WW monks in competitive PvP.

[Kimbald]

Right, if your a multi-gladiator, and you reroll to a spec you already have a very high degree of knowledge about (dakkroth as shaman, reckful as warrior) you can pick it up pretty fast if your putting in the time. Some monks are 2200+. Either this means some good players did reroll monk, did put in the time to learn the class already, and are getting into high ratings now - or monks are overpowered such that people who don't know the class are getting into high ratings now: because some monks are 2200+ and their representation more or less correlates to their population. Obviously since I'm not calling monks overpowered, some good players did reroll monk, put in the time, and are getting 2200+ now.

aren't you underestimating the better pvp players a bit?

If monks were as good as you say they are, or as 'balanced' to avoid having the word good suddenly mean overpowered, than surely the good layers would hit over 2200 by now. Not just a very small number of them.

I haven't seen many solid arguments from you actually showing that monks are indeed as good as you claim. Mostly you say that most pvp'ers can't play a monk yet, or even more odd: that there aren't enough levelled monks yet.
If monks are viable than people will level them, again you are severaly underestimating pvp'ers here.

For a moderator you do seem to be rather in denial of what is presented here as arguments.
Rather weird to notice that, to be honest.

[Strah]

Right, if your a multi-gladiator, and you reroll to a spec you already have a very high degree of knowledge about (dakkroth as shaman, reckful as warrior) you can pick it up pretty fast if your putting in the time. Some monks are 2200+. Either this means some good players did reroll monk, did put in the time to learn the class already, and are getting into high ratings now - or monks are overpowered such that people who don't know the class are getting into high ratings now: because some monks are 2200+ and their representation more or less correlates to their population. Obviously since I'm not calling monks overpowered, some good players did reroll monk, put in the time, and are getting 2200+ now.

There will always be exceptions - people getting high ratings with a weak class, the underdogs, sort of, but that does not mean the class is fine. It's got an extremely high skill-cap, and when you achieve that cap - it does not pay off like it would with other classes. You can see elemental shamans at 2300+ rating - does that mean they're strong? No, they're not that strong, it's just that the person playing it is extremely skilled and is trying really hard to achieve that.
Also, it might sound odd, but someone being 2.2k does not mean the class is performing well, really. Getting to 2.2k from 0 is much,much easier than getting from 2.3k to 2.5k, as those are the rating when you start fighting trully strong opponents.

And yeah, i'm not hating on monks, i do have a 90 WW myself, and i truly love it, but i just can't play it seeing how weak it is in comparison with my warrior and DK. Monk is like a gimped version of DK, and the DK is somewhat a weaker version of warrior.

[Yvaelle]

aren't you underestimating the better pvp players a bit?

If monks were as good as you say they are, or as 'balanced' to avoid having the word good suddenly mean overpowered, than surely the good layers would hit over 2200 by now. Not just a very small number of them.

Unless there were fewer monk PvP mains in comparison to the number of other classes - which is the case - so you should expect fewer monks at high rankings. Here let me phrase it differently. The Faroe Islands produce more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any other country on the planet by a colossal margin. In fact, about 1 in every 50,000 people in the Faroe Islands has a Nobel Prize - by comparison - only 1 American in every million has a Nobel Prize despite that America has more Nobel Prizes than any other country.

Now, if I instead re-arranged this data and told you that the Faroe Islands only has a population of 50,000 to America's like 350 million, but that one person in the Faroe Islands has won a Nobel Prize - would you assert that the Faroe Islands are clearly underpowered and need massive buffs because they aren't competitive - or might you recognize that the small population of the Faroe Islands may have something to do with why they only have 1 Nobel Prize and not ~350 (America).

"Why aren't people moving en masse to leave America and emigrate to the Faroe Islands, when doing so increases their odds of winning a Nobel Prize from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 50,000?", you ask. Because they lack incentive, because if you're already a 2200+ capable Frost Mage (or pick any class here), it's not enough to just have an equal shot at 2200+ when the cost is the risk that you won't be as good at monk, that you will have to invest time and effort learning a new class, and you will lose the sunk cost invested in your mage.

You need to be likely to gain something worth risking all the above to reroll. What this means is, if Monks are close to balanced, then we should expect their population to rise very slowly and expect their representation in high end arena to not appear instantly (and in population shifts like class representation in a 10 Million player game like WoW - 6 weeks is practically instant).

