What the Paladin is supposed to be!!!!

[Alir]

<DIV>Ok a warning ............ this post is going to be lengthy and probably flame some people, but that is not what it is intended to do.  I am here to tell the Paladin community, as well as others about what a Paladin is to me and why I think we are not where we need to be.  I have been a guild leader, main tank in raids, had a subscription since May of 2005 and I do know what a Paladin is capable of in its current state. That being said, enjoy!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everything I will state here can be backed up by the Prima Official Game Guide for Everquest 2.  This is the entire basis of why I became a Paladin in the first place because I did not play EQ1 or any other computer game for that matter.  There will be page numbers in post for reference so any one who wishes to challenge my views only has to go look up what I say to see that I am not wrong with this post. I am sure many other people read this book and chose their class based off of the descriptions listed.  OK here we go!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusader(p. 206)-  "If you enjoy being the one to stand your ground while the enemy beats on you, then a Crusader is the path for you. "  p.207  "With a wide range of abilities to protect party members and pull agro to themselves, Crusaders make the ultimate Tank in a group" </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Paladin(p. 20<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  <STRONG>" The Paladins' true calling in EQII isn't that ofa front line fighter, skirmisher or damage dealer. Instead a Paladin is a tank, able to absorb damage that would make WARRIORS of similar ability faint."</STRONG>    p.208  ""Taunt doesnt work nearly as well as you'd like, especially when grouped with an overactive Priest or Mage."   p208 <STRONG>"Being out damaged by a Rogue (under level 20 back then) is enough to make a grown man cry and happens a lot."</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shadowknight(p 210)  <STRONG>"Up until this point you have been the most DEFENSIVE of fighters: a Crusader</STRONG>.  While you are still defensive a SK takes a slight shift giving you a lot more damage power and several debuffs , DOT"s, and lifetaps.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bruiser(p. 202)  <STRONG>"To "OFF TANK".  This means you can provide the same buffs that a tank could provide, to the entire group; thank goodness you are not just a DPS machine!"</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monk (p. 204)  "You dont get hit very often!  <STRONG>Monks get more offensive skills than most other fighter types and while a Bruiser outdoes them in damage, they outdo a Bruiser in defense"</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warrior (p. 212)  "While Crusaders and Brawlers can both use taunts, the Warrior gets several new taunts that make him the master of keeping enemies focused on him and not other party members.  The Warrior is a self-sufficient tank capable of going toe to toe with very tough foes, and this makes a Warrior a great class to play if you enjoy soloing.  My favorite quote right here!!! <STRONG> "The Warrior iis in many ways a balance between Crusader and Brawler, so if you arent sure which way to go from fighter, Warrior is a good default choice.  While the Warrior wont deal out as much damage as the Brawler, he will give more than the Crusader.  And while his defensive abilities are limited next to the divine might of the Crusader, they are superior to the Brawler.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Guardian (p 216) " Believe it or not, Guardian, is a sub-class that requires a lot of thought to play well"  "The Guardian is a walking tank, encased in layers of metal and impervious to attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Berserker (p.214)  "Berserkers deal great ,melee damage while still playing the tank role." " Playing a zerker is the best of both worlds: heavy melee damage and the ability to take hits." <STRONG> "The berserker is not the best at soloing, while a good damage dealer and a good tank, the Berserker is the best of neither world."</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So these are the basic highlights from the Prima game guide that made me pick a Paladin.  Basically a Paladin is supposed to be the MOST DEFENSIVE fighter of all fighters.  We are supposed to be the sorriest damage dealers in the game period.  Our taunts dont work as well as anyone else's.  But damnit we should be [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] near impossible to kill with our mitigation, heals and wards.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Unfortunately  this isnt quite where we are supposed to be.  Certainly i am an exceptional group tank and can raid tank as well, but it seems to me like Warriors have somehow slipped into what was supposed to be the Paladins role as the most defensive fighter in the game, and this really irks me.  We are not healers, we do not do damage, and we shouldnt be doing either of those.  We are supposed to be the most defensive Tank in the game, but we are not.  I wonder if the Devs who make decisions made Guardians or something, because they have gradually taken over the role that is supposed to be ours.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I lov3e my Pally, but he needs to be what I was lead to believe he is!!  Basically a Holy Knight sent to protect all around him like King Arthur, Sir Galahad, Richard the Lionheart, and Charlemeange!  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks for reading!</DIV>

[TrekkerSnake]

Like you, i have been playing a Paladin sense the beginning and was lead to believe the same things as you. I have tanked in every zone in the game and you are right, we aren't what we were lead to believe. It would be interesting to here a dev's view on this.

