Quote:
Originally Posted by Expediency
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Even if they take equal damage, rogues lose utility when tanking because they cant backstab and rangers have ways of getting mob aggro that rogues do not.
|
Rogues don’t take equal damage, they take less. Look up the skill differences defense/riposte/parry/dodge. Rangers cap low. Rogues cap high. Same returns on stamina, same base armor archetype.
Don’t get me wrong, rangers make unequivocally better functional tanks. They have aggro spells. Rogues give up backstab (huge loss), rangers give up next to nothing. But when it comes to raw damage intake when being hit ... rogues are stout and only suffer from not wearing plate and having the same low hp tables as bards/rangers. If threat weren’t an issue, they would outperform rangers.
Rangers are, from a strictly damage intake perspective, the paper tanks of EQ. Literally every other melee class will take less damage if gear levels are identical. Rogue, bard, monk, warrior, sk, pal ... all will take less damage once the hits come rolling in. Being the “paper tank” doesn’t mean they can’t do the job. They can and they actually do well thanks to the snap aggro (they are 1 of 4 melee/hybrids that do this). Warriors do fine on aggro but lack the “on demand” part of it.
TLDR:
-Rogues aren’t tanks. They take hits surprisingly well and this is often overlooked, but having them do so over literally anyone else who CAN do it is a waste. Better to let the shaman tank and let the rogue pew pew.
-Rangers take more damage than any other melee. They have great aggro and are more than “good enough” to get the job done (eq ain’t hard). They are not a bad choice to tank if needed.