Message

As a guildleader for a pretty large (semi high end, were in the elemental planes) , I have to say that the damage/delay on weapons for a warrior has nothing to do with him holding aggro. The warrior class is very dependant on weapons that have an aggro producing proc attached on them. These weapons have an ok damage/delay but this has very little to do with the warrior actually holding aggro. In my opinion this makes the warrior class somewhat broken, but thats another story and wasnt part of the discussion.

There are several weapons that have this some better some worse. Like the warrior epic, blade of carnage, Blade of war for example. Blade of war has the big advantage of beeing a 2hander to not having to take high ripostes. This is absolutely neccessary in some fights to keep the MT alive.

Put 2 warriors beside each other on a mob have them taunt away, one using a "turbo" damage/delay weapon without a proc and the other with blade of war and I can guarantee who will hold aggro. Every time, all the time.

As for giving an example on why you dont want to take ripostes, imagine fighting anything that hits 2000 or higher, and then imagine two ripostes instead of one. Thats a pretty big difference. Or imagine fighting a 3600 quadding mob, it can oneround you without defensive disc, try putting a SK or PAlly on this and the fight is over before it started. Im not saying that this is your average fight, but the do happen quite a bit. The "tankability" of a warrior >> any other class. The main problem is holding the aggro.

On normal exp mobs a Pally or SK works fine as tank, or on special mobs with aggro wipes (some mobs memblur themselves for example) or mobs that proc detaunt on MT. In these situations it can be troublesome to usea Warrior as MT cause the aggro a warrior produces takes a little time, and if its wiped every other round it wont be firm aggro, taunting factor on sk or pally is high and is easier to control. But these kind of mobs typically arent very hard hitters to make them tankable for these non defensive disc classes.

But this is all a highend description and is more intersting if you are 65 and has a bunch of aa and raid every day. Its not the average exp group players everyday fights.

Dont take this wrong, im jus ttrying to provide an insight into another world that I suspect most on this list have never seen and have a hard time to imagine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nuada bobkins [mailto:ikestarwolf@...]
Sent: den 26 april 2003 06:11
To: EverQuest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [EverQuest] Re: SK or Pali

Must have missed a few mails hehe, anyway it looks like a typical "my class is better argument".

What he means by DPS is Damage Per Second which is how Melees work out most efficient weapon combo's. As for a tank (Pure Warrior) not needing DPS that is not really true, Tanks have to keep aggro and best way to do this is by hurting the target the most, if the Tank isn't doing enough DPS then all the Taunting in the world won't stop the target hitting the Rangers/Rogues/Bards/Casters. As for the pally/SK being MT they don't have to many HP, but they can hold their own with decent gear <shrug>

Aranon <Knights In Arms>

53 Bard

Druzil Ro

>From: James

>Reply-To: EverQuest@yahoogroups.com
>To: EverQuest@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [EverQuest] Re: SK or Pali
>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>What did all that mean. Can u tell me what this bs meant?
>
>"LAINE. Mikael (Nol)" wrote:Kinda sux to ask high-end stuff here? =P rofl, one of the replys had a
>decent advice and the rest was exactly what you said you didn't want.
>
>Another thing, dps means shit to a tank, a tank is about building aggro and
>beeing the main focus of your mobs.
>
>Pally is useless as a MT, SK is way better but why not a warrior if you're
>looking for a MT? However, like the previous mail said, ogre SK would
>probably be your best choice.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Xariak [mailto:xquocdbz@...]
>Sent: den 21 april 2003 23:58
>To: EverQuest@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [EverQuest] Re: SK or Pali
>
>
>yeah hands down SKs are better dps than pallys id never say different
>
>
>
>Visit the EverQuest homepage at http://www.everquest.com
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>Visit the EverQuest homepage at http://www.everquest.com
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone

Visit the EverQuest homepage at http://www.everquest.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.