[Anzak]

<div><blockquote><hr>CooperThurber wrote:<div>Guardian (p 216) " Believe it or not, Guardian, is a sub-class that requires a lot of thought to play well"  "The Guardian is a walking tank, encased in layers of metal and impervious to attack.</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>Three things.1) That line right there somes in up. 2) It seems that this was written with groups in mind which when you think of groups Paladins are pretty much the best group tank because of our flexability.3) When was this written?  The game has taken some drastic changes with LU13 and LU26 being two of the biggest.  So what was written before these or even before there was a strong level 50 population and raid scene may no longer apply to the game.While I do think Gaurdians should be the best default raid tank.  I do not think they need more base mitigation than us.  Rather because of their better defense abilities I think we need higher base mitigation than them to keep us close to even with them.  I also think that there needs to be situational raid tanking so that while any tank class can be used there is an ideal class for some mobs so far because of the huge about of melee damage every raid mob does there is not a single one where a guard is not the best option.</div>

[Bladewind]

<P>Those prima guides are written during the beta of the game.  In addition, they are written by people who play the beta and hazard their own strats and techniques out, not designers/devs or even employees of the game company.  They are a waste to buy for mmorpgs because they are usually outdated before they even hit store shelves.</P> <P>The initial design was for all fighters to be able to tank roughly equally, but to do it in different fashions.  This has held pretty much true for non raid content through all of the drastic changes over the past two years.  There are drastic inequities that I would like to see addressed when it comes to raid tanking, but that is a different matter.</P>

[Alir]

<P>Actually on the first page of the Prima Game guide it has all of the contributors from SOE listed who helped the IMGS Player Panel write this book and it has the official SOE trademark, so that means SOny endorses it and it should be used along side the EQ2 game as a basic guide.  That being said a Warrior is a tank I agree, but a Warrior is not to be the most defensive Tank in the game.  That should be a Paladin and that is y I have a problem with people on the boards saying we should do dps or we should heal better or whatever........  </P> <P>WE ARE A TANK!  LOL...........  and I was led to believe we are supposed to be the most defensive of all tanks and as it stands now we are not and that annoys the ever-loving sh**i out of me!!!</P>

[Tharangus]

<P>I have to admit, I stopped reading your post once I saw that you were quoting from the official guide.  Oh boy... where to begin. :smileysad:</P> <P>Reminds me of some of the wonderful gems of knowledge that were in the FFXI official guide.  Horridly out-dated and most of which not written by people who actually played the game.  They would actually suggest things in that guide that were known to be flat out wrong in the current game state.  Don't get me wrong, the official guides make a good reference for looking things up that you don't want to have to pop onto a web site to find... but... the game has changed a lot since then.</P>

[therodge]

<DIV>ok first and foremost mmorpgs change rapidly let me show you something</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is the orignal dps tree anyone who was their pre game realese knows this is </DIV> <DIV>mage>fighter>scout >preist</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>yes fighters were supposed to do the most melee dps at one time scouts were their for their pure ustitlity and they were supposed to be keys for changeing the ho wheel around (whitch was origonally supposed to be a MAJOR part of the game)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now it looks like this scout=mage>fighter> preist</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>second eq website comes first prima games although worked in part wioth soe was not their with the development team watching game progress sponcered in part by soe but is an independant company, on the sony website it still has its outlines for classes, and check the archives for some of the more acient threads on what the game was supposed to start like</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Alir]

<DIV>Apparently you didnt read what I wrote.  If you did you would know that I have been here from almost the begining.  I understand that this game changes and evolves.  I understand all of it I really do.  What I dont understand is why the roles of classes change.  Obviously, there are som people who view "Official" game guides as a very good reference or starting point for a game like this.  I didnt ask for your opinions of what you think about game guides.  I want to know why what was stated in the beginning by Sony and by Prima (with SOE's blessing) has not held true and as far as I can tell never really was.  I am a raiding Paladin who is almost completely relic'd (took a couple month hiatus) so I do know this game and my class very well. I was the leader of a 200+ member guild and was the mt through T6.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wasnt really looking for anything other than  the fact that  I felt I needed to get this idea of a Paladin off my chest because I feel decieved and it annoys me.....  If this idea of a Paladin wasnt in your head, then feel free not to post.  </DIV>

[Rocksthemic]

