Ranger Tanking 40+

[VincentVolaju]

How bad is it, honestly? I mean, I know their armor sets don't have AS MUCH AC as some of the other sets, but how much of a difference does that actually make? I mean are we talking so much to the fact that, like alot of people are saying, "they can't tank at all and should never be tanks"? Do you guys think its most people just exaggerating the fact that they take a little more dmg then the other tanks, or are they actually terrible?

Im asking because so far they seem pretty good, though I haven't gotten 40+ yet so I am not really sure. But so far the class seems pretty freaking awesome, mainly because I am a class that has the snap aggro spells (flame lick, snare, root) so I could grab and hold aggro just as well as an SK or Pally. Yet I have the DPS of a Warrior (minus the crits), considering I can use all the same weps for the most part, like duel wielding 2 wurmys, or a lammy/wurmy. I can even out dps most tanking warriors, assuming there using the crap ratio weps that require procs in order to tank.

I am able to have the DPS of a Warrior with goods weps, while being able to grab and hold aggro as well as an SK / Pally. It almost feels like more of an offensive tank. I also get some really good CC with both Snare and Root, which makes duoing super easy with a Monk or Rogue. Also get some light heals and buffs like SoW / Skins / Str etc.

Another good thing to note is most Tank class's are required / meant only to tank really, there DPS is garbage except for a Warrior's, but that is only assuming he is using DPS weps and not proc weps. Where as a Ranger, I can DPS or Tank just fine. So every group I join might not always be the same thing, if there is a War / SK / Pally already in the group, I can just DPS the hell out of the mobs and just not cast any snap aggro spells, or if theres no tanks I can start Tanking. Where as a Pally / SK, there DPS is pretty bad right? So there basically required to be the tank in every party no matter what, unless there is already a tank in there? Like you would never get a Pally or SK for "DPS" like you could with a Ranger?

Anyway like I said, I haven't gotten to 40+ yet so I cant really say how hard I am getting hit for, or how good/bad Rangers tank at that level. But so far it doesn't seem very bad... Im assuming the reason people say there not as good tanks is because they can't take as much damage because they cant wear the highest AC items in the game? However if thats the only reason why the plate tanks are better for tanking, then I would imagine a twinked/geared Ranger would be able to tank better then an ungeared tank of the other 3 class's, if hes wearing full Tolans compared to just moderately geared chars of other classes.

Wow, wall of text, FML. Anyway yeah I was just wondering what some of you though about Ranger's being as bad as people say they are. Are they honestly that horrible, or are they actually pretty good and others just exaggerate there badness?

[Hasbinbad]

lol u said "ranger tanking"

[orsk]

I would say a big problems would arise in raids and boss fights where you would need defensive disciplines.

Other than that i dont see why other classes like a ranger,tank in groups etc up to a certain point.

[aresprophet]

I don't have any numbers-based comparisons and since the effect AC is sort of unquantifiable on this server I don't think that'd be useful anyway.

What I do know is that aggro-holding might be enough for a tank in other games, but every point of damage you take as a tank in EQ is one more point the healers have to give you back out of their mana pool. In some group comps you can take more damage and the healers can sustainably heal you, but in most groups the limiting factor on your exp gain is first and foremost the healer's mana pool (pop time is a bigger issue in some zones).

So taking more damage, any more damage, drags down the group as a whole.

You also lack bash, which can make a gigantic difference in some fights. A lack of pulling power in indoor zones (no lull, no FD) forces you to adjust your group comp around that.

So yeah, you could tank. But with so many twink SKs and warriors around, you shouldn't even have to try.

[Troy]

Ranger can tank fine 40-50. Stuff starts hitting really hard at 50+ though, making things a lot harder. Mine is only 49 though so I don't have direct experience with 50+, maybe it's not that bad for normal exp mobs.

[Rejuvenation]

Rangers tank as well as monks.

