Snare vs. Tangling Weeds
Brian Hance
Weeds (55% movement reduction, 1 minute duration) when they already
have Snare (41% - 55% movement reduction, and about a 2/3 minute
duration contrary to what castersrealm says)?
Or is there some other effect that I'm not seeing?
--
Brian Hance - bhance at net-prophet.com
=======================================
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself.
They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."
Humphrey Bogart from THE BIG SLEEP
Tukka Yoot
> Weeds (55% movement reduction, 1 minute duration) when they already
> have Snare (41% - 55% movement reduction, and about a 2/3 minute
> duration contrary to what castersrealm says)?
>
> Or is there some other effect that I'm not seeing?
I think the way castersrealm.com gets the majority of its spell data is by
pulling it from some file stored on your hard drive... this file sometimes
has incorrect information to throw off people who use software to read EQ
system files like that.
The only difference I can see that would justify casting Tangling Weeds
over Snare is that it apparently casts a quarter of a second faster. Not
really a big deal in my opinion.
Davian
"Brian Hance" <bha...@net-prophet.com> wrote in message
news:21f51u0k5b7upmdne...@4ax.com...
> Could someone explain to me why they have Druids/Rangers Tangling
> Weeds (55% movement reduction, 1 minute duration) when they already
> have Snare (41% - 55% movement reduction, and about a 2/3 minute
> duration contrary to what castersrealm says)?
>
> Or is there some other effect that I'm not seeing?
>
From what I've heard from rangers (obviously I can't test the spell myself
;) ) the difference is in the casting time. Tangling Weeds is nearly instant
casting. The ranger was waiting until the very end of combat to snare them
(helped with ducking snare related aggro) and having no problems with runners
getting even a few steps.
Dan Harmon
> Weeds (55% movement reduction, 1 minute duration) when they already
> have Snare (41% - 55% movement reduction, and about a 2/3 minute
> duration contrary to what castersrealm says)?
>
> Or is there some other effect that I'm not seeing?
Not that I can tell. Druids over level 24 have no reason to buy it at all.
Ensnare casts a hell of a lot quicker and lasts a hell of a lot longer.
Weeds lasts only a minute...2 minutes shorter than snare and most battles
it's a bitch getting a ranger to snare even if there's no druid around to do
it RIGHT so count on a lot of runners if he doesn't even bother casting
Snare instead of Weeds.
Jennaii
>it RIGHT so count on a lot of runners if he doesn't even bother casting
>Snare instead of Weeds.
Wow I ALWAYS cast snare on runners. I don't like to count on the druid
thinking of it when the critter is nearly dead. I thought all rangers had this
figured out....
"This time: gonna do it RIGHT!" -- Bob Seger
Jennaii
Lance Berg
Dan Harmon wrote:
>
> Not that I can tell. Druids over level 24 have no reason to buy it at all.
> Ensnare casts a hell of a lot quicker and lasts a hell of a lot longer.
>
> Weeds lasts only a minute...2 minutes shorter than snare and most battles
> it's a bitch getting a ranger to snare even if there's no druid around to do
> it RIGHT so count on a lot of runners if he doesn't even bother casting
> Snare instead of Weeds.
If you are using the snare class spell just to stop runners, then it isn't
necessary to cast it before engaging them. Often in a group I see
people casting snare only on runners... which is to say -not- on the
50% of mobs engaged who don't manage to run at all, due to being
nuked to death or because only the last mob of a cluster will run...
I'm not a big fan of this approach, but if you are using it, then a
faster casting snare would be in order, and duration unimportant.
This is the same choice as the one between Root (and later Immobilize)
and Enstill... root casts faster but doesn't last as long, while Enstill
lasts longer, but takes longer to cast. If what you need is an emergency
park, use Root, if what you need is something long term then you go with
Enstill.
Dan Harmon
"Jennaii" <jen...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20011210061637...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >it's a bitch getting a ranger to snare even if there's no druid around to
do
> >it RIGHT so count on a lot of runners if he doesn't even bother casting
> >Snare instead of Weeds.
>
> Wow I ALWAYS cast snare on runners. I don't like to count on the druid
> thinking of it when the critter is nearly dead. I thought all rangers had
this
> figured out....
