View Full Version : Pally vs Guardian; points to ponder...

11-17-2004, 07:57 PM
<DIV> <DIV>Hello, all,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm posting this in both the Guardian and Pally forums since I don't know if those who play each one read the boards of the other <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I want to roll a Fighter alt and I'm on the fence between a Paladin or a Guardian.  I like both the idea of the fun, cool looking, utilitarion spells of the Paladin... but I also like the idea of a big honkin' "no frills needed to survive" pure unadulterated MEAT SHIELD that is the Guardian <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm leaning slightly towards Paladin... but truly the role I want is to be the MT rather than the assist tank.  Pallies with their ability to offer up some of their AC to another makes them an ideal assist tank even if they CAN be the MT.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've read here quite often that Guardians are better because:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A) Guardains have more HP<BR>B) Guardains have more aggro/taunt abilities<BR>C) Guardains can use Tower Shields <--- meaning more AC, taking less dmg, thus needing less healing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've also read quite often while in BETA that any of the Fighters tank pretty much equally until lv 30'ish... post 30 the Guardian is hands down the best MT... not that the others can't do the job or get turned down for groups... just that the BEST of them is the Guardian in the 30+ game for the reasons listed above.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, I have to wonder and pose the following arguements to each of the points above.... and would like your input as to whether or not you think I've got a point.  I know no one is in the 30+ game yet... but there have GOT to be SOME BETA players here who DID play in the 30+ game <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0></DIV> <DIV><BR>A) Guardains have more HP</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well Paladins have Wards and Heals that can be cast prior to or during combat, not to mention an HP buff... don't these make </DIV> <DIV>up for, and possibly surpass, the greater HP of the Guardain?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>B) Guardains have more aggro/taunt abilities</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Certainly when Priests cast heals and wards they generate aggro... so wouldn't a Pally be better taunting/gaining aggro if he </DIV> <DIV>can cast his heals and wards to generate aggro?  I'm guessing that Pally heals and wards generate aggro the same as a </DIV> <DIV>Priest's do.  Plus if a mob DOES turn on a caster/healer or whomever... isn't the fact that the Pally can "kill two birds with one stone" better?  Meaning he can heal/ward and taunt at the same time... healing/warding the poor squishy groupmate while at the same time generating aggro with the mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>C) Guardains can use Tower Shields <--- meaning more AC, taking less dmg, thus needing less healing</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While it certainly cuts into their own power pool... a Pally can heal himself and Ward himself to mitigate some of the damage </DIV> <DIV>in the first place... so wouldn't this help save on the Priest's power pool.  At the end of the fight, assuming a Pally could do some of his own healing and wards... wouldn't the Priest have the same left over power whether healing a Guardian or Pally?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway... I pose these counter arguements to myself and gain nothing but confusion on what I want to play because I can't come up with a clear "winner" and I think they BOTH sound fun to play, LOL.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any help is appreciated... again... I want to be the best Main Tank I can be and be the best at keeping my groupmates alive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take care,</DIV> <DIV><BR>Alakar, Rogue of Qeynos<BR>Proud Member of <BR>Uncommon Valor<BR>Permacrash Server</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV>

11-17-2004, 08:46 PM
Very detailed analysis and that could be a problem. In the end what role do you see your self..what do you want to play. In the end it’s an RPG and it’s critical to have fun.Good luck

11-18-2004, 09:34 PM
To the second poster: Some of us have a blast analyzing the heck out of our classes. It's possible to be a number cruncher or min/maxer, and have more fun with a game than if you just "play it for fun", especially for those of us that the average population would call geeks and nerds. I for one think half the fun of playing a new game is analyzing all of it's intricate new gameplay, and a game as complex as EQ2 just makes me drool <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />To the OP:There's really 3 different situations to analyze here:Solo -- the game is hardly designed for soloing, grouping is a lot more fun, blah, blah, blah.. but sometimes you gotta. And with heals, wards, stuns, etc. You can probably do a good bit better solo than a guardian can.6 man group -- personally, I think this is where the paladin really shines. Unless you play with the same 5 other people all the time, you never know when you're going to be short a healer, low on DPS, etc. As a paladin, you can switch out of the defensive stance and equip a 2 hander and be good DPS, or you can settle into full main tank role and do an excellent job of soaking up damage. You can even function as a healer when you need to. A paladin is nowhere near as good as a guardian + priest, but we shouldn't be. In a well balanced group, I'd say guardians and paladins are a toss-up. A guardian will generally keep aggro from anything, but a paladin might lose aggro occasionally. However, when the pally does lose aggro, he'll be healing and warding the group member that got aggro to get it back, so I think it's pretty much a wash. I wonder if the Beta testers that think Pally aggro sucks 30+ did things like wait for combat to start to do group buffs... as I understand it, group buffs create a pretty nice amount of aggro. Near the end of beta, taunt was buffed... and I don't think beta testers had enough time to tell if they kept aggro any better, so it may be a moot point. Either way, I'd rather have a pally that can adjust his playstyle on the go in an XP group instead of a guardian that may just be "too much tank". Some of the pally's attacks include a group heal, allowing the mages to essence shift more often and do more damage in the long run, without the healer having to worry about them much.24 man raid group -- If there is a guardian on your raid, you will ALWAYS play assist tank. The reason why is fairly obvious: while the guardian might have a chance to block for you or take a hit for you, you can heal him, ward him, give him some of your AC, and transfer some hate from the group to yourself (part of that is lowering everybody's hate, which puts the guardian at a relatively higher hate level, just above you). Without a guardian, I estimate you'll be just as good as the guardian would have been without a paladin to back him up, though you might have to use more power to accomplish it. However, add a wizard or 2 to the MT group, and power shouldn't be a problem (wizard uses essence shift for his own power, pallys and healers group heals fill the wizard back up, wizard has 3 different ways to refill power). So, I think without a guardian, a pally is just as good (especially with his own backup pally), but pally+guardian MT is the "best" combo.So, if you want to ensure your position as MT on raids, play a guardian. A good raid leader would realize that it's not perfectly cut'n'dried whether the pally or guardian would make the better MT, but many will look at the list of people signed up for the raid, see a guardian, and instantly assign them the MT role without thinking about the other tanks. If you want to be the "better" MT in exp groups (IMO of course), play a pally. Either way you go, as long as you keep your equipment up to date, you'll make an excellent main tank.All in all, I think it boils down to one thing: power. Do you want to be a specialized tank that spends an average amount of power to be the best hate-per-power tank, or do you want to spend a little bit more power to achieve the same results, but be able to switch gears and spend power to fill other roles as well. I see the guardian as the class that can spam the same 5 or 6 buttons in combat, and be a really good tank... even too good of a tank, while I see the paladin as a class that takes more interaction and concentration (including when to save power by NOT pressing a button <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ), but is much more versatile in the process. Paladins have a longer learning curve, but offer more to a group in the long run, while spending more power to do it.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now to address your points:A) Guardians have more HP -- This is crazy. Guardians can never heal themselves, so as soon as a Paladin casts his Nth self heal, the pally has more HP. I don't know what the number N is... it depends on how big a heal is compared to how big the difference in HP is, but may be as small as 1. Either way, I'd say that a paladin has more "sustainable HP". If the fight lasts long enough, the paladin may very well end up having virtually twice as many HP as the guardian. The guardian also gets a hit point buff, but his comes with a a defense buff as well.B) Guardians have more aggro/taunt abilities -- this is debateable. Anecdotally, the word "hate" appears 11 times on the guardian skill list, and 12 times on the pally skill list on ogaming.com. I'll need to group the abilities into lines to see how many hate gaining skills each will have at any given time. But from a quick glance, it looks like the guardian is speciallized at gaining more hate, while the pally is speciallized at gaining slightly less hate, but can do so unresistably. If there are boss mobs out there that are highly resistant to taunt, you'll want a pally to tank him. The guardian doesn't have a skill that transfers hate from the group to the guardian that I can see, but the pally does. That said, I think a pally that heals and wards himself as often as possible is going to be dern close to a guardian in hate generation. And it doesn't matter whether your hate is 150% of the next highest person's hate or 110%, as long as it's higher. The guardian gains aggro with high damage attacks, while the pally gains aggro with heals. But since we don't know exactly how much a heal aggro's a mob compared to an attack, it's gonna be difficult to analyze that part.C) Guardians have more AC due to tower shields and defense buffs -- This is going to be easy to analyze, but it's going to take some testing by high level players. Just how big is the difference between a normal kite shield and tower shield? How much AC do the guardian buffs add? All those things represent a reduction in incoming damage over time. However, so do pally heals and wards. I somehow doubt that warriors can get enough extra AC to offset our 5 second heals and 15 second wards. Hmmmm, last 15 second ward is at 26, then we get devout, a 5 minute ward at 40... that's gonna take some looking into as to whether they stack, and how much each ward blocks from each hit, as well as how much they block before they drop.I think heals (should) make up for all HP, AC, and aggro deficiencies, but we just won't know until we get some people up to a decent level to have the skills and test them thoroughly. I also believe that the dev team is going to work diligently to fix any percieved insufficiencies of the paladin. So pick the class you want to play on concept.And don't forget, paladins get to summon a horse and a squire <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />