Is the (Holy) Paladin the better Warrior?

[savaughn]

As a rogue, I have to say that I am much happier with a warrior as the main tank than a paladin.  With a warrior, I can usually do a lot more damage without grabbing agro, but with a pally I have to slow down quite a bit.  And if I do grab agro, a feint will probably throw it onto the priest/mage instead of back onto the tank, so I can't even do that.

I end up with pallys in a lot of instances because its hard to find warriors.  But I hit 60 last night, so we'll see if things are different in the instances after BRD.
[right][snapback]76064[/snapback][/right]

Agreed. The OP was about solo-play, but a Paladin is not a warrior for group play. As an assist, I expect to be able to only ramp damage on whatever the paladin is currently hitting. As a priest, the first big heal is going be immediately followed by a fade. I've never played druid behind a paladin in an instance, but based on my priest's experiences, I have a feeling that a pull of 5 mobs would end up with me tanking two in fairly short order.

It may just be that there's a lot of bad Pally tanks out there, though.