Death Knights didn't get instant equal representation in Season 5 and they were unequivocally overpowered (where Monks are not), Frost Mage representation didn't skyrocket at the start of Cataclysm even though everyone in the beta thought they were so overpowered it wasn't even worth crying about, because surely they would never go live like that (and when it did, people didn't instantly reroll because they assumed nerfs were coming).

I haven't seen many solid arguments from you actually showing that monks are indeed as good as you claim. Mostly you say that most pvp'ers can't play a monk yet, or even more odd: that there aren't enough levelled monks yet.
If monks are viable than people will level them, again you are severaly underestimating pvp'ers here.

(italics added for emphasis)

Note the use of the condition at the start of that statement. Does anyone really know if monks are viable yet? How do you determine that? When people say that rogues aren't viable right now, they point to world famous rogues like Reckful and say "Reckful, who is so good at rogue he holds rank 1 on the hardest battlegroup using legendary glaives from two expansions past - rerolled this season - because he says rogues are not competitive", or they look at rogue representation compared to past seasons and say "rogues, who made up over 20% of gladiators last season - make up less than 1% of players above 2200 this season". Those are good arguments for why rogues are the worst right now. There are no world famous monks to point at as examples or ask their opinions, and there are no past monk seasons - so instead people say "there are no multi-glad monks, that's proof that monks are the worst class!", leading you to suggest that because monks aren't viable people aren't leveling them. By the end of the season I guarantee you that your opinion of monk viability will be very different.

Edit: Also note, I'm not claiming monks are overpowered - don't straw-man me into that position. I'm claiming monks aren't significantly underpowered, and are something pretty close to balanced right now. Windwalker may be in the lower half, but that probably has more to do with specs like warriors and hunters and dks being too strong or overpowered right now and occupying the same arena slots, than it does with windwalkers being too weak - 5.1 is going to nerf all those classes and monks (including windwalker) representation is only going to continue to climb all expansion.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 06:35 AM ----------

Also, it might sound odd, but someone being 2.2k does not mean the class is performing well, really. Getting to 2.2k from 0 is much,much easier than getting from 2.3k to 2.5k, as those are the rating when you start fighting trully strong opponents.

Practically everyone complaining about monk representation right now is doing so based on some information that was posted about class representation above 2200, which is why everyone keeps referring to 2200 - because as the statistic goes - monks represent only ~1.5% of players above 2200 right now. (Meanwhile, rogues represent like 0.5% - which means you're three times more likely to see a monk than a rogue).

[Jayma]

Mind Blown

First of all where is this 1.5% to .5% number coming from?
Do you know active player % for monks relative to other classes at lvl 90?
What fact could you possibly use to show so much certainty monks are not weak?
Why is your only rogue comparison to an over inflated legendary season where rogues clearly dominated?
How is the weakness of rogues even relevant to monks?
After 8 years of WoW pvp are we not smart enough to identify glaring weaknesses without a year of data?
The idea that monks need over half an expansion of testing before we know if they are viable or not is a whole new level of ridiculous.

[Illiterate]

Go on arenajunkies and find me someone (anyone) that doesn't think monks are terrible in their current state. The reason a few are already 2.2k is because they have competent teammates, and if they played any other class they would get above 2.2k without many problems.

[Victoris]

I've actually only seen one monk (MW) above 2.2k rating. Please link me to more if you guys see any

[Yvaelle]

Go on arenajunkies and find me someone (anyone) that doesn't think monks are terrible in their current state. The reason a few are already 2.2k is because they have competent teammates, and if they played any other class they would get above 2.2k without many problems.

I'm not sure the gladiators in the junkies only section would appreciate you telling them they're being carried by their teammates who secretly wish they would go back to their old mains. I'll refrain from passing that part on, but here's the threads you asked for:

http://www.arenajunkies.com/topic/23...tally-useless/

Whole thread of ex-gladiators saying their new windwalker mains aren't as bad as the general public seems to think. They have tweaks they think need to happen, I agree tweaking needs to occur (my argument is again only that they are close to balanced right now) - but take notice how not one of them think windwalkers are terrible (not one).

Or you could try this thread:

http://www.arenajunkies.com/topic/22...na-discussion/

Where the general agreement is that Mistweavers are one of the strongest healing specs this season.

