I'd like to try some light raid tanking for a change of pace. I'm just OK at MMO's...I'm kind of old and slow. Which do you think would be the easier and more laid back choice, SK or warrior? I don't want to wipe raids! Thanks!
SK would be a lot easier. Warrior is very gear dependent and can be very tough to hold aggro at first. SK's have spells to assist them and Feign Death to get out of trouble. They can pull, tank, and solo very effectively while a warrior needs a group to do much of anything. Warriors do get better but if you are looking to be a group tank and not a raid tank, SK wins hands down in my opinion.
off tanking, kiting they can main tank but usually the harder boss fights go to the warriors unless its an older raid or lower tiered raid
And off-tanking and kiting is a lot easier than main tank duties? I'm not that concerned with it being gear-dependent, I'm more concerned about the mechanics. Sorry, I've never tanked before, just healed and done DPS.
It depends on how you define "hard". Main tanking requires more gearing-up and will involve more psychological pressure. Off-tanking can often be more technically demanding and knights certainly have more abilities to juggle right now.
If you are slow to react, neither is a great option, but Warrior is probably better than SK. The biggest difference between marginal SK's on raids and great SK's on raids is reaction time. SK's tend to be on add duty, and the difference between picking up an add before it hits anyone, and picking it up after it kills two healers, can make or break a raid. The best raid knights have tremendous situational awareness and lightning fast reaction speeds. Warriors need to react quickly on tank switches also, but a guild can compensate more for a slightly slower warrior by putting him early in the tank line. It's also a little more easy to react quickly when you are looking for one specific thing--the tank before you dying. Playing smart and being 2nd on aggro to begin with can help a lot here too. I've seen slightly slower warriors do alright with a raid leader who understands the strengths and weaknesses and how best to use them, although you can expect some grumbling for sure those times you don't pick up the boss instantly when it's your turn and it starts killing people. Slower knights often tend to just be taking up a roster/raid slot without contributing all that much--it is much harder to find a useful role for them in many encounters, especially in the early and middle expansions. In general I find main tanking to be much easier than off tanking or kiting.
I know this isn't the answer you want to hear, but if you truly are a slow player like you say you are, then you really shouldn't play any tank (raid or group). Tanks lead the fight. You have to be situationally aware and react quickly to the fight.
Neither. As a warrior, you are expected to gain agro ASAP. As a SK, you are expected to HT and/or pick up agro ASAP when/if the MT dies. Casters are easy mode in this game, in solo, in group and in the raid scene. I recommend an enchanter. There are certain raids were you need to be all like super good mezzing tonnes of . Just don't show up for those. The rest of the time, you throw out a few buffs. Nuke a few times after everyone else because yours has added stun aggro, and sleep. Tash is your one "tough" job on most raids, but it has a quick cast time, so no one should notice.
Terrible advice. The last thing raid guilds need is people who can only play their class on easy encounters.
Well he already said he was a so-so player, which means he sucks. Would you rather him play something that can make people fail the raid or something that is more suited for bad players? I pretty much agree with Enchanter. They are amazing when played well, but can skate by without anyone noticing as well. Most people just want their buffs and who cares what they do over in the corner while everyone else is fighting. Perfect for someone that isn't very good at the game.
Chanter needs to be fast reacting, stay alert and good at targetting while grouping. I think the easiest class is wizard skill-wise. Remember to make a macro /g Medding up, before you go afk.
"So-so" doesn't mean "sucks". It means "I am aware of my issues and want to work around them." That's a good thing. If reaction time is a problem, and you must tank, I'd also recommend warrior. If you're not tanking, classes like druid and wizard and rogue may also appeal.
I mean, I'm not the worst, but I'm not great, either. I guess it's better that I don't tank, as I don't want to wipe folks. Will stick with Rogue/Mage that I'm currently playing.
This is EQ, the reaction time isn't that straining in all honesty. Enchanter is terrible advice. As Soon as saying, in group content enchanters require the best reaction time and most attentive player to play. They are also quite boring in raids mostly. You are buff bot. I would say play a SK though. You won't necessarily hold a guild main tank position over a warrior most of the time but you do have really good snap agro abilities and when you want to hold agro, other classes can't pull things off of you. The same can't be said about a warrior. Unless you have close to 80%+ raid attendance I wouldn't advise trying for any guild main tank position anyways. The main tank has to be at almost all raids because a main tank has the ability to make or break raids.
My favorite part about old EQ was to make sure the guild kept pressure on main tanks to be at every raid, and to also help people's alts level up and farm gear. The goal was to spend a lot of the guild's resources gearing up the MT, and then have them crack under all the pressure and quit the game a month later. Worked like a charm almost every time. Warriors are good in groups, but the SKs or Paladins can grab aggro so much faster. Warriors shine a lot more tanking in raids. Enchanters are not something I'd recommend to anyone who is so-so. I mean, in a group a lot of times you have to make up for having a terrible puller that brings five mobs into the camp. That takes quick thinking and stun/root/mez management.
