Sentry Watch and the Backup tank concept

[MrDiz]

Wild idea time: Please not I have put zero thought into this post and it may have flaws beyond all belief. Enter at your own risk.Been tryin to come up with a way to have 2 tanks in a group... especially for the guardian as if he isnt tanking he is just holding his proverbials. And the diea he can 'backup' tank on adds or if the MT dies is flawed because usually his hate isnt even close to high enough to take the mob if the Mt dies, and he has none of the buffs on / reactives.So how about changing Sentry Watch? You cast it on the MT and its an "until cancelled" spell. If the tank dies his entire hate is passed onto the guardian, plus any buffs the group had on him pass to the guard. Basically he 'steps in' for the fallen tank.Too wild?

[Danter]

<P>I like the idea a lot, but I'd lose the buff transfer part and make it raid-wide to give Guards some actual use on raids besides intercept bots when they're not MTing.</P> <P>So the Guard in group 3 can cast in on the MT and take aggro when he goes down to buy time for him to get back up and buff up.  Obviously, only one Guardian would be able to cast it on a tank at a time like Vigilance.</P>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Danterus wrote:<P>I like the idea a lot, but I'd lose the buff transfer part and make it raid-wide to give Guards some actual use on raids besides intercept bots when they're not MTing.</P> <P>So the Guard in group 3 can cast in on the MT and take aggro when he goes down to buy time for him to get back up and buff up.  Obviously, only one Guardian would be able to cast it on a tank at a time like Vigilance.</P><hr></blockquote>But not a totally insane idea then? A sort of death activated rescue?

[mastersard]

<P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=29515" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=29515</A></P> <P> </P> <P>see the "Fighter Training (level 10)" portion. </P>

[StGeorg]

<P>That is a fantastic idea and a good reason to be included in a group that already has a MT. That and a little more DPS would make us valueable in a non-MT scenario imo.</P> <P>Antedeluvian - 55 Guard / 60 Armorer  - Unrest</P>

[Subtlekni]

<div></div><p>An interesting idea. The buff changes probably wouldn't work out, but interesting all the same.But it hits on something that has always been a pet peeve of mine, passive versus active abilities.<span>  </span></p><p> I want things that I can choose to do to make a difference in a fight, not things that involve no choice.<span>  </span>Tower of stone, despite it’s flaws, was I honestly thing a step in the right direction.<span>  </span>Let’s put it this way an enchanter gets a buff that produces constant power regen. This is useful, and makes an enchanter desired in a group, but it doesn’t make the enchanter more fun to play.<span>  </span>Power regen, for an enchanter, is just a house keeping function.<span>  </span>There is no real thought required, other than to remember to turn it on.</p><p>I haven’t done much work playing a bard POST LU13, but for a bard, there was a ton of song selections that you would make based on the group you were in, and you might even realize you needed to swap out songs mid fight.<span>  </span>This made you think, and made your actions during a fight have a real impact on the fight.</p><p> Choosing to throw up or not throw up tower of stone. When to use it, when to save it? That is a great option for guardians, despite the flaws of the spells.<span>  </span></p><p>If you want to keep someone engaged in a game, give them a purpose, and let them feel like they are making a difference.<span>  </span>Require active participation for success.<span>  </span>Hitting taunt every time it is lit up…. it’s engaging on the whack a mole level, but not as much higher brain functions are required.</p><p> A constant buff that would swap agro from the main tank to the person with sentry watch up… again a great idea, would increase our utility, but putting that buff up would be again more of a house keeping function.</p><p> Anyway, just my 2 copper.</p>

[Wli]

<P>Not an wild idead. It's interesting.</P> <P>But, I see two things that can speak against it.</P> <P>This way the devs would have to re-think the encounter balance, because the "group tank" has, actually, say, 16K HP (two guards, at 8KHP). As an example. So, what to do, balance-wise, for an encounter that can be faced with a "tank" with double the HP, if that encounter is designed for a group with a tank that has 8K HP ?</P> <P>Hope you got my point there.</P> <P> </P> <P>Other concerner is that, summing what the above poster puts, as a "passive" CA, usually, when the tank dies, it's because all S*** already broke lose, and the tank don't have aggro control anymore. So, he dies, and the hate he has goes to the other gaurdian, but, that don't put him on the TOP aggro.</P> <P> </P> <P>Well, I just had that fly in my mind. I am very wrong ?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Burningho]

<P>I think it is a great idea.  This would be a great "protect the group" type ability.  The details would have to be worked out so that it does not trivialize raid content, but it would be a great utility to have.</P>

[Colossaltitan]

Problem with two tanks and one group is.<BR>Lack the single target "One ally only, no conc" buffs for the backup.<BR>&<BR>Backup eats primarys reactives.