<blockquote><hr>CooperThurber wrote: <div><strong></strong> </div> <div>Guardian (p 216) " Believe it or not, Guardian, is a sub-class that requires a lot of thought to play well"  "The Guardian is a walking tank, encased in layers of metal and impervious to attack.</div> <div> </div> </blockquote> I'm not saying the paladin shouldn't be a defensive tank. But in our way, we are. We can take care of ourselves and to an extent our allies. In raid situations, we lack and I'll be one of the first to admit that. But I played eq1, and when I read that line that I quoted above, I <b>knew </b>that guardians would be the tank of choice on upper end raid content. The keyword tank was even in there. Everyone knew by that time that "tanks" in mmo games were the ones that were primarily called on to MT raid content. And, I played this game since 2 weeks after release, and I remember as a crusader  in the early days we couldn't even wear vanguard armor (there was a fabled leg set that dropped in vermin's snye, forget the name atm) Warriors could wear that same vanguard armor before lvl 20. I never had any illusions about me being the first or prefferable choice for raid tank. Sure, if I got enough gear I *could* tank, but I knew I would not be the first choice by any means. Thundaarr Unrest <Nightcap><div></div>

[therodge]

i am sorry that came off more of a flame than it was suppose to be just saying that in prima's guides they dont chat with dev team they play the game as far as fast aws they can get the rights to a guide and write a quick write up of the what they experianced with games  on consoles they are strait and unchangign through out the experiace (maybe getting harder) in mmorpgs they may only play a few classes 1-50 (whitch is when it came out) and get the rest from player info also from 1-30 paladins were good from 30-40 (atleast in my opinion) we seemed almost godly (remember oath strike at the beggining ) and 40 -50 we evened out we lost memntum in the 50s for raids and even more in 60s so primqa is right ubtil about 50

[Alir]

<P>This is the main line that made me pick a Paladin!  Paladin(p. 20<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  <STRONG>" The Paladins' true calling in EQII isn't that of  front line fighter, skirmisher or damage dealer. Instead a Paladin is a tank, able to absorb damage that would make WARRIORS of similar ability faint."</STRONG>    </P> <P>Regardless of anything else, this is how I view what a Paladin should be!  By the way I lkove my Paladin and he is a bad assssssss, just needs to be thought of in a diff way!!</P>

[So]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CooperThurber wrote:<BR> <P>This is the main line that made me pick a Paladin!  Paladin(p. 20<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  <STRONG>" The Paladins' true calling in EQII isn't that of  front line fighter, skirmisher or damage dealer. Instead a Paladin is a tank, able to absorb damage that would make WARRIORS of similar ability faint."</STRONG>   </P> <P>Regardless of anything else, this is how I view what a Paladin should be!  By the way I lkove my Paladin and he is a bad assssssss, just needs to be thought of in a diff way!!</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, since we are talking opinions, I'll provide my own <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Paladin/crusader vs. guardian/warrior is the same old pure vs. hybrid class debate. By the virtue of their hybridness, all hybrid classes must be weaker at any single thing that pure classes are (or they would make pure class obsolete, because why play pure if you can be best "blah" and be able to do other roles too).</P> <P>This, however, leads to a serious problem -- in small group settings hybrids nature is very valuable -- they can fill holes and they can save the group/what not. However when there's enough bodies to throw at the problem (raid) -- there's natural tendency to gravitate toward one-dimensional roles for each person -- because there's enough people for this to be a viable strategy and because it is way easier to manage (and lowers demands on each individual significantly, so that you can use "average" players instead of "highly skillful" players). In that situation there's no particular place for hybrids -- because they are expected to do one task only and pure class can do that task better. This is exaggerating a bit, but I hope you get the picture.</P> <P>One way to make hybrids less of "second class citizen" in such setting is to make them "as powerful" as the pure class but have less/zero utility of the said pure class. However what utility is there for MT? MT's only purpose in raid is to hold aggro and mitigate as much damage as possible -- both of which are "core" things of the warrior subclass (guardian/berserker) -- thus I don't expect any hybrid class to ever surpass them in that MT role.</P> <P>A potential "solution" would be a situational tanking. For example, if resists weren't so easily capped, then paladins could have been an ideal choice for tanking divine & mental damage. But the game is apparently so easily overcapped on everything (not speaking from experience, just from reading forums) that this kind of situational tanking would be difficult to implement.</P> <P> </P> <P>All in all, I wouldn't expect paladins to ever mitigate incoming [melee] damage better than the designated game "pure tank" -- guardian. Ironically enough, regardless of this fact paladins can still be deemed the most defensive tank of them all -- because defensive doesn't specifically equal "most mitigation". Once "pure tank" is out of tanking role, they can't really contribute much to the "defense", while paladins can contribute quite a lot -- heals.</P> <P><BR>P.S. Everything above is not intended as saying that there are no existing balance issues. There may very well be. Nor the above looks at the comparative damage output of all fighter classes. All of the above is merely a statement to the effect that I don't believe that any hybrid class will ever outshine the pure class at the core ability -- especially if there's no utility loss to compensate with.</P>

