amoi
Neophyte
Posts: 15
|
Post by amoi on Jul 20, 2012 16:56:40 GMT
So there's one type of monk that is fine and it's a qstaff monk, right?
Good point about the damage immunity, it's not even as good as I thought it was.
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Jul 20, 2012 17:01:34 GMT
No, dual wield str monks are fine imo, and dex uni are also fine. Fist and SF could use some work, and I think they need to work on pure monks.
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Jul 20, 2012 17:04:51 GMT
The damage bonus isn't great, but the ability to change physical damage types can be very good. Swapping weapons can often lose you as much damage as you gain. I think that's one of the things that could be worked on for fist monks. A swap similar to what AA has would be uber.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jul 20, 2012 17:26:10 GMT
Most of the replies here seem to be of the opinion that monks are fine, but none of them actually answer any of the arguments I made. It's fine if your feeeling, your notion, is that monks are fine. But the empirical evidence in the arguments I've made show that they're really not, unless you believe that breach/mord immunity is worth giving up more than 10% effectiveness in almost all categories. The problem is that you're not really giving empirical evidence, you're giving your opinions on the relative value of a given ability or advantage. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you...we all have our preferences, but that doesn't make them necessarily "right" or "wrong" or "better" or "worse" than any others. For example, the fact that monk buffs can't be morded off may not be important to you, but to others it's one of the monk's biggest strengths -- you don't have to equip extra gear or worry about the area mords that impact everybody else. I do like some of your points -- monk speed is too darn fast, and I'd like a few more uses of QP (maybe 3 or 5). I also agree with others than unarmed and SF monks could use a few tweaks. Otherwise, you're talking about things that come down to opinion.
|
|
|
Post by greven on Jul 20, 2012 17:48:19 GMT
For concealment & SR, you have to be a pure monk for those abilities to be any better than a Ranger. Take 10 levels of anything else and your spell resistance becomes useless and your concealment worse than a rangers. If this was re-scaled so that you hit the cap at 30 monk instead of 40 it would make a huge difference. When you splash on a ranger, it is extremely costly also, in terms of self-conceal, called shot, other spells, etc. And, fyi, 10 levels of splash on a Monk leaves you with 70% conceal, which is more than even a pure ranger gets. Monks also get hide as class skill, so they tend to have multiple ways of getting high conceal in a party, which is quite handy and rare. If the ranger just pops a mass camo instead of a camo, you can get the same conceal as the ranger does. You are performing other unfair comparisons in this thread. Ok, so staffmaster ev might be better than empty body. But empty body is much better than average conceal; most melee classes get worse conceal than Monks, and it's not close. Do Monks have the best crit immunity? Perhaps not, but they have very good crit immunity, and some classes don't have it all. Do you have to give up something to splash on a Monk? Yes, but many other classes you have to give up even more. If you aren't the best at anything, but are above average at a lot of things, you don't 'need help'; in fact you are probably above average. If you look at the sum total of character abilities, (say, by actually examining real empirical evidence e.g. examining data on character performance on runs), you can see Monks do not need help. You can build a monk that is amazing defensively and can solo tank (that is, be the only tank in the party) just about any run, and you can build a monk that does huge offense yet still survives, and just about anywhere inbetween.
|
|
|
Post by KnightErrant on Jul 20, 2012 19:54:06 GMT
Comparing ANY other melee class to the Ranger class is gonna leave you feeling "cheated".
IMHO the melee classes needing help: (in order of most needing to least) Edited for the poor Slinger... PDK.............not sure how much effort it would take to make them viable but likely a lot. Slinger..............Did a Nessus awhile back and the Cleric outdamaged the Slinger just by casting some Blade Barriers on snakes and Ichors...it was really sad... Blackguard........are there even any non quasi ones out there ? Assassin............should be called "lesser Rangers" or "Ranger Lite" Rogue..............lots of ideas out there. RDD................. Bane Knight...... Fighter.............IMHO having more feats added to the game would likely help them a ton. Shadow Dancer.. Arcane Archer....the bows really need to be raised to accommodate more Strength bonus. Dwarvin Defender. Paladin. Weapon Master. Monk. CoT. Staffmaster. Barbarian. Ranger.
