monk hardly has to use taunts once I have agro, I just need to maintain my dps. And when I go full dps mode as an off tank, I compare to a swashy of same level.</P>

[Tobe]

That idea above for a brawler invis setup should be posted in another thread where a dev might see it ... I'm sure they never read at these whining threads.   It's some form of masochism in the rest of us that causes us to read anything with a topic like "Goodbye Monks - Officially useless now." <div></div>