Warriors are useless in 90% of the games content

[Troxx]

Warriors are more than fine.

Discussion here relates to mob/mobs are in camp and you have an option for a tank. When you factor in all of the "other" .. Paladins have a huge toolkit with a ton of useful spells.

If your group needs a tank .. given a choice between me playing my 60 Paladin, Monk (TStaff) or Warrior (Frostreaver) for group as a tank you'll get a choice between:


Threat:
-all 3 are going to hold aggro without problems, group isn't going to suffer.
-Paladin, unlike warrior/monk, will have 100% snap aggro from the start and throughout every fight.
-My warrior will hold aggro a bit better than my monk due to higher dexterity
-Warrior solidifies the advantage over the monk with taunt snap-back as needed

Winner: Paladin >> warrior > monk

Baseline "Tankiness"
-Paladin will take the most damage out of the 3
-Monk has the lowest hp pool but will take less damage than the Paladin.
-Warrior will take the least damage at baseline
-Warrior has significantly more hp than the other 2

Winner: Warrior >> Paladin (more hp) = Monk (more avoidance)

DPS:
-My paladin isn't a slacker here. 53/46 ratio Spear. Still will be doing the least damage of the 3
-Warrior and monk are really close. You'd have to do a long string of parses over an extended duration to reliably see a difference between the 2. Warrior's weapon ratio is a tiny bit better but 30 delay is the "sweet spot" for capitalizing on dmg bonus. Monk 2hb caps 252 Warrior 2hs 250. Same offense skill caps. Same Riposte skill cap. Both have triple attack main hand at 60. Warrior can critical hit and while tanking will have higher damage ripostes. My experience playing both is that the warrior puts out more damage while tanking by a small margin.

Winner: Warrior = Monk >> Paladin

Extras that each class has available while tanking:
-Paladin: can self heal pretty well - not to be discounted. Stuns can help defer some of the damage intake and the utility.
-Monk: Stonestance is a brief discipline (12 sec) but 60% dmg reduction on a fairly brief reuse timer. Quite useful in a pinch. Oh ... and mend. It's good stuff.
-Warrior: kicks 55+ (or slam if large race) interrupt casters. Evasive up-time 3 minutes out of every 7 puts them in a tanky-tier all their own.

Winner: Warrior (evasive/kick_interrupts) > paladin (on-demand self heals and stun) > monk (stonestance/mend)

Special Caveat: small grouping certain areas that require FD ... monk is really your only choice.

All 3 options will work. Most will prefer the Paladin because we're spoiled and love not having to think twice about aggro. For the dedicated role of tank where nothing else is expected other than tanking? Warrior properly geared will perform better than monk.

TLDR: Everquest is easy. P99 is Everquest. All 3 choices are 99% interchangeable 99% of the time if appropriately geared. The game ain't hard.

[Vivitron]

Originally Posted by 7thGate [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, blinding a flurry is actually the only real raid contribution I've ever made with Blinding Poison III. I stopped a wipe with it once after the CH chain screwed up and it finished eating all the warriors. Nimbled and landed poison, and it wandered off while everyone had a chance to cycle camp.

That's a great save. l wonder how many people noticed that blind-fleeing mobs do not get assisted. I've moved mobs around in kael with my bio orb just to see it work. Congratulations on finding a solid use for for that mechanic, I haven't found a way to benefit from it yet.

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

A monk in the modern era (even raid geared) wanting to tank and looking for maximum threat is rocking a 29/30 TStaff with a stun proc unless they are relying solely on white damage.

Surely the Fist of Nature with one of the other beefy options in the offhand comes out way ahead of the TStaff, and is probably top monk aggro? 15/18 with a higher aggro proc than the Frostreaver or tstaff (stun and root are equal aggro on this patch). Its price is in a whole other league, though.

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

-Warrior and monk are really close. You'd have to do a long string of parses over an extended duration to reliably see a difference between the 2. Warrior's weapon ratio is a tiny bit better but 30 delay is the "sweet spot" for capitalizing on dmg bonus. Monk 2hb caps 252 Warrior 2hs 250. Same offense skill caps. Same Riposte skill cap. Both have triple attack main hand at 60. Warrior can critical hit and while tanking will have higher damage ripostes. My experience playing both is that the warrior puts out more damage while tanking by a small margin.

Winner: Warrior = Monk >> Paladin

I think you're referring to parsing yourself, not doubting your parse but you mentioned mechanisms too. Monks are on a unique* damage table, so they get some bonus damage not reflected in the skill caps.

*Someone should check whether rogues are on this damage table in error, if they want to make monks even more relatively overpowered compared to everyone else.

[Jimjam]

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

Monk (more avoidance)

This may seem insane but I’ve found avoidance to be quite a situational benefit. As you say P99 is easy. Often groups have an excess of heal. Often it is better to have worse avoidance so you take more hits and do substantially more damage through DS. This is why I often prefer ranger to even warrior.