Oh, I'm sure there are lots of 30s rangers who snare religiously...but
wouldn't you rather do your very nice melee damage for the minimum 3 seconds
(all told) it takes to cast a spell that might be resisted anyway when
there's a druid there NOT extremely busy? I know that if I had a ranger I'd
prefer the druid did it. PLAYING a druid I figure that a lot of the time my
job will be primary healer or primary nuker...it doesn't take any extra time
or mana to be snarer as well.
Davian
"Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:m05R7.141064$tf5.7...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
All depends on the aggro situation of the particular group. Snare is a good
way for an mediocre druid to get himself killed. Same for a ranger, once
you're 50 plus. If there is a chance of pulling aggro from it, I'd much
rather the ranger be the one tanking for a round or two while the MT gets it
back. He at least has a bit of armor class.
Celaeno
It casts in half a second instead of two seconds. This can be a good
thing at lower levels when you might have to resnare something before
it beats on you, but that's not a problem I expect to run into.
Celaeno Duskwalker
Fier'dal wanderer of Erollisi Marr
Celaeno
>>it's a bitch getting a ranger to snare even if there's no druid around to do
>>it RIGHT so count on a lot of runners if he doesn't even bother casting
>>Snare instead of Weeds.
>
>Wow I ALWAYS cast snare on runners. I don't like to count on the druid
>thinking of it when the critter is nearly dead. I thought all rangers had this
>figured out....
Pet peeve: rangers, who upon being asked multiple times if they'll do
snare duty while I'm actually doing something useful (like, primary or
secondary healer), either forget after two pulls, or never see they're
being asked. I've grouped with rangers who have snared the first
couple mobs and then gotten lazy, and then have asked me if I want
them to snare after I've had to snare 3 runners and asked them to do
it half a dozen times.
Thomas
Lance Berg wrote:
> Dan Harmon wrote:
>
> >
> > Not that I can tell. Druids over level 24 have no reason to buy it at all.
> > Ensnare casts a hell of a lot quicker and lasts a hell of a lot longer.
> >
> > Weeds lasts only a minute...2 minutes shorter than snare and most battles
> > it's a bitch getting a ranger to snare even if there's no druid around to do
> > it RIGHT so count on a lot of runners if he doesn't even bother casting
> > Snare instead of Weeds.
>
> If you are using the snare class spell just to stop runners, then it isn't
> necessary to cast it before engaging them. Often in a group I see
> people casting snare only on runners... which is to say -not- on the
> 50% of mobs engaged who don't manage to run at all, due to being
> nuked to death or because only the last mob of a cluster will run...
> I'm not a big fan of this approach, but if you are using it, then a
> faster casting snare would be in order, and duration unimportant.
>
Your discription happens often but there is a specific reason for it. Agro
Management is the biggest thing for any melee class to have to work on. For
rangers, it is their number 1 concern. Deciding when to snare is part of that. It
comes down to evaluating that Risk-Reward equation. Rangers risk the chance of a
runner for the reward of less agro and therefore less healing mana. Reduce the
risk for runners, you increase the amount of healing mana needed for them.
-thomasx
Thomas
Celaeno wrote:
Pet Peeve: druids who wait to long to heal. druids who do not know when their buffs
are running off of the group members they are supporting, etc.
You all are doing an injustice by steriotyping all rangers into a catagory of bad
players just as I was doing with the above statement on druids. Fact is that a lot
of players who think that rangers are not snaring are the ones who do not tust their
group mates to do their job. Furthermore, they are also the ones that would complain
about the ranger having achieved to much aggro should they snare to soon. In this
day with the shift of rangers our of the role of tank, a ranger needs to manage
his/her agro. Snaring at the beginning of the fight is the best way to fail at Agro
Management. Tangle Weeds is a spell that does have the potential of allowing ranger
to do one group function that has always been theirs and still manage their agro.
-thomasx
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|his/her agro. Snaring at the beginning of the fight is the best way to fail at Agro
|Management. Tangle Weeds is a spell that does have the potential of allowing ranger
|to do one group function that has always been theirs and still manage their agro.
