Paladin that bad?

[Aroith]

A lot of good posts thanks. Basically taking it that Paladins biggest weakness is their mid to end game dps. Is aggro from lull based on charisma?

[Rhambuk]

They are worse than you could possibly imagine.

Down with paladins!

[Erati]

Paladins are great to enjoy a slow leveling journey across Norrath.

once your 55+ you are pretty much a solid rock in terms of survivability, but your guild will laugh at you when u tank raid mobs and pets will easily out dps ;(

oh well at 56 u heal as good as a lvl 60 druid. That counts for something right?

[lecompte]

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

A lot of good posts thanks. Basically taking it that Paladins biggest weakness is their mid to end game dps. Is aggro from lull based on charisma?

Yes but Lull effectiveness is mostly based on level difference. I have no trouble pacifying my way through seb on a dwarf cleric.

[Daldaen]

Paladins are fantastic group and raid tanks.

Knights are total bosses for tanking and holding aggro on trash on raids. Need more paladins.

[Waedawen]

A distinct advantage that the Paladin shares with the Monk over the SK and Warrior is their power level in small-group situations.

Because of their large toolbox, a Paladin is a much better addition to an elite squad of 2-3 than an SK or a Warrior. True, the SK can FD pulls, but that would be literally all he is good for.

A Paladin can emergency heal, emergency CC, resurrect you if you fuck up (which DOES happen, by the way, and is extremely invaluable especially at 60.) In many ways, a Paladin may even be superior to a Monk in a small-group situation, especially considering compositions that take into account a Rogue or a Priest and Charm mechanics.

People like to drag their face across a keyboard and say "herp derp monk 4 melee shaman 4 preeztz"... but Paladins are the true tank class that really allow the other classes to flourish, as well as themselves. A lot of these same people don't know what other classes truly have to offer and can't be bothered to discover what that is because 1) everyone told them "this class" was best. 2) They only use 1/5 of the spells in their spellbook, for any wide variety of reasons from blissful ignorance to misinformation, and 3) the "more powerful" classes don't even have to go through this process in the first place.

And I say "more powerful" because no class is weak. There are 60 Rangers who make some 60 Monks look like fucking clown parades because the Ranger utilizes his kit and itemizes his character while the Monk has... no spells, and feign death. "Class v Class" and "Role v Role" "Which is better" arguments are ultimately bullshit. Every class is the best at something, and what REALLY matters is competence. If you have people utilizing the tools at their disposal, you can do reets with a Druid, a Ranger, a Necro and a Wizard.

Monks and Shamans are so popular because it takes an extremely high level of Everquest skill, coupled with scrupulous decision making, in order to single pull a mob with a monk, slow it with a shaman, and then kill it.

[wdavid78]

After reading this thread... hell, I almost want to go and roll a paladin.

[Bazia]

Players make great characters not classes, although there is limitations to what certain classes are capable of.

A great player can make himself an asset though regardless of class, I also expect Paladins to become alot more popular once they nerf all classes being able to use Soulfire clicks like they have already done on Red.

[Trosh]

SK Best K

[JPMorgan]

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

A distinct advantage that the Paladin shares with the Monk over the SK and Warrior is their power level in small-group situations.

Because of their large toolbox, a Paladin is a much better addition to an elite squad of 2-3 than an SK or a Warrior. True, the SK can FD pulls, but that would be literally all he is good for.

A Paladin can emergency heal, emergency CC, resurrect you if you fuck up (which DOES happen, by the way, and is extremely invaluable especially at 60.) In many ways, a Paladin may even be superior to a Monk in a small-group situation, especially considering compositions that take into account a Rogue or a Priest and Charm mechanics.

People like to drag their face across a keyboard and say "herp derp monk 4 melee shaman 4 preeztz"... but Paladins are the true tank class that really allow the other classes to flourish, as well as themselves. A lot of these same people don't know what other classes truly have to offer and can't be bothered to discover what that is because 1) everyone told them "this class" was best. 2) They only use 1/5 of the spells in their spellbook, for any wide variety of reasons from blissful ignorance to misinformation, and 3) the "more powerful" classes don't even have to go through this process in the first place.

And I say "more powerful" because no class is weak. There are 60 Rangers who make some 60 Monks look like fucking clown parades because the Ranger utilizes his kit and itemizes his character while the Monk has... no spells, and feign death. "Class v Class" and "Role v Role" "Which is better" arguments are ultimately bullshit. Every class is the best at something, and what REALLY matters is competence. If you have people utilizing the tools at their disposal, you can do reets with a Druid, a Ranger, a Necro and a Wizard.

Monks and Shamans are so popular because it takes an extremely high level of Everquest skill, coupled with scrupulous decision making, in order to single pull a mob with a monk, slow it with a shaman, and then kill it.

Finally, truth for paladins.