Despite their reputation they actually mitigate reasonably on most content - it is their avoidance that lets them down. This isn’t really that big a problem - as previously stated most groups have an excess of heals (and the ranger itself may add like 23/tick through fungi, chloro and skin like nature) - so all it means is the ranger gets to land more hits with damage shields than other tanks (and handily the ranger has plenty of baked in DS).

Obviously there are higher end circumstances where their lesser tankiness does become problematic, but 100% unironic post, I promise.

[Gloomlord]

Let's not forget that Paladin is the perfect Enchanter/Necromancer bodyguard for charms. That's a pretty significant positive for them in a group. Can't tell you how many times I've saved the Enchanter's life and saved so much time from a potential death.

If we look at it only from the perspective of only DPS and Durability, then obviously Warrior wins. The utility that Paladin (And perhaps even Shadow Knight) brings is a big plus that, in my opinion, overrides that.

[Troxx]

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

Let's not forget that Paladin is the perfect Enchanter/Necromancer bodyguard for charms. That's a pretty significant positive for them in a group. Can't tell you how many times I've saved the Enchanter's life and saved so much time from a potential death.

If we look at it only from the perspective of only DPS and Durability, then obviously Warrior wins. The utility that Paladin (And perhaps even Shadow Knight) brings is a big plus that, in my opinion, overrides that.

No doubt man. Paladins are amazing and are, in my opinion, the actual ideal and "perfect" group tank. I'm not gonna dispute that.

My only beef is with the sentiment that they "only fulfill the niche of enabling raids to happen. In small group content, they are less optimal than a knight and Monk in the tanking department.".

I honestly feel warriors are just fine. They aren't weak, broken, or worthless. They sacrifice that absolute reliability for un-matched durability and are an core necessity for raid progression in content-appropriate gear. On p99, if they had the kind of on-demand snap aggro they got in later expansions they would be flatly overpowered. No point in playing a knight at all. For many expansions they were so far ahead of knights it wasn't even funny. Thankfully knights got mini-defensive disciplines of their own later on down the line which helped to restore some balance.

Originally Posted by Vivitron

Surely the Fist of Nature with one of the other beefy options in the offhand comes out way ahead of the TStaff, and is probably top monk aggro? 15/18 with a higher aggro proc than the Frostreaver or tstaff (stun and root are equal aggro on this patch). Its price is in a whole other league, though

Is root aggro really the same as stun? I don't think it is but admittedly I could be mistaken. It should be 160 threat from the DD component with the side benefit of granting aggro after proc to whomever is standing closest ... if it lands. It's a 3 minute duration but can break early by chance or whenever the enemy is nuked. If it doesn't land ... no root perk. If you are correct and root generates the same flat 400 threat that stun does ... well FON would be a massive aggro hog indeed.

From a DPS standpoint, the *new damage bonus tables along with the dynamic of monks triple attacking with their main hand weapon should work out such that TStaff should be comparable to the best raid monk dual wield setups out there .. including fist of nature. Perhaps a raid geared monk could weigh in? I'd parse it but I don't have the weapons. BotB monk DPS at the raid level are gonna be the ToV 2handers, but none of them have a threat proc.

TStaff should be the best monk aggro weapon setup in the game ... excluding 2 scepters of destruction. Any super experienced monk who knows better ... please feel free to correct me.

Originally Posted by Vivitron

I think you're referring to parsing yourself, not doubting your parse but you mentioned mechanisms too. Monks are on a unique* damage table, so they get some bonus damage not reflected in the skill caps.

*Someone should check whether rogues are on this damage table in error, if they want to make monks even more relatively overpowered compared to everyone else

All I know is that my warrior swinging a 42/43 Frostreaver (stun + dd proc) puts out near-indentical aggro to my Monk swinging 29/30 (stun + dd proc) if both of them buff dex to 255. As my warrior has a higher unbuffed dex, with anything short of focus/dex stack or avatar - the warrior's baseline threat is higher. From a DPS standpoint, the warrior wins by a pinch. Warrior having higher impact ripostes and critical hits wins out over slightly higher skill cap, that sweet-spot delay of 30, +/- any unique damage tables that are at play.

Originally Posted by Jimjam

This may seem insane but I’ve found avoidance to be quite a situational benefit. As you say P99 is easy. Often groups have an excess of heal. Often it is better to have worse avoidance so you take more hits and do substantially more damage through DS. This is why I often prefer ranger to even warrior.

Despite their reputation they actually mitigate reasonably on most content - it is their avoidance that lets them down. This isn’t really that big a problem - as previously stated most groups have an excess of heals (and the ranger itself may add like 23/tick through fungi, chloro and skin like nature) - so all it means is the ranger gets to land more hits with damage shields than other tanks (and handily the ranger has plenty of baked in DS).

Obviously there are higher end circumstances where their lesser tankiness does become problematic, but 100% unironic post, I promise.

My ranger is 52 now. Maybe things will get better as I push closer to 60 but from 46 on I feel a whole heck of a lot more squishy than I ever did solo leveling my warrior and paladin through those ranges. It is also possible that my anecdotal experiences of squishiness are due to the lower hp pool ... each hit taking a larger percentage of my health etc etc.