Unfortunately Tangling Weeds just got nerfed; it is now a fixed-duration 3
ticks (instead of a random duration with a resist check each tick up to 2
minutes), the movement reduction is now more like 35% instead of 55% (on a par
with a Darkness spell) and the recast time bumped up to 6 seconds (from 4).
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"It's better some times if we don't get to touch our dreams."
-- Harry Chapin
Brian Hance
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately Tangling Weeds just got nerfed; it is now a fixed-duration 3
>ticks (instead of a random duration with a resist check each tick up to 2
>minutes), the movement reduction is now more like 35% instead of 55% (on a par
>with a Darkness spell) and the recast time bumped up to 6 seconds (from 4).
Ok, then I'll reiterate my original question, what's the fucking point
of the spell?
Dan Harmon
There was no fucking point to it BEFORE the nerf. Level 9 (for rangers)
snare was only barely slower to cast and lasted 3 minutes fixed. TW on
castersrealm implied 1 minute fixed...big freaking deal.
I'm sorry, but if you rangers are going to wait until the critter is within
1 minute of death to cast a snare-type spell, you're going to have a hell of
a lot of runners. And if you cast even SNARE after level 50 there's a
decent chance in many groups that the sucker is going to wear off early.
Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a ranger
to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
Lance Berg
Brian Hance wrote:
> Could someone explain to me why they have Druids/Rangers Tangling
> Weeds (55% movement reduction, 1 minute duration) when they already
> have Snare (41% - 55% movement reduction, and about a 2/3 minute
> duration contrary to what castersrealm says)?
>
> Or is there some other effect that I'm not seeing?
Crazy idea occured to me last night, but ny little druid (who's been
relegated
to pretty much nothing but porter for my friends anyway) hasn't bothered
getting the new spells.
What if they stack?
An -additional- 55% movement reduction that stacks with the main line,
heck, you'd be using that spell all the way up to 60.
I'm sure it doesn't... but what if?
Srimp Scampi
30 Druid, Morel Thule
Celaeno
>Celaeno wrote:
>> Pet peeve: rangers, who upon being asked multiple times if they'll do
>> snare duty while I'm actually doing something useful (like, primary or
>> secondary healer), either forget after two pulls, or never see they're
>> being asked. I've grouped with rangers who have snared the first
>> couple mobs and then gotten lazy, and then have asked me if I want
>> them to snare after I've had to snare 3 runners and asked them to do
>> it half a dozen times.
>
>Pet Peeve: druids who wait to long to heal. druids who do not know when their buffs
>are running off of the group members they are supporting, etc.
Yes, they suck too. (I can't always time buffs, though; I ask my group
to tell me when things drop)
>You all are doing an injustice by steriotyping all rangers into a catagory of bad
>players just as I was doing with the above statement on druids.
Did I say all rangers? I said rangers who forget to snare when they
are the snarer. (If someone else is supposed to be snaring and I am
medding my butt off for heals, I kinda prefer not having to get up and
cast because something is running away from us, you know?)
Celaeno
>Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a ranger
>to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
And if the druid has other things to do?
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|You will not evade me, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>:
|
|>Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a ranger
|>to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
|
|And if the druid has other things to do?
Pardon my piggybacking; Harmon is killfiled.
As a Ranger, I always take the duty of Snaring upon myself, unless there
is a Druid with the epic present. Why? Because Snare has horrible agro, and
while Rangers may not be tanks, I can take a hit a lot better than your
typical Druid, especially these days. Plus, I can dump the mob off onto the
real tanks, which the Druid has no real way of doing. (Root doesn't last long
enough, and just gets more agro when it does break.)
Dan Harmon
"Celaeno" <cel...@shavenwookie.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c1a31e5...@news.world-online.no...
> You will not evade me, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>:
>
> >Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a
ranger
> >to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
>
> And if the druid has other things to do?
They don't have anything nearly as important as preventing runners to do.
I have a 52 druid.
Dan Harmon
"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hodl1ugbvhcc22a5d...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 00:03:48 GMT, cel...@shavenwookie.nospam.com
(Celaeno)
> wrote:
>
> |You will not evade me, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>:
> |
> |>Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a
ranger
> |>to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
> |
> |And if the druid has other things to do?