[greatdane]

A ranger tanks slightly better than a rogue unless you go out of your way to get tank gear, meaning Tolan's pieces and such, in which case it becomes slightly worse than a shadowknight/paladin. You'll also have a bit less hp. I'd put it like this:

If you are seriously twinked:
1-20: tanking is trivial, you'll do great
20-30: no problem
30-40: perfectly possible
40-50: doable
50+: not great

If you're well-geared:
10-20: no problem
20-30: perfectly possible
30-40: doable
40-50: not great
50+: not worth it

If your gear is kinda average:
10-20: no problem
20-30: doable
30-40: not great
40-50: not worth it
50+: don't try

If your gear is shit:
10-20: doable
20-30: not great
30-40: not worth it
40+: please don't subject others to torture

A few things to consider is that not only does ranger armor have less AC, the class also has a worse AC soft cap. You might not reach that soft cap without most of a set of Tolan's, but when you do, the difference between a ranger and a plate tank becomes bigger. The AC difference on the gear can be pretty big, too; Cobalt Helm has 25 AC while Tolan's helm has 18. That's like 40% more AC on the warrior gear, and SK/PAL armor is in the middle. This will really prevent you from tanking effectively in the higher levels where the game expects you to have a certain amount of AC. Monks don't get great AC either, but they have high innate avoidance. Rangers don't, and with the AC of a rogue and a lower cap on defensive skills compared to plate tanks, you'll really start falling behind in the last dozen levels.

[Lazortag]

Rangers tank okay at all levels. I had a competent ranger tank Drusella and 6 other adds with only a shaman as a healer the other day, so they can't be that bad. Just don't expect them to ever tank in a raid situation.

[Duie]

"A ranger tanks slightly better than a rogue unless you go out of your way to get tank gear, meaning Tolan's pieces and such, in which case it becomes slightly worse than a shadowknight/paladin. You'll also have a bit less hp. I'd put it like this:"


Armor class atm is not working as it should. you can take a warrior in full colbalt and a warr in full crafted and they are both gonna get hit the same amount given same level and same level mob. class and level have more to do w/ Mitigation atm than AC. Test it yourself

With that being said. Rangers Were to be a LIGHT AGILE TANK in the original "Vision@tm" of EQ .This basicly means that if you get hit , you are gonna get hit hard, But you will avoid A lot more blows than a heavy tank would where the higher mitigation will receve less damage per hit.

On live and here my lvl 49 Ranger can tank just fine as long as I keep the above in persepsion. You wont ever see my ass trying to tank for a seb group or any other place where stuff has hit my war of over 100+ dmg. TBTO I Try my best to avoid kunark all together on the ranger unless 1) i know the tank to be good at keeping agro or 2) Someone needs a hand tracking. In reality The Ranger class has not and will not change from the original vision in this era. what has and will continue to change is the amount of damage a mob can dish out . Those monks tanking now , wont be in SoV

[Duma]

Class and level always had more to do with mitigation in classic than AC so it isn't that big of a deal.

It isn't until the end of velious and Luclin that you get enough AC on gear to make more than a negligible difference compared to the guaranteed AC you get from the defense stat and buffs.

Rangers pathetic HP and lower skill caps cripple their tanking more than their chain armor at this point in the game.

[greatdane]

That's also true. After twinking my SK with nearly full Blood Ember, Atramentous Shield and all the other high-AC shit, I was really underwhelmed with the small difference it made. It still helps, but it's only worth it because you can't twink your avoidance like you can in more modern games, and because HP isn't very important until endgame when it's raining CHs. As for rangers being avoidance tanks, that's an interesting concept but not really based in truth, because they don't get extra avoidance from anywhere. In fact they end up with less at high levels, having worse defensive skill caps than the plate tanks.

[gprater]

I play a 52 cleric with moderate gear at best. I have been lucky enough to play with the same 4 people nearly nightly for over a year. Our ranger tanks and always has unless we pick up a tank-6th. He does quite well. Actually the other night in KC he was tanking LCY when we invited a guild mate 55ish pally with, I assume good gear. I was healing the pally more often than the ranger. Same story with a SK on occasion. When we get the occasional warrior, there is a noticeable decrease in the amount I heal. \

But the short answer is ...yes rangers can tank ok 40+. At least in Guk, SolB, and KC. Chardok didnt work out so well the 2x we tried, but i dont think it was a tanking issue, and we have not tried Seb yet.

