tanking etc

T

TheDude81321

Dalayan Beginner
Hey, I've been reading up because I had recently rolled an iksar sk, which in this game appears to be an aggro monster, with decent tanking ability, and okay damage.  What I have been reading is that late game especially, theres a lack of need for tanks, which seems to put sks into a strange place.  On the other hand, I don't know how far into end game I'll even make it, but I am part of a static group basically, and I was wondering at lower/mid levels is a tank necessary to the group?  If so, would it be better to be a warrior/knight, or could maybe a monk handle as tank? (for reference, the group is ranger/rogue/cleric/whateveriendupwith, where I am dual clienting the cleric).  Any thoughts would be appreciated, I just dont want to be playing a tank-ish class if its not really necessary, that is to say, if I don't really need one of the three tanker type classes, I'd rather add more dps to the group.  Also, I guess if a monk type could tank, would the ranger be able to instead? would it be better to have some arcane support? (enchanter or maybe arcane dps such as wiz?) Thanks in advance for any advice anyone would offer.

edit: it was also running through my head that if i had made an enchanter, maybe then the ranger could tank better with the aid of slow/haste and locking down with mez? Or pally as a tank, but better since they are more dps than sk?
 
well hears my thought on what you said. a tank is always need but there are many types of tanks. in what i got from your post a SK would be a great tank for that basic group. hears why 1) they are masters of agroooo with a ranger and rogue you will need a strong agroo magnet to keep the target on one person so your heals will be more effective. 2) the SK will also make a good puller with his ability he will be able to split mobs with the help of the ranger or rogue. if you do decide  not to play a tank and are looking for DPS might i also say that with that group a good shamon or beast lord would make a fine addition. they both would bring buffs and a pet to help with dps. wish you the best of luck hason the warrior :dance:
 
once you get high up, the SK will be a perfect tank, especially with the AC bonus of being an iksar. The ranger no matter how slowed you get it wont be able to tank 1/3rd as well as the SK.

Tanks are very needed, but because of their dependence on gear they also take a bit of effort to get equipped to a lvl of use.
 
Sounds like you want to have some tanking and some DPS all in one, so Paladin would probably be a perfect choice for you. Tanking ability, decent agro generation, DPS and heals/buffs.
 
Most of the buffs will be useless however in that you have a cleric.

However if that is the group you play in all the time I would really say pally is the best choice. We hold aggro well in most groups. You get a self haste self and self weapon proc which can be useful since i didnt see a wizard or haster in the group.

Despite the word on the street that pallys do "more" dps than SKs if you decide to go with a SK the difference in DPS isnt going to be much at all until higher levels with some AAs so dont let that put you off.
 
Would a pally be able to hold aggro off rogue/ranger? And I was also thinking, theres a chance that they might not even tank well enough, since I dont have a haster/slower, so maybe even a warrior would be preferable? since, I do have some decent dps... I don't know, theres just so many ways too look at it that I am looking for as much advice from people who know as possible. Thanks all who have helped and will in the future :)
 
TheDude81321 said:
Would a pally be able to hold aggro off rogue/ranger? And I was also thinking, theres a chance that they might not even tank well enough, since I dont have a haster/slower, so maybe even a warrior would be preferable? since, I do have some decent dps... I don't know, theres just so many ways too look at it that I am looking for as much advice from people who know as possible. Thanks all who have helped and will in the future :)
Click to expand...
Yes, a Pally would be able to hold aggro off a Rogue or a Ranger. I agree with the Pally in this situation. In a worst case scenario, the Pally could start healing himself(I think it is more than the SK Lifetaps at higher levels, but I am not 100% sure), and possibly the group if he has to.
 
The difference between pally and sk mainly is dps and agro. Paladin generate plenty of agro for exp groups and do great dps. Their ability to draw the agro required for many raid targets is limited by magic resistance keeping them from drawing agro (especially in many end game encounters). Shadowknights dont have this problem as their line of agro spells has no resist check. They also have a slightly better tanking stance than paladins but do less dps, and not just a tad less now with the innate crits paladins have (even at low levels). Know that knights will never be a permanent MT because warriors mitigate more damage but there are times where shadowknights are needed for tanking where paladins are useless.
 