I've actually only seen one monk (MW) above 2.2k rating. Please link me to more if you guys see any

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte.../Churel/simple - 2212 but currently #13th on that BG (gladiator if the season ended today - obviously the point isn't that she's getting glad but that ALL ratings are very low right now and comparatively 2212 is quite high, ratings only matter relative to competitors)

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...aofeliz/simple - 2223, 15th on BG

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...r/Favee/simple - 2207, 26th on BG

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...m/Rokei/simple - 2209, 20th on BG

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...ureeves/simple - 2255 Windwalker, 17th on BG

Given their current rankings, all of these monks would likely be getting gladiator if the season ended today. Obviously ratings will continue to creep up over the course of a season - but that happens uniformly to both these teams and their competitors. In fact, these teams all stand to gain rating from the fall of KFC variants in 5.1, so if anything they will gain rating faster than average (while KFC variants will lose rating faster than average due to nerfs). So, what's 2200ish today may end up 2400 or 2500 or 2600 by the end of a season - but their ranking is what matters: and their rankings are impressive.

[Laurix]

I'm pretty much going to explain this once, because everyone seems to be hopping on the "Monks are worthless" train far too often.


-Monks are balanced overall, but they need some fine-tuning that should have been resolved from beta -> live. Windwalker doesn't gain enough from speccing Windwalker, and we have two abilties that might as well be thrown off our bars (JCL and Path of Blossums).

-Most high-end arena players rolled with what they have been the past three expansions (minus the Rogues, since Rogues suck -- IE Reckful; Neilyo)

-The general consensus by the overall community is Monks absolutely suck in every way. This is wrong.

-The general consensus by many of the high-rated arena players (Tich specifically) is they're decent. They can lock someone down with great control, and have CONSTANT GOOD pressure, unlike Rogues, Ret's, and Warrior's outside of CD's. Feral and DK can match (and out-perform depending on comp) constant pressure, but Monk is definitely up there.

-Monks are only weak because of their vulnerability to Fears/Stuns. I don't agree with a fear-break, because almost everyone has one, but we need to be able to use a CD while stunned. Or a new defensive CD all together.

-Monks are strong, if not one of THE BEST duelists (1v1). That said, the value of Monk depreciates the bigger the group. 2v2 they're great (like 2v2 matters, I know), 3v3 they're decent. 5v5? Worthless. Can they be replaced with a Warrior? Absolutely (in their current broken state). Other than that, they do have some niche rolls they can fill. They can peel, self-heal, and control very well.

-There aren't many level 90 Monks still, most serious PvP'ers didn't bother, most serious PvE'ers didn't bother, and the fact that everyone and their grandmother is cheesing the brackets playing KFC/God Comp is why you don't see too many Monks (..Or DK's, Rogues, Rets, DPS Shamans). The ladders are stacked with Hunter, Warrior, Mage, SPriest.

-Everyone knew DK was going to be OP. DK's started at 55, so everyone and anyone leveled one. Hero class, remember? The combination of the Season 5 fiasco, leveling from 1 (non-hero class), and people not wanting to be a test subject all expansion is why you don't see that many Monks. And truthfully, whoever played the beta knew the class had some glaring problems, especially Windwalker. Blizzard was too ignorant to listen, is going to take 6 months to realize it, but regardless they did SOME things right, because the spec is definitely still viable. If anything, I'm 100x more worried about them in PvE than PvP. No cleaves, no 'execute phase', worthless mastery, poor scaling. Yeah...

[Yvaelle]

Thanks Laurix

[casually]

WW monks really arent good for pvp atm.. they can be carried by their teammates.. but they need a huge boost. Mistweaver seems to be doing ok but imo shammys/druids can still heal a tad better.

[Strah]

Unless
Practically everyone complaining about monk representation right now is doing so based on some information that was posted about class representation above 2200, which is why everyone keeps referring to 2200 - because as the statistic goes - monks represent only ~1.5% of players above 2200 right now. (Meanwhile, rogues represent like 0.5% - which means you're three times more likely to see a monk than a rogue).

Well, i am basing that from also playing in the 2.2k brackets.
Whenever we meet a monk team - it's usually a win. Both as TSG and shadowcleave.

I'm pretty much going to explain this once, because everyone seems to be hopping on the "Monks are worthless" train far too often.


