Brawlers as protectors for their group?

[Aule]

<p>Someone touched on this idea somewhere else, I thought it had some merit and wanted to discuss it further on it's own.</p><p>What if brawler's specialty was in adding survivability to their group / raid?  They've already announced that brawlers will be the best blockers come the next xpac.  What if we were to expand on that?</p><p>We could have abilities that add to the survivability of non-fighters in our group.  We could *gasp* get a group buff.  Replace that self stun + mitigation buff with a group buff that adds 1k mitigation and hps to non-fighters.</p><p>What if bruiser's stone deaf and close mind were group buffs instead of self buffs?  (Forgive me for not being super familiar with monk equivalents, but you get the idea.)  What if your raid leader had a reason to say "we should have a brawler to help keep the squishies alive"?</p><p>What if the brawler self buff that proc's hate, instead proc'd hate to all fighters in the group / raid?  Making holding aggro a team effort.  What if many threat effects did this?  I know reality comparisons are generally stupid, but it could really make sense that with more fighters up there [Removed for Content] off the mob that ALL of them are higher on the hate list as a result.</p><p>What if brawlers had an ability that allows them to take just the 2nd hit of a double attack on the tank?</p><p>What if no brawler abilities used spell crit rate or base spell damage?  Oh wait, that's a different problem, sorry, wrong thread.</p>

[Dechau]

<p>Your idea tio make Brawlers take the second hit in a DA for the Tank, is awesome to say the least..</p><p>Would love to see that kind og stuff in game for sure.. Just don't give us any single target temp buffs <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Bruener]

<p>This is a good idea.  It gives the Brawlers the niche of utility tank on a raid....something to make sure there is a spot for.  Be careful though...you are going to upset the couple of Brawlers that think they should be MTs that troll around these boards.</p><p>Bringing fighters should increase the survivability of raids period.  Obviously bringing a MT and an OT do that.  Now making it so that bringing that 3rd and 4th fighter do that as well is what the goal should be.  SOE is not all of a sudden going to make it so that content needs 4-6 fighters tanking all at once...they can't seem to figure that one out and it probably isn't possible because of how thin healers woudl be spread anyway.  A tank protects their alllies....this does not necessarily mean they have to be the single focus of all the mobs like a MT is currently.  It should mean that fighters get abilities that will help keep their group/raid alive.  Group stoneskins, more intercede type abilities, control of all hate buffs/debuffs and transfers, better group survival buffs in general.  There is a lot that can be done and would probably cut back on the amount of healers being brought on raids.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>TBH ultility tanks should be crusaders seeing as how they cast spells it would make sense that they can use their magic to help out the group.  I suggest they cut their tanking ability and ae agro and give them a ultility role.</p><p>EDIT:  Especially SK should be the new utility tank as previous to this expansion they weren't really in a tank role anyways so we should return them back to what they used to be.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>TBH ultility tanks should be crusaders seeing as how they cast spells it would make sense that they can use their magic to help out the group.  I suggest they cut their tanking ability and ae agro and give them a ultility role.</p><p>EDIT:  Especially SK should be the new utility tank as previous to this expansion they weren't really in a tank role anyways so we should return them back to what they used to be.</p></blockquote><p>According to eq2 lore, monks are fighters who incorporate the magic of bards in their fighting styles; the magic element is very much present with monks. I'm not really sure I like the argument being promoted here, but it'd be thoroughly as defensible in terms of what the monk class is and has been as making us competitive MTs would.</p>

