Do Not Engage: Warriors Vs. PALs/SHDs
 

I've heard the argument here that warriors are superior tanks in classic EQ because they have better defensive skills, hence better damage mitigation. However, they have issues holding aggro, to the point that they sometimes need to have the DPS classes delay engaging the mob for a while as they gain hate.

Here is my question. While the warrior is doing this, the mob is effectively not taking any damage (OK, it's taking appreciable damage, but compared to the damage it would be taking if all DPSers were engaged, it's quite small). Overall, the mob takes longer to die, and will hence spend more time beating on the tank. If, on the other hand, your tank is a paladin or a shadowknight, DPS classes can engage immediately (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), and the mob hence goes down faster, and will spend less time beating on the tank.

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have? Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, but a warrior has a greater need to focus on DEX and STR gear-wise so that he can hold aggro, while SKs and PALs can afford to gear up with AC, STA, and AGI since they can hold aggro with spells. To what extent does this make a difference in the end game in terms of the ability to soak up damage?

I also hear that warriors get better come Kunark. In what way? Does this mean that SKs and PALs are even less desired?

Warrior = MT for bosses (Dragons, Gods etc.)

SK/Pal = MT for trash mobs

/thread.

Unless the Warrior is twinked to all hell. Even then, its still probably SK>Pal>>>>>then war.

Taunt button will work in later expansions. Procs are great for keeping and building aggro, but swings + taunt can suffice if you're careful.

Warriors have higher HP and AC and reach the AC cap easier than do the hybrids, allowing them to focus on other stats. If the warrior can manage a quick proc then warrior > sk/pally for tank. There are cases where the warriors are a bit unlucky, but those are few and far in between from what I've noticed.

Quellren, that's not exactly the case. There's a few mobs/scenarios where it's advantageous to use an SK or Pally as a tank rather than a warrior.

EDIT: this is all regarding a raid setting.

I've never had to have a group wait to engage the mob... ever. That doesn't sound like a very talented group to me. You shouldn't have to wait for your Warrior to establish aggro if he has decent gear.

Nothing is ever 'exactly the case'. And I'm not disagreeing with you about the fact there are some scenarios where one class of tank is better than another.

BUT

as a general rule of thumb...

Warriors shine on raid targets where the hits are harder, but the DPS can wait for an aggro lead to be built.

SK and Pals shine on trash mobs and exp groups where snap aggro is the key to the Ghoul Archmagi not face-melting your casters.

I can pretty much pull aggro at will with a T_rg_r's Insects on something above 85% HP.
I've gotten in the habit of just rooting the damn thing before I even bother with slow. Anything else, and I wear it.

I see only one flaw in this thread.

You fail to mention the obviously superior tanking class.

The Ranger.

Now we can /thread.

Denial aint just a river in Egypt.

/thread