>
> Pardon my piggybacking; Harmon is killfiled.
>
> As a Ranger, I always take the duty of Snaring upon myself, unless there
> is a Druid with the epic present. Why? Because Snare has horrible agro,
and
> while Rangers may not be tanks, I can take a hit a lot better than your
> typical Druid, especially these days. Plus, I can dump the mob off onto
the
> real tanks, which the Druid has no real way of doing. (Root doesn't last
long
> enough, and just gets more agro when it does break.)
No wonder I'm KFed...he's full of shit. Root works just fine to get aggro
off the rooter. Druids (or anyone, for that matter) who root before the
critter is down to at least 95% health are stupid. Snare has a lower risk
of aggro than tash (I have 52 druid, 55 enc) and I'm perfectly safe if I
wait until 95%. I often use Root to get the critter's mind off me. Unless
it breaks immediately (not likely) I'm fine.
Trouble is, by the time the critter is down to 95% health the ranger is in
KILL mode. It's hard enough to get rangers to remember to manage their
aggro WITHOUT having to remember to snare.
Obviously I'm not talking about YOUR (the reader, whoever you might be)
ranger. ;)
Richard
The ranger I group with regularly always takes care of the snaring, and she
does a damned fine job as a ranger. She's now level 49.
--
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Shaman of 44 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The
Appointed>
Tainniel, Halfling Warrior of 23 seasons, Erollisi Marr <Decadence>
Ganwein, Wood Elf Ranger of 12 seasons, Erollisi Marr <The Appointed>
Davian
>
> "Celaeno" <cel...@shavenwookie.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3c1a31e5...@news.world-online.no...
> > You will not evade me, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>:
> >
> > >Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a
> ranger
> > >to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
> >
> > And if the druid has other things to do?
>
> They don't have anything nearly as important as preventing runners to do.
>
Oh I don't know, perhaps healing? You did realize druids could heal, right?
(Sorry, just asking since some druids don't realize it.)
Perhaps you would rather have the Ranger healing instead...
> I have a 52 druid.
Thats nice. Pretty irrelevant, but nice.
Dan Harmon
"Richard" <richar...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9vl37g$ftq8t$1...@ID-111521.news.dfncis.de...
> > Obviously I'm not talking about YOUR (the reader, whoever you might be)
> > ranger. ;)
> >
> >
>
> The ranger I group with regularly always takes care of the snaring, and
she
> does a damned fine job as a ranger. She's now level 49.
Quoted myself and your response, just to draw attention to my original post.
:P
Valien
>>
>Oh I don't know, perhaps healing? You did realize druids could heal, right?
>(Sorry, just asking since some druids don't realize it.)
>
>Perhaps you would rather have the Ranger healing instead...
LOL!
My 50 Druid "ALWAYS" has enough mana to heal (if I'm primary or
back-up healer), evac, and snare the runners. Anything less, and I am
not doing my job.
There is nothing harder on mana than an unexpected add. Every class in
the group with a "snare" spell should be ready willing and able to use
it at all times. (Same thing goes for root, even if you have a
Ench/Bard for CC. You never know when things will go wrong.)
Cheers
Dan Harmon
"Davian" <dav...@mindspringNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9vl9fm$3dr$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > And if the druid has other things to do?
> >
> > They don't have anything nearly as important as preventing runners to
do.
> >
>
> Oh I don't know, perhaps healing? You did realize druids could heal,
right?
> (Sorry, just asking since some druids don't realize it.)
I've seen a hell of a lot more druids willing to be primary healer than
shaman, but that's irrelevant too.
There are so few times where a druid would have to choose between healing
RIGHT NOW and snaring RIGHT NOW that I could say that it NEVER HAPPENS and
be damned close to being 100% correct.
Next?
And it's not irrelevant that I have a 52 druid. It's relevant because *I*
know what I'm talking about. You haven't shown any evidence that you do.
Dan Harmon
"Valien" <te...@test.com> wrote in message
news:c7bs1uctd8nrq08qf...@4ax.com...
> There is nothing harder on mana than an unexpected add. Every class in
> the group with a "snare" spell should be ready willing and able to use
> it at all times. (Same thing goes for root, even if you have a
> Ench/Bard for CC. You never know when things will go wrong.)