On the pally vs SK argument, isn't the presence of a pally also a boon to the DPS of the group?
 
Interesting, I'm still brooding on it... what do you guys think about a warrior? how would one fare in keeping aggro off the rogue/ranger? By the way, I can never thank enough for all the information advice, but I'll always try anyways, thank you all!
 
until the latter part of the game (with good equip), i believe a pal would outaggro a warrior (using spells + taunt)
 
Danku said:
On the pally vs SK argument, isn't the presence of a pally also a boon to the DPS of the group?
Click to expand...

Pally dps is great for a group because you get a tank with a little extra dps. I believe when it comes to group xp a good paladin is to tanking what a rogue/wizard is to dps.

As far as warrior taunt is concerned.. they get a great Taunt skill which helps but they also often need good clickable items to procure agro (snap agro in the beginning of fights). Paladin agro abilities are probably a bit superior on most mobs (the ones without high magic resist) in the lower levels but by 65 a warrior has great agro abilities. When I offtank in raids or groups warriors have little trouble pulling the attention of the mob on them even while Im still taunting/stunning. It would probably take all the agro I can put out to keep our warriors from stealing agro from me.
 
Depends really, if you've got no monk I'd say go w/an sk as your mt and selfheals bedammed, if of course your sk is competent at splitting, and there are few that aren't highend. In fact other than what I'd say is a bit more in the area of aggro generation its all sk's really have over pallys, the pet doesnt count b/c well...as we all know its pretty worthless, though it can function as a meatshield for a second or 2 if it can actually manage to get aggro. Pally's really hold quite a bit over sk's if we're not going into a situation where splitting is neccesary or if you already have a monk, or a really good necro to pull. You've got the groupheals, selfheals, burning a loh, although they're kind of even there as w/the 50 billion ht aa's harmtouch gets quite nasty, then you've got the bonus undead dmg for all the melee's in the group, unfortunately it doesnt seem to affect pets, so if you've got a mage, a necro, a bst, a pally, cleric and some other caster...well you wont really see many returns on that. Though also I might add whether or not you need a tank is really determined by where you're going. There are quite a few places where one is a benefit, but ultimately uneccesary. Highend monks, mage pets, beast pets, and necro pets tank fine in the early portions of kedge even the late portions of mielc. Cmal 1 can be tanked by those too, albeit with a little more difficulty, though not as much as deep mielc difficulty. It's really a matter more of whether one can be found or not. While I'm sure everyone prefers a cookiecutter group base of a tank and a cleric, just add dps, its not always feasible.
 
In this group ranger/rogue/cleric/whateveriendupwith you would want to play a shadowknight as it would open up alot more area's/targets you can do because of your splitting. The ranger/rogue is the real dps so no real reason to chose a diffrent tank for dps reasons.
 
Unless of course you're in a primarily undead area, then of course your ranger and rogue would be critting the hell out of the undead left and right making the pally good to have, in that case just grab a monk.
 
roark said:
Are monks able to tank well at high levels?
Click to expand...

It depends what kind of group you are doing. If you're exping against relatively weak mobs then most monks tank decent (e.g. Lasanth). However, if you're fighting somewhat challenging mobs then most monks would not tank well. I'm sure some monks can tank good in many zones, but if you are used to the style of a War being healed by a cleric then you will be disappointed.

Then of course there is Zhak.
 
Monks tank unnecessarily well. It's really an imbalance that ought to adjusted imo. Why a class that has high damage and is able to FD to avoid damage allows a class to also bear the grunt of attacks is beyond me. It was nerfed in live and should be nerfed here I say.
 
Get a mage pet. They tank better, hold aggro better, don't buff beg, have gate, actually do DPS that registers, and don't loot corpses before they hit the ground.
 
Zaos is just jealous imo. I leveled my monk from 0-65 pretty much duo with my druid and I tanked the entire time. Now that I have pretty decent gear and aas I can tank pretty much anything outside of cmal 3-2 and up as a monk. The only problem with monk tanks is getting aggro and holding it the entire fight, especially with wizards crits. However, if your in a smart group who uses their aggro reducing skills then monk tanks are very useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom