🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!
Hi, i am pretty new to gaias but its really fun. I have a 26 monk and i am wondering which stats i should aim for while leveling and which stats is best for dungeons.
Atm i was thinking to spend my 50 points this way:
10 agi
11 int
19 con
10 wis
At lvl 50 i will end up with 36 agi, 36 int, 500 hp, 235 mp & 20% resistance if i have calculated it correctly (without items).
Monks don't need wisdom, and probably shouldn't get wisdom, you should probably reallocate those 10 points into agility, because your monk will most likely not be able to hold aggro with that much wisdom.
I was thinking the 20% resistance from wisdom would be nice. And the mana boost to not run out of mana during combat. But monk does most dmg from normal attacks and not spells then?
Should i keep the points in intelligence or go full agi/con?
I was just doing a bit of theory crafting when I saw this thread, and I came up with a potential build based on Soul Strike (not int!). And with 5 points into Peace of Mind and one into Endurance.
I based this off of being a supportive tank Monk. Which means instead of spamming auto attacks to gain threat you spam Soul Strike. By spamming Soul Strike and Curse you are essentially gaining roughly around 437 threat points per second (+ or - a bit ofc). And you don't need to spam it the whole fight, just enough to hold agro. Which then you can have a Bard, Druid, or mana pot to help you out.
Having Heal on you will also be a big help I imagine. It's like Emergency, except you can use it on whoever you want, heals for a decent amount (around 315), has a short cast time, and pretty much no cooldown. You can also have Burst of Light and Stone Skin to save your butts when you run into trouble. Or even keep Resurrection instead for emergencies.
I wanted a different build that turns away from the simple concept of just "tank and spank Monk". I feel like this build and "play style" can have a lot of potential, what do you guys think?
Yay I would try it myself but I need the items and levels xD. And I also experimented with trying to make an int build work, or even just putting some int but the results were just plain bad .
I guess, but what else would you want from me? I spam soul strike when I cant melee, and use it everytime I get the mind and body proc, which is why im also speccing some int.
And that's my current problem with playing Monk. It's just tank and spank, nothing else with only 1 straight up build. You should try out my build I created and play a more supportive style. Tbh it sounds so much more interesting and fun, if only I could try it myself. And instead of focusing on just doing dps, focus on helping your allies, which means using heal where it's needed and spamming Soul Strike to get agro from a lone mob that attacks your squishy dpsers.
I guess my problem with this build that you propose, it does sound good, but, my problem still would be, if a monk needs to do emergency heals on people, your healer is not doing a good job, or the real tank is not doing a good job keeping aggro.
With my build I can actually still take aggro off lone mobs (which I do) with mind and body procs for instant cast of soul strike and emergency heal with bol.
I've actually done bm a few times without a healer because of my monk, quick turn off of steel body + heal with mind and body procs.
Or I can still mt the boss and rezz mid fight, turning on stone skin then rez. So my build may be more tank and spank, but I personally just don't "tank and spank"
The only use of Stone Skin in 1.2A is tanking enrage. Sorry. That shit is just unneeded in the current metagame monks are absolutely fine just face the damn boss when you res.
If the tank or healer need a bit a help with doing their jobs, then I think that's completely fine. Why is it that they aren't supposed to have trouble with doing their jobs? Sooner or later it may or may not be required to have 2 tanks or 2 healers in the upcoming content. I know in Tkok though on some bosses in the later content people need to have two healers just to survive. The thing I like about my build is that it may not be needed in the current content, but it can still have potential to be really powerful in d4. You can DPS, tank, and help with healing all in one char.
The problem with turning off Steel Body is that you become pretty squishy without it, and with upcoming content I imagine that turning off Steel Body won't be an option.
My point was that Zweibel may reward players for choosing a certain team comp instead of another, which is also what TKoK does (at least from what I remember, it's been a while so idk how much it's changed). And I think I do remember him saying something like that, but I'm not completely sure so don't quote me. If he doesn't then that's fine, it will just be another difference between the two games. It's not like I said there WILL be a time in Gaias where you need 2 tanks or 2 healers. I was just providing an example of a useful aspect of the build if this were to ever happen in Gaias.