-The general consensus by many of the high-rated arena players (Tich specifically) is they're decent. They can lock someone down with great control, and have CONSTANT GOOD pressure, unlike Rogues, Ret's, and Warrior's outside of CD's. Feral and DK can match (and out-perform depending on comp) constant pressure, but Monk is definitely up there.

-Monks are only weak because of their vulnerability to Fears/Stuns. I don't agree with a fear-break, because almost everyone has one, but we need to be able to use a CD while stunned. Or a new defensive CD all together.

-Monks are strong, if not one of THE BEST duelists (1v1). That said, the value of Monk depreciates the bigger the group. 2v2 they're great (like 2v2 matters, I know), 3v3 they're decent. 5v5? Worthless. Can they be replaced with a Warrior? Absolutely (in their current broken state). Other than that, they do have some niche rolls they can fill. They can peel, self-heal, and control very well.

Every high rated player i spoke to ( specifically tich ), said that monk teams are free kills. Athene claims monks are the worst class overall right now. (priests are saved only by the state of shadow ).

They can't really lock anyone down seeing how awful both roll and TSK is. They can easily be kited under a pillar while being slowed. They can provide constant pressure indeed, but who cares about contant pressure when you lack on-demand burst? In current meta healers never go oom, and they can easily outheal any pressure. Warriors and BM hunters provide a bit less of a sustain, but they can easily burst someone down when required. DK's and Ferals do have insane sustain, and they can also burst someone down when needed. Monks have got good sustain, and can they burst someone down? No. Tigereye brew and xuen are pretty bad offensive cooldowns, which is, paired with their bad survivability a reason why people think they are bad.

And in 5.1, with the off-healing nerfs monks are getting even worse. Not sure why you claim monks can peel, because they can't. They can't save anyone outside of leg sweep/paralysis, they can't safeguard,reflect,spam clones, bubble, or deathgrip someone away.

[Contego]

And the reason there aren't many monks is because they're in a very bad state. Their offensive mobility is bad, they don't have on demand burst, they are extremely squishy and they don't have good defensive cooldowns outside of ToK, which is on a 1.5 min cd.
The only thing a WW monk can do well is deal sustained damage and CC. But why bring a monk when feral can do both, and do it better?

Tell me how the lack of on-demand burst makes the class bad? I ask you to look at shadow priests, and tell me what kind of on-demand burst they have got. Well? Shadowfiend? Just telling ya' that shadowfiend is worse than the tiger from monk. So tell me then why there are so many shadow priests up there when they "are the same as monk".

[Strah]

Tell me how the lack of on-demand burst makes the class bad? I ask you to look at shadow priests, and tell me what kind of on-demand burst they have got. Well? Shadowfiend? Just telling ya' that shadowfiend is worse than the tiger from monk. So tell me then why there are so many shadow priests up there when they "are the same as monk".

Because
a) shadow priests are ranged
b) they can actually do as much, if not more pressure than the said monk
c) their healing capabilities are times better comparing to said monks plus skills such as void shift and leap of faith
d)they've got MUCH stronger cc capabilities
e)They've got considerably higher survivability, hell, even the passive shadow form makes them mitigate more both physical and magical damage than leather monks do.

[Pool of the Dead]

Tell me how the lack of on-demand burst makes the class bad? I ask you to look at shadow priests, and tell me what kind of on-demand burst they have got. Well? Shadowfiend? Just telling ya' that shadowfiend is worse than the tiger from monk. So tell me then why there are so many shadow priests up there when they "are the same as monk".

You obviously haven't seen a Spriests Burst, with a SW:Insanity into a Devouring Plague, Psychic Horror Mindblast SW:death. that is one of the biggest Bursts i have seen this xpac.

[Contego]

Because
a) shadow priests are ranged
b) they can actually do as much, if not more pressure than the said monk
c) their healing capabilities are times better comparing to said monks plus skills such as void shift and leap of faith
d)they've got MUCH stronger cc capabilities
e)They've got considerably higher survivability, hell, even the passive shadow form makes them mitigate more both physical and magical damage than leather monks do.

The only point I tried to make here was that spriests don't have on-demand burst either, so it's not something unique to monks. Utility and such is another story. However most monks that I have seen have incredible mobility. Freedom with sprint, double rolls, chi torpedo and some weird teleport. I've also seen videos of monks doing a considerable high amount of pressure outside of cooldowns.

