At 09:29 AM 11/10/99 -0500, you wrote:
>From: Papa Legba <legba@...>
>
>When I'm playing my cleric, I actually look for monks to group with
>before warriors. There are a few reasons (and this is at the mid ish
>levels, apparantly the warrior hps become more vital at the high levels)
I now play an Enchanter for my main character and almost always
(unless the Warrior is ultra-twinked for my protection) choose a Monk over
a Warrior for my primary Tank. Monks make the fight shorter (especially
after I drop Augmentation, Celerity, or Rampage on them). Rangers are a
very close 3rd choice since they have Snare, some Healing, and SoW (at 39).
>1. Monks have less hp, but tend to take less damage than warriors. We
>cannot tank as well as a warrior, but the cleric hp buffs mean a lot
>more on a monk with their dodges, blocks, etc... Also this makes heals
>worth more too. Said more clearly, monks tanking means less damage
>being absorbed, thus heals are more powerful.
Never really noticed this at lower levels, but at higher levels a
Warrior will last longer. Dodge, Block, Riposte don't make up for the lower
AC and HPs. HOWEVER, any Enchanter worth anything will alternate Stuns
(maybe even Whirl) in the battle to keep the Monk from even getting
touched. That makes up for the lower AC and HPs. Especially since a Monk
will finish the Mob a lot faster than a Warrior will. To that end I will
generally drop Rampage on the Monk. Lowers AGI by 15 but gives an extra 30
STR and a 150-200 point Protective Skin. Bad trade-off (I know how much
losing 15 AGI hurts) unless I can keep the Mob "busy". So, I keep them "busy".
>2. We lack taunt, but the special attacks seem to hack monsters off
>pretty well. Warrior's special attacks are nothing compared to monk's.
>They need taunt to keep up on the aggro list, while monks just need
>their damage to do that.
As an Enchanter I have Rune up (damage shield) and can Stun then
Mem Blur the Mob off of me pretty quickly. As for Wizards, Stun then Mem
Blur works pretty well. Most groups I am in don't need a Taunter unless we
are pulling 3+ mobs. Of course, with a Monk, this doesn't happen all that
often.
>3. Monks tend to be better players. Most munchkins don't play monks.
>My odds of getting a good tank from the shallow gene pool of warriors
>are not good. Monks have a much higher player skill level. (maybe this
>is jut\st on the servers I play, but I have heard similar stuff from
>other clerics)
Any Warrior that can make it past 35 will be decent in a group so
this argument holds very little water for me. However, I agree that at
lower levels most Warriors haven't figured out how to group effectively.
Then again, most classes don't figure it out until 20+. Enchanters are
forced to learn a little earlier. :-)
>People choose paladins over you?? Ewww, paladins are my least favorite
>tank. Their damage output is pathetic unless you are going on a two man
>undead hunting team (which is GREAT xp for cleric/pally),
Unless that Paladin has Ghoulbane and I am hunting Mistmoore,
Unrest or Undead side of Lower Guk, I would rather have a Ranger for my 2nd
Tank. Or a good Rogue that knows how to hang back for a bit before Backstabbing.