Wariors and paladins

[Lamentation]

I've been reading this and that here and other places and as a long time fan of the Paladin class I have to wonder... why are people saying it's so bad? (I'm not talking about the folks who want to nerf it.. I read someone here saying that it's pretty lame after about 35.)

So what's up with the paladin not being the tank class it should be?
Why does evreyone say the tank has to be the warrior?
What is it that makes a warrior such a good tank?

Keep in mind I've played paladin to 25 and warrior to about twelve, so what should I expect in the future?

[Sword_of_Doom]

Umm, no.

That is bad misinformation. For groups 55+, the composition usually is 2 paladins, 1 priest, mage and rogue. Very rarely do i pair with warrior's anymore. Paladin's are the ultimate utility class. You need a tank, Paladin at your service. How bout a healer, again Paladin at your service. How bout secondary healer, yep Paladin at your service. Off tank, again Paladin at your service. Many parties will not go into an instance without a Pally and sometimes Pallies are given preference. Granted we do have the best dps, warriors, mages, and rogues take the cake on that one, but, but, but as far as survivability goes, no class even compares to us. So who usually is the last man standing in an instance, the Pally. Who is rezzing everybody when the party wipes, the Pally. Pally's properly played are one of the best classes in the game.

[Caline]

I've been reading this and that here and other places and as a long time fan of the Paladin class I have to wonder... why are people saying it's so bad?  (I'm not talking about the folks who want to nerf it.. I read someone here saying that it's pretty lame after about 35.)

So what's up with the paladin not being the tank class it should be? 
Why does evreyone say the tank has to be the warrior?
What is it that makes a warrior such a good tank?

Keep in mind I've played paladin to 25 and warrior to about twelve, so what should I expect in the future?
[right][snapback]65318[/snapback][/right]

Well, the thing to remember is that most paladins (whining on the bnet forums, certainly!) are specced for damage. And in the long run, paladin DPS falls behind that of most damage-specced classes. If you built your paladin to be a tank or a support-cleric character, it probably doesn't matter.

I can't really speak for high level paladin tanks. That seems more like Tal's area. I will say that warriors make exceptional tanks due to a free 10% damage reduction from Defensive Stance, and a free, instant, low recast taunt that instantly gives the warrior aggro.

[Lamentation]

Well, the thing to remember is that most paladins (whining on the bnet forums, certainly!) are specced for damage. And in the long run, paladin DPS falls behind that of most damage-specced classes. If you built your paladin to be a tank or a support-cleric character, it probably doesn't matter.

I can't really speak for high level paladin tanks. That seems more like Tal's area. I will say that warriors make exceptional tanks due to a free 10% damage reduction from Defensive Stance,  and a free, instant, low recast taunt that instantly gives the warrior aggro.
[right][snapback]65320[/snapback][/right]

I don't expect to do damage as a paladin. THat would be silly! I do expect to be able to take crowds a little better then I do however... (My most recent bugaboo is the elite satyrs in the blackfathom deeps...)

[Artega]

Umm, no. 

That is bad misinformation.  For groups 55+, the composition usually is 2 paladins, 1 priest, mage and rogue.  Very rarely do i pair with warrior's anymore.  Paladin's are the ultimate utility class.  You need a tank, Paladin at your service.  How bout a healer, again Paladin at your service.  How bout secondary healer, yep Paladin at your service.  Off tank, again Paladin at your service.  Many parties will not go into an instance without a Pally and sometimes Pallies are given preference.  Granted we do have the best dps, warriors, mages, and rogues take the cake on that one, but, but, but as far as survivability goes, no class even compares to us.  So who usually is the last man standing in an instance, the Pally.  Who is rezzing everybody when the party wipes, the Pally.  Pally's properly played are one of the best classes in the game.
[right][snapback]65319[/snapback][/right]

If the Pally is alive when the rest of the party is dead, you have failed your job as a tank, and miserably. The tank(s) should be the FIRST to go down IF Things Go Wrong™, not the last.