[Darlion]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Solf wrote:<BR> <P>MT's only purpose in raid is to hold aggro and mitigate as much damage as possible -- both of which are "core" things of the warrior subclass (guardian/berserker) -- thus I don't expect any hybrid class to ever surpass them in that MT role.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well... there is the group buffs. For example, Guardians get things like stone sphere, and many intercepts. That is their utility. Paladins don't get much at all in these regards.</P> <P>EDIT: Thought of a way to say it clearer. A guardian is supposed to<STRONG> guard </STRONG>a person. That is the entire idea of the class, to make sure that no one is getting hit but themselves, or to prevent someone getting hit in favor of themselves. This does not necissarily mean that they should be hands down the best one to take that damage.</P><p>Message Edited by Darlion on <span class=date_text>09-09-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:50 AM</span>

[Tazr]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Solf wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CooperThurber wrote:<BR> <P>This is the main line that made me pick a Paladin!  Paladin(p. 20<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  <STRONG>" The Paladins' true calling in EQII isn't that of  front line fighter, skirmisher or damage dealer. Instead a Paladin is a tank, able to absorb damage that would make WARRIORS of similar ability faint."</STRONG>   </P> <P>Regardless of anything else, this is how I view what a Paladin should be!  By the way I lkove my Paladin and he is a bad assssssss, just needs to be thought of in a diff way!!</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, since we are talking opinions, I'll provide my own <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Paladin/crusader vs. guardian/warrior is the same old pure vs. hybrid class debate. By the virtue of their hybridness, all hybrid classes must be weaker at any single thing that pure classes are (or they would make pure class obsolete, because why play pure if you can be best "blah" and be able to do other roles too).</P> <P><STRONG>This, however, leads to a serious problem -- in small group settings hybrids nature is very valuable -- they can fill holes and they can save the group/what not. However when there's enough bodies to throw at the problem (raid) -- there's natural tendency to gravitate toward one-dimensional roles for each person -- because there's enough people for this to be a viable strategy and because it is way easier to manage (and lowers demands on each individual significantly, so that you can use "average" players instead of "highly skillful" players). In that situation there's no particular place for hybrids -- because they are expected to do one task only and pure class can do that task better. This is exaggerating a bit, but I hope you get the picture.</STRONG></P> <P>One way to make hybrids less of "second class citizen" in such setting is to make them "as powerful" as the pure class but have less/zero utility of the said pure class. However what utility is there for MT? MT's only purpose in raid is to hold aggro and mitigate as much damage as possible -- both of which are "core" things of the warrior subclass (guardian/berserker) -- thus I don't expect any hybrid class to ever surpass them in that MT role.</P> <P>A potential "solution" would be a situational tanking. For example, if resists weren't so easily capped, then paladins could have been an ideal choice for tanking divine & mental damage. But the game is apparently so easily overcapped on everything (not speaking from experience, just from reading forums) that this kind of situational tanking would be difficult to implement.</P> <P> </P> <P>All in all, I wouldn't expect paladins to ever mitigate incoming [melee] damage better than the designated game "pure tank" -- guardian. Ironically enough, regardless of this fact paladins can still be deemed the most defensive tank of them all -- because defensive doesn't specifically equal "most mitigation". Once "pure tank" is out of tanking role, they can't really contribute much to the "defense", while paladins can contribute quite a lot -- heals.</P> <P><BR>P.S. Everything above is not intended as saying that there are no existing balance issues. There may very well be. Nor the above looks at the comparative damage output of all fighter classes. All of the above is merely a statement to the effect that I don't believe that any hybrid class will ever outshine the pure class at the core ability -- especially if there's no utility loss to compensate with.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>About the portion in bold, although well written, if your raid leader gravitates towards a 1 dimensional role there is something wrong.  THey are working with 24 people, thats not exactly a difficult task.  Granted I'm a paladin and a raid leader, but I use knights in a lot of different ways.  Yeah they boost mit, but i throw them in groups that need more healing for the group heals, I use a specific knight as main assist when fear is in play etc etc and I do that with all the classes.  I talk to the class sections and have meetings with them to make sure I get the most benefit out of them.  I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on this paragraph and disagree with just about everything that is mentioned on these forums about paladins. The class is what you want it to be, you can be just about anything, just pick one and go with it and have fun with it.</P> <P>BTW the cap on resists is pretty [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] high from raid experience, I never busted it yet hehe.   </P> <P>I think the Paladin class is everything I wanted and more, I love it more each day.</P>

[Male]