Regardless, I have healed many a group with ranger tanks. They get the job done admirably unless low-ish level for the content or poorly geared.

Originally Posted by Jimjam

When investigating the impact of strength on damage looking at damage per hit removes more variables than looking at dps, especially as Dps can be extrapolated as a factor on damage per hit.

Looking at damage per hit you don’t need to worry about variance in hit rate, parries, blocks, dodges, ripostes, etc. As such ripostes actually just give extra data points rather than taint the data.

Bingo. Higher or lower strength will not affect how often you riposte. A riposte is simply an extra potential swing at standard damage tables. If the only different variable is strength, ripostes don't matter from one parse set (Gamparse set) to the other from a comparison standpoint. Assuming you have sufficiently long parses or a robust enough compilation of individual fights ... riposte rates will average out over time.

[Vivitron]

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

Is root aggro really the same as stun? I don't think it is but admittedly I could be mistaken. It should be 160 threat from the DD component with the side benefit of granting aggro after proc to whomever is standing closest ... if it lands.

Root definitely is the same aggro as stun. I don't think it was before the recent aggro patch.

Spells don't need to land to give full aggro either, and didn't take hold / mob is immune to changes in runspeed still give full aggro too.

From a DPS standpoint, the *new damage bonus tables along with the dynamic of monks triple attacking with their main hand weapon should work out such that TStaff should be comparable to the best raid monk dual wield setups out there .. including fist of nature. Perhaps a raid geared monk could weigh in? I'd parse it but I don't have the weapons.

I would also like to hear a monk who parsed it weigh in. My bet is FoN+Gharns dps is below an Abashi's but comfortably above a Tstaff.

[Ripqozko]

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

Root definitely is the same aggro as stun. I don't think it was before the recent aggro patch.

Spells don't need to land to give full aggro either, and didn't take hold / mob is immune to changes in runspeed still give full aggro too.



I would also like to hear a monk who parsed it weigh in. My bet is FoN+Gharns dps is below an Abashi's but comfortably above a Tstaff.

thats correct except bo staff is really right there too for cheap asf dkp.

[7thGate]

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

Is root aggro really the same as stun? I don't think it is but admittedly I could be mistaken. It should be 160 threat from the DD component with the side benefit of granting aggro after proc to whomever is standing closest ... if it lands. It's a 3 minute duration but can break early by chance or whenever the enemy is nuked. If it doesn't land ... no root perk. If you are correct and root generates the same flat 400 threat that stun does ... well FON would be a massive aggro hog indeed.

From a DPS standpoint, the *new damage bonus tables along with the dynamic of monks triple attacking with their main hand weapon should work out such that TStaff should be comparable to the best raid monk dual wield setups out there .. including fist of nature. Perhaps a raid geared monk could weigh in? I'd parse it but I don't have the weapons. BotB monk DPS at the raid level are gonna be the ToV 2handers, but none of them have a threat proc.

I've done a decent amount of puppet show with Teslacoil, who has a FoN/Fist of Lightning setup. I can confirm that he has no problems holding aggro from me running a Tunare daggger/epic setup. Not sure how that would compare to TStaff though.

I know a few monks that are definitely using Facesmasher/Abashi's/Shovel, I might be able to find some parses that have both of them on it for comparison. I'm not sure he's always running FoN on raid targets though due to aggro problems.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Bingo. Higher or lower strength will not affect how often you riposte. A riposte is simply an extra potential swing at standard damage tables. If the only different variable is strength, ripostes don't matter from one parse set (Gamparse set) to the other from a comparison standpoint. Assuming you have sufficiently long parses or a robust enough compilation of individual fights ... riposte rates will average out over time.

You are correct that STR doesn't affect riposte rate. That isn't my point, nor did I make that claim. If you have 15 ripostes in fight A with 200 STR, and 5 ripostes in fight B with 230 STR, your DPS has been skewed on the fight with 200 STR, because you got more hits in Fight A than fight B. That is why it is important to screen out variables like ripostes when looking at DPS specifically. You also want to check if the mob dodged/parried/riposted more in one fight than the other, because that also affects DPS. You are incorrect that things like ripostes do not affect parse sets. This is especially true when we have seen STR generally doesn't provide an extremely large bonus to DPS. When the difference is only a few DPS, that can easily be skewed by other factors like riposte.

I have had long parses where there were significantly more ripostes in one data set as opposed to the other. Eventually everything evens out over a long enough time, but that doesn't mean it will even out in the data sets you have.

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

When investigating the impact of strength on damage looking at damage per hit removes more variables than looking at dps, especially as Dps can be extrapolated as a factor on damage per hit.

Looking at damage per hit you don’t need to worry about variance in hit rate, parries, blocks, dodges, ripostes, etc. As such ripostes actually just give extra data points rather than taint the data.

If you want to do this you need the logs instead of a DPS parse. That is why I ask for logs instead of parses. You can use the data from logs in multiple ways.

[Arvan]

op revealing he's bad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]