Paladin Raid Tanking

[Coldfrostzero]

With the discovery of buffing Greater Blessing of Kings spamming to gain ridiculous amounts of threat, have Alliance guilds shifted their opinion on them? A Paladin tank is still somewhat squishy because they have no big damage reduction cooldown, but they have a longer period to be uncrushable with Redoubt and bosses that have a Taunt requirement make it harder unless they are spamming perfectly of course.

If Classic has gotten to the point where a Warrior can wear Leather and tank a boss just fine without a shield, shouldn't a Paladin in full plate creating even more threat with a shield and mitigation be almost better? Or is the stigma going to forever be there?

[Vampyrr]

The main problem is lack of taunt, if they lose aggro or lag out a bit it's a wipe because he cannot recover. The risk v reward remains too high.

[Beefhammer]

Avoidance Warriors wearing leather were always a thing just never MT. The big difference in Classic vs Vanilla is 15 years of knowledge and understanding of the fights and class mechanics to the point where anything is possible today.

[Castration]

no

next question please.

- - - Updated - - -

If Classic has gotten to the point where a Warrior can wear Leather and tank a boss just fine without a shield,

It was like this in Vanilla as well.

[ellieg]

No. Ppl prefer warrior tanks. You could try to find a guild that let's you pally maintank but it will be hard. You're about to get a few ppl in here who swear it's the best thing ever but take their opinions with a grain of salt. If you enjoy pally tanking, stick to dungeons. If you really want to tank current raids, roll a war.

[enigma77]

The lack of taunt just makes paladins terrible on certain encounters.

[justandulas]

Paladins don’t have the tools, or ability to main tank well without gimping the rest of the raid.

They don’t have a taunt and while they may do aoe threat better than warriors (not druids) they fall so far behind warriors on single target it isn’t comparable

[Coldfrostzero]

No. Ppl prefer warrior tanks. You could try to find a guild that let's you pally maintank but it will be hard. You're about to get a few ppl in here who swear it's the best thing ever but take their opinions with a grain of salt. If you enjoy pally tanking, stick to dungeons. If you really want to tank current raids, roll a war.

Currently have a 60 warrior I tank on (Tauren) and rolled another for DPS (Orc). I also have a mid level Paladin I work on when I am bored or friends aren't available.

I am just asking if any guilds that raid seriously or semi seriously have looked into it since apparently buffing Greater Blessing of Kings on people generates insane amounts of threat (114 Threat per target) which any class that is stacked with more than 6 will provide the Paladin with more threat than a Warrior could dream of. While also doing regular threat from damage, and has better mitigation than a Fury warrior making them easier to heal, minus a big crit here and there. However, having a Paladin take 1 crit should nearly push subsequent crits off the table from Redoubt, since a partially blocked hit cannot be a critical.

Since threat is the #1 thing tanks worry about, I am curious if anyone who has written off Paladin tanking has given a second thought to it.

[Gratlim]

Paladin is a healer class.

Next!

(typical Classic player )

[Coldfrostzero]

Paladin is a healer class.

Next!

(typical Classic player )

Not really helpful at all, but yeah this is sadly where people go with actual discussion. New evidence that proves the norm wrong? Pshh, can't have that.

Paladins don’t have the tools, or ability to main tank well without gimping the rest of the raid.

They don’t have a taunt and while they may do aoe threat better than warriors (not druids) they fall so far behind warriors on single target it isn’t comparable

Lack of taunt is a big deal on fights that require a taunt. As I have stated above, with spamming GBoK, they can out threat any Warrior going full tilt. The "bad at single target" isn't a viable answer anymore. So a Paladin tanking on a fight that doesn't require taunt is theoretically better than a Warrior in every single way.

[ellieg]

I thought I read somewhere in the past week or so that the threat from spamming greater blessings wasnt accurate and blizz already nerfed it. Did you read anything abt that?

[gaymer77]

Lack of taunt is a big deal on fights that require a taunt. As I have stated above, with spamming GBoK, they can out threat any Warrior going full tilt. The "bad at single target" isn't a viable answer anymore. So a Paladin tanking on a fight that doesn't require taunt is theoretically better than a Warrior in every single way.

