The Real Issue - Aggro at a Distance

[Battleblade]

I recently posted on PoN stating that -

Somewhat glossed over is the fact that in order to MT as effectively as Knights in experiance groups Warriors do need a method to get aggro from a distance. This need happens when someone slows on incoming, a pet attacks the mob on incoming, the puller (at a distance) fails a FD, the mob ping pongs because of poor aggro control, etc.

To which Boleslav (Paladin) replied in part

In particular, I don't like the power of the ranged aggro ability.

I thanked him for his candor and he was I believe being very honest. (I don't intend him a disservice by quoting him.)

Please understand, Paladins LIKE the ranged aggro ability. Some just don't want Warriors to have it.

And here is the reason why - Our lack of it is the primary unbalanced advantage Knights have when MTing.

There is not one aggro ability Warriors have (including the ability to wield EB weapons) that is not shared by Knights except AE Taunt. AE Taunt != on demand aggro at a distance.

This to my mind is the main issue facing Warriors. Every other platewearing tank class has this ability. It is in fact unfair concidering their previous lack of AC and HP's no longer functions as a counterbalancing disadvantage in experiance groups.

BB

[Boleslav]

I just happened to drop by here for a change of pace and I see my name! I'm flattered!

The ranged taunt ability he discussed was along the lines of putting you at the top of the list +100 hate. I thought this was too powerful.

In a second post at PoN, Burlyblade mentions an improved taunt key that would work at a distance. My reply to that was that I would be leery of the ranged taunt. It is something new to the Warrior class (outside of AE Tuant), as opposed to something that improves what Warriors have done in the past.

I added that the range of the taunt shouldn't be sufficient to aggro a mob from across the room that wasn't even headed to camp, but should be able to taunt a mob that was close to camp, but out of weapons range.

Lastly, my belief has been that the biggest difference between Warrior and Knight tanking has been the ability to generate snap aggro. The mob is in camp and BOOM, I can grab it pretty reliably. Warriors suffer here, and I believe that help in this area is in order. Grabbing aggro from a distance is a different thing, and I'm not as quick to give that away.

Boleslav Forgehammer
Paladin of Brell in his 65th Campaign
E'ci – Sacred Destiny

[Aeka]

This is just another symptom of the general problem of skills (or the lack of them).

At the start of the fight when no one has agro, the target the monster will attack is up in the air. When something goes wrong in the group where for one reason or another someone had to draw agro, control must be reasserted immediately.

In either case SKs and Paladins are activiting skills to curb behavior. Warriors are passively hoping they get agro to control monsters.

This is the reason why I champion new skills for Warriors. There will be more cases than just initial agro when a Warrior needs to be more agressive against a monster. Wishing for procs and hoping Taunt works is a very passive way to go about agro control and shouldn't be relied upon in emergencies.

[Valeris]

paladin stuns operating in melee range only.. hmm :)

WTF is this thing about warriors not getting something new cause it's not building on an old precedent anyway?
Why shouldn't they?

[Draganetti]

For our pally friends: AE taunt is hardly ranged. In fact, you can be within melee range of several large mobs and be out of AE taunt range. I think disarm has similar range properties to AE taunt.

[Battleblade]

It was nice of Boleslav to drop by and respond to my post. He said -
The ranged taunt ability he [Battleblade] discussed was along the lines of putting you at the top of the list +100 hate. I thought this was too powerful.
Heck, I'd be willing to settle for a ranged taunt that didn't put you at the top of the hate list but just gave you +200 Hate. This would at least let Warriors mash the button with the knowledge that something useful was happening every time you pressed it.

Add to this making AE Taunt ranged like you later claim it is, give it a 3 minute refresh and I think we've got a solution!

He followed this with his real concern and some misinformation:
.... I would be leery of the ranged taunt. It is something new to the Warrior class (outside of AE Tuant), as opposed to something that improves what Warriors have done in the past.
Actually both the Swollen Fungus Beast Gland (10 charges) and Crystalline Silk Net (2 charges) are not new to the game and Warriors used both for quite awhile. However, the developers (who obviously play Paladins, ride around on white horses, and wave flaming swords overhead in their offhours) agreed with you and raised the repurchace price from vendors. This coupled with the irratation of having to camp them instead has severly lessened their popularity.

So there we have it - ranged aggro is not "something new to the Warrior class" it IS "something that improves what Warriors have done in the past".

pwn'd

The question really boils down to:

Should aggro on demand and at range by pressing button(s) be a Knight monopoly or is it an unfair advantage that adversly affects the desireabilty of Warriors in experiance groups?

I think we're pretty clear on how a Paladin would answer.

BB

[Graal the Dorf]

Add to this making AE Taunt ranged like you later claim it is, give it a 3 minute refresh and I think we've got a solution!

He never claimed AE taunt was ranged.

It is something new to the Warrior class (outside of AE Tuant), as opposed to something that improves what Warriors have done in the past.

Other than AE taunt, this would be the only new aggro type ability that warriors would get. That's how I read that statement. I don't see where he says AE taunt is ranged.

[Battleblade]

Upon reading the post again, it appears you are right.

He suggests he would be against designers giving warriors a new ability (although increasing aggro at a distance is not new for Warriors).

He cites AE Taunt as an exception as if by doing so somehow means it can't be used as evidence that the "new ability" argument hasn't already been rejected in fact.

If you strip away the misconceptions, distortions, and unrelated objections in most arguments against fixing Warrior Taunt (making it closer to the aggro capabilities Knights have or at least adequate to the task) what you have left is:

We (Knights) need this advantage so that we can be the prefered MT. We don't want to be /lfg.

It's sad really. The best groups I have been in (as both a Warrior and while playing my Paladin alt) have uniformly had a Warrior MTing while the Knight was free to fully use all of his abilities as needed.

I personally would much rather play my Paladin alt as an offtank. I'm willing to forgo the cheap thrill of MTing a mob in an experiance group (been there/done that) for the opprotunity to play a Paladin as a Paladin - not a wannabe Warrior.

Our abilities are meant to compliment each other, not to put us in direct competition.

BB