Twice now I have run in to people who have asked why I play a Guardian / Templar duo, why didn't I choose a higher damage class like the Paladin. I am surprised by the question (I expected to hear I should be a Berserker), I never really thought of a Paladin as being high DPS, I just assumed that a Guardian and a Paladin would be about the same. I figured that while a Guardian is not known for their damage potential, a Paladin's would not be higher simply because they have healing abilities and additional spells that allow them to make another tank even better.
My question is, does any one have any data showing who does more damage, the Paladin or the Guardian? If the Paladin is better I assume it is because of a high damage combat art or two, and I am wondering which arts of theirs make that big of a difference.
And just to head off the Berserker comments, I didn't choose that class purely on roleplaying reasons, I just never could get in to the right mindset, I like the idea that my character is able to think in combat instead of just foaming at the mouth :)
- Forums
- EverQuest II
- General Discussion
- Guardian Vs. Paladin DPS
Guardian Vs. Paladin DPSFollow
30 posts
All plate tanks do approximately equal damage. I often see some plate tanks doing more than brawlers do. So in essence, it all depends on the level of the spells the person is using, the quality of their equipment, and their skill. In honesty, all fighter types have the same DPS potential. Guardians can do as much DPS as a Bruiser. Fact is, brawlers were shoved into a DPS slot due to ignorant people's comments and stereotypes. This just led to most people building their brawler's into DPS oriented toons. Up until level 40, I was crafting my monk into the ebst tank I could, and fact is I would be doing the same damage as any other plate wearer. Once I hit 40, I cared only for more power and strength. Depending on how your Guardian is built, he can be an uber DPS fighter, one rare thing I love to see. Get him some Adept 1 attacks, throw on a lot of strength gear, and give him a pimping two hander. You will be a-ok when it comes to DPS.
Your duo is great. I know many Templar/Guard(Berz) duos that do extremely well.
Edited, Wed Apr 27 17:31:29 2005 by KeelJoo
Your duo is great. I know many Templar/Guard(Berz) duos that do extremely well.
Edited, Wed Apr 27 17:31:29 2005 by KeelJoo
for the most part paladins tend to do more damage because of there spells, but they tend to run out fast. in the long run i would say gaurdian do more damage, but im just a noob in comparison to keeljoo
3 posts
Pallies do more damage because of the combat arts you are correct, they also have alot of buffs to make tanks better and to help the casters/healers in the group. now these skills are chosen at the right lvls, when you get those options of what skill you would like. Guardians are the ultimate GROUP tank because of their protection and group spells and not to mention their ability to take hits like noone else. But when it comes to the damage yes pallies are second to beserkers, but alot more fun to play :) just my opinion.
3 posts
just to add, since I didnt read Keeljoo's post He is absolutely correct in saying that you can make your guardian a great DPS toon, thats what I set my pally up for, nice 2-handed weapon with lots of strength, stamina ( to last), little bit of dex helps, but I always make sure my wisdom is up there too.
I havent played EQ2 for very long(lvl 19 pally) but played EQ1 for 3 years as a pally and monk, etc. and other MMORPG games so I know one thing is that whatever you pick in the beginning it doesnt matter because you can form it to what you want and when you are at a high lvl all your startings stats have no meaning because of the equipment you buy will max you out anyway. So dont fret about your Guardian you can make him how you want him, adept 1 books? BUY THEM FOR ALL YOUR SKILLS!!! and learn your role as a guardian in a group<--very important to be a good player that is respected.
Main thing is to keep the game fun and not analyze too much on your stats compared to others, All my mains in other games I have known my role and could duel other pallies(or whatever class in whatever game I was playing) that were a couple lvls higher than me.......Now that is exciting and earns respect.
I havent played EQ2 for very long(lvl 19 pally) but played EQ1 for 3 years as a pally and monk, etc. and other MMORPG games so I know one thing is that whatever you pick in the beginning it doesnt matter because you can form it to what you want and when you are at a high lvl all your startings stats have no meaning because of the equipment you buy will max you out anyway. So dont fret about your Guardian you can make him how you want him, adept 1 books? BUY THEM FOR ALL YOUR SKILLS!!! and learn your role as a guardian in a group<--very important to be a good player that is respected.
Main thing is to keep the game fun and not analyze too much on your stats compared to others, All my mains in other games I have known my role and could duel other pallies(or whatever class in whatever game I was playing) that were a couple lvls higher than me.......Now that is exciting and earns respect.
