If knights had defensive, would there be any reason to have warriors?

[pasi]

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

Well in classic they are just straight up better than warriors at tanking. Kunark is where the pure melees get severely overcompensated.

I'd mostly agree with this.

A warrior with a mallet is optimal for the handful of raid bosses - most of which are PoSky. Since most of the level 50 raid content is clearing trash, I'd agree with giving SK/Paladin the nod over warriors. Sub-optimal and slightly insane, but Ogre Shaman aren't that far behind the knights at 50 either. There's very few 50 mobs that are tankable by War/SK/Paladin that couldn't be tanked by an ogre shaman.

Though the nice part about playing a warrior in classic is that half the server is mages/necro/enchanters (assuming you have coerced them to group). You don't need to be the top threat to hold aggro. You just need to be the highest threat PC in melee range awhile everyone else is below the mage, necro, and/or enchanter pets. If a pet is top of the hate of list and you're the highest threat person in melee range, you are "holding aggro."

As far as fixing knights, I see no problem with giving knights a defensive-type ability that either has a lower duration or lower mitigation (say 35% versus 50%). They would still be a trash-tier raid class.