I left GI off the list cause I have never played with one that I can recall...but sounds like they would be after Slinger on the list... KE.
|
|
|
Post by Salek on Jul 20, 2012 19:57:34 GMT
if enumerating AA then forgot slingers KE
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Jul 20, 2012 20:26:24 GMT
Most of the replies here seem to be of the opinion that monks are fine, but none of them actually answer any of the arguments I made. It's fine if your feeeling, your notion, is that monks are fine. But the empirical evidence in the arguments I've made show that they're really not, unless you believe that breach/mord immunity is worth giving up more than 10% effectiveness in almost all categories. I have a multiple Demi Dex SF Monk, CS Ranger, Barbarian, COT, Staffmaster, ShD, DwD and a few other tank types, in fact the only tank type I don't have is an Assassin. So far out of all of them the only one that is older than my Monk is my Staffmaster. I'm not saying this to brag but to make a point, I'm giving you the benefit of my 5+ years experience playing my Monk and other tanks. Others who have commented have been playing just as long. It may just be our opinions but that opinion is formed from actual years of playing the classes. My Monk is my favourite tank and has been for quite some time. Yes Rangers get Wis AC Yes other builds can get SR COT's get a lesser version of Mind Immunity Yes other classes have ways of conceal Yes other classes can get crit immunity Yes other classes can get insta kills Yes other classes get damage immunity Yes other classes get Soak (Monks could be better, it would be nice) However, Monks get ALL of these as well as 1 (2 if pure) survival feats - Oh wait they are useless in Hells, um yeah cause a STR Monk has nothing to fear from a Maleb Ever been to Abyss? I have, Water Breathing, Firewalking would be awesome there. So far that is three of the 4 Survival Feats that would be awesome for a Monk planning to go to End Game areas to have. With regards to Saves, I can't comment about Str Monks but my Dex Monk has great saves without a single save feat. And so far out of the abilities I've mentioned that others also get, others have to worry about loosing those to debufs, Monks do not. With the exception of Fist Monk damage output and the Soak I'm failing to see how Monks are worse off than anything else. Just my opinion. Cata
|
|
|
Post by johnny on Jul 20, 2012 20:29:28 GMT
Comparing ANY other melee class to the Ranger class is gonna leave you feeling "cheated". IMHO the melee classes needing help: (in order of most needing to least) PDK.............not sure how much effort it would take to make them viable but likely a lot. Blackguard........are there even any non quasi ones out there ? Assassin............should be called "lesser Rangers" or "Ranger Lite" Rogue..............lots of ideas out there. RDD................. Bane Knight...... Fighter.............IMHO having more feats added to the game would likely help them a ton. Shadow Dancer.. Arcane Archer....the bows really need to be raised to accommodate more Strength bonus. Dwarvin Defender. Paladin. Weapon Master. Monk. CoT. Staffmaster. Barbarian. Ranger. KE. This list is a bit biased. Barbarian, Staffmaster and Monk all are MUCH better than any ranger can be. If built well at least. Ranger though, is more fun to play than the 3 together.
|
|
|
Post by KnightErrant on Jul 20, 2012 20:45:05 GMT
I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head that Rangers needed...barbarians only thing that came to mind was easier way to swap weapons with Shapestrong...Staffies could use access to a few new spells like Dispel Immunity etc...
Tried to rank them best I could and like I mentioned at the top it is all IMHO...others will always have a different view to some varying degree....(Heck I may even change my mind at some point).
As for ranked on "fun" ...I love playing my SD but it doesn't really do much to help the party "win" the run like my Monk, Ranger, WM etc....once again IMHO.