Yeah, what gets me are people bitching when something is double-snared or
rooted. Like it's a big waste of mana or something.
If ranger is primary snarer but has let a runner go at least once, well,
sorry, but I'm going to "waste" 35 mana on each future critter to cover my
OWN ass. If I'm primary snarer and *I* let at least one runner go then I'm
not going to be pissed that someone beats me to any future snare.
Dream King
a Druid in a group, the two work out who handles snaring. At least
that's how I've always done it. Same thing if you have a SK in your
group, actually. If someone gets low on mana or is having trouble
snaring, just ask the other person if they can get it to stick. I
haven't really seen mana being an issue, especially since Elder
Spiritists Gauntlets are like, almost free or something. No stats and
snare rather than ensare, but I still carry them around and use them for
snaring when grouped.
James
Dan Harmon wrote in message ...
>"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:hodl1ugbvhcc22a5d...@4ax.com...
>>
>> is a Druid with the epic present. Why? Because Snare has horrible agro,
>> and
>> while Rangers may not be tanks, I can take a hit a lot better than your
>> typical Druid, especially these days. Plus, I can dump the mob off onto
>> the
>> real tanks, which the Druid has no real way of doing. (Root doesn't last
>> long enough, and just gets more agro when it does break.)
>
>No wonder I'm KFed...he's full of shit. Root works just fine to get aggro
>off the rooter.
Root does nothing to remove aggro. It makes the mob unable to get to
you, but it still hates you - even more now because you Rooted it. You have
to rely on Root holding long enough for the tanks to get aggro back from
you. And in my experiences Root just doesn't hold that long.
>Druids (or anyone, for that matter) who root before the
>critter is down to at least 95% health are stupid. Snare has a lower risk
>of aggro than tash (I have 52 druid, 55 enc) and I'm perfectly safe if I
>wait until 95%. I often use Root to get the critter's mind off me.
So Snare has a low risk of aggro, but you often use Root to stop getting
beat on, huh? 8)
>Unless it breaks immediately (not likely) I'm fine.
That's the exact opposite of my recent experiences. Root breaks too
fast - you have to at least also stay standing to avoid keeping aggro.
>Trouble is, by the time the critter is down to 95% health the ranger is in
>KILL mode. It's hard enough to get rangers to remember to manage their
>aggro WITHOUT having to remember to snare.
I have yet to see a ranger that made high levels and didn't manage aggro
religiously. And here's why: doing Upper Kobolds in Velk's. Most of the
group is level 60, no worries. Plate tank leaves, ranger decides to step up
to the plate and try to tank. He's level 60, in the server's second-best
guild (has his Primal 1HS and other toys), has Aego (no SHM buffs), we have
an ENCH slowing. We had to leave. I had to start my CHeals when he was at
50% health just to keep him alive. I've never seen a main tank of ANY plate
class where I had to start that early. Rangers know how squishy they are,
and use Jolt at the hint of trouble.
James
Richard
When I'm not soloing, I find that I spend most of my time being primary
healer. I certainly can't refute what you have seen, but I have seen just
the opposite, shamans tend to be primary healer more often than druids. I
can only recall one or two druids that refused to act in that role when
asked however.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
| Root does nothing to remove aggro. It makes the mob unable to get to
|you, but it still hates you - even more now because you Rooted it. You have
|to rely on Root holding long enough for the tanks to get aggro back from
|you. And in my experiences Root just doesn't hold that long.
Root will change the mob to proximity agro -- for as long as it's rooted,
it will hit whoever is closest to it. (This is why Rangers HATE earth pets --
they root constantly, causing mobs to turn on people unexpectedly and to
become unJoltable.)
Of course, against high-level mobs with decent resists, it doesn't last
that long.
| I have yet to see a ranger that made high levels and didn't manage aggro
|religiously. And here's why: doing Upper Kobolds in Velk's. Most of the
|group is level 60, no worries. Plate tank leaves, ranger decides to step up
|to the plate and try to tank. He's level 60, in the server's second-best
|guild (has his Primal 1HS and other toys), has Aego (no SHM buffs), we have
|an ENCH slowing. We had to leave. I had to start my CHeals when he was at
|50% health just to keep him alive. I've never seen a main tank of ANY plate
|class where I had to start that early. Rangers know how squishy they are,
|and use Jolt at the hint of trouble.
