Quote:
Originally Posted by azeth
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Bard's have enough upsides to totally overshadow the penalty. Conversely, I can't think of a single thing rangers bring to the group setting that *any class, who can actually perform the act (heal, root, DS, buff, DPS), cannot exponentially do better than them.
|
Bards add haste and mana to a group. If you can't find a chanter/shaman for haste, these two abilities alone justify adding them. Even with a shaman, you want someone to cc that 5-mob pull so the group doesn't wipe.
As an enchanter, I like having hybrid tanks in the group because their greater aggro generation makes things flow more smoothly. It's not something that translates well in a parse, but if you consider how small a 40% penalty split 6 ways becomes, it's a fair trade. Yes, a very good warrior has no problems with aggro ever, but warriors have to rely on random procs to build aggro over melee. Hybrid tanks don't. I've never been in a group where the group has turned down a hybrid tank solely because they weren't a warrior. Most groups that I've been in would be glad just to not have a monk tank.
Rangers... rangers sucked in classic Kunark and they aren't any better now. I know that the rangers in my guild are awesome and would toss them an invite no matter what because they're cool people, but from a stranger's standpoint, there are few situations where it would be better to take a ranger over a monk/rogue/necro. Necros even have better heals and there are a million of them. I haven't parsed extensively, but by comparing exp in groups with and without rangers, it seems as though they just barely make up for their penalty (i.e. everyone in the group made just as much exp with the ranger as without).
Tl;dr version- Most hybrids are cool. There's a reason the least-played class on the server is ranger.