You obviously haven't seen a Spriests Burst, with a SW:Insanity into a Devouring Plague, Psychic Horror Mindblast SW:death. that is one of the biggest Bursts i have seen this xpac.

Lol @ spriests speccing into SW:Insanity. Also, if that is the biggest burst you have seen this xpack (about 230k damage over the course of around 8 seconds) you should be glad you haven't seen burst from any other class. No, I am not saying spriests are bad, I'm saying spriest burst is not the best. Also, it's not on-demand. And how did you think that a spriest would be able to PH after DP? Yes, he may use PH after the MB, but then it would last one second.

Edit: Come to think of it, this string of abilities wouldn't deal 230k dmg. Maybe something like 150-180k in total. The way a spriest bursts is he hoards up procs and unleashes them together with a DP. So that's Shadowfiend > DP > instant MB > instant MS (this talent instead of SW:insanity, there is no serious spriest using that)> instant MS > use whatever lights up. If you do this right together with trinket and get some lucky crits perhaps you'd deal maybe 300k damage over the course of 6-8 seconds.

[Strah]

The only point I tried to make here was that spriests don't have on-demand burst either, so it's not something unique to monks. Utility and such is another story. However most monks that I have seen have incredible mobility. Freedom with sprint, double rolls, chi torpedo and some weird teleport. I've also seen videos of monks doing a considerable high amount of pressure outside of cooldowns.

Yeah, but i was comparing monks to other melee classes, who have also got on demand burst. Ranged classes work differently, you know.
My point was that shadow priests can do what melee monks can, and do it better, hence monk being a bad class in comparison to others, not a bad class on it's own. (WW spec, obv.)

Monk mobility looks good on paper. Try it in arena. Both roll and TSK are extremely unreliable and monks are extremely vulnerable to kiting and pillarhugging, not mentioning the common "out of range" bug.

[Jayma]

I'm pretty much going to explain this once, because everyone seems to be hopping on the "Monks are worthless" train far too often.


-Monks are balanced overall, but they need some fine-tuning that should have been resolved from beta -> live. Windwalker doesn't gain enough from speccing Windwalker, and we have two abilties that might as well be thrown off our bars (JCL and Path of Blossums).

-Most high-end arena players rolled with what they have been the past three expansions (minus the Rogues, since Rogues suck -- IE Reckful; Neilyo)

-The general consensus by the overall community is Monks absolutely suck in every way. This is wrong.

-The general consensus by many of the high-rated arena players (Tich specifically) is they're decent. They can lock someone down with great control, and have CONSTANT GOOD pressure, unlike Rogues, Ret's, and Warrior's outside of CD's. Feral and DK can match (and out-perform depending on comp) constant pressure, but Monk is definitely up there.

-Monks are only weak because of their vulnerability to Fears/Stuns. I don't agree with a fear-break, because almost everyone has one, but we need to be able to use a CD while stunned. Or a new defensive CD all together.

-Monks are strong, if not one of THE BEST duelists (1v1). That said, the value of Monk depreciates the bigger the group. 2v2 they're great (like 2v2 matters, I know), 3v3 they're decent. 5v5? Worthless. Can they be replaced with a Warrior? Absolutely (in their current broken state). Other than that, they do have some niche rolls they can fill. They can peel, self-heal, and control very well.

-There aren't many level 90 Monks still, most serious PvP'ers didn't bother, most serious PvE'ers didn't bother, and the fact that everyone and their grandmother is cheesing the brackets playing KFC/God Comp is why you don't see too many Monks (..Or DK's, Rogues, Rets, DPS Shamans). The ladders are stacked with Hunter, Warrior, Mage, SPriest.

-Everyone knew DK was going to be OP. DK's started at 55, so everyone and anyone leveled one. Hero class, remember? The combination of the Season 5 fiasco, leveling from 1 (non-hero class), and people not wanting to be a test subject all expansion is why you don't see that many Monks. And truthfully, whoever played the beta knew the class had some glaring problems, especially Windwalker. Blizzard was too ignorant to listen, is going to take 6 months to realize it, but regardless they did SOME things right, because the spec is definitely still viable. If anything, I'm 100x more worried about them in PvE than PvP. No cleaves, no 'execute phase', worthless mastery, poor scaling. Yeah...

