Adventures in Beta: Off-spec tankland
by Elizabeth Wachowski 
Jan 3rd 2007 at 1:00PM
.jpg)
One of the first things you'll notice in The Burning Crusade is that just about everyone is an "off-spec." Since the primary focus of the first months of TBC will be to level as fast as you can, most people choose the highest damage-dealing talent build they can have for more efficient soloing. This makes perfect sense while everyone's soloing, but what do you do when you get into an instance? The old paradigm of "warrior, healer, three damage-dealers" goes out the window.
The most startling boost to off-specs is what's happened to feral druids and protection pallies. Before BC, almost all parties used a warrior as a tank. But because of increased threat generation for properly-specced druids and a general increase in paladin tanking abilities, both druids and pallies have been tanking endgame instances without too much difficulty. Druids now have better threat generation than warriors, making them possibly superior tanks for aggro-sensitive fights. Monday night, I tagged along as what I assumed to be an experienced bear druid tanked two wings of Hellfire Citadel without issue -- and then changed into nearly full Tier 3 to show us that this wasn't exactly what he usually did in instances.
Given that warriors were always the primary tanks of Warcraft, it's not surprising that the new competition from paladins and druids has some warriors a bit miffed. In a totally non-scientific poll on the beta forums, 90 percent of respondents preferred non-warrior tanks for 5-man instances (according to the poll's author, a rogue.)
What do you think? Should paladins and druids have equal tanking skills to warriors, or should warriors always be the first choice when a party is looking for a meat shield?
Filed under: Druid, Paladin, Warrior, Analysis / Opinion, The Burning Crusade
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mike Schramm Jan 3rd 2007 1:58PM
I think warriors should be the first choice, and I think the game should respect that. There's no reason why druids and pallys shouldn't be able to tank things-- it makes the game better for everyone else. But while shaman, pallies, and druids can all heal, a priest does it best. While druids and pallies should be able to tank, a warrior should do it best.
I'm not saying that druids or pallys should be nerfed-- I think it's great that those classes are coming into their own. But if they can tank (generate aggro and take damage) better than a warrior can, who needs warriors?
Kinless Jan 3rd 2007 4:37PM
If Druids and Paladins are going to tank, then throw the Warrior's a bone here.
And why shouldn't Paladins be tanking? They seem like they should be naturals at it. Plate armor and the ability to heal themselves.
Druids... I've got a Druid. Perhaps they've become master of too much now?
But, that notwithstanding, at least offer the Warrior's more DPS ability in the Fury tree, say.
Give them an option to have less ability to hold aggro, if the desire is to replace them with Druids and Pally's, but let them do more DPS as the trade-off. Rogues in Plate like it used to be.
They can't heal themselves, they can't vanish, they can't stun lock, they can't stealth everywhere, they can't do a lot of things. How about letting them fight, and fight well?
Orin Jan 3rd 2007 1:25PM
My main is a Druid. I've always wanted to be considered a tank in my guild. However that never came to be. Like most guilds, we had trouble having enough healers, and had an abundance of Warriors who wanted to tank. So all Druids became healers basically.
I hope the changes in the expansion let me and my fellow druids show our skill in doing things other than playing whack-a-mole trying to keep everyone alive by healing.
Oh, and it should be said that not all Druids know how to tank. I have been in many groups where they did not expect a druid to be able to tank so well because they had seen so many poor druid tanks in the past. There is still a big difference between a good and bad tank, whatever class, or role, they play.
Ellvis Jan 3rd 2007 2:27PM
While Paladins and Druids may be viable tanks for instances and such, they can never be equivalent to a warrior who has a mere 15 points into the protection tree.
Warriors can flat out generate more aggro faster than any class. The mere act of going into defensive stance increases your threat. In addition to the taunt ability (which warriors are the only ones to have a talent to reduce the cooldown on), they have more options for high rage generating activities. For solid, consistent aggro grneration, nothing beats sunder armor, revenge, and shield bash.
