Holding aggro with mounts and no shield...

[Deathspell]

I'm not tank, but a Warlock and I have a few questions regarding aggro. - Does a mount (horse) have any effect on dealing damage and/or holding aggro?? - What about the use of a shield? The tanks that I group with regularly now use their horses during battle and have these imbued cedar cudgels (dual wield, so no shield anymore). I've the impression that I can break aggro more easier then before... (with my levelling, my damage output has also increased, but I expected a tank to get better aggro & spells as well to counter that... ) Any info on the mounts and usage of a shield is appreciated  (and sorry if this is covered already). <div></div>

[Khelda]

<span>Mounts have no effect on anything but movement speed. Dual Wielding instead of using a shield won't lower aggro generation.  If anything, it will increase it slightly because of the additional damage output.  Dual-wielding tanks must know something I don't, because keeping aggro with a  one-hander is almost never a problem, and the defensive boost from a good shield is huge.  I am still of the opinion "if you're going to main tank, use a shield, period."  (Doesn't apply to Monks, obviously).  But then, I'm only level 40 and not raiding yet, so what do I know? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Damage isn't our job anyways, and I don't see the little extra damage from a second weapon outweighing the usefulness of a shield.</span><div></div>

[Feldorm]

I don't think that shields are necessary all the time really - although there are benefits I wouldn't call the defensive boost huge. It partly depends what weapons are open to you - since I got my screaming mace (1h) I always have the shield up cos the mace seems as good in every way as any dw combo that I can get, but before that I often preferred to dw. For most groups, shields are not <i>necessary</i>, the extra 6% avoidance or so isn't going to make<i> that</i> much difference. (screaming mace is real nice to have btw <span>:smileywink:</span> ) I would not complain or call a tank stupid for not using a shield in a normal group unless they're really struggling, which normally isn't the case. Sure if you're on a raid and need everything to help you you can get then a shield would probably be more useful. Although you would get more aggro with duel wielding or a 2 hander than a sword + shield, it wouldn't be a significant difference when compared to the aggro you get from abilities + taunts. I agree that tanks should be able to hold aggro with a 1 hander tho <span>:smileyhappy:</span> <div></div>

[Nazo]

Feldorm you know that the proc on the Screaming mace reduces your hate do you :smileywink:

[shilo]

Yes the screaming mace does proc a hate reduction when it goes off. However, I believe the threat reduction is around 230 or so threat. But every time it procs, it also gives you 302 power...which equates to about 6 of my single target taunts, which cost 52 power. Deafen to be precise. And it increases hate almost 500. Or throw Adept3 protect in there...859 hate to the encounter...if it isnt epic. So yes the Screaming Mace does proc hate reduction, but nowhere near the amount of hate you should be producing anyway, I never have a problem with losing agro when I tank with the Screaming Mace.

[Feldorm]

yeah - exactly what shilosw said. A proc may lose you hate equivalent to 1/3 of a taunt but you gain enough power for 6 taunts! <div></div>

[Arsen]

The group I am in really determines whether or not I use a shield or not.  If we have one healer and a bunch of DPS - a shield makes a lot of sense simply because I don't worry about DPS and just concentrate at holding aggro - I can conserve the healer's power (and mine) and chain pull with little to no downtime.  If I have a second healer and/or an enchanter then going with a higher dps setup is an option because downtime is not really a factor and it helps things move a little faster. I never use a horse in a group - and I always ask other melee people in the group to stop using theirs during the fights since it blocks the view of everyone else. <div></div>

[Gilgal]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nazowa wrote:<div></div>Feldorm you know that the proc on the Screaming mace reduces your hate do you :smileywink:<hr></blockquote>Nazowa, you do realize that the buff to your power pool everytime the SM procs increases you hate as well?  Most higher levels that use the SM consider it a wash because they don't have any problems keeping agro with the SM tanking against epic mobs.  Plus, it just makes sense that the agro reduction is there to counteract the agro obtained from the power pool buff.  To wit, more non-melee classes ( read clerics ) can use the mace safely without generating agro.</span><div></div>

[Nazo]

Could be Gilga but thats like saying the Clarity potion I use generates agro for me or the Manastone :smileyvery-happy:

[scl]

No it's not. The manastone and potions are "used" the proc on SM "goes off". As a Berserker I can keep aggro very easily just by letting my berserk "go off". I'm not likely to get aggro by "using" an item. I'm not saying there isn't a slight increase in hate when using an item but I would bet that its no where near the hate from a proc going off. <P> To add to the opinions of the SM users above, the hate reduction is even less of an issue because the of mere fact that the proc going off adds hate. So the mace probably isn't losing hate as much as its says.

[Drulak]

<P>shields will have no negative affect on hate , the only consideration on shileds for me is , do i think the mob will struggle to hit me and/or is it a caster.</P> <P>If its main damage comes from spells , why use a shield , that won't stop the lightning bolt from searing your scalp. If on the other hand it is a white + melee mob , i will switch to my shield.</P> <P>the other thing is that with hold the line , each hit = % chance for the ae taunt , so using dual wield weapons , which will have lower re-use times , means you hit more therefore will generate more hate and have more attempts at the ae taunt procing from hold the line.</P> <P> </P> <P>So in summary as many have said above as well ,shield and aggro have no correspondance , so its the wrong question - should be can tanks stay alive w/o using shield - i.e. take more damage.</P>

[Rhaam]

<blockquote><hr>Drulak wrote:<p>the other thing is that with hold the line , each hit = % chance for the ae taunt , so using dual wield weapons , which will have lower re-use times , means you hit more therefore will generate more hate and have more attempts at the ae taunt procing from hold the line.</p><hr></blockquote><div>I would actually disagree here. Procs actually scale with weapon delay (ie a proc on a 4 delay two hander will go off the same amount as a proc on a 2 delay one hander over time). Although I haven't tested hold the line specifically this holds true for the other proc buffs in game.</div><div> </div><div>Anyways since procs scale you will get more procs with a slow 2hander than anything else (combat arts count as 1 swing of whatever weapon your using). Also you will "lose" less swings during CA's with slower weapons.</div><div> </div><div>If maximizing procs is what you're shooting for nothing beats a slow 2hander.</div>

[Drulak]

<P>i haven't got any stats on this , but it does seem to generate hate much more when i dual weild as opposed to 1hs+shield or 2hs.  I may be wrong , but maybe this does not work as Procs do. With my dual wield , they seem to go red / get the taunt fire noise often and i never loose aggro.  Without my dual wield weapon i don't seem to hold aggro as well (AE aggro)</P> <P> </P> <P>but no way i can know for sure without actually testing this <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <p>Message Edited by Drulak on <span class=date_text>06-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:57 AM</span>

[Deluw]

You could even say that shields reduce aggro, when you get hit less (with a shield) you will have less reactive heals on you and reactive heals generate aggro as if you would have healed yourself.