Do tanks actually take less damage?
 

I know warriors get defensive disc, but outside of that is there any significant difference between a Paladin/SK/Warrior and a Bard?
They get the same defense skill cap and can wear the same armor type. Pre-50 even clerics have the same defense skill cap as Paladins and SKs. Seems kinda weird.

Is there some sort of hidden advantage tanks get that makes them useful for taking hits or should people actually just have the highest AC person in the party tank?

Id argue that bards take less damage than knights in a levelling group (given, say, everyone is in thurg gear) as they can pre-slow as targets come in and basically never lose aggro. One of the easiest ways to tank something I found was just to hit it with bard snare and just kite it for 0 damage. Works from lvl 20 or w/e all the way to 60, even in a tiny room in seb.

Knights have higher AC cap though and higher skills like parry, etc. IIRC

After hitting the soft cap in AC, warriors get a higher percent return for each additional worn AC.

In the original game different classes got different amounts of effect from worn AC. P1999 does not (and can not) use the original host so its combat works a little different. Different classes also have different AC caps and different levels of diminished returns overcap.

Beyond that, defense skill isn't the only thing affecting damage taken. Clerics might have the same defense, but they have a low dodge cap and don't get parry or riposte at all. Bards get those skills but capped very low. Tank classes also have large health pools and can soak damage spikes effectively, making them easier to keep healed and easier to achieve good mana efficiency from Complete Healing*. The hybrid tanks also reduce overall healing needed by keeping enemies' attention on them so the clothies and such don't take as many hits.

As a rule of thumb, only monks generally rival or exceed the overall damage reduction of the conventional tanks except for discipline-using Warriors, and Monks do it mostly via avoidance leaving them rather streaky, spike-prone, and with a low health pool making them sometimes a bit of a hassle from the healer's perspective. With high-end equipment monks can also compete in raw mitigation while maintaining their avoidance advantage, kind of breaking class balance. This was also true in the original game, because of which monks were later (notoriously) nerfed during the Luclin era.

*Healing a Paladin for 2500 is preferable to healing a Monk for 1800 even if the Monk takes 10% less damage, and is especially preferable when the healer doesn't have to heal the Mage at all because the Paladin has burst aggro and the Monk does not.

Danth

Interesting read, depending on how much of this is era accurate it’s seems the AC soft cap might be a big determination in different classes ability to take hits (or not!).

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=20689

And as others alluded to once CH is in the picture more HP help immensely with efficiency. If you cleric needs to heal you once every 2-3 mobs is totally different than every single mob.

I threw up a little in my mouth and swallowed it.

Returns after softcap way too good on blue, shouldn't even exist on green yet (if at all? I heard mixed reports on whether late velious had some form of softcap... the real softcap system came to be between luclin and pop with the AC revamp/monk nerf).

Tried arguing this same point about shamans in an old thread. Outside of one or two endgame weapons, which are typically reserved for warriors, knights don't have a reliable means of slowing targets, so they joust or fear kite. Bards have more direct ways of avoiding/reducing damage with their songs to compensate for the tankiness they lack by default, slow being among the best.

A really interesting point, slow is godly powerful and that snare song just yoinks aggro whenever the bard wants it. Never being hit by an unslowed mob could make a huge difference in damage taken.

I think the counter argument is when a really good knight is working with a slower the slower can basically cast as soon as the mob is in camp. To your point the knight and slower would both really need to be on their game or there will be at least a couple rounds of unslowed melee. Definitely points to how a shaman/bard can be a totally viable tank in the right group makeup.

I never had any trouble keeping aggro with my paladin. I often was praised for that by chanters and shamans. As a tank, the slower can cast slow when mob is incoming and I take on aggro before the slower gets hit. Works all the time. Resists and thus recasts of slow are more difficult to handle and depend on reaction and distance tank <-> slower.

If you use your FoL and stuns after slower got hit, you're doing it wrong. Pro-active approach is advised to keep everything smooth and casters happy. Any chanter/shaman can rely on not getting hit/aggro on casting slow on inc mob when the tank is a paladin who knows their class and got some experience with slowers in party. Bard is more difficult because they generate more aggro over time with the songs, just be on your guard with a bard next to you.

I died once with my shaman because the WAR couldnt get aggro for like 25sec. This doesnt happen with PAL/SK.

Yep, just like warrior are uncontesrably the best raid tank, for groups, knights are, in exp group reliable agro > all. Bard are probably closely behind, they got less hp, take more damage and they do less melee damage, but got also reliable agro.