Feel free to argue this with your guild to get them to allow you to tank. Guilds that know anything about how tanking works will all disagree with your assumptions though and they would be correct. That paladin who's spamming GBOK can literally lose all his aggro from a warrior who simply uses taunt. That 1 taunt means all that threat generated by spamming GBOK is immediately gone. Now what would that paladin do? Not a damn thing....

[justandulas]

Not really helpful at all, but yeah this is sadly where people go with actual discussion. New evidence that proves the norm wrong? Pshh, can't have that.



Lack of taunt is a big deal on fights that require a taunt. As I have stated above, with spamming GBoK, they can out threat any Warrior going full tilt. The "bad at single target" isn't a viable answer anymore. So a Paladin tanking on a fight that doesn't require taunt is theoretically better than a Warrior in every single way.

That’s simply not true at all. A good fury/prot warrior will simply decimate the threat of a prot paladin.

Prot paladins lack the tools to match warriors

I’m not bragging as a warrior, I consider it a design flaw

[Coldfrostzero]

Nobody seems to have read the fact that I am not Paladin tank. I am simply asking, given the new information (sans a fight that requires crucial taunting), why wouldn't you want a Paladin tank?

I thought I read somewhere in the past week or so that the threat from spamming greater blessings wasnt accurate and blizz already nerfed it. Did you read anything abt that?

The last thing said about it was Righteous Fury improves threat to ALL
Holy spells. Making GBoK's the best single target generating spell in the game if you can target more than 6 people.

Feel free to argue this with your guild to get them to allow you to tank. Guilds that know anything about how tanking works will all disagree with your assumptions though and they would be correct. That paladin who's spamming GBOK can literally lose all his aggro from a warrior who simply uses taunt. That 1 taunt means all that threat generated by spamming GBOK is immediately gone. Now what would that paladin do? Not a damn thing....

Not playing a Paladin in a guild right now. I know how tanking works, I am a Warrior tank. Yes taunt happens to be great in that capacity but you're a fucking moron if you're just randomly taunting off another tank for no reason. Fights like Onyxia and Nefarian where you only need 1 tank and don't need to taunt, a Paladin generating threat so high that no one can come close would be optimal.

That’s simply not true at all. A good fury/prot warrior will simply decimate the threat of a prot paladin.

Prot paladins lack the tools to match warriors

I’m not bragging as a warrior, I consider it a design flaw

They lack a big cooldown and a taunt. Again, TPS a paladin spamming GBoK has no competition. The lack of a big CD only matters if a boss crits you for 100% of your health which is also a problem with Fury tanking. Except, if a paladin survives the critical hit, they gain Redoubt making them uncrushable until Redoubt fades or is used up. This is without considering Holy Shield up as well. If a Paladin is reaching the uncrushable cap with Redoubt and Holy Shield up (which a blocked attack cannot be a crit), while generating more threat, they are a better tank in non-taunt fights.

[Machismo]

Nobody seems to have read the fact that I am not Paladin tank. I am simply asking, given the new information (sans a fight that requires crucial taunting), why wouldn't you want a Paladin tank?



The last thing said about it was Righteous Fury improves threat to ALL
Holy spells. Making GBoK's the best single target generating spell in the game if you can target more than 6 people.



Not playing a Paladin in a guild right now. I know how tanking works, I am a Warrior tank. Yes taunt happens to be great in that capacity but you're a fucking moron if you're just randomly taunting off another tank for no reason. Fights like Onyxia and Nefarian where you only need 1 tank and don't need to taunt, a Paladin generating threat so high that no one can come close would be optimal.



They lack a big cooldown and a taunt. Again, TPS a paladin spamming GBoK has no competition. The lack of a big CD only matters if a boss crits you for 100% of your health which is also a problem with Fury tanking. Except, if a paladin survives the critical hit, they gain Redoubt making them uncrushable until Redoubt fades or is used up. This is without considering Holy Shield up as well. If a Paladin is reaching the uncrushable cap with Redoubt and Holy Shield up (which a blocked attack cannot be a crit), while generating more threat, they are a better tank in non-taunt fights.

1) People have already said it was nerfed.

2) Paladins have no taunt.

3) Their gearing sucks for tankiness.

4) Being a main tank means the primary one. Considering they wouldn't have a roll in multiple fights in BWL, because of a lack of taunt, then the gear they have obtained is largely wasted.

5) It's inefficient. They take more damage, pull less threat, and have mana issues.

I could turn a shadow priest or a warlock into a tank... that doesn't make it a good idea.

[Coldfrostzero]

1) People have already said it was nerfed.

2) Paladins have no taunt.

3) Their gearing sucks for tankiness.

4) Being a main tank means the primary one. Considering they wouldn't have a roll in multiple fights in BWL, because of a lack of taunt, then the gear they have obtained is largely wasted.

5) It's inefficient. They take more damage, pull less threat, and have mana issues.

I could turn a shadow priest or a warlock into a tank... that doesn't make it a good idea.

1. https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...019/175887/139

It hasn't been nerfed. It is not a bug.

2. Taunt is a problem on some fights. Not every fight requires a taunt.

3. They gear exactly the same as a warrior for the most part. Instead of a DPS weapon, they take a spell damage weapon. The difference in stats isn't even there as a Fury tank will prefer a weapon that does fast or big damage which will have almost no stats on it period.

4. I didn't say they would be the primary tank, but they can tank any fight without a taunt requirement better.

5. They get to keep their mitigation which a Fury warrior gives up for threat so taking more damage isn't a fact nor is it a problem as long as their Effective Health is above a minimum. Again, with GBoK spam, they pull more threat. Mana issues don't matter in a fight that lasts 30 seconds...have you done a raid in Classic?

[arkanon]

I love it when someone comes to this forum asking people's opinion, and then literally says everyone is wrong. Every. Single. Person.

[clevin]

So let me give you a situation we ran into last night. we pulled Geddon in MC and the warrior tank had to run out as he (geddon) immediately AOEed while he was coming down the tunnel. A couple of ranged had opened on him and the healers had some threat too but the tank hadn't had an opportunity to build threat. So... he taunted and Geddon came back to him. Aside from the fact that I died to someone who was the bomb and didnt move fast enough, all was fine.

That's how taunt is useful. So, what would a pally tank have done there?

2. Taunt is a problem on some fights. Not every fight requires a taunt.

Sure but when it IS useful it tends to be critical, not just nice to have. So, do you want a tank who can tank every fight regardless of whether taunt is needed or not? Or do you want to fill that slot with a tank who's fine on some fights and a liability on others?

Forget that you want to raid tank as a pally... think like the raid leader. You're choosing a warrior tank not a pally if you have the option.

[Coldfrostzero]

I love it when someone comes to this forum asking people's opinion, and then literally says everyone is wrong. Every. Single. Person.

Providing inaccurate or outdated information doesn't answer my question. I asked, given the new information about how Paladin threat works, their ability to maintain mitigation while being able to create insane amounts of threat, should Paladins be reconsidered?

We all know they can't taunt. Not every fight needs a taunt.

So let me give you a situation we ran into last night. we pulled Geddon in MC and the warrior tank had to run out as he (geddon) immediately AOEed while he was coming down the tunnel. A couple of ranged had opened on him and the healers had some threat too but the tank hadn't had an opportunity to build threat. So... he taunted and Geddon came back to him. Aside from the fact that I died to someone who was the bomb and didnt move fast enough, all was fine.

That's how taunt is useful. So, what would a pally tank have done there?

Paladin can continue to use GBoK even when out of range. They would be generating threat when they aren't even in range of the boss. If you are generating so much threat that no one else can come close, taunt becomes irrelevant on fights that don't require a taunt swap.

Other tanks in the raid also don't cease to exist because you have a Paladin main tank a fight. If something goes awry, you have off tanks for a reason.

[clevin]

Providing inaccurate or outdated information doesn't answer my question. I asked, given the new information about how Paladin threat works, their ability to maintain mitigation while being able to create insane amounts of threat, should Paladins be reconsidered?

We all know they can't taunt. Not every fight needs a taunt.

"lalallalalal"

See above.