Monk - Ranged "Pulling" Ability

[Sen_Terrechant]

Like this would have literally 0 effect on you. You don't even play the job as it is. The only reason you're arguing against it is out of selfishness and a "**** you got mine" attitude.

You dont need it, and it would effect game balance. Get over it.

[ziddyt]

You dont need it, and it would effect game balance. Get over it.

lol
Try to name one reason it would be affected negatively.

[Sainya]

In 1.0 pugilist had "taunt", was similar to provoke but not as strong. I would like it back.

[Almalexia]

In 1.0 pugilist had "taunt", was similar to provoke but not as strong. I would like it back.

Taunt forced PGL to the top of the enmity list for 5s before returning to pre-taunt (plus enmity generated in between) enmity levels. Great for controlling a mob that may KO someone, pursue a ranged player, etc.

And, yes, you could also pull with it.

[Akamu_Aniketos]

Warriors have tomahawk, a ranged attack that does decent damage. The drawback is the HIGH TP cost that keeps you from spamming it.

Give us monks a ranged attack that does decent damage, that we can't spam, like wars.

Lifting rocks from the ground to throw -OR- Chi Blast; your choice SE.

[ChaozK]

Rochedalaix said Monk traded AoE damage for single target damage, not give up a ranged attack. Which is true.

Why? Because you say it? Thats the notion i disagree with.

Why does the tradeoff of low AOE for higher ST rule out the tradeoff of lack of range for higher ST? Because classes cant be bad at more than one thing?

[ziddyt]

Why? Because you say it? Thats the notion i disagree with.

Why does the tradeoff of low AOE for higher ST rule out the tradeoff of lack of range for higher ST? Because classes cant be bad at more than one thing?

Because, as has been stated several times, the move is only desired for pulling and tagging mobs. It doesn't even need to do damage to serve that purpose. MNK single target dps means absolutely nothing in these situations, so no, lack of this kind of ranged ability is not a trade off for high dps.

[ElHeggunte]

Thats the notion i disagree with. Why does the tradeoff of low AOE for higher ST rule out the tradeoff of lack of range for higher ST? Because classes cant be bad at more than one thing?

Okay, let's back up because I don't think we're on the same page. Why do you think it has anything to do with ranged attacks? We're not talking about an array of ranged attacks like a Bard, we're talking about one utility skill that would be similar to Dragoon's Piercing Talon. For that matter, do you think Dragoon does less DPS than a Monk because they have Piercing Talon in their arsenal? I personally think that it's very unlikely Dragoon traded DPS for Piercing Talon for the same reason(s) I don't think Monk's DPS has much to with their lack of a ranged attack. I have plenty of reasons for why I feel that way, I just don't feel like listing them out if I don't have to because I'm growing tired of getting off topic (in fact, I had listed them out, but it made this post more than 3x its current length so I removed them). This thread is supposed to be about a QoL change to a Monk's solo game, not the nuances of FFXIV's game and class design.

And for the record, no one has said that a class can't be "bad" at more than one thing. There are plenty of things Monk has traded for high single target damage. We just don't believe a ranged pulling skill is one of them.

[ChaozK]

Okay, let's back up because I don't think we're on the same page. Why do you think it has anything to do with ranged attacks?

Oh dont get me wrong i dont. I just felt that the argument that monk is bad at AOE, therefore he cant be bad at X, was silly.

[Rochedalaix]

Oh dont get me wrong i dont. I just felt that the argument that monk is bad at AOE, therefore he cant be bad at X, was silly.

That is a silly argument good thing it only exists in your head.