PS: This isn't about just a game, this is about when people try to tell me that two things cannot be compared to at all. I personally find that to be extremely ridiculous in a society that compares things all the time.
This is just my thought process from an ignorant 17 year old. If I sound like an idiot, I apologize. Still young and learning x.x
Idk why, but whenever something effects me strongly I think about it a lot and need to get it out there. I'm not trying to attack you, but this is just how I feel about your post. I was literally sitting here for an hour and a half thinking about what I should say (probably a lot more). And if you were just joking around like you do sometimes, I do apologize for sitting here like an idiot and making a big deal out of it.
I was just trying to make a point >.> and people compare these two rpgs a lot anyways. If you think about it, why wouldn't they be compared? They're both great games with different pros and cons. They have their similarities, and they have their differences, like everything else in the world does. Are you telling me that they are completely different or that you can't compare them? Because it can only be one or the other. By telling me that they are different, you just compared them. By telling me that you can't compare them, you just told me that they have 0 similarities and 0 differences. Which one is it? Does it really matter that they have to be much more similar to be compared? This may be a cliche example, but it's like a girl trying to compare two guys she likes. They could be completely different, yet she does it anyways. I'm sure you know this, but let me remind you the definition of compare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences.
Okay, let me compare Metal Gear Solid to Call of Duty. Yes, I know, they're two completely different game series, but I'm going to do it anyways. So why can't a person compare them? That just sounds completely ridiculous to me. Now, what I CAN'T say is that MsG is just another CoD game. That's something that would be out of line.
CoD: Fps Shooter
MsG: Stealth Game
CoD: Online Play
MsG: No Online Play
CoD: Short Campaign Mode
MsG: Good Story Line Length
CoD: Story isn't that Confusing
MsG: Story Line can be Confusing to many players
CoD: Variety of Weapons
MsG: Variety of Special Gear
Let's see...would I rather play a stealth game with a good length story line or an FPS shooter that is meant for playing with others. Personally, I would rather play the stealth game. Oh, would you look at that? I just compared two completely different games.
Things are compared all the time, no matter what the objects, people, or w/e are. If you are trying to figure out what you like more in two different games, then you are comparing them. If you are trying to look at two different styles and see which one you like better, then you are comparing them. If you are trying to find similar aspects of two games, then you are comparing them. Even if you think that a certain game may have similar aspects to that same game, you are still comparing them. Ultimately, if you say that they are completely different, you just compared them. How can you say that two things cannot be compared at all when you just compared them yourself?
This world literally thrives on comparing things. Society is constantly comparing people, things, and thoughts in order to control us and make more money. Guys compare themselves to those huge body builders in those magazines. Girls compare themselves to those beautiful models that they see on those T.V ads. That's how most advertisement works. They make you feel less of yourself or feel like you need to have something. That's why they use the technique of comparing things. Because without that, not nearly as many people would buy a $50,000 dress, car, ring, or w/e. And hell, while we're at it, lets compare a cheap house to a diamond ring. A house will provide you with shelter, while a diamond ring will only show proof that you had the money to buy it. I just compared to completely different things yet again. They may be different, but I can still compare them, because that's the definition of compare. To find similarities AND differences of two or more objects, people, thoughts, etc. It may have not been a good comparison, but you have to admit that it's still comparable, right? /end rant
Warning x2: If you open the above ^ you put yourself at risk of reading an unnecessarily large rant. I don't know why I was sparked into writing all of that, but if I offend someone I apologize. I think my point was proven, though. Hell, I wrote up a freaking essay because of my moody ass feelings. I think it was good though that I wrote down how I felt because by reading through it I can see how strongly I feel about it.
I will never on purpose design bosses that require a certain group setup out of the ordinary one tank, one healer group in order to beat them.
So no, there will never be a point in the game where a 2 tank or 2 healer setup is required in order to beat an encounter. I simply feel that this would just be a bad game design.
There might be bosses that require 5 players to beat them, though, due to enrage timers or DPS challenge. Gargoyle is basicly one of those bossfights that you can probably not beat with just 3 or 4 players.
This does not mean that there will be no bosses that might be easier to beat with 2 healers or two tanks. While this is unintentional, sometimes you can not avoid this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