Guardians are supposed to be the defensive tank, not DPS. Our focus is on building up mitigation, avoidance and health.
And I strongly disagree with buying Adept 1 for all your skills. Total waste of money. There are many skills where the improvement from App 4 to Adept 1 is really not worth the upgrade price.
Plus there are skills which will be replaced very quickly and some which you rarely use.
On the SoE site, in the Guardian forum, there's an excellent list of all guardian skills and their replacements.
All classes need to look closely at their skills and decide which are worth upgrading to Adept 1.
And I strongly disagree with buying Adept 1 for all your skills. Total waste of money. There are many skills where the improvement from App 4 to Adept 1 is really not worth the upgrade price.
Plus there are skills which will be replaced very quickly and some which you rarely use.
On the SoE site, in the Guardian forum, there's an excellent list of all guardian skills and their replacements.
All classes need to look closely at their skills and decide which are worth upgrading to Adept 1.
I don't know adept 1 is just a drop in the bucket. In the 30's I can still get most of my adept1's for 1 to 2 gold. Even if you only get a slight upgrade one one spell if you upgrade 10 spells the combined effect is well worth it. Now as for the Adept3's pick and choose here.. because they are horribly expensive.. even if you mine the rare you will pay dbl or triple for someone to make the spell for you... If you don't have the rare.... ouch.. 40gold to 5pp I have seen them go above and below that but is a fair average.
I'm just gonna have to disagree with KeelJoo... not all of the fighter classes have the same damage potential. That just ain't true. Your example on how to get big dmg with a guardian by getting strength gear, skills at ad1 and a nice 2-hander is fundamentally flawed. All fighter classes can get strength gear, all fighter-classes can get a 2-hander, and all of them can upgrade their skills to adept 1 or past. The difference being in damage output from skills. I've played with a lot of guardians, and im sorry but they just cannot match a berserker barrage hitting for 600+, a darting sparrow hitting for around the same, a harm touch hitting for however much it hits for (think i have yet to actually play with a SK) or an oath strike (or later versions) hitting for 250+. It's the skills that make the class, not the equipment, and a guardian will never be able to do the same damage as an equally-kitted out berserker, monk or bruiser (don't know about pallies). That's why they have better defensive skills.
If someone can prove me wrong with an example of multiple high-damage guardian skills be my guest, but in my experience and from the fundamental build of the character system it would seem that they just do not have the damage potential of some of the other fighter classes.
When you have scouts and mages hitting for 700+ by level 25 (brigand's ruse, warlock's dark distortion and wizard's fire ball) and getting dps over 60, why even bother trying to force a non-dps class into a dps position? If you can do it with little/no effort and without sacrificing too much, then absolutely go for it. However, if you can only achieve a decent dps by not using certain skills or equipment that would make you a better tank (defensive stances, shields etc.) then (if you're tanking of course) it's just megalomania.
I'll probably be flamed, but that's my 2cp.
Edited, Wed Jun 8 12:54:06 2005 by Monyetman
If someone can prove me wrong with an example of multiple high-damage guardian skills be my guest, but in my experience and from the fundamental build of the character system it would seem that they just do not have the damage potential of some of the other fighter classes.
When you have scouts and mages hitting for 700+ by level 25 (brigand's ruse, warlock's dark distortion and wizard's fire ball) and getting dps over 60, why even bother trying to force a non-dps class into a dps position? If you can do it with little/no effort and without sacrificing too much, then absolutely go for it. However, if you can only achieve a decent dps by not using certain skills or equipment that would make you a better tank (defensive stances, shields etc.) then (if you're tanking of course) it's just megalomania.
I'll probably be flamed, but that's my 2cp.
Edited, Wed Jun 8 12:54:06 2005 by Monyetman
Scholar
23 posts
At 50th, the most damaging combat art I have is Retaliate (Adept I), which hits for up to about 700 while self-buffed. That particular combat art also suffers from a 1 minute reuse timer.
Sure, I have decent DPS arts apart from that one, in particular Cleave, Ferocious Charge, and Blast, but even when chain-casting them, you don't come close to the DPS dealt by a berserker, monk, or bruiser. Shadow knights are almost as good as berserkers and somewhat ahead of paladins. In terms of DPS, guardians are dead last, clearly behind paladins, no matter how you regard things.
At the bottom line, however, we are undoubtedly the best tanks, so who cares.