[Uggli]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EDIT:  Especially SK should be the new utility tank as previous to this expansion they weren't really in a tank role anyways so we should return them back to what they used to be.</p></blockquote><p>In EoF and prior crusaders (SK's) were viable tanks, though Zerkers and Guads were well ahead still, crusaders were not [Removed for Content].  With RoK Warriors were the FOTM and crusaders suffered, SK's the most.    So how far back do you want to do to define a class?   Your line of thinking on this is asinine.</p><p>ALL fighters should have a raid utility option when they are not the MT/OT.  Warriors, Crusaders, and Brawlers.   Activating this utility should [Removed for Content] their tank ability on the raid, but boot the MT/OT in some way.   This way you are not penilized for taking that extra fighter friend who will not be MT/OT.</p><p>Edit: To add that brawlers would first need to be fixed to be completely viable tanks for the above to work.    If they are not fixed to be tanks, then the utility spoken of above should be solely theirs.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Uggliey wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EDIT:  Especially SK should be the new utility tank as previous to this expansion they weren't really in a tank role anyways so we should return them back to what they used to be.</p></blockquote><p>In EoF and prior crusaders (SK's) were viable tanks, though Zerkers and Guads were well ahead still, crusaders were not [Removed for Content].  With RoK Warriors were the FOTM and crusaders suffered, SK's the most.    So how far back do you want to do to define a class?   Your line of thinking on this is asinine.</p><p>ALL fighters should have a raid utility option when they are not the MT/OT.  Warriors, Crusaders, and Brawlers.   Activating this utility should [Removed for Content] their tank ability on the raid, but boot the MT/OT in some way.   This way you are not penilized for taking that extra fighter friend who will not be MT/OT.</p><p>Edit: To add that brawlers would first need to be fixed to be completely viable tanks for the above to work.    If they are not fixed to be tanks, then the utility spoken of above should be solely theirs.</p></blockquote><p>Lets go back to the start then lvl 50 where brawlers > sk's in tanking.</p>

[Uggli]

<p>Like I said, Asinine.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uggliey wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EDIT:  Especially SK should be the new utility tank as previous to this expansion they weren't really in a tank role anyways so we should return them back to what they used to be.</p></blockquote><p>In EoF and prior crusaders (SK's) were viable tanks, though Zerkers and Guads were well ahead still, crusaders were not [Removed for Content].  With RoK Warriors were the FOTM and crusaders suffered, SK's the most.    So how far back do you want to do to define a class?   Your line of thinking on this is asinine.</p><p>ALL fighters should have a raid utility option when they are not the MT/OT.  Warriors, Crusaders, and Brawlers.   Activating this utility should [Removed for Content] their tank ability on the raid, but boot the MT/OT in some way.   This way you are not penilized for taking that extra fighter friend who will not be MT/OT.</p><p>Edit: To add that brawlers would first need to be fixed to be completely viable tanks for the above to work.    If they are not fixed to be tanks, then the utility spoken of above should be solely theirs.</p></blockquote><p>Lets go back to the start then lvl 50 where brawlers > sk's in tanking.</p></blockquote><p>Thank goodness they fixed the BROKEN mechanic that let that happen.  Remember when Guards could get buffed so high that raid mobs were basically grey'ed out to them?  Yeah that was broken too.  Of course, if I remember right fighter DPS was pretty darn good too.</p><p>Brawlers for UTILITY TANKs in '10....</p><p>P.S.  BTW, Bchizzle you are so predictable and easy to bait.</p>

[Gizar]

<p>I dont agree with this at all, the point is this class is DPS, why have a gaurdian at all if you get to tank and dish out twice his dps.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>Why do people keep trying to come up with more clever labels to redefine Brawler?  "Utility","Psuedo DPS"...??</p><p>Brawler = Fighter........Fighter = Tank.</p><p>There are 6 fighters classes.....if any of those are unable to serve as Tank for all the games content then fix it so they can.</p><p>Anything else they do or can bring to the raid is of little concern if they can't serve their main/primary purpose.</p>

[Gizar]