If you do the math on aggro generation, no other class can even come close to a warrior. On the other hand, the vast number of rogues in plate armor have killed the class reputation. They have never learned how to tank. The pallies and the druids ARE learning how to tank becuase it's a good way to get in groups. A lot of warriors just take for granted, because of their class, they know how to tank.
A good warrior tank will out-tank a good druid or pallie tank. Unfortunately, there seems to be more good druid and pallie tanks out there nowadays...
Ryan Jan 3rd 2007 1:30PM
Some look at this as a way of screwing over warriors from the job they used to be seeked for. I see if differently and I see this as one of the few things Blizzard has done well.
How many warriors do you know that actually enjoy slapping on a shield and holding aggro so everyone else can kill them? Probably not that many. Some yes, but not a lot. Most like to throw on that two-hander and out dps everyone in the group.
That being said, people now have a few different alternatives to their groups. Druids and pallies are more than likely sick of healing if they've been doing it for a long time, so they're usually excited to do something else... like tank or dish out some damage.
So now, rather than being limited to one priest, one warrior, and three dps classes... you get some freedom in creating a group. You can easily have a Pally main healer with a druid tank, or vice versa... and now the warriors can dish out some damage if they want.
I just think Blizzard is giving people more freedom and flexibility than they realize. It's a win-win situation for everyone.
Pougen (ER) Jan 3rd 2007 3:00PM
If you get past the first blue response by Tseric, it's more of the same forum whining. Blizzard intends Warriors to be the primary tanks, they said so, it's just a matter of time before they implement the modifications to make it so. That's why it was in playtest; people just need to have a little patience.
As far as additional tanking abilities by druids and pallys, I'm for it. I have a druid who tanks when a warrior is not available and heals when there is no priest. While he doesn't perform as well as those others could, a small group shouldn't be penalized when one of those two classes isn't available.
DÖT Jan 3rd 2007 1:41PM
I sound to me that a lot of players want everyone/class to fit a specific role and when some aspect is changed to give pallies a better balance or druids something to do besides heal, because no one plays a hybrid to get stuck in one role, people get pissed because it breaks their mold for the game.
Ronin Jan 3rd 2007 1:59PM
I think this is a great change. I recently started a Warrior Alt, and while I like being Able to tank.. its not my prefered role. This change makes it so there are more choices; now Druids and Pallys can fit the tank role more than before... and most likely there will be many who look forward to being able to, where before they couldn't. And maybe when I hit end game, my guild will not force me into the Protection tree.
Lundraxx Jan 3rd 2007 2:04PM
I think the problem isn't that classes are versatile, but rather that some classes are more versatile AND powerful. As a priest, it does kinda irk me that druids can now heal better than priests AND tank better than warriors. Warriors are now the second best tankers and piss-poor at DPS. Likewise, Priests are the second best healers and moderate at DPSing. Yet druids are somehow better than both warriors AND priests in their respective primary abilities? I was under the impression that hybrid classes shouldn't be able to out-DPS/heal/tank any of the specialized classes. And if this isn't true, then i want to see the day when a priest and a warrior can out DPS a mage or a rogue.
James Jan 3rd 2007 3:18PM
I have to aggre with Mike on this I think it is good that there are other classes that can tank, beause I would like to dps better than tank anyway but, when a warrior specs protection he should be better than any other class. That is not the case now.
Clementure Jan 3rd 2007 3:26PM
My best PUG ever was in ZF, about level 40+ for the entire group, with a Bear tanking and a pally healing. We did the entire instance with no wipes.
Jason Jan 3rd 2007 4:39PM
#4
I agree completely.
I think the changes will be good all around for the Warcraft experience. I think the changes will be bad if they don't tweak warriors to continue to be the primary choice for tanking.
My main is a 60 warrior and I love tanking. I would hate to see a class with 10 less tank abilities, the ability to heal, rez, buff, and switch roles on demand be able to out perform my chosen class which was designed around one thing. Tanking.
As it stands right now, who wouldn't want a class that can tank as good as warrior, can rez if there is a wipe, can heal themselves if the main healer is out of mana, and finish off by rebuffing the group?
Matt Park Jan 3rd 2007 2:44PM
From what I understand, this only works well in 5-mans, where 1 person has to handle multiple mobs. When you reach 25 mans and can have a tank on each mob, warriors are guaranteed to be the MT.
Slightly off topic - I'm going to LOVE being a shaman for TBC. 5-mans are going to require versitility above all else, which means hybrids are going to be in demand. Why would a group bring a rogue who can only melee DPS, when they can bring along a shaman who does somewhat less damage, but can last a hell of a lot longer, offtank if necessary, and throw in an emergency heal in a pinch?
Iski Jan 9th 2007 2:14PM
I am a Paladin myself and I picked my class beacause of the ability to be a strong support class with heals,judgements and blessings. If a player wants to be a tank and have no other role, they should roll a Warrior. If they dont mind having multiple roles then a Druid or Paladin is a way to go. Dont roll a healing class and expect to never have to fill that role. I think Warrior's should be the ultimate tank, otherwise just delete the class and fold it's abilities into other classes.
Jtwhissel Jan 3rd 2007 7:10PM
If you take tanking away from warriors there is nothing else for them to do like might as well delete your warrior now
Tazebrax Jan 3rd 2007 11:21PM
This kinda ticks me off having a new warrior alt, but as long as a protection warrior (which is what I plan to make of him) can be the better tank than a feral druid, or after the expansion a paladin, I'm fine.
Having a rogue as my main I'd certainly be angry if a feral druid could out dps me at the same level with equal equipment.
Jusk Jan 3rd 2007 3:36PM
Protection warriors are still the primary tanks, despite what you read on the internets. There are some issues though ( as with paladins and druids).
A warriors problem, is that as they become better geared for mitigation, they become less able to generate threat. A decked out warrior will need a few seconds to establish agro before DPS lays into the mob. This is mostly 5 man trash mob related. Bosses will pretty much always hit hard enough to generate enough rage to hold the aggro better than any other class. A protection warrior's strength is his superior mitigation, making him the ideal tank when it counts ( bosses).
Druids(bear focused feral) will always take more damage than warriors and paladins ( assuming good gear by all). Burst damage will be more frequent, but not quite as high. They will have insane armor values, but they cannot block or parry. Blocking is important because a blocked attack cannot be a crit. However, even with great gear, they retain most of thier threat producing ability. They always take at least a little damage, and with the right talents, they can maul all day long. That means better threat against trash, but they dont have the range of threat increasing abilities a warrior does to keep up when rage isnt an issue. Still a good tank. Strength: high armor and consistent rage. Weakness: lower mitigation.
Paladins (protection) have the best of both worlds, but have a few weaknesses. Since mana starts as full as you want it to, they are not hindered by the problem of struggling to get the resources to hold hate initially. They have the best ability to tank multiple mobs, from a threat standpoint. In fact, give them 2 or more, assuming they can take the damage, and their ability to hold hate goes through the roof due to reckoning and redoubt (with holy shield). For long encounters, they suffer the same fate as warriors, since spiritual attunement wont help you much if you arent getting hurt much. Also, generating threat is very hard on the mana pool. So rather than waiting to start DPS, as with a warrior, you are now stuck waiting on mana before the next mob. Another weakness is that to produce a great deal of threat, you have to sacrifice some mitigation, due to itemization. You need more spell damage, which will probably come at the expense of stamina or other tanking stats. In short, paladins are built to tank trash mobs. Great initial threat generation, but lacking in long term consistency.
All 3 are good at every situation, but each has its strengths and weaknesses. That just means the rest of the party needs to know what these are and play accordingly.
multikast Jan 3rd 2007 4:02PM
I look at this as a great opportunity to stop seeing the messages:
"LF1M (instance name) warrior, then we're ready"
aaron Jan 3rd 2007 4:29PM
For alot of non-zerg guilds the phrases "cant do x not enough ot's online" "Cant do Y not enough healers online" "Cant do Z our dps isnt there" are said at least once.
Snoozie Jan 3rd 2007 4:43PM
"What do you think? Should paladins and druids have equal tanking skills to warriors...?"
Equal? No. They are hybrid classes.