It's the HP disparity. Alone of the fighter classes, Rangers get no
significant hit point increases past level 50.
sanjian
news:Q3rT7.16460$m54.4...@news0.telusplanet.net...
>
> Dan Harmon wrote in message ...
> >"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:hodl1ugbvhcc22a5d...@4ax.com...
> >No wonder I'm KFed...he's full of shit. Root works just fine to get
aggro
> >off the rooter.
>
> Root does nothing to remove aggro. It makes the mob unable to get to
> you, but it still hates you - even more now because you Rooted it. You
have
> to rely on Root holding long enough for the tanks to get aggro back from
> you. And in my experiences Root just doesn't hold that long.
Hell, my Pally uses root to help pull the mob off the caster if he gets
aggroed (or, in any event, to allow him to walk away while the mob is
rooted).
--
--
san...@widomaker.com
Order of the Mallet
--
Goodbye to the bewildered yestersday.
This feelign that gushes out.
Let's make a regrowing flower blossom.
Memories are always a sweet place to run away.
But let it go to live for tomorrow.
The time for celebration will come, with both hands extended.
Both hands raised.
--Megumi Hayashibara, Sakura Saku
James
sanjian wrote in message ...
>"James" <jamesg...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:Q3rT7.16460$m54.4...@news0.telusplanet.net...
>> Dan Harmon wrote in message ...
>
>aggro
>> >off the rooter.
>>
>> Root does nothing to remove aggro. It makes the mob unable to get to
>> you, but it still hates you - even more now because you Rooted it. You
>have
>> to rely on Root holding long enough for the tanks to get aggro back from
>> you. And in my experiences Root just doesn't hold that long.
>
>Hell, my Pally uses root to help pull the mob off the caster if he gets
>aggroed (or, in any event, to allow him to walk away while the mob is
>rooted).
The second part is the accurate description. On the fairly high MR
spiders in Velk's I've seen it again and again - druid aggros spider, backs
off while tanks do their thing, sits down a fair ways away, and as soon as
Root breaks spider beelines druid and tears him a new one. If you have good
tanks, and if Root lasts, it can get a mob off a player - otherwise it's a
temporary respite.
James
Sang K. Choe
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
> Of course, against high-level mobs with decent resists, it doesn't last
>that long.
Against high level mobs root doesn't stick.
Either it's resisted outright or you get that stupid fucking "This
mob's movement cannot be altered" message.
At higher levels, if the shit isn't mezzable, tank-mez is the only
crowd control available.
-- Sang.
Dan Harmon
> The second part is the accurate description. On the fairly high MR
> spiders in Velk's I've seen it again and again - druid aggros spider,
backs
> off while tanks do their thing, sits down a fair ways away, and as soon as
> Root breaks spider beelines druid and tears him a new one. If you have
good
> tanks, and if Root lasts, it can get a mob off a player - otherwise it's a
> temporary respite.
I would bet that had the druid not been sitting the critter would still be
on the tank. I find that all the time on my druid or enchanter that's
gotten a bit high on the hate list. Sometimes it takes up to 10% of melee
damage before the tank is finally at the top of the hate list and I can
safely sit down. Sometimes even more.
In Fear critters make a bee-line to my enchanter even before I cast ANYTHING
if I dare sit down, even if a tank's been beating on it a few seconds.
Root gives you a chance to sit and med until it breaks. It doesn't ADD
aggro. It may not last long enough to 100% REMOVE aggro, but it doesn't ADD
any.
There are exceptions, obviously, to any broad statement, but I doubt if root
has much to do with it. Sometimes critters just DO NOT like a particular
character, no matter what they and the tank do to fix the aggro. In FG the
other night I cast a slow on a critter very near the start of the fight.
That almost never aggros the first cast. If it doesn't stick and I have to
cast again, that's a different story. But this one critter...I hit it with
slow (tash first is usually a bad idea in higher levels) and BAM that guy
was on me...with me just standing there (I know better than to melee or
cast) and the warrior beating on its back for about a minute. I don't think
that guy ever stopped hammering me. No one, unfortunately, thought to root
the critter. Folks have come to depend on me for CC and root is ghetto-CC
(although damned handy).