<p>It functions fine the way it is as a tank in many cases. Making all his buffs group buffs will end up over powering a tank class thats meant to be a tank that dishes out some DPS. and if you stay this course all they will do is make the group buffs and then nerf the buff, leave it as it is.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why do people keep trying to come up with more clever labels to redefine Brawler?  "Utility","Psuedo DPS"...??</p><p>Brawler = Fighter........Fighter = Tank.</p><p>There are 6 fighters classes.....if any of those are unable to serve as Tank for all the games content then fix it so they can.</p><p>Anything else they do or can bring to the raid is of little concern if they can't serve their main/primary purpose.</p></blockquote><p>Fighter =/= Tank.  Fighter = Fighter.  Tank = Tank.  Brawler = Fighter.  Thats like saying Scouts = DPS....So than since Bard = Scout than Bard should equal DPS?</p><p>Or, maybe Tank is a role and is only done when "tanking".  Hence why some classes "tank" better than others, or why some classes "tank" in different ways, or why some classes have other stuff to do besides "tank".</p><p>Tanking is a role that all fighter CAN do.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>P.S.  BTW, Bchizzle you are so predictable and easy to bait.</p></blockquote><p>Grats on setting that hook with the bait of you looking completely dumb and then being called out for it.  You didn't catch a troll you silly SK you caught a slap of common sense across your face.  People with the ability to comprehend beyond the ability of a slug will tell you what you did here was pretty much self abuse which might be a sign of some sort of borderline personality or depressive orders, you should get that looked into.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why do people keep trying to come up with more clever labels to redefine Brawler?  "Utility","Psuedo DPS"...??</p><p>Brawler = Fighter........Fighter = Tank.</p><p>There are 6 fighters classes.....if any of those are unable to serve as Tank for all the games content then fix it so they can.</p><p>Anything else they do or can bring to the raid is of little concern if they can't serve their main/primary purpose.</p></blockquote><p>Some people just aren't smart enough to grasp this simple concept.  I blame inbreeding, though I don't have any sort of data to back up that claim, maybe we will see it on the next round of scientific study SOE releases.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>I am not oppossed to it in principle, but I will say that I don't think that the fixes you're suggesting would make up for a lack of tanking ability.</p><p>I <em>am</em> against giving up our stun/mit buff for a groupwide, however.  It's an extremely useful buff once you've got enough AA to remove the stun component.  Brawlers currently don't have a groupwide buff so they could just..you know...give us one.  </p>

[Aull]

<p>Well what most players forget or never knew is that brawlers are given an aa choice to proc a "de-taunt" called shiftiness. So why in the H E double L was that aa given to brawlers? Oh wait brawlers had at one time much stronger dps than any of the plates and this reason is also why so many players knew brawlers to be a more dps oriented class than true tank material. Especially the bruiser since bruisers never had any strong defensive abilities or utility when compaired to every other fighter class.</p><p>Now this de-taunt aa choice is a joke for brawlers since all fighters are so close in dps on raid fights (and sk's still have the dps fighter crown). So if they do actually make brawlers as effective as plate tanks this so called shiftiness aa will need to be replaced with something more beneifical.</p><p>I do remember in the beginning how powerful brawlers were. Brawlers had survivabiliy and dps which made the other fighters take a back seat. Then the avoidance issue was nerfed and brawlers lost the survivability they once had but still had their dps to fall back on for grouping appeal.</p><p>If a person could go back to DOF, KOS, and EOF and was asked if brawlers are known as tanks or dps then most players would say dps. ROK wasn't bad for brawler dps but this is when the shift began. TSO has brawlers in an identity crisis.</p><p>So this is why most brawlers want dps since they never really had utility then, but could tank trivial zones and everyday quests.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>There are 6 fighters classes.....if any of those are unable to serve as Tank for all the games content then fix it so they can. </blockquote><p>Except why bother to have those classes at all? Just create a single class called "Fighter" and be done with it. So many of these arguments seem to revolve around the complete homogenization of the fighter classes, where the only difference is the group/raid buffs they offer.</p><p>I find that to be incredibly stale.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well what most players forget or never knew is that brawlers are given an aa choice to proc a "de-taunt" called shiftiness. So why in the H E double L was that aa given to brawlers? Oh wait brawlers had at one time much stronger dps than any of the plates and this reason is also why so many players knew brawlers to be a more dps oriented class than true tank material. Especially the bruiser since bruisers never had any strong defensive abilities or utility when compaired to every other fighter class.</p><p>Now this de-taunt aa choice is a joke for brawlers since all fighters are so close in dps on raid fights (and sk's still have the dps fighter crown). So if they do actually make brawlers as effective as plate tanks this so called shiftiness aa will need to be replaced with something more beneifical.</p><p>I do remember in the beginning how powerful brawlers were. Brawlers had survivabiliy and dps which made the other fighters take a back seat. Then the avoidance issue was nerfed and brawlers lost the survivability they once had but still had their dps to fall back on for grouping appeal.</p><p>If a person could go back to DOF, KOS, and EOF and was asked if brawlers are known as tanks or dps then most players would say dps. ROK wasn't bad for brawler dps but this is when the shift began. TSO has brawlers in an identity crisis.</p><p>So this is why most brawlers want dps since they never really had utility then, but could tank trivial zones and everyday quests.</p></blockquote><p>SK's have the ae dps fighter crown, they however, no longer can say the same for single target.</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well what most players forget or never knew is that brawlers are given an aa choice to proc a "de-taunt" called shiftiness. So why in the H E double L was that aa given to brawlers? Oh wait brawlers had at one time much stronger dps than any of the plates and this reason is also why so many players knew brawlers to be a more dps oriented class than true tank material. Especially the bruiser since bruisers never had any strong defensive abilities or utility when compaired to every other fighter class.</p><p>Now this de-taunt aa choice is a joke for brawlers since all fighters are so close in dps on raid fights (and sk's still have the dps fighter crown). So if they do actually make brawlers as effective as plate tanks this so called shiftiness aa will need to be replaced with something more beneifical.</p><p>I do remember in the beginning how powerful brawlers were. Brawlers had survivabiliy and dps which made the other fighters take a back seat. Then the avoidance issue was nerfed and brawlers lost the survivability they once had but still had their dps to fall back on for grouping appeal.</p><p>If a person could go back to DOF, KOS, and EOF and was asked if brawlers are known as tanks or dps then most players would say dps. ROK wasn't bad for brawler dps but this is when the shift began. TSO has brawlers in an identity crisis.</p><p>So this is why most brawlers want dps since they never really had utility then, but could tank trivial zones and everyday quests.</p></blockquote><p>SK's have the ae dps fighter crown, they however, no longer can say the same for single target.</p></blockquote><p>I will agree, but even sk's are not that far behind in single target dps. A well geared and played sk anyway.</p>

[grrrrlf]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>There are 6 fighters classes.....if any of those are unable to serve as Tank for all the games content then fix it so they can. </blockquote><p>Except why bother to have those classes at all? Just create a single class called "Fighter" and be done with it. So many of these arguments seem to revolve around the complete homogenization of the fighter classes, where the only difference is the group/raid buffs they offer.</p><p>I find that to be incredibly stale. </p></blockquote><p>There is a distinction to be made between function (tank) and style/flavor(SK/Guardian/etc.).   By your line of reasoning, there wouldn't be a reason to have more than 1 dps class (maybe 2 if you insist on a differentiation between ranged and melee dps but even that is really a style differentiation and not a functional one).  Do you find having multiple dps classes to be "incredibly stale", too?</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why do people keep trying to come up with more clever labels to redefine Brawler?  "Utility","Psuedo DPS"...??</p><p>Brawler = Fighter........Fighter = Tank.</p><p>There are 6 fighters classes.....if any of those are unable to serve as Tank for all the games content then fix it so they can.</p><p>Anything else they do or can bring to the raid is of little concern if they can't serve their main/primary purpose.</p></blockquote><p>One thing that I do not want is all the fighters being equal and to me there needs to be areas where each fighter excels over the others and vice versa. Having six tanks makes this impossible</p><p>It would be pointless to have a so called variety of six tanks only to find later that class A is basically no different than B, C, D, E, or F.</p><p>Utility? Only to a point. No need in fighters becoming buff bots.</p>

[grrrrlf]

<p>Making fighters equal is incredibly hard.  Making them all viable is much easier.  I am fine with different fighter classes having some differentiation in strengths and weaknesses so that certain fighters are better in some situations than others, but all fighters should still be viable in any tanking role.  Care needs to be taken, though, so that it's not the same class that's optimal in every tanking situation or we might end up back where we started.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Except why bother to have those classes at all? Just create a single class called "Fighter" and be done with it. So many of these arguments seem to revolve around the complete homogenization of the fighter classes, where the only difference is the group/raid buffs they offer.</p><p>I find that to be incredibly stale.</p></blockquote><p>Well the same can be said about all the archetypes.</p><p>Its the conclussion we seem to  arrive at each and every time Fighter balance has been discussed....ever since the launch of the game.</p><p>Sony screwed up........6 fighters in a game that beyond its updated graphics is still using the same basic model from EQ1...someone tanks, someone heals, everyone else kills.  </p><p>Ending up with all 6 being pretty much the same was unavoidable in my opinion.</p><p>Look at the 4 plates today......very little seperates us in terms of tanking.  We all mostly have to use DPS to keep aggro, after gearing up we end up with pretty much the same tank stats,  all wield a 1h sword with shield....usually the same shield for all of us.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Personally, I am sick to death of the argument that letting brawlers be decent tanks somehow "homogenizes" tanking.</p><p>Hey, you know who tanks in a completely new, different and unique style from plates?  You know what class uses completely different tactics when they're tanking?  You know what the single MOST different tank class is?  BRAWLERS.  As tanks, we're unique...as dps, we're watered down brigands minus the utility.  If you're afraid that tanking is all too similar nowadays, then you should be completely PRO fixing brawlers, and especially pro fixing avoidance tanking in particular.  That whole line of argument is about as stupid as the "well, I don't see how anyone wearing leather could possibly survive if a dragon hits them just one time" thing is.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Personally, I am sick to death of the argument that letting brawlers be decent tanks somehow "homogenizes" tanking.</p><p>Hey, you know who tanks in a completely new, different and unique style from plates? You know what class uses completely different tactics when they're tanking? You know what the single MOST different tank class is? BRAWLERS. As tanks, we're unique...as dps, we're watered down brigands minus the utility. If you're afraid that tanking is all too similar nowadays, then you should be completely PRO fixing brawlers, and especially pro fixing avoidance tanking in particular. That whole line of argument is about as stupid as the "well, I don't see how anyone wearing leather could possibly survive if a dragon hits them just one time" thing is.</p></blockquote><p>I think the overall problem is that what makes a "tank" a "tank" is too heavily passive in this game....which i think leads to the classes being too much the same.  Blocking, Avoiding, Mitigating, etc...  So we all gotta get our Avoid and Mit up to some optimal value and for the most part thats it.</p><p>I would have much prefered having to actively do alot more things related to "taking the hits" like knowing when to pop ToS, Sphere, etc more often during a fight to survive instead of just standing there and soaking it up like essentially do today.</p><p>That way they could have given each of the fighter types a nice variety of short term abilities and such that if they didnt use them correctly the fighter....beit a Guard or a Monk would be dead.</p><p>Sadly from the looks of things comming out of the dicsussion at Fan Fair....Fighter effectivess is gonna be made even more "passive" and out of our control....so we are going to be even more clones of eachother than we are today.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I would have much prefered having to actively do alot more things related to "taking the hits" like knowing when to pop ToS, Sphere, etc more often during a fight to survive instead of just standing there and soaking it up like essentially do today.</p></blockquote><p>Agreed. It's the way to seperate good and bad players.</p><p>It's actually the way of brawler tanking; we have to be focus and use our life saving tools smartly. It's why it's harder to tank as a brawler but experienced brawlers can definitely make it.</p><p>That's why I really enjoy tanking on my monk instead of playing other plate tanks.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>I agree a little more twitchyness wouldn't hurt the tank classes and make it more fun.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree a little more twitchyness wouldn't hurt the tank classes and make it more fun.</p></blockquote><p>I liked the original tso ability that allowed us to interupt spells from npcs. It still exists in palace of ferzul, but it was removed from raids which sucked. It was kinda fun to have a twitch mechanic.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree a little more twitchyness wouldn't hurt the tank classes and make it more fun.</p></blockquote><p>I liked the original tso ability that allowed us to interupt spells from npcs. It still exists in palace of ferzul, but it was removed from raids which sucked. It was kinda fun to have a twitch mechanic.</p></blockquote><p>Ykesha, Gynok etc etc ya its fun.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Personally, I am sick to death of the argument that letting brawlers be decent tanks somehow "homogenizes" tanking.</p><p>Hey, you know who tanks in a completely new, different and unique style from plates? You know what class uses completely different tactics when they're tanking? You know what the single MOST different tank class is? BRAWLERS. As tanks, we're unique...as dps, we're watered down brigands minus the utility. If you're afraid that tanking is all too similar nowadays, then you should be completely PRO fixing brawlers, and especially pro fixing avoidance tanking in particular. That whole line of argument is about as stupid as the "well, I don't see how anyone wearing leather could possibly survive if a dragon hits them just one time" thing is.</p></blockquote><p>I think the overall problem is that what makes a "tank" a "tank" is too heavily passive in this game....which i think leads to the classes being too much the same.  Blocking, Avoiding, Mitigating, etc...  So we all gotta get our Avoid and Mit up to some optimal value and for the most part thats it.</p><p>I would have much prefered having to actively do alot more things related to "taking the hits" like knowing when to pop ToS, Sphere, etc more often during a fight to survive instead of just standing there and soaking it up like essentially do today.</p><p>That way they could have given each of the fighter types a nice variety of short term abilities and such that if they didnt use them correctly the fighter....beit a Guard or a Monk would be dead.</p><p>Sadly from the looks of things comming out of the dicsussion at Fan Fair....Fighter effectivess is gonna be made even more "passive" and out of our control....so we are going to be even more clones of eachother than we are today.</p></blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, I do none of that, matter of fact I don't even use chi since it sucks.  There is no careful work when I tank it isn't needed really.</p>

