What makes Rangers worse tanks than Shadow Knights or Paladins?

[Cecily]

Slow the mob and rangers tank just fine. The same snap agro as other hybrids, but with higher dps.

[iruinedyourday]

They keep casting that ranger gate spell and abandoning their group mates, that's what I think is their biggest problem.

[phacemeltar]

no one wants to group with a ranger after lvl 20

[iruinedyourday]

but what about the roleplay, what about the rolllleplayyy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

[fadetree]

It's the mitigation tables. Rangers tank fine for grind groups, takes some extra heals but adds dps and holds aggro like a mofo so the nukers can go nuts. Lets face it, the limiting ingredient in most grind groups is DPS, not heals. Should they tank over a knight? No. But if necessary, it works out fine.

[kaev]

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

It's the mitigation tables. Rangers tank fine for grind groups, takes some extra heals but adds dps and holds aggro like a mofo so the nukers can go nuts. Lets face it, the limiting ingredient in most grind groups is DPS, not heals. Should they tank over a knight? No. But if necessary, it works out fine.

This man is correct. Although if you're indoors (so no harmony) and runners are an issue it can work beautifully to have a paladin pulling & root cc'ing while a well-geared ranger tanks, assuming sufficient DPS of course.

[Lune]

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

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.

If you're in Sebilis, Chardok, HS, or any of the other high end group content, how often is your cleric going oom, really? The majority of groups in these places will have an enchanter or bard because they feel it's necessary, and have slows/support heals available. Put that shaman to work.

The vast majority of the group content people do with full groups on p99 is trivial content. The better groups are often the ones that kill faster. A ranger is unique in that they can provide knight-like snap agro while also providing DPS. A knight provides almost no DPS. When your cleric and shaman's mana isn't really an issue (Which is very often), a ranger is the better choice.

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

Should they tank over a knight?

Yes, usually. A knight's mitigation isn't superior enough that it justifies their near complete lack of dps. That's one of the reasons monk tanks are so awesome, too. You lose a bit of agro management, but you gain a lot of dps, and therefore a lot of efficiency.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

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.

The correct Ranger answer is:

You root the mob, step back to lead the Warrior to believe he finally got aggro off you, and then spam heal yourself with your shitty ranger heal while the warrior is feeling like a man for getting to tank.

[Cecily]

^ I've definitely faked it a few times.

[rangerlive]

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

It's the mitigation tables. Rangers tank fine for grind groups, takes some extra heals but adds dps and holds aggro like a mofo so the nukers can go nuts. Lets face it, the limiting ingredient in most grind groups is DPS, not heals. Should they tank over a knight? No. But if necessary, it works out fine.

Correct!