What makes Rangers worse tanks than Shadow Knights or Paladins?

[Swish]

With C2 its not the end of the world for a cleric to heal a ranger MT, but most rangers are often trying to prove a point and pull quickly to justify their group place.

Often that becomes mana inefficient if they're getting constantly pounded on but they can do trivial content, stuff that's close to light blue etc.

[Lune]

Nothing OP, people are just a little lacking in analytical skills to draw their own conclusions other than "lul ranjur".

Rangers bring SK/Paladin snap agro and utility, with the addition of dps. There are a lot of groups out there with plenty of heals and slows to go around, and the limiting reagent in their leveling speed is DPS. Rangers are preferable to knights in those situations.

Of course this is all moot because monks are just an all around better choice than any of these classes for any role.

[Supaskillz]

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

Nothing OP, people are just a little lacking in analytical skills to draw their own conclusions other than "lul ranjur".

.

What? Sk's an pallies are far more efficient to ch than rangers. More hp, more ac, more dodge parry and riposte. Did you read any of the other posts?

I guess if fighting trivial mobs cleric mana is no concern.

Monks are sweet but as a rogue they are somewhat annoying as tanks in their ability to hold aggro. If I have a hybrid tank I have backstab everytime it pops and if evade fails it's no big deal. Monks I have to be careful or ping pong aggro.

[Brut]

Lower defense skillcap, race choices and chain equipment generally give them lower sta/hp/ac.

Can rangers battle-heal themselves that well anyway? I thought their best heal is like 180 or something lame. Sounds like same situation as SK that the 5.3second lifetap cast time isn't really worth it.

[thieros]

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

Sounds like same situation as SK that the 5.3second lifetap cast time isn't really worth it.

you crazy man! vampiric embrace(30hp procs) + lifetap weapson(khyldorn...87hp, epics...250hp) + 49 lifetap (280) every few minutes + drain spirit(226) on demand. sk self sufficient! we dont need clerics!

that being said, as a 60 cleric or a 60 torpshaman, any classes mentioned in this thread are fine: i've had rangers, sk's, pallies, monks tanking hs south/seb king & crypt. its all good man. rogues tanking crypt and hs south as well.

moral of the story, it doesnt matter, just dont be bad

[Peon25]

fast dual wielding weapons + riposte = fast death

[Daldaen]

I've Druid tanked crypt before. Fear my self Superior heals and uber Flame Lick tanking skills.

[thieros]

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

I've Druid tanked crypt before. Fear my self Superior heals and uber Flame Lick tanking skills.

pro

[Ciroco]

It's not so much the lower AC on chain as it is the crappy returns on post-softcap AC compared to other classes. Plus the lower skill caps that everyone has been mentioning.

[Tantrix]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. Rangers have some 20% fewer HP than Shadowknights and Paladins
2. Rangers are ~100AC behind as well
3. 1 + 2 -> Cleric spends 40% more mana healing
4. Rangers can tank most xp group content just fine if there is a shaman around

This. Rangers simply can't mitigate dmg as well as the other two.