[Grumpy_Warrior_01]

<blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p></blockquote><p>Are you done flattering yourself at the expense of plate fighters?  The last time I "sat back" and did nothing while tanking I was linkdead.  To imply that running a plate fighter requires less "careful work and communication" tells me you have never rolled one and you're just talking out of your bellybutton.  On the other hand, I do at least have a monk alt.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p></blockquote><p>Are you done flattering yourself at the expense of plate fighters?  The last time I "sat back" and did nothing while tanking I was linkdead.  To imply that running a plate fighter requires less "careful work and communication" tells me you have never rolled one and you're just talking out of your bellybutton.  On the other hand, I do at least have a monk alt.</p></blockquote><p>If she's getting capped to cycle through her saves as fast as possible thats not really tanking anyways.</p>

[Couching]

<p>G<cite>rumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p></blockquote><p>Are you done flattering yourself at the expense of plate fighters?  The last time I "sat back" and did nothing while tanking I was linkdead.  To imply that running a plate fighter requires less "careful work and communication" tells me you have never rolled one and you're just talking out of your bellybutton.  On the other hand, I do at least have a monk alt.</p></blockquote><p>You can't deny that plate tanks have less <em>active</em> life saving tools than brawlers. The survivability of plate tanks comes from passive stats such as mitigation and damage reduction.</p><p>With the most overpowered effect- mit increase, plate tanks can hit 70% mit even with full T2 shard armor, not to say raiders with T4 can hit up to 75%.</p><p>When a plate tank with 70%-75% mit plus extra 5%-15% damage reduction from mythical and T4 BP, it's unkillable as long as the group healers are not afk or stop healing.</p><p>I am not sure how well geared you are. But a lot of warriors stop using shield in raid because it's unnecessary for survivability. Ever heard about warriors DW tanking most instanced raid targets in offensive including gynok, mynzak, etc.. The only few mobs they need a shield are ykesha and some hard avatars.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, I do none of that, matter of fact I don't even use <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>chi since it sucks</strong></span>.  There is no careful work when I tank it isn't needed really.</p></blockquote><p>Chi is one of the abilities of the tree that really doesn't suck !!! how come you think it sucks??</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>See, this would be one of those areas where brawler tanking is drastically different from plate tanks.  There does not exist a brawler in this game, no matter how good their healers, who just sits back and takes the damage guardian-syle.  We're working with troubs to make sure we get chi in right at the end of jcap, keeping our specials recycling as fast as possible while we cycle through things like tsunami, bob & weave, mountain stance, body like mountain, and our defensive item procs.  It is a completely different style of tanking, one that requires a lot of careful work and communication to make happen.  Its extremely different from what plate tanks typically do though, and that diversity is best preserved by making us good enough that someone besides the shinies get to see how cool brawlers are.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, I do none of that, matter of fact I don't even use <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>chi since it sucks</strong></span>.  There is no careful work when I tank it isn't needed really.</p></blockquote><p>Chi is one of the abilities of the tree that really doesn't suck !!! how come you think it sucks??</p></blockquote><p>Simple, the second you take to cast chi is the second you aren't hitting your save when you need it.</p>

[mr23sgte]

<p>I want this back - except make it group ...there is the Monk utility.</p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Master%27s_Evasion">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Master%27s_Evasion</a></p>

[circusgirl]

<p>No, I don't have a plate tank.  My reference to "sitting back and doing nothing" was in response to a plate tank who had made the comment that he found tanking an incredibly <em>passive</em> experience, to which my response was basically that I don't know about him, but for a brawler at least tanking is a very active experience.</p><p>Also, if you're waiting till you need tsunami to pop chi, you're doing it wrong.  And as I've told you before Bchiz, I don't usually have the whole raid catered to me and making sure I have the best buffs or am constantly jcapped, etc.  Perhaps if I had an army of troubadors to take care of me, I might have a similar opinion on chi...but for now, I see it as the only endline that hasn't become obsolete with the increase in stats.</p>