Printable View
I'm just throwing this out because I honestly don't know much about DK tanks... I run with one that can do 5k+ dps in tank gear/spec (which I don't remember which spec he tanks in)... is this normal, and would that increase his single target threat substantially over what would be considered the "norm" (if lower than the above)?
This, of course, is in response to the above post regarding single-target threat being a little low for DK's....
I've not run with any DKs that output that much dps in full tank gear and spec. That being said, my average dps single target is usually 2.7k in my full raid tanking set (which like I said, favors stam and armor over anything else, except for one or two gems and enchants) and I've seen DKs pull 500dps or more over me and still be well behind me in threat. I think it has something to do with the way our threat skills scale but I'm not sure. I think the change to Icy Touch might make a noticeable difference though.
I levelled a pally tank to 80 and geared it up to test the theory of whether a warrior tank or a pally tank is better... my conclusion is that both are vey strong classes, and a good tank (player) will always be a good tank. I prefer my warrior in terms of play style and I don't feel it is gimped compared to the pally. Sure I would love ardent defender, but meh... i get more stuns, interupts and spell reflect on the warrior.
Play what you enjoy :-)
warriors dont wear skirts.
bahahahaha!!! This is also true =PQuote:
Originally Posted by robbon
The reason why most people choose warriors is because warriors have been the tanking class since day 1 and have continued to be doing that job even to this point.Most skilled warriors are players from Vanilla and have carried their weight all this time showing their leetnes if you want to call it that to people here and there,so over the time the term "skilled tank" was mostly associated with a warrior whereas paladins and druids were starting to rise up at the middle-end of TBC and DK's got in last in line.That is 1 of the reasons that most people would preffer a warrior over any other class.
For me personally its down to a mental composition much like the comment:
Which is exactly the reason why I play a warrior,cause when I get my game face on I enjoy the feeling of charging a target right after a bloodrage only to smash my shield against its face knocking some teeth away (if it has any),the switft revenge you pay back for every time you avoid a strike,the big sword animation from devastate and the pure concept of the name warrior is coupled with the intent of causing fear and pain beyond your target's wildest imagination.The fact that we use rage instead of any other resource mechanic and you want lots of it so that you can bring the pain more often,the changing of stances and the way the animation plays,altough stance-dancing has been mostly killed by blizzard I still enjoy the nostalgic feeling when I do it.Quote:
warriors dont wear skirts
You want a challenge for yourself - get a warrior and master it.
You want to have 3 macros and a skirt - then by all means pick the paladin sir...or madam in most cases I suppose :)
[QUOTE=Jin17;381286]The reason why most people choose warriors is because warriors have been the tanking class since day 1 [QUOTE]
It's funny you mentioned that because I can recall all the crap I used to experience with warriors taking "first priority" over weapons e.g. daggers and crap to increase their threat.
I started playing late in TBC. But whenever people describe Vanilla to me it's almost as if Warriors were the crappiest tanks... the only tanks... but really crappy tanks (Thunderclap in Battlestance only? Devastate doesn't apply Sunder Armor?! Thrash Blade being a *raid* tanking weapon?! MS in the rotation... ect, ect).Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPuddy
Well there was no devastate. You just had Sunder armor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin Man
Your 4 tools for holding threat as a warrior in those days were heroic strike, sunder armor, revenge, and shield slam. Thunderclap was only usable in battle stance and really didn't do much threat. It was good for the attack speed debuff, but honestly wasn't usually necessary, and the 3 globals in took to put it up were rarely worth it. Threat buildup was slow enough that generally dps were asked to wait until a certain number of sunders were present on the mob. 3 sunders or 2 or 5 or whatever were determined to be "go time" and you'd open up. In my raids, in fact, we had a main assist whose job it was to call out when dps could start attacking. If the dps started early, they were often kicked from the raid.
So yeah, by today's standards, warriors were crappy tanks back then. They had very few tools. But they were the only real tanks with the exception of the rare feral druid (whose rotation was even simpler) and honestly it was still fun. I kind of wish we could go back to the days when dps was expected to control their threat. It was really fun to have a main assist and callouts.
Go tank deadmines as a level 20 warrior. You'll have only one less tool than we had at 60, and you'll have thunderclap which is far more effective than it ever was at 60. Or, go tank Scarlet Monastery at 40, and make yourself not use Thunderclap or glyphed Cleave. You'll have Sunder, Shield Slam, Revenge, and Demo Shout. Also, cleave will be available. (Remember, take tclap off the bar)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reev
Adding Thunderclap that does real threat makes it a complete different ballgame, even at level 15 in RFC.
Yup. Frankly, I think adding thunderclap at low levels trivializes those instances, unfortunately. I've found that when I do instances while levelling now, people just AoE everything. So while SM used to be a challenge and really a fun thing to do, now it's a zergfest. I used to be able to tell who a good tank was by how well they could handle SM Cath, but that really has very little meaning anymore.