Monk scouts ?

[Couching]

Anjin wrote:

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!

You provide facts, and you might have a case. otherwise you're basically trolling.

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]

A few points (in no particular order):

Monks can and have tanked more epics than rogues.

The ONLY reason why a scout tanks Tacticians Armour is due to it being immune to fighter taunts.

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.

Now lets look at the 2 major factors of being a tank (aside from pulling ability): survivability & aggro control (retention and regain).

Survivability

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!

Aggro control

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!

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.

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).

[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 should 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]

Anjin wrote:

Now lets look at the 2 major factors of being a tank (aside from pulling ability): survivability & aggro control (retention and regain).

Survivability

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!

Aggro control

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!

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.

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]

OK, a few points here:

Even with the extra health a rogue gets from their AA tree, their health is considerablye lower than that of a monks.

Examples below of health leaderboards for the classes:

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

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

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

And this includes tank specced rogues btw.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Deathspell]

Timaarit wrote:

Anjin wrote: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.

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]

Anjin wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Anjin wrote:

OK, a few points here:

Even with the extra health a rogue gets from their AA tree, their health is considerablye lower than that of a monks.

Examples below of health leaderboards for the classes:

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

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

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

And this includes tank specced rogues btw.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You miss a lot of points when comparing monk and rogue hp in eq2players.Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players. 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]

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?

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 "Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?

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!!!!

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.

Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.

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 without misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.

[Anjin]

"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."

You know that monks are more likely 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?

[Anjin]

"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."

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. 

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.

[Timaarit]

Anjin wrote:

You know that monks are more likely 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?

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]

"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."

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.

Simply put - stop trolling, Timaarit. 

[Couching]

Anjin wrote:

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?

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.http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...e-taunts-9.html

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 "Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?

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.

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!!!!

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. 

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.

Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.

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?

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 without misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.

shrug. You have no idea of what your posting.

[Timaarit]

Anjin wrote:

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. 

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.

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]

Anjin wrote:

"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."

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.

Simply put - stop trolling, Timaarit. 

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]

Anjin wrote:

"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."

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.

Simply put - stop trolling, Timaarit. 

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]

Deathspell wrote:

Timaarit wrote:

Anjin wrote: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.

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.

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]

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.

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. 

Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?! Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.

Edit: My apologies, I misread your post and thought you were talking about 15k for DF.

[Vatec]

Anjin wrote:

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.

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. 

Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?! Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.

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]

Couching@Crushbone wrote:

Anjin wrote:

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?

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.http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...e-taunts-9.html

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.

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.

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 "Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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)  

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.

Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.

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?

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.

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 without misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.

shrug. You have no idea of what your posting.

I know exactly what I'm posting thanks.  Strangely enough I think you do too.

[Anjin]

Vatec wrote:

Anjin wrote:

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.

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. 

Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?! Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.

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....

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.

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.

[Couching]

Anjin wrote:

Couching@Crushbone wrote:

Anjin wrote:

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?

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.http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...e-taunts-9.html

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.

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.

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?

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 "Peope aren't going to tank with the same suit you check from eq2players." it applies to both rogues and monks, so what exactly is your point?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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)  

No, it depends on epic encounters. In some encounters, survivability is more important. In some encounters, dps and aggro is more important.

For example, survivability is more important while off tank epic adds and aggro/dps are more important while off tank heroic adds in raids.

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.

Basically you're creating an impossible setup by giving the rogue tanking aa lines and dps aa lines and ignoring the requirements of each.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 without misleading (at best, falsifying at worst) scenarious then I'm 100% behind you.

shrug. You have no idea of what your posting.

I know exactly what I'm posting thanks.  Strangely enough I think you do too.

[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]

EQ2Luv wrote:

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. 

Whatever they do (if anything), it should not be to make brawlers into scouts in leather. /nod.

[Vatec]

Anjin wrote:

Vatec wrote:

Anjin wrote:

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.

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. 

Lastly, why are you soloing in defensive stance?! Defensive stance is great for training, but crap for tanking.

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....

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.

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.

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]

Deathspell wrote:

Timaarit wrote:

Anjin wrote: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.

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.

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]

Anjin wrote:

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.

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.

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?