Ranger Tanking 40+

[VincentVolaju]

How bad is it, honestly? I mean, I know their armor sets don't have AS MUCH AC as some of the other sets, but how much of a difference does that actually make? I mean are we talking so much to the fact that, like alot of people are saying, "they can't tank at all and should never be tanks"? Do you guys think its most people just exaggerating the fact that they take a little more dmg then the other tanks, or are they actually terrible?

Im asking because so far they seem pretty good, though I haven't gotten 40+ yet so I am not really sure. But so far the class seems pretty freaking awesome, mainly because I am a class that has the snap aggro spells (flame lick, snare, root) so I could grab and hold aggro just as well as an SK or Pally. Yet I have the DPS of a Warrior (minus the crits), considering I can use all the same weps for the most part, like duel wielding 2 wurmys, or a lammy/wurmy. I can even out dps most tanking warriors, assuming there using the crap ratio weps that require procs in order to tank.

I am able to have the DPS of a Warrior with goods weps, while being able to grab and hold aggro as well as an SK / Pally. It almost feels like more of an offensive tank. I also get some really good CC with both Snare and Root, which makes duoing super easy with a Monk or Rogue. Also get some light heals and buffs like SoW / Skins / Str etc.

Another good thing to note is most Tank class's are required / meant only to tank really, there DPS is garbage except for a Warrior's, but that is only assuming he is using DPS weps and not proc weps. Where as a Ranger, I can DPS or Tank just fine. So every group I join might not always be the same thing, if there is a War / SK / Pally already in the group, I can just DPS the hell out of the mobs and just not cast any snap aggro spells, or if theres no tanks I can start Tanking. Where as a Pally / SK, there DPS is pretty bad right? So there basically required to be the tank in every party no matter what, unless there is already a tank in there? Like you would never get a Pally or SK for "DPS" like you could with a Ranger?

Anyway like I said, I haven't gotten to 40+ yet so I cant really say how hard I am getting hit for, or how good/bad Rangers tank at that level. But so far it doesn't seem very bad... Im assuming the reason people say there not as good tanks is because they can't take as much damage because they cant wear the highest AC items in the game? However if thats the only reason why the plate tanks are better for tanking, then I would imagine a twinked/geared Ranger would be able to tank better then an ungeared tank of the other 3 class's, if hes wearing full Tolans compared to just moderately geared chars of other classes.

Wow, wall of text, FML. Anyway yeah I was just wondering what some of you though about Ranger's being as bad as people say they are. Are they honestly that horrible, or are they actually pretty good and others just exaggerate there badness?

[Hasbinbad]

lol u said "ranger tanking"

[orsk]

I would say a big problems would arise in raids and boss fights where you would need defensive disciplines.

Other than that i dont see why other classes like a ranger,tank in groups etc up to a certain point.

[aresprophet]

I don't have any numbers-based comparisons and since the effect AC is sort of unquantifiable on this server I don't think that'd be useful anyway.

What I do know is that aggro-holding might be enough for a tank in other games, but every point of damage you take as a tank in EQ is one more point the healers have to give you back out of their mana pool. In some group comps you can take more damage and the healers can sustainably heal you, but in most groups the limiting factor on your exp gain is first and foremost the healer's mana pool (pop time is a bigger issue in some zones).

So taking more damage, any more damage, drags down the group as a whole.

You also lack bash, which can make a gigantic difference in some fights. A lack of pulling power in indoor zones (no lull, no FD) forces you to adjust your group comp around that.

So yeah, you could tank. But with so many twink SKs and warriors around, you shouldn't even have to try.

[Troy]

Ranger can tank fine 40-50. Stuff starts hitting really hard at 50+ though, making things a lot harder. Mine is only 49 though so I don't have direct experience with 50+, maybe it's not that bad for normal exp mobs.

[Rejuvenation]

Rangers tank as well as monks.

[greatdane]

A ranger tanks slightly better than a rogue unless you go out of your way to get tank gear, meaning Tolan's pieces and such, in which case it becomes slightly worse than a shadowknight/paladin. You'll also have a bit less hp. I'd put it like this:

If you are seriously twinked:
1-20: tanking is trivial, you'll do great
20-30: no problem
30-40: perfectly possible
40-50: doable
50+: not great

If you're well-geared:
10-20: no problem
20-30: perfectly possible
30-40: doable
40-50: not great
50+: not worth it

If your gear is kinda average:
10-20: no problem
20-30: doable
30-40: not great
40-50: not worth it
50+: don't try

If your gear is shit:
10-20: doable
20-30: not great
30-40: not worth it
40+: please don't subject others to torture

A few things to consider is that not only does ranger armor have less AC, the class also has a worse AC soft cap. You might not reach that soft cap without most of a set of Tolan's, but when you do, the difference between a ranger and a plate tank becomes bigger. The AC difference on the gear can be pretty big, too; Cobalt Helm has 25 AC while Tolan's helm has 18. That's like 40% more AC on the warrior gear, and SK/PAL armor is in the middle. This will really prevent you from tanking effectively in the higher levels where the game expects you to have a certain amount of AC. Monks don't get great AC either, but they have high innate avoidance. Rangers don't, and with the AC of a rogue and a lower cap on defensive skills compared to plate tanks, you'll really start falling behind in the last dozen levels.

[Lazortag]

Rangers tank okay at all levels. I had a competent ranger tank Drusella and 6 other adds with only a shaman as a healer the other day, so they can't be that bad. Just don't expect them to ever tank in a raid situation.

[Duie]

"A ranger tanks slightly better than a rogue unless you go out of your way to get tank gear, meaning Tolan's pieces and such, in which case it becomes slightly worse than a shadowknight/paladin. You'll also have a bit less hp. I'd put it like this:"


Armor class atm is not working as it should. you can take a warrior in full colbalt and a warr in full crafted and they are both gonna get hit the same amount given same level and same level mob. class and level have more to do w/ Mitigation atm than AC. Test it yourself

With that being said. Rangers Were to be a LIGHT AGILE TANK in the original "Vision@tm" of EQ .This basicly means that if you get hit , you are gonna get hit hard, But you will avoid A lot more blows than a heavy tank would where the higher mitigation will receve less damage per hit.

On live and here my lvl 49 Ranger can tank just fine as long as I keep the above in persepsion. You wont ever see my ass trying to tank for a seb group or any other place where stuff has hit my war of over 100+ dmg. TBTO I Try my best to avoid kunark all together on the ranger unless 1) i know the tank to be good at keeping agro or 2) Someone needs a hand tracking. In reality The Ranger class has not and will not change from the original vision in this era. what has and will continue to change is the amount of damage a mob can dish out . Those monks tanking now , wont be in SoV

[Duma]

Class and level always had more to do with mitigation in classic than AC so it isn't that big of a deal.

It isn't until the end of velious and Luclin that you get enough AC on gear to make more than a negligible difference compared to the guaranteed AC you get from the defense stat and buffs.

Rangers pathetic HP and lower skill caps cripple their tanking more than their chain armor at this point in the game.