[Moonface]

sad thing is rangers ARE the tank class til 50, end of discussion SK/Pally should all reroll cause they are epic failures. and who was talking about rogues tanking rofl?

[Ennoia]

lol u said "ranger tanking"

They never should have given them Taunt.

[greatdane]

sad thing is rangers ARE the tank class til 50, end of discussion SK/Pally should all reroll cause they are epic failures. and who was talking about rogues tanking rofl?

60 IQ?

[deneauth]

I tanked Drolvarg Captain spawn for hours last night no problem with my ranger. Me, Bard, Necro, Shaman, with the necro healing, it was an awesome group. Shaman slows make the difference but 50 + tanking is doable.

[Snapple]

I play a 52 cleric with moderate gear at best. I have been lucky enough to play with the same 4 people nearly nightly for over a year. Our ranger tanks and always has unless we pick up a tank-6th. He does quite well. Actually the other night in KC he was tanking LCY when we invited a guild mate 55ish pally with, I assume good gear. I was healing the pally more often than the ranger. Same story with a SK on occasion. When we get the occasional warrior, there is a noticeable decrease in the amount I heal. \

But the short answer is ...yes rangers can tank ok 40+. At least in Guk, SolB, and KC. Chardok didnt work out so well the 2x we tried, but i dont think it was a tanking issue, and we have not tried Seb yet.

Paladins have better AC, More HP and pretty decent self-heal spells as well as stuns that all combine to make your job as a healer a hell of a lot easier. If you are healing a Paladin more then a RANGER then the gear difference must be huge

[Duie]

Not gear sir.. it is one skill that makes the diffrence..... dodge


As long as that ranger is dodging half the attacks, a cleric will heal the ranger less than said pally who will get git hit more often but for less damage per hit.Not to worry though sir,,I assure you that the one time the ranger does get hit, He well makes up for the times he didnt .


The difrence is Complete heal and if you have to only cast it everytime the ranger gets hit then on some camps that is accually more effecent. like i said before... I wouldnt try tanking in seb w/ my ranger because even though i dont get hit much, That 1 time out of 5 makes me pee myself from the crunch my toon makes

[greatdane]

Rangers don't get some kind of magical dodge bonus. It just depends on your dodge skill, and rangers only get a marginally higher one than knights (and lower than warriors). It's not enough to even make a visible difference, and a ranger dodging half the attacks is something you dreamed up. It's kinda funny how people believe things just because it seems logical that it be that way. Rangers are the worst of the tank classes, and by a fair margin. They can tank up until a certain point if they're geared correctly, but it'll always be worse than warriors, paladins and shadowknights.

[Duie]

Have you played one?


Duie treantwood lvl 60 Tribunal

Duies Nightmare lvl 49 and climbing


Hearsay or personaly Experince for you sir?

[greatdane]

Yes I have. Twice.

Personal experience, logic and knowledge of game mechanics. Seems you're the one operating on hearsay. You're welcome to explain this mysterious source of super-dodge that rangers allegedly get. Since there's no basis for your claim except for sheer superstition and misconception, I'm actually very curious to hear what made you believe your ranger could go to Sebilis and dodge four out of five attacks.

[Heartbeats]

If you're gonna tank as a ranger it has to be against lower level (barely at higher levels) blue mobs. You can do that well, but you can't tank level 50 mobs at level 51 as well as an sk/pally/war.

[YendorLootmonkey]

The only place I would tell a ranger they can tank efficiently at 40+ is on the old-world content, on blue con stuff. Kunark mobs hit too hard to be efficient for your healers. Can it be done? Of course. Is there going to be more downtime vs a knight tanking? Yes.

To me, there's a bit of difference between "can a ranger tank?" and "can a ranger tank efficiently so that he can make up for his hybrid xp penalty in the same way a knight can?" In most cases, the best way to make up for that penalty is for the ranger to chain pull for his group to maximize the incoming XP. Just my opinion based on my experience. I'll see if my parser collected any data on my dodge % when I get home.

[skybluepugwash]

Sometimes efficiency in tanking is more about holding agro and killing fast. Up to a point its perfectly viable with the right group makeup, and certainly not inefficient enough to warrant holding out for a real tank class.

[Kika Maslyaka]

yeah. Ranger can sure hold agro with taunt and spamming Snare, and if you have 2 clerics attached to him, he will will even survive on more tough fights, but that won't be no where efficiency of having an actual tank.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Sometimes efficiency in tanking is more about holding agro and killing fast. Up to a point its perfectly viable with the right group makeup, and certainly not inefficient enough to warrant holding out for a real tank class.

And other times, its about the rate of mana use in the group, the conversion of that mana back into HP, and that conversion rate limiting the amount of damage your group can take over time before you have to med back up. A knight can hold aggro just as well with their spells, and require a slower rate of mana conversion back into hit points.

[VincentVolaju]

But at the same time, when a ranger is tanking its like having an extra dps class at the same time. The other 3 tanks don't do the dps that a ranger can do, while tanking at the same time. Especially if were talking about warriors who are using yaks. Its like a ranger in a group can count as both a tank and dps class while only taking up 1 spot in the group. So if you have the same exact group members but tgive them 2 diff tanks, first a warrior or pally, then a ranger. And let them fight in the same camp for like 20mins, the group with the ranger tank should be killing faster cause there tank is also like having an extra dps class in the group. Im not saying ranger dmg is double that the other tanks... but when you have a warrior using 2 8/24 yaks vs a ranger using 2 25/40 wurmys.... that dps diff should be a big difference.

[JenJen]

a post mentioning the word "ranger" - i know for a fact without reading this entire thread there will be posts by duie, yendor and aadill, amirite?

[JenJen]

damn, 2 out of 3

[Kika Maslyaka]

But at the same time, when a ranger is tanking its like having an extra dps class at the same time. The other 3 tanks don't do the dps that a ranger can do, while tanking at the same time. Especially if were talking about warriors who are using yaks. Its like a ranger in a group can count as both a tank and dps class while only taking up 1 spot in the group. So if you have the same exact group members but tgive them 2 diff tanks, first a warrior or pally, then a ranger. And let them fight in the same camp for like 20mins, the group with the ranger tank should be killing faster cause there tank is also like having an extra dps class in the group. Im not saying ranger dmg is double that the other tanks... but when you have a warrior using 2 8/24 yaks vs a ranger using 2 25/40 wurmys.... that dps diff should be a big difference.

ehem, a ranger with lower offense/weapon caps and without warrior criticals - more dps than a warrior? In best case scenario they will be even

combined with - ranger needs to be healed twice as often than a warrior - your ranger group will be sitting on their arses waiting for cleric to med up every few pulls.

[VincentVolaju]

ehem, a ranger with lower offense/weapon caps and without warrior criticals - more dps than a warrior? In best case scenario they will be even

combined with - ranger needs to be healed twice as often than a warrior - your ranger group will be sitting on their arses waiting for cleric to med up every few pulls.

I dont see how a Warrior useing 2 SSoYs that are 8/24 could, even with crits... could even come close to the DPS of someone using 2 Wurmys that are 25/40. Even with lower skill caps, the dmg diff between those weps are insane. A Ranger with those would def. 100% out dps a Warrior with SSoYs whos tanking. How could they not??

[YendorLootmonkey]

I dont see how a Warrior useing 2 SSoYs that are 8/24 could, even with crits... could even come close to the DPS of someone using 2 Wurmys that are 25/40. Even with lower skill caps, the dmg diff between those weps are insane. A Ranger with those would def. 100% out dps a Warrior with SSoYs whos tanking. How could they not??

Even so, the extra DPS the ranger would do would in no way make up for the extra mana loss spent during the mana-to-hp conversion rate required to prop a ranger up vs a warrior, nor would it make up for the XP penalty the ranger is sticking the group with.

When you get to 50+ on your ranger, you will understand... unless you stick to Sol B or Lower Guk until you can't get XP from them anymore.

There is a reason they added Jolt on Live a few months into Kunark. While aggro isn't quite working the same here and rangers have been getting by just fine without Jolt, we're not efficiently tanking mobs that hit for 120+ in Kunark unless you've got the gear that Zilo has from being in the top raiding guild on the server.

I keep emphasizing efficiently, because you CAN tank these mobs. I am not saying you can't tank in Karnor's Castle or Sebilis or even in Howling Stones. We're just not the best choice for it when other options are available to a group.

[baalzy]

Rangers get some ATK buff from wolf form that a warrior probably wont get. Aside from that, rangers aren't going to be doing an incredibly higher amount of DPS then a warrior would while the warrior will be mitigating damage a crapload better. Ranger spells will help a little if used for boosting DPS, but they wouldn't be able to keep it up for long w/o needing a med break.

Remember, whoever is tanking takes a hit in their dps because mobs will dodge/riposte you. People who are DPS'ing hit from the back and so they dont get dodges/ripostes and they also get fewer misses & their hits are in the higher end of their damage range more often.

[skybluepugwash]

I keep emphasizing efficiently, because you CAN tank these mobs. I am not saying you can't tank in Karnor's Castle or Sebilis or even in Howling Stones. We're just not the best choice for it when other options are available to a group.

But efficiency isn't all about least damage taken over time in every case, you have to take other factors into consideration, including group makeup. Taken to an extreme, a ranger may take 30% more damage than a plate class but if the end result is that the cleric casts a single complete heal then the damage taken is irrelevant.

You also need to take into account any time spent sitting around waiting for a plate tank when a ranger could be tanking immediately, even if it's not quite an optimal solution. Exp > no exp.

[YendorLootmonkey]

But efficiency isn't all about least damage taken over time in every case, you have to take other factors into consideration, including group makeup. Taken to an extreme, a ranger may take 30% more damage than a plate class but if the end result is that the cleric casts a single complete heal then the damage taken is irrelevant.

You also need to take into account any time spent sitting around waiting for a plate tank when a ranger could be tanking immediately, even if it's not quite an optimal solution. Exp > no exp.

You make it sound like shadowknights and paladins don't have any snap aggro spells that keep the mob on them, just like a ranger can, and that we aren't on a server full of min-maxers.

[beeshma_nameless]

Isnt Wurmslayer primary only? Or did it become primary only later, and currently it can be equipper in secondary also?

[skybluepugwash]

You make it sound like shadowknights and paladins don't have any snap aggro spells that keep the mob on them, just like a ranger can, and that we aren't on a server full of min-maxers.

What has my post got to do with snap agro? And having a lot of min-maxers just advances my point about downtime waiting for an optimum group.

Clearly plate tanks will take less damage than a ranger. Equally clear is that some situations may not make that any more efficient over time.

[jrwriter]

Here's my 2 cents 56th ranger love me hate me ghostfaces Killah I tank over half my grP do kc seb. And. Do it like a pro thing is ifnu got a shm and a cleric in ur Grp any ranger can tank anything and if no slowers around I've done a 5 dps cleric or shm combo swarmcaller is niche. But I kno what I'm doin most rngs wont be capable what I do I swear prolly a few o ya I got 2 hander that procs rune 3 runed blade

[jrwriter]

O ya a rng with 2 wurmmys will have bad Agro cause wpn don't proc hate and their slow

[Troy]

I want a Runed Blade.

[alexandervaccaro]

so.. are rangers simply good for nothing? I was thinking about twinking one but... yikes.

[greatdane]

Depends how you look at it. Rangers are pretty much the worst of any category you can place them in - worst tanks, worst melee DPS, worst heals and buffs, worst soloers of the classes that can be considered soloable at all... but they can do a lot of things, and some find value in that. The game is easy enough that you don't have to have an optimal group or raid setup to succeed, so a ranger won't cause wipes on account of being a ranger. It's just hard to get invited when everyone knows you're the worst at whatever job you're needed for.

[Heartbeats]

If you're gonna tank as a ranger it has to be against lower level (barely at higher levels) blue mobs. You can do that well, but you can't tank level 50 mobs at level 51 as well as an sk/pally/war.

Pretty much all you have to do is read this and acknowledge that the conversation is now over.

[Sajan]

An older post from last year by Azeth comes to mind when I read this thread..

all this ranger QQ good grief. I fail to see the issue with Rangers.

Do they out DPS anyone? yes.
Do they out tank anyone? yes.
Do they have more buffs than at least 1 other class? yes.
Are those buffs useful in solo/group? yes.
Can they solo more efficiently than at least 1 other class? yes.


If you love the ranger class, play a ranger. If you played a rogue, wiz, mage, necro in live, it is not the class for you.

edit: have you ever seen a Rogue solo anything worth noting? no.


You can talk about spells, defensive/offensive caps, whatever. The player is the intangible that cannot be measured here. EverQuest is not hard, but taking a less-than-desirable class and making it excel at things it shouldn't do, and having fun while doing it, is the difficult, yet most rewarding path I could ever imagine to take.

No, I don't enjoy logging on and being LFG for hours on end, constantly looking for others to slap together a ragtag group with...

But yes, I do enjoy getting invited to a group and not knowing what my role is going to be! There's really nothing I hate more than logging on an alt and going LFG to only tank, or only heal. Depending on the zone and group makeup, I could be tanking, DPSing, CCing, pulling, or all of the above! While leveling up, I did atleast 3/4 of those things in just about any group I was involved with, while they sat back and watched. Was it the most efficient way? No... Did it beat sitting around wasting time while waiting on the holy trinity to log on? Absolutely!

I play a mid 50s Ranger here on P99. I carry different sets of gear with me at all times for different situations, because I know, as a Ranger, I need that extra boost to accommodate the skill I pride myself applying to this class. This is part of being prepared. Yes, I tank in KC, Chardok, Sebilis, and HS just fine with my full set of hp/ac gear equipped. Granted, most of my groups include a solid Cleric and a slower + mana regen. With Snare/Root, I can guarantee that all mobs pulled will be hitting me 100% of the time. So that Cleric will only need to CH me, nothing more. The biggest downtime creator is having a mob switching between targets and beating on multiple people, sucking your healer's mana dry. Can a Knight do the same job? Yes. Is a Knight always going to be around? No. You take what you can get. And maybe, just MAYBE your Ranger will be prepared for any situation as well!

P.S. I'm probably one of the few people here that enjoys tracking raid mobs. I spend many hours of my free time this summer ensuring my guild's cell phones receive my tweets before anyone else. I pride myself on having my guild trust me enough to log off every night, knowing I'm the Ranger that's left watching, hunting, tracking....

[Ennoia]

Speaking from personal experience (friend's character on live that I boxed on occasion), and all Ranger jokes aside, when played properly it IS a good class,especially when epics come into play, which skyrockets their solo capability with being a melee class with a good slow.

[Doors]

Rangers can tank any non planar situation just fine with the right group. I even remember reading that from Prima's guide years ago.

[Doors]

Rangers tank okay at all levels. I had a competent ranger tank Drusella and 6 other adds with only a shaman as a healer the other day, so they can't be that bad. Just don't expect them to ever tank in a raid situation.

Shoulda just quoted this =P

[Duie]

Even so, the extra DPS the ranger would do would in no way make up for the extra mana loss spent during the mana-to-hp conversion rate required to prop a ranger up vs a warrior, nor would it make up for the XP penalty the ranger is sticking the group with.

When you get to 50+ on your ranger, you will understand... unless you stick to Sol B or Lower Guk until you can't get XP from them anymore.

There is a reason they added Jolt on Live a few months into Kunark. While aggro isn't quite working the same here and rangers have been getting by just fine without Jolt, we're not efficiently tanking mobs that hit for 120+ in Kunark unless you've got the gear that Zilo has from being in the top raiding guild on the server.

I keep emphasizing efficiently, because you CAN tank these mobs. I am not saying you can't tank in Karnor's Castle or Sebilis or even in Howling Stones. We're just not the best choice for it when other options are available to a group.

With a shaman slowing , cleric buffs and the hpgear you can tank at any level just fine..... in some cases a ranger will accually tank better than said knight /warrior(key word some) .However, with that being said, that doesnt mean you should.

Jolt is a wonderful tool that will allow rangers to do the job they should be doing better, Secondary tank. get the mob off the caster/cleric and hold agro till its either mezzed or the tank as biult up enough hate .Cast jolt to assure that the tank can get agro back w/o too much of a hassle