Khayne Darkmere
Leader of Elysian Dawn
Lucan D'Lere
Sure, I have decent DPS arts apart from that one, in particular Cleave, Ferocious Charge, and Blast, but even when chain-casting them, you don't come close to the DPS dealt by a berserker, monk, or bruiser. Shadow knights are almost as good as berserkers and somewhat ahead of paladins. In terms of DPS, guardians are dead last, clearly behind paladins, no matter how you regard things.
At the bottom line, however, we are undoubtedly the best tanks, so who cares.
Khayne Darkmere
Leader of Elysian Dawn
Lucan D'Lere
1 post
Have to agree with Karnos.
Not only do our Combat Abilities lack in the amount of damage they are capable of putting out but by parsing for the last 24 levels to 50 I have noticed that the percent that I hit a mob compared to a Paladin I regulary play with is less.
In game DPS parser that same paladin beat me on every encounter both of us using EBBC,FBSS and STR AGIL rings.
The only fight I have been the damage king on was when my Unyielding Will went off for 7.6k damage on Tundra Jack! Then again it didnt really matter because I died right when it went off.
If your looking for a DPS tank try the Zerk, SK, Bruiser classes.
Not only do our Combat Abilities lack in the amount of damage they are capable of putting out but by parsing for the last 24 levels to 50 I have noticed that the percent that I hit a mob compared to a Paladin I regulary play with is less.
In game DPS parser that same paladin beat me on every encounter both of us using EBBC,FBSS and STR AGIL rings.
The only fight I have been the damage king on was when my Unyielding Will went off for 7.6k damage on Tundra Jack! Then again it didnt really matter because I died right when it went off.
If your looking for a DPS tank try the Zerk, SK, Bruiser classes.
Scholar
31 posts
I have to agree with Monyetman in arguing against some of the other posts here.
I have played both a monk and a pally to significant levels and spent hours looking over logs on my on time. At equal levels, using Adept 1 attacks, I tested versus both yellow and white soloable mobs.
My findings are that the very basic attacks of the monk result in higher DPS than the pally, and if I use styles the monks DPS goes thru the roof in comparison to the woeful damage of the paladin. That being said, the Paladin, with wards and heals seems to be a little easier to stay 'alive' with than the monk.
If the monk starts getting his styles resisted, parried or basically neutralized in one way or the other, then he ends up in a tough fight to stay alive against some mobs. Meanwhile, the Pally can always resort to going defense and wearing down a high resist mob by staying healed and such.
My conclusions were they both came out about the same solo for xp over time, as the higher risk factor in the monk roughly equals out the slower damage of the pally. This is how tanks are made equal.
If the question is about pure damage, then there are definite differrences amongst the classes. If a Guardian does less DPS than a Pally, who seems excrutiatingly slow compared to my monk, then I really feel sad for a guardian. I don't know for certain about the guardian, as I have never tested one out, but I did want to refute some claims made by others here.
Sure, factor out styles and the difference is minimal, but ummm.. who doesn't use styles when they fight?
Edited, Sun Jul 31 16:03:43 2005 by SythRavenhawk
I have played both a monk and a pally to significant levels and spent hours looking over logs on my on time. At equal levels, using Adept 1 attacks, I tested versus both yellow and white soloable mobs.
My findings are that the very basic attacks of the monk result in higher DPS than the pally, and if I use styles the monks DPS goes thru the roof in comparison to the woeful damage of the paladin. That being said, the Paladin, with wards and heals seems to be a little easier to stay 'alive' with than the monk.
If the monk starts getting his styles resisted, parried or basically neutralized in one way or the other, then he ends up in a tough fight to stay alive against some mobs. Meanwhile, the Pally can always resort to going defense and wearing down a high resist mob by staying healed and such.
My conclusions were they both came out about the same solo for xp over time, as the higher risk factor in the monk roughly equals out the slower damage of the pally. This is how tanks are made equal.
If the question is about pure damage, then there are definite differrences amongst the classes. If a Guardian does less DPS than a Pally, who seems excrutiatingly slow compared to my monk, then I really feel sad for a guardian. I don't know for certain about the guardian, as I have never tested one out, but I did want to refute some claims made by others here.
Sure, factor out styles and the difference is minimal, but ummm.. who doesn't use styles when they fight?
Edited, Sun Jul 31 16:03:43 2005 by SythRavenhawk
Recent Visitors: 1
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)
- Forums
- EverQuest II
- General Discussion
- Guardian Vs. Paladin DPS
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC