Is warrior aggro greatly exaggerated?

[Jimjam]

Rangers may make more aggro than knights, but that is irrelevant as knights already make more than enough.

Likewise, knights may tank better than rangers, but rangers can tank fungi king fine pre 60, what worse will they need to tank in an xp group?

I don’t think it matters who you have tanking in an xp group - you take what is available (or in a static you take what wants to be played).

[Goregasmic]

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

Rangers may make more aggro than knights, but that is irrelevant as knights already make more than enough.

Likewise, knights may tank better than rangers, but rangers can tank fungi king fine pre 60, what worse will they need to tank in an xp group?

I don’t think it matters who you have tanking in an xp group - you take what is available (or in a static you take what wants to be played).

Yeah, the biggest complaint about rangers is their damage mitigation falls off a cliff after 50 but most exp group zone content don't really have many mobs that are 50+ and/or a big threat. So you get an alright tank with decent DPS that can be a puller if you already have a tank. Don't know about y'all but usually when grouping I've found myself wishing for more DPS than sturdier tanks most of the time.

[zelld52]

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

Yeah, the biggest complaint about rangers is their damage mitigation falls off a cliff after 50 but most exp group zone content don't really have many mobs that are 50+ and/or a big threat. So you get an alright tank with decent DPS that can be a puller if you already have a tank. Don't know about y'all but usually when grouping I've found myself wishing for more DPS than sturdier tanks most of the time.

It's really unfair how far rangers mitigation falls off. I duod with a ranger with like 1100 AC and a green unslowed mob got him down to 50%. Rogues have better mitigation than rangers - and theyre supposed to be the ones actively evading combat and attacking from behind.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by zelld52 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's really unfair how far rangers mitigation falls off. I duod with a ranger with like 1100 AC and a green unslowed mob got him down to 50%. Rogues have better mitigation than rangers - and theyre supposed to be the ones actively evading combat and attacking from behind.

I think it was snaggles that said they're the kings of cheese. High haste on gear, slow on weapons, run speed, snare/root, ranged attack, heals, DS, harmony for splitting, tracking. Higher dps than knights. Not as good for tanking but their kit is quite interesting. Rogues shouldn't have similar mitigation for sure but they basically backstab and CR and that's about it.

[zelld52]

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

I think it was snaggles that said they're the kings of cheese. High haste on gear, slow on weapons, run speed, snare/root, ranged attack, heals, DS, harmony for splitting, tracking. Higher dps than knights. Not as good for tanking but their kit is quite interesting. Rogues shouldn't have similar mitigation for sure but they basically backstab and CR and that's about it.

Good point. Rangers are a blast to level they have just about every tool that EQ has to offer besides charm / rez / feign death.

I watched a ranger track and pull drovlarg captain, skeletal captain and skeletal warlord (at the same time) to KC entrance using harmony to weave them away from adds. He kept the extras rooted, and meleed them down one at a time with his Earthcaller primary.

There were salty members in my group, but I was just impressed with ranger capability.

[Snaggles]

Yea, agreed. Play what you want to play is most important. Of all the tanks mentioned unless stuff if slowed early a ranger will take a lot more damage than the rest. That doesn’t always matter though and between pulling and rooting for proximity aggro, a ranger can be just fine. If they are smart.

[Botten]

I just see this all as someone is upset about the aggro generation changes in general.

Then tries to invalidate either warriors or knights to get them agitated (in an uproar) enough in hopes of a reversal to the changes (with help from both sides; upset).

That is why when someone complains about aggro or damage from a tank in an exping group of all things I throw out ranger is better at both.

A kind of truthful bomb to so much the absurdity to the crying.

The reality is this type of patch was part of the roll out of Everquest patches. Probably because encounters were being trivialized by tanks spamming instant aggro items and damage spell types to gain aggro right away.

They were just trying to add some minor difficulty to game in hopes to make it more engaging.

[Naethyn]

Leveling my warrior during each pull I'd drink 5 brandies for imbibery aggro. Most people say it doesn't exist. What they don't consider is brandies lower your avoidance for easier berserk resulting in more crippling blows (aggro).

[Naethyn]

Also, alcohol tolerance goes to 255 no matter what skills window / wiki says.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[kjs86z2]

still think id rather just have war / enc / cleric and chill the fuck out

get a backstabber and go ham, cleric can do the pulling in that trio...if its ugly just DA to the camp and let the enc clean it up

either way war still better than knights