who is tankier, ranger or bard

[astrohax]

I know neither of these are necessarily strictly tanks, but i have a 28 ranger and thusfar tanking hasnt been that bad. I am not so much interested in warrior, paladin, or shadowknight, and the CC capabilities of the bard and ranger sound like interesting things to throw into the mix in a tanking situation. I have 2 friends that frequently play; one is dps the other healer, so I figure if i can at least be an offtank, we can always start a group.

Bard seems to be able to wear plate which is gonna amount to probably more ac, but do rangers have better max ac stats?

Is there a definitive answer to the question of who has better damage absorbing / mitigation potential. Also what are your experiences with these classes as taking on the role of tank/offtank.

any input is welcome!

[Ele]

Rangers can tank a group situation just fine. Bards can in a pinch, but are better suited for a support role.

Bards being plate class will mitigate more damage, but Ranger will avoid more damage based on their skill set.


Bards' Defensive Skill caps from Wiki:
Defense: 200 (252 @60)
Parry: 75 (75 @60)
Riposte: 75 (75 @60)

Rangers':
Defense: 200
Dodge: 137 (170 @60)
Parry: 185 (220 @60)
Riposte: 150 (150 @60)

[Silo69]

with decent gear ive main tanked for xp groups to 40 on my bard

snare song, mez, yak or staff of withering, warriors my lvl cant compete for aggro

sks > all

dat der disease cloud

[Arrisard]

Wiki seems to be a bit off to what is ingame for bards at 60:

Defense: 215
Dodge: 155
Parry: 75
Riposte: 75

I cannot comment on the ranger numbers.

[gotrocks]

Rangers make ok tanks, but honestly they just barely make that grade. they take a ton of damage, and many would argue that at higher levels they are strictly a 2nd rate dps class.

I hate to say this because when i played on live i had several RL ranger buddies, but rangers really do suck in kunark. They get better in velious but if i remember right they dont start to shine until luclin.

Bards are in a similar situation as far as tanking goes but blow rangers out of the water in groups for obvious reasons.

[melkezidek]

with decent gear ive main tanked for xp groups to 40 on my bard

snare song, mez, yak or staff of withering, warriors my lvl cant compete for aggro

sks > all

dat der disease cloud

Rangers actually own SKs on Agro.
Flame lick > disease Cloud.

Rangers can tank fine if geared properly for it and there dmg is hardly as bad as people say. Honestly most poeple give rangers a bad name becuase they heard they were bad on live (mostly becuase there were a lot of bads on live) and they got known for being "sac tanks" this was becuase of high threat and when they got weapon shield they would hold bosses while warriors built agro and then well weapon shield only lasted 12 seconds and there is a reason some bosses are tanked by warriors in defensive.

As for the comment about Rangers being 2nd rate dps. True they are not Rogues or Monks however their Dps can get very close and with how sparatic eq fights are it doesnt make a big differance.

Also come Velious Ranger w/ BFG has dps easy = to a rogue.

[Kope]

...and the CC capabilities of the bard and ranger sound like interesting things to throw into the mix in a tanking situation.

Just thought i'd comment on this.

Paladin has the same CC capabilities as a ranger if not better. Instead of the DD root (I'm not sure if the DD can still break its own root or not...) paladins get a regular root.

They also get lull, and the high elf cultural has a decent amount of Cha on it, while high elves start with quite high Cha.

It's all personal preference, I just thought i'd point out paladins actually have decent CC, people just don't generally use it.

[gotrocks]

As for the comment about Rangers being 2nd rate dps. True they are not Rogues or Monks however their Dps can get very close and with how sparatic eq fights are it doesnt make a big differance.

Also come Velious Ranger w/ BFG has dps easy = to a rogue.

Yes, they are not rogues or monks, which would be first rate dps. Hence, they are, essentially by definition, second rate dps.

And there's no way a ranger would be = to a rogue even in velious. That's a shitty rogue the ranger is being compared to if it ever happened.

Even the best rangers will be no where near the top of raid dps. At best, they will always be behind rogues, monks, and even good wizards.

That being said, I have nothing against rangers, they are just a mediocre class at best. I really don't think its possible to argue against this.

[stormlord]

Yes, they are not rogues or monks, which would be first rate dps. Hence, they are, essentially by definition, second rate dps.

And there's no way a ranger would be = to a rogue even in velious. That's a shitty rogue the ranger is being compared to if it ever happened.

Even the best rangers will be no where near the top of raid dps. At best, they will always be behind rogues, monks, and even good wizards.

That being said, I have nothing against rangers, they are just a mediocre class at best. I really don't think its possible to argue against this.
If rangers could compete with a rogue in dps (on a 1-to-1 basis) then they're getting all of their hybrid bonuses (heals, dots, dd, snares/roots/calms, sow, invis, ds, tracking, hiding/sneaking, archery criticals and highest archery skill, regen, atk buffs, etc) in addition to competing on the same level as a dps class. How would that be fair to a dps class? It wouldn't be. This is the hallmark of a jack-of-all-trades class. They trade expertise for a balanced skill-set. This allows them to do well in a diverse situation, especially when they're alone or in a small group. I could in fact argue that all of the complaints about rangers would have been much worse if Verant/SOE hadn't (behind the scenes) beefed up their dps/tanking. Technically, there's no reason to add an experience penalty if the skill-set is balanced. But there IS an exp-penalty and this is because Verant/SOE realized early on that a jack-of-all-trades would make the ranger non-competitive in groups. They beefed up all the hybrids. They did this because EQ is group-based and if a class can't do well in groups then it's defunct.

