If knights had defensive, would there be any reason to have warriors?
 

If knights got all the same Disciplines that warriors got, would there be any reason for warriors to exist?

They'd still have higher HP and better mitigation, so would be more forgiving and require less mana over a long fight.

The difference between Warrior and Knight HP and AC is pretty small. In BIS gear they may even almost same amount of HP and AC.

I don’t think so, no.

Knights get 5.2 hp per stamina, whereas warriors get 6 hp per sta. 6*255 - 5.2*255 = 204, a significant chunk. (And there is no softcap on stamina.)

But the snap aggro is significantly better than relying on swings and procs.

I think it’s a really cool game balance choice that the class with the very best hp and mitigation has slightly limited aggro generation, whereas the classes with on-demand aggro have slightly less hp and mitigation (and much less damage output). The end result is that all 3 classes are needed, and there are many ways to play.

Warriors will still pump out more threat on long fights.

Have fun casting FoL on AoW.

Would it help on quakes / speed clearing? Sure. You're still not main tanking anything hard though, hope this helps.

I think if there was any era for it, this would probably be it. Mid-late Velious where knights have their upgraded skill caps, but prior to 1) AAs and 2) Discipline System Revamp (group-timers)

AAs may widen the HP+mitigation/avoidance gap, but the main thing differentiating the two is AE taunt. Knights could get 1200 threat a cast, but they lacked anything like AE taunt - i.e a 100% success rate taunt (the AE part of it being icing on the cake). A single ability which guarantees the person goes to the top of the aggro list. So, you can seamless transition from WS ranger or prior defensive warrior to the next.

The other key ability that knights lack is an instant burst avoidance ability for getting a CHeal chain switched over -i.e. furious, fortitude, weaponshield, etc. The discipline system revamp put these abilities on separate timers than defensive.

Those are the main two abilities knights lacked to raid tank well. Obviously, warriors also have a natural advantage in terms of HP and AC softcap returns. Knights do eventually get a defensive-type ability something like 10 years later, but iirc it's capped (at least initially) at some number of damage mitigated.

Knights are the red-headed step child of early EQ. In an ideal world, you'd want 1 Paladin to buff DS and 0 SKs. Later on, there's occasionally a mob that fears where they offer some advantage, occasionally a mob like Arch Lich that can be cheesed via Knight, a random DA hammer for rolling the dice with rampages, and the occasional useless AA ability that could crash the zone to respawn PoFire. But that's pretty much it.

Wars have triple attack, higher skill caps, berserk, and other disciplines that make them better. Knight's always feel like shit to play with. Fuck them and their stupid mana. Sk and pally can not exist imo. Will never grp with them unless hard up. Knights are barely better than rangers. If monk did not exist sk would be fine

Ogre SK would be fine on AoW. If knights got def then we'd be seeing a lot more ogre SKs IMO.

Well in classic they are just straight up better than warriors at tanking. Kunark is where the pure melees get severely overcompensated.

While we're here though, my thoughts on disc balancing for knights:

Buff Sanctification (duration/cooldown) enough that Paladins become a compelling choice for AoE heavy fights.

Buff Leechcurse into a bump, such that it auto ripostes (maybe only 66%) of the time. SKs can now bump properly and are more useful for pull team/engages. I also want to give them Sightgraft/Harmshield, but that's another thread.