Revised Newbie Guide

[Getsmurfed]

I'll chime in here, I've been a point of contention for some people regarding my love of bard tanking. I've tanked N and W HS with groups with ease. I hit 3.5k HP and 150 MR in a basic suit of various Imbrued and odds/ends. Granted N/W HS isn't much of an accomplishment I generally end up tanking, ccing, and splitting my own pulls with much success I do not think I've yet to had a wipe in any of my groups (and these are quite regular). The thing about tanking outside raids is that you need to have a high hp pool and magic resistance esp with a cleric. A cleric is more mana efficient with complete heals the higher an HP pool on a tank is. I've also been in for reets juggs and tanked juggs without an issue.

TL;DR Bards generate insane amounts of threat, enough that an epic SK can have trouble pulling of a bard who is trying. High HP and MR make a bard just as tanky as most other classes, but will never tank in raids nor is there a need for them to. A bard can bring a well balanced tank that gives mana song, CC, AS slows, single pulls, and insane threat gen.

Edited: TL[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]R

[Getsmurfed]

-

[doeda]

please don't turn this into RNF

[Elements]

Remember this is a newbie guide. I really wouldnt associate bard with the word tank at all in a newbie guide. At any point when a bard is going to be geared enough or supoorted enough to tank, a shaman, ranger, monk, rogue, or any of the actual tanks is going to tank better in terms of taking damage.

Sure a super geared bard with propper support can tank something but if newbie bards start joining groups claiming to be tanks I think you will have done them a diservice.

[fadetree]

Yeah, geared rangers can be fairly good tanks too for grinds, also due to aggro gen, etc., but your average ranger is not going to be a durable tank. Same goes for bards I think.

[Estu]

I've reworded that section a bit, here's the new version:

---

I want to tank but I want to do other things too like cast spells or pull mobs and feign death
Shadow Knight > Paladin >> Monk > Bard > Ranger
SKs and Paladins are both great tanks in EXP groups, and SKs have the added bonus of being able to solo somewhat. Some of the melee classes can also be passable tanks with the right gear and know-how. Bards have excellent aggro generation, can wear plate, and have a huge array of other useful abilities. Rangers and monks can both be acceptable tanks; rangers are better at holding aggro, but monks are better at DPSing.

---

Note, I don't necessarily think monks are better tanks than bards; that was someone else's change, but I don't think there is enough data to show one way or the other.

[Volibear]

You really lack the insight as far as game mechanics to be writing a guide. Just because a bard can wear plate and stack hip gear does not mean he is an efficient tank. Reducing damage comes down to two components. Mitigation and avoidance. Bards can wear plate but only mitigate slightly better than a cleric and significantly worse than a sk/pal/warrior. Avoidance is where they really get hit hard. With caps of 75 for riposte and parry even rangers will do a better job of absorbing damage.

[webrunner5]

Monks are almost better tanks than Anything but a Warrior. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] And when Velious comes out they are OP as Tanks. They are scary good at DPS and Tanking then.

[DrKvothe]

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

Just because a bard can wear plate and stack hip gear does not mean he is an efficient tank. Reducing damage comes down to two components. Mitigation and avoidance. Bards can wear plate but only mitigate slightly better than a cleric and significantly worse than a sk/pal/warrior. Avoidance is where they really get hit hard. With caps of 75 for riposte and parry even rangers will do a better job of absorbing damage.

Everything you said is true, but I think it's pretty much a given that a group's survivability comes down to more than the tank's mitigation and avoidance. I certainly can't speak for 50+, but quick and reliable cc, snares, and taunts are pretty significant things to offer a group.

If you don't have a warrior, sk, pally, or monk to tank, presumably you've got a bunch of squishies that can bring dps, cc, or heals, but probably can't pull or take hits. A bard could probably turn this into a decent dungeon crawling group.

For most dungeons that I've experienced, if a group couldn't handle things with a competent bard pulling/tanking, they probably wouldn't do very well with a real tank instead.

It's certainly worth mentioning in a newbie guide that as a bard you can, under certain circumstances and when properly played, act as the group tank. I think people here may just be uncomfortable with the phrasing the OP used? I mean, the ability for a group to keep up with respawns after their tank bails isn't negligible.

[Estu]

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

You really lack the insight as far as game mechanics to be writing a guide. Just because a bard can wear plate and stack hip gear does not mean he is an efficient tank. Reducing damage comes down to two components. Mitigation and avoidance. Bards can wear plate but only mitigate slightly better than a cleric and significantly worse than a sk/pal/warrior. Avoidance is where they really get hit hard. With caps of 75 for riposte and parry even rangers will do a better job of absorbing damage.

I'd really like to see some parses of this purported gigantic difference in mitigation and avoidance, especially comparing bards to rangers and monks, but also to knights and warriors.