I would say that the Pally can't hold aggro as well as a well-played Warrior, but I'll let Tal speak for that, since I've never played a Paladin, much less any other kind of Alliance scum :)

EDIT: And I would say Druids are the ultimate utility class, not Paladins. They can do minor tanking, minor DD, and excellent healing.

[Tal]

If the Pally is alive when the rest of the party is dead, you have failed your job as a tank, and miserably.  The tank(s) should be the FIRST to go down IF Things Go Wrong™, not the last.

I would say that the Pally can't hold aggro as well as a well-played Warrior, but I'll let Tal speak for that, since I've never played a Paladin, much less any other kind of Alliance scum :)
[right][snapback]65325[/snapback][/right]

Simply put we can't. A well played warrior will always be able to hold aggro on multiple targets better than a paladin. We are the last man standing in instances because of Divine Intervention. The ideal group in my mind would be, paladin, warrior, healing class, support class and DPS class.

'Course I'm one of "those" people who won't turn down a rogue or a hunter for an Instance. :)

[Caline]

EDIT: And I would say Druids are the ultimate utility class, not Paladins.  They can do minor tanking, minor DD, and excellent healing.
[right][snapback]65325[/snapback][/right]

Paladins and druids are both excellent utlility, first off. I prefer paladins for the utility role, but if you have a druid healer, you need a paladin. Relying on 30m combat rez just doesn't cut it.

[Xanthix]

I think the problem people have with Paladins being such good tanks (although not the best), is that Warriors are so bad at everything *except* tanking.

Should pallys be able to tank? Sure, they are a melee/plate class, why not. But pallys can also heal, res, have good DPS, and excel at PvP. Warriors can't do any of these things (despite Blizzard claiming they are to be the big melee damage dealer) -- they can only tank effectively. So warriors and others get annoyed when pallys can do so many things better than warriors, and then can tank almost as well.

[Tal]

Should pallys be able to tank? Sure, they are a melee/plate class, why not. But pallys can also heal, res, have good DPS, and excel at PvP. Warriors can't do any of these things (despite Blizzard claiming they are to be the big melee damage dealer) -- they can only tank effectively. So warriors and others get annoyed when pallys can do so many things better than warriors, and then can tank almost as well.
[right][snapback]65505[/snapback][/right]

I regularly see warriors rip through two mobs in the time that I've gone through one. :)

[Guest]

Palys out damage warriors?

Im not saying your wrong. I am asking. Most people I talk to seem to think warriors do more damage.
I havent played a warrior and have only played a paly a little so I have no idea.

[Olon97]

Against mobs the comparison depends on what the difference between the character and the mob is.

Warriors against lower mobs (-3 to -5 is about right) have plenty of rage and can use their abilities to full effect. There also isn't too much of an issue with miss-rate, so the lack of an accuracy talent doesn' matter much. This would explain sightings of effective warriors in farming situations (heck, we gravitate to farming / green quests because everything else is so frustrating).

Warriors against same level mobs and higher level mobs don't generate rage as quickly and struggle with accuracy. Paladins in those situations (presumably, I play horde) still regenerate mana at the same rate and can take full advantage of an accuracy enhancing talent. Even if they don't have the talent and miss as often as a warrior, they can still rely on a determined amount of mana regeneration.

Better or worse, having such a drastically different way of generating our version of "energy/mana" will inherently make warriors' play experiences different than other classes. IMO, it's very easy to tip the balance either way and right now the valve on warrior rage is a tad too restricted (at least vs. same level & higher mobs or PvP).

[Kairos]

Warriors against same level mobs and higher level mobs don't generate rage as quickly and struggle with accuracy. Paladins in those situations (presumably, I play horde) still regenerate mana at the same rate and can take full advantage of an accuracy enhancing talent. Even if they don't have the talent and miss as often as a warrior, they can still rely on a determined amount of mana regeneration.
[right][snapback]65517[/snapback][/right]

Keep in mind that those higher level mobs can hit warriors more often, and getting hit also generates rage, at least when in Defensive Stance.

