[sciception]

Originally Posted by Glasken [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alright, I'll bite. It's slow at work.


Rangers get taunt. Rangers get a bag of tricks (many of which mimic what a shadowknight can do, plus root!!). Rangers wear chain not plate. All solid points. But you are missing a key aspect as to why rangers are generally bad tanks...mitigation tables.

This is getting into the meta a bit, but classes in EQ do not share one big damage table. Casters, Monks, Knights, Warriors...all get their own damage table that modifies their mitigation and avoidance independent of whatever AC you have from gear or buffs. For mitigation, warriors are on top, then knights, monks, casters, and the like.

I've been researching original mitigation tables and have found nothing concrete until a 2001 patch where they buffed Warriors by 5 percent. Do you have those tables and how much of a difference are we talking about when leveling?

Mage pets should be tanking only when there are no melee characters in the group. For a group of casters, a mage pet is great, but pets will not take agro from a player in melee unless you are playing with root and proximity dances.

I was 1/2 joking about this, but the proximity agro is none the less a solid point I forgot to include.

Everyone seems in a jitter about the exp penalty of knights and bards and monks, but the truth is, if you arent running a caster-only group, you're gonna want one in the group taking hits, snapping agro, and using their bag of tricks to the fullest.

Exactly, don't hate the hybrids. They are by far the best choice.

I pretty much agree with you on most of the points you made. I am desperately searching for the mitigation tables from 1999, but even if it was 20-30 percent better for a Warrior it doesn't matter much if the Warrior isn't the one getting hit. I understand that they will have their place in raids and supporting them is good, but for leveling I am sticking to my statements on the matter.