The class is not balanced for arena. It can't be with such glaring issues as you admitted the monk had.

Current Arena is Burst, Defensive cooldowns, Crowd Control, and anti crowd control. All of which the monk is weak. If sustained pressure mattered affliction locks wouldn't be abandoned.

[Skarssen]

I'm myself playing monk and feal that they are completely useless in example comparing them to warriors

Any melee is going to look weak in comparison to warriors.

[Hb]

Monks are fine.

No one knows how to play them yet.

you have no idea what ure talking about

MoP beta had the most testers ever. Wrath didnt.

Wrath release DKs are R1 Viable. Mop release Monks are worthless.

Blizzard have made monks underpowered for a reason you know.

Mistweaver is the only 2.2k viable spec atm for monks, and mw monks are only a little better than discos atm

secondly why are people even mentioning MW in a WW thread. leave it out

[Laurix]

Well, i am basing that from also playing in the 2.2k brackets.
Whenever we meet a monk team - it's usually a win. Both as TSG and shadowcleave.


Every high rated player i spoke to ( specifically tich ), said that monk teams are free kills. Athene claims monks are the worst class overall right now. (priests are saved only by the state of shadow ).

They can't really lock anyone down seeing how awful both roll and TSK is. They can easily be kited under a pillar while being slowed. They can provide constant pressure indeed, but who cares about contant pressure when you lack on-demand burst? In current meta healers never go oom, and they can easily outheal any pressure. Warriors and BM hunters provide a bit less of a sustain, but they can easily burst someone down when required. DK's and Ferals do have insane sustain, and they can also burst someone down when needed. Monks have got good sustain, and can they burst someone down? No. Tigereye brew and xuen are pretty bad offensive cooldowns, which is, paired with their bad survivability a reason why people think they are bad.

And in 5.1, with the off-healing nerfs monks are getting even worse. Not sure why you claim monks can peel, because they can't. They can't save anyone outside of leg sweep/paralysis, they can't safeguard,reflect,spam clones, bubble, or deathgrip someone away.

Guess we're just speaking to different people. Don't get me wrong, some did say free kills, but not most, not even half.

Roll and FSK are indeed bad when they're pillar humping, can't argue that. And since healers can't oom the constant sustain isn't great, but I wouldn't say they have no burst. 20% Damage -> Trinket -> (Already have 4 Chi stacked) -> RSK -> BK -> Chi Brew -> BK -> BK (or FoF if only hitting one target with it). Xuen is a sad excuse for a burst cd, I agree there.

There is some information going around saying PvP Power actually isn't working for WW Monks currently (the healing part of it). Not sure how much water it holds, but yeah. The problem is the 25% nerf to Chi Wave because of MW PvE.

And you're lack of knowledge of the Monk class in this quote:

Not sure why you claim monks can peel, because they can't. They can't save anyone outside of leg sweep/paralysis, they can't safeguard,reflect,spam clones, bubble, or deathgrip someone away.

is just plan wrong. Double Disable = Root (which they can spam), 8 Sec Paralasis, Leg Sweep (AoE Stun) -> FoF (DR'd AoE Stun). Everytime I've seen a melee cleave I can peel with two AoE stuns, roots, and paralysis when needed. Against casters, we have a blanket silence (although useless if you're rooted, so no argument there); but we also have Zen Meditation. Redirects 5 spells to us and reduces its damage by 90%. Your healer in a deep? Zen Med, eat all the shatters! This spell is phenomenal against god-comp, spell-cleaves, etc.

Truthfully, the class has issues. Reading your posts, you overall do make good points. I don't think it's beyond saving, I know 5.1 won't make them as viable as they should be, I just don't believe they're utter garbage. Honestly my biggest concern is our biggest strength is Chi Wave and the ability to self-heal often since our defensive pretty much suck. 25% healing reduction on it, we're going to turn into a weird-opposite Rogue roll (no opener, constant pressure but no burst.. bleh). My other main from vanilla -> cata was a Rogue, and I re-rolled because I strongly disagreed with the %Crit removal on Ambush/Backstab, Recup getting gutted, Prep/Step tier, losing deadly throw, shit shiv change, etc.. So either way, I have two gimped melee classes. I know Rogues are probably better still because of their strong openers, but the class is just so... Boring to me now =/