KE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2012 21:05:23 GMT
IMHO the melee classes needing help: (in order of most needing to least) Edited for the poor Slinger... PDK.............not sure how much effort it would take to make them viable but likely a lot. Slinger..............Did a Nessus awhile back and the Cleric outdamaged the Slinger just by casting some Blade Barriers on snakes and Ichors...it was really sad... Blackguard........are there even any non quasi ones out there ? Assassin............should be called "lesser Rangers" or "Ranger Lite" Rogue..............lots of ideas out there. RDD................. Bane Knight...... Fighter.............IMHO having more feats added to the game would likely help them a ton. Shadow Dancer.. Arcane Archer....the bows really need to be raised to accommodate more Strength bonus. Dwarvin Defender. Paladin. Weapon Master. Monk. CoT. Staffmaster. Barbarian. Ranger. KE. This list looks about right though I'd say monk should be where staffy is and vice-versa and that ranger should be right above wm with barb being at the top.
|
|
|
Post by johnny on Jul 20, 2012 22:39:06 GMT
I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head that Rangers needed...barbarians only thing that came to mind was easier way to swap weapons with Shapestrong...Staffies could use access to a few new spells like Dispel Immunity etc... Tried to rank them best I could and like I mentioned at the top it is all IMHO...others will always have a different view to some varying degree....(Heck I may even change my mind at some point). As for ranked on "fun" ...I love playing my SD but it doesn't really do much to help the party "win" the run like my Monk, Ranger, WM etc....once again IMHO. KE. Rangers need more flexibility for splash, if you splash even 2 levels on a ranger you lose a LOT. There's no much thinking when building a ranger, just go pure. There are people that forget about being pure and go with even 9 levels of other classes, but then you're not a ranger anymore, as you lose good IP, lose CS, lose a lot of good buffs, you're just a mindlessly attacking... tank. Also basically needing to be 2 wield weapons, rangers get to be a very expensive class to play and also very boring to buff before run start, this is not a problem for rangers only thou, but they're like 95% of the 2 weapons tanks nowadays. For SDs, well... they can be the last one standing in GS! Btw, if you have that opinion for SDs why put them on top of fighters... I know you can make a pretty damn good Fighter. Were's fighter was almost outdamaging my staff monk, thou my monk was only immo and had not crafted weapons yet... But they are very good, just boring to play. Fun is a subjective concept, dealing high DPS is one of the things that offer more to the fun factor. Ranger CS is the best thing to contribute for Rangers Fun. SDs aren't particularly fun imo, they just have too many gadgets that sparkle, but very "meh" for a hack'n'slash server like this.
|
|
|
Post by Lythe Featherblade on Jul 21, 2012 1:17:05 GMT
Rangers.. definitely fun and versatile, all I have to look at is how many rangers I play and how many other classes (and I've tried a lot). Though it's been a very long time since I've felt my rangers were the dominating powerhouses that people still perceive them to be (the exception is 2H rangers and that is something I expect to be tweaked.. and it's because they use a 2H weapon not because they are rangers). The double katana ranger has a pretty poor damage output these days. Conceal caps at 66% but the average ranger will be closer to 60-62%, while wis AC is an easy boost there is also an easy to hit cap (that monks can get past), and monks have a lot easier time gearing up than rangers because they have less things to cover (try tank gear + spell slots + DC items + all the other immunities + mord/breach).
Splashing rangers.. my only non-pure is a shifter, you don't have much flex, give up most ranger goodies to do so, but makes for a fairly versatile tank. And while no CS, can be a decent assassin, I've actually outkilled 2 assassins on one run (using drow for mortal stike), though this may be more playing style/mob knowledge, a solid assassin player will easily out-MS a ranger shifter.
Player knowledge and build matters a ton, I've significantly outdamaged a staffmaster with my zen ranger (I cheated - I meleed half the time), but had another staffmaster on the same run get 3x the damage my zen did.
SD.. my most played non-ranger character. If you think monk needs a slice of bread, SD could use a whole banquet. My biggest priority to try and rebuild, if I could only figure out how to rebuild it effective. And that's with currently being 140+ AC and 13-20x4 crits and decent saves. The toys are fun but I can't recall them ever making a noticable impact on a run (other than cursing half of a bard-less min run once).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 10:35:50 GMT
LOL I thought this was a sarcastic title for a post that was going to be complaining that monks need nerfing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Buble on Jul 21, 2012 11:19:18 GMT
I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head that Rangers needed... KE. Rangers could use the bow system the AA's have and it would be nice to have a bow / arrow combo that does some damage. As a seasoned Ranger player my AB is quite high and yeah I can CS a lot but plucking away for 20 or 30 points a hit isn't really doing much. I'm not looking for AA damage output but somewhere in the middle.
|
|