<DIV> <P>Paladin/crusader vs. guardian/warrior is the same old pure vs. hybrid class debate. By the virtue of their hybridness, all hybrid classes must be weaker at any single thing that pure classes are (or they would make pure class obsolete, because why play pure if you can be best "blah" and be able to do other roles too).</P> <P> </P> <P>In my opinion, this old school EQlive way of thinking needs to be abolished here in EQ2. There are no hybrids in EQ2. Yes in EQlive, there were hybrids:</P> <P>Paladin = Warrior/Cleric</P> <P>Shadowknight = Warrior/Necromancer</P> <P>Ranger = Druid/Warrior        . . . .etc</P> <P>But it was clearly stated that there were no more hybrids. Paladins, rangers and SK's were now classes of their own. And that all fighters should be able to tank the same, just differently.</P> <P>No offense Solf. It's not you, it's the way some of us have been trained into thinking of the older class roles of EQlive. It has been said many times before Crusaders need some love when it comes to raiding, where the raid force can use any fighter class to fill the MT role, and not automatically cater towards the Warrior classes. :smileyhappy:</P> <P> </P> <P>Sir Jhalen Wright</P> <P>67 Paladin - Unrest</P></DIV>

[So]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Maleck wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>But it was clearly stated that there were no more hybrids. Paladins, rangers and SK's were now classes of their own. And that all fighters should be able to tank the same, just differently.</P> <P>No offense Solf. It's not you, it's the way some of us have been trained into thinking of the older class roles of EQlive. It has been said many times before Crusaders need some love when it comes to raiding, where the raid force can use any fighter class to fill the MT role, and not automatically cater towards the Warrior classes. :smileyhappy:</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No offense, but I've never played EQ1/EQLive.</P> <P>Whatever "they" say, three major roles can be easily identified. DPS/Tanking/Healing (then there's Control and maybe something else, but nvm). Unless every class is able to DPS, Tank, and Heal, you can reasonably talk about Hybrids -- those classes that can do more of those things than other classes. Paladins can Tank, Heal, and even DPS to some extent. Can you name many classes that have the same flexibility? I think not. Hence paladins are hybrids (in my definition of that word).</P> <P>For practical purposes of my previous post, my point about hybrids (in my definition) vs. pure classes still stands. <BR></P>

[Alinon]

From what I have seen I agree that people are still stuck on EQ1 Definitions of classes. This is a different game all together. Hybrids don't exist. I think what we are seeing is an imbalance where warriors got the best defensive abilities without any thought to changing their DPS. If the intent was to make them fill the "Main tank" role then their DPS should have been lowered and ours raised to bring us in line with the original ideal balancing act they were shooting for. Now I don't necessarily agree that that is the way is should be, but if they wanted to swap our role to a secondary tank and warriors to main, then they should have adjusted the abilities across the board to reflect the shift in focus of the respective role for those classes. It seems this has not been done.<p>Message Edited by Alinon79 on <span class=date_text>09-13-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:33 AM</span>

[Alir]

<DIV> Paladins can Tank, Heal, and even<STRONG> DPS to some extent.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry, but that about made me spit out my beer!!  I am sure there are a few who can do some 600+ dps in a raid setting, but those of us who wanted to create tanks(Paladin=Tank) are still being outdone damage wise by level 20 rangers!!!!  Its sad but true........   Want my username and password?</DIV>

[Shaidown]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CooperThurber wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wasnt really looking for anything other than  the fact that  I felt I needed to get this idea of a Paladin off my chest because I feel decieved and it annoys me.....  If this idea of a Paladin wasnt in your head, then feel free not to post.  </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Waa,</P> <P> </P> <P>If you wanna know about SOE and Prima Guides and things changing....go read the Prima Guide for SWG, in particular the Smuggler section</P> <P>You cant act all deceived because the 'Prima' guide said something that isn't true.   Pallys are good tanks, and they are good RAID tanks.  Better than zerkers IMHO and guards are good as well too....but are viewed kinda equal with pallys in my circle of folks</P> <P> </P> <P>I think I understand why you started this post...but you gotta understand that you're just whining...and I get enough of that over on the wizard forum</P>

[Warrior4]

<P>OMG you have it sooo wrong.. i never planned on being that.. when i made a paladin i pictured a plate wearing healer/caster not some tank.. the fact i can tank is very very welcome.. dps is bad.. but so what i wear plate anything in plate is used to utter lack of damage (cept zerker maybe) </P> <P>paladins for me are the plate wearing healer/caster that have a lot of use in group/raid situations i can rez to full hp incombat which is nice.. become the talk of the town with LoH.. and i can protect my friends until a better tank comes along.. when i will take my place as the assistant <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>