[Xanthix]

Keep in mind that those higher level mobs can hit warriors more often, and getting hit also generates rage, at least when in Defensive Stance.
[right][snapback]65548[/snapback][/right]

Being hit generates one or two rage. Landing a successful hit generates about 10 rage (depending on weapon damage). Many warrior abilities cost 10-20 rage. So a warrior fighting higher-level mobs will only be able to use their special attacks very infrequently, compared to a warrior fighting lower-level mobs.

Also, in defensive stance, a warrior cannot use most of their melee-damage-oriented skills. Defensive stance has mostly aggro-related skills and some utility skills.

In my opinion, a soloing warrior could be compared to a soloing paladin that has access to only half their skills at a time, and a global cooldown timer on all their skills of 20 seconds.

[Olon97]

Keep in mind that those higher level mobs can hit warriors more often, and getting hit also generates rage, at least when in Defensive Stance.
[right][snapback]65548[/snapback][/right]

Are you sure about the getting hit more often part? Have you ever gone back and observed the hit rate by level 1 mobs against a high level character?

Higher level mobs hit harder, but as far as I can observe (no rigorous testing on this), rage from being hit is on a per-hit basis and not proportional to the strength of the hit.

That said, against faster hitting mobs or multiple mobs, warriors can get enough rage supply to feel as if they're doing something, even when they aren't hitting.

[Roland]

Palys out damage warriors?

Im not saying your wrong. I am asking. Most people I talk to seem to think warriors do more damage.
I havent played a warrior and have only played a paly a little so I have no idea.
[right][snapback]65515[/snapback][/right]

The ONLY way a Paladin could out-damage a Warrior is if the Paladin was SOLELY built for DPS, and focused ALL his efforts on it, and even THEN you'd have to have a Warrior that was semi-gimped.

Paladins can dish out enough damage to get by, nothing more. They will NEVER be the damage-kings that Warriors, Rogues, and Mages are. But, they can also pull aggro like nobodies business (IMHO), and can easily heal while being beat on by multiple mobs. Insane Defense, strong health, and good healing abilities, as well as combat / defense / utility buffs and spells, with some minor crowd control thrown in... Yeah, I'd say Paladins are geared towards tanking and support, but to go high damage, you really have to work at it, at a LARGE expense in ALL your other areas.

[Xanthix]

The ONLY way a Paladin could out-damage a Warrior is if the Paladin was SOLELY built for DPS, and focused ALL his efforts on it, and even THEN you'd have to have a Warrior that was semi-gimped.
[right][snapback]65556[/snapback][/right]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead warrior here, but please don't compare warrior DPS to rogue or mages. Warriors have some great melee damage abilities, but while a rogue starts a fight with 100 energy that recharges automatically, and a mage starts a fight with thousands of mana, a warrior starts a fight with *zero* rage (or a dozen if you charge) to power their skills.

Even when the warrior I group with is quaffing rage potions, she cannot approach the DPS our mage does. If the mage dies, our kill rate slows to a crawl and if we want to kill a mob quickly, my priest has to switch from healing to nuking.

I will admit that warriors can do good damage under the right conditions, but my point is that while they are very good at tanking, overall they are not melee damage-dealers. And as you confirmed, the fact that pallys can tank decently as well as heal themselves only rubs salt in their wounds.

[DarkCrown]

Being hit generates one or two rage. Landing a successful hit generates about 10 rage (depending on weapon damage). Many warrior abilities cost 10-20 rage. So a warrior fighting higher-level mobs will only be able to use their special attacks very infrequently, compared to a warrior fighting lower-level mobs.

Also, in defensive stance, a warrior cannot use most of their melee-damage-oriented skills. Defensive stance has mostly aggro-related skills and some utility skills.

In my opinion, a soloing warrior could be compared to a soloing paladin that has access to only half their skills at a time, and a global cooldown timer on all their skills of 20 seconds.
[right][snapback]65549[/snapback][/right]

I haven't yet played a warrior, but I've tanked through several instances as a Druid, and the experience seems comparable to me. I regularly use Enrage to generate rage at the beginning of fights, and rarely find that I don't have enough rage to deal with the situation. It seems to me the Warrior's Bloodrage skill is very similar. What am I missing here?

-DarkCrown