But I'll say they may have overestimated the power of certain things.

Ever played a necromancer? They're probably hte best soloer in the game. But if you put them in a group you'll notice that their pet can't compare to the best players and that a necromancer has to use their pet and their dots to be effective. The problem is that their dots eat a lot of mana. Necromancers were an experiment to make a solo class and to see how it would work in the game. They didn't want to expand hte experiment that early on so they didn't do the same with hybrids. This is why they "overpowered" them.

Ultimately, EQ is a group game and group classes do the best. They didn't overpower hybrids enough to make them equal. So when we observe history the group classes outshined the hybrids. But since the hybrids had the exp penalty, the situation was made even worse. This is why the necromancer was a better choice because they could be a jack-of-all-trades without the expectation to fit in a group seamlessly.

Bottom line, if hybrids are to be equal either in dps or tanking or some other role versus a different class that specializes in it then they'd replace them. To preserve the specialized classes they HAD to be better than the hybrids in their chosen roles without extreme hybrid penalties. Thus you see the dilemma. The creators of EQ had it in their mind that almost everybody (barring the necro) needs to be desirable in groups, but this notion conflicted with the idea of jack-of-all-trades classes since balanced skill-sets, by their definition, are NOT specialized and thus their raw capability in groups is diminished. Raw capability in groups turned out to be the most important factor for those classes that were expected to compete in them.

Eventually this whole idea of "fixing" the numbers was abandoned. This probably happened somewhere around 2000-01. They redid the hybrids underneath the hood and removed the exp-penalty. I don't know exactly what they did, but I suspect they tweaked things in relation to level and environment.

If we could redo all of it... what would happen if they had not overpowered some stats of hybrids (remembering that this still is not as good as specialized classes) and thus they did not add an exp-penalty. Rangers, for example, might not have tanked as well or maybe their atk rating would be lower. However, they wouldn't have an exp penalty. What would have happened? Well, they'd end up like necromancers. Not desirable in groups on average, but really good on their own since they have a large tool box. We'd have a whole host of jack-of-all-trades that would be ineffective in raids and groups compared to group-based classes. There's no doubt that they'd serve certain specific roles, sort of like how a necromancer can locate corpses, but they couldn't compete with the power of a well formed group. Well formed groups combine the best to be the best.

(keep in mind that a halfling warrior is something like 90% more experience than a hybrid. if rangers and other hybrids had no experience penalty and yet kept their jack-of-all-trades nature, it'd be a big bonus. this is true even if they lost a good chunk of defense or attack rating because of increased experience. if you doubt for even a moment that a ranger can't outdo a warrior when soloing then you haven't tried it. i tested the idea on p1999 in 2010 with a level 17 warrior and ranger. the warrior died but the ranger was half hp/mana. i played a ranger in 1999 but i don't recall what their capabilities were other than that, yes, they have variety.)

IMHO, EQ would have been better if it had a balanced-mode and a group-mode. EVERY class has a group-specific capability (dps, tanking, cc, etc) and a jack-of-all-trades option. If you're in a very small group, say 2 or 3, then one might play balanced-mode, while the other(s) are specialized-mode. This wya there's no division from the start between balanced and specialized. The design of the game will absorb it and adapt.

But EQ is what it's. I think it's still fun even all these years later.

[Itap]

Came in thread because stormlord posted. Was not disappointed

[koros]

Rangers are probably slightly tankier due to much higher defensive caps at most levels. With top armor bards probably come out a little ahead.

[melkezidek]

Yes, they are not rogues or monks, which would be first rate dps. Hence, they are, essentially by definition, second rate dps.

And there's no way a ranger would be = to a rogue even in velious. That's a shitty rogue the ranger is being compared to if it ever happened.

Even the best rangers will be no where near the top of raid dps. At best, they will always be behind rogues, monks, and even good wizards.

That being said, I have nothing against rangers, they are just a mediocre class at best. I really don't think its possible to argue against this.

Ok 1st By rangers are not 2nd rate dps I mean the dmg differance between them and a monk or a rogue due to the nature of eq fights is so little that they are all considered dps.

2nd on P1999 rangers will easly be = to rogues in velious because of the nature of patching and removing of items.

In Velious the BFG was put in game. This is a BOW that is usable as a main hand weapon. This allowed a ranger with the weapon to gain a few things that also were given in SOV. Crits on main hand atks, Double dmg on non moving targets, Trueshot doubleing dmg yet again. This item was also effected by Quiver haste. Add those 3 things togeather and you will have rangers mainhanding massive dmg. In SOL it was sick to see a AM3 ranger with BFG. However BFG was very very rare and some of you may have never seen a ranger with one.

[Doors]

With hp gear rangers can tank exp groups up to 50. Post 50 you'll probably need stun weapons and some planar items to keep tanking.