An enchanter is my main. I'm very familiar with being hit. I'm very
familiar with what aggro means. Since I take a lot more damage per hit than
the warrior in my group, and I take damage most fights, I daresay that I
know at least as much about it as he does.
Lance Berg
Thomas wrote:
>
> > If you are using the snare class spell just to stop runners, then it isn't
> > necessary to cast it before engaging them. Often in a group I see
> > people casting snare only on runners... which is to say -not- on the
> > 50% of mobs engaged who don't manage to run at all, due to being
> > nuked to death or because only the last mob of a cluster will run...
> > I'm not a big fan of this approach, but if you are using it, then a
> > faster casting snare would be in order, and duration unimportant.
> >
>
> Your discription happens often but there is a specific reason for it. Agro
> Management is the biggest thing for any melee class to have to work on. For
> rangers, it is their number 1 concern. Deciding when to snare is part of that. It
> comes down to evaluating that Risk-Reward equation. Rangers risk the chance of a
> runner for the reward of less agro and therefore less healing mana. Reduce the
> risk for runners, you increase the amount of healing mana needed for them.
>
> -thomasx
So a faster casting snare, duration unimportant, is a great leap forward for
the ranger... which is what I was saying.
Dan Harmon
"Lance Berg" <emp...@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:3C1F6437...@dejazzd.com...
> So a faster casting snare, duration unimportant, is a great leap forward
for
> the ranger... which is what I was saying.
Until they get ensnare, I can agree with that. It's a total waste of money
for a 24+ druid though. Ensnare casts faster and lasts a USEFUL amount of
time.
TwoHead
> The second part is the accurate description. On the fairly high MR
> spiders in Velk's I've seen it again and again - druid aggros spider, backs
> off while tanks do their thing, sits down a fair ways away, and as soon as
> Root breaks spider beelines druid and tears him a new one. If you have good
> tanks, and if Root lasts, it can get a mob off a player - otherwise it's a
> temporary respite.
>
> James
Using root for CC is very viable in some places, Velks not being one I'd
care to do though. Our regular gang of 5 or 6 doesn't include either an
enchanter or bard so we've been using root tactics extensively and
actually do quite well with it. Places like HS Seb and the like where
you aren't supposed to go without good CC are the best, but its high
tension fighting. Velks on the other hand is pure tank CC, them spiders
laugh at root heh.
The key is that you don't take a mob if you have work to do and someone
else can take it, and once you do its yours. When root breaks and it
comes to you it helps to have stood up at the yellow message and already
started casting before it gets to you in a spot you have decided you
want to root him next. It isn't done willy nilly, its a controlled
tactic if you do it a lot. You don't want your dress wearing folks
doing this, shaman and cleric preferred though druids work, they just
get hurt more.
th
Dan Harmon
"TwoHead" <t...@2omar2world2.com> wrote in message
news:3C1F7DCA...@2omar2world2.com...
> tactic if you do it a lot. You don't want your dress wearing folks
> doing this, shaman and cleric preferred though druids work, they just
> get hurt more.
Robes, you bastard. :P
TwoHead
The wizard in our gang has a love/hate relationship with my cleric. Can
you tell?
th
Dan Harmon
> The wizard in our gang has a love/hate relationship with my cleric. Can
> you tell?
Sounds like an over-nuking wizzie, just to get off-topic even more. :)
My enchanter expects to be bashed every fight...my wizard a couple hits
every 4th fight, max (assuming normal circumstances, single pulls, no
surprises) and every 4th fight I realize I'd goofed. :)
Davian
>
>
> And it's not irrelevant that I have a 52 druid. It's relevant because *I*
> know what I'm talking about. You haven't shown any evidence that you do.
>
Yes, it is, since you're trying to equate level to game skill and knowledge.
Considering the number of completely clueless level 50+ characters I've seen,
you having a level 52 druid doesn't prove anything to me except that you've
managed to find the snare button, the root button, the DoT button, and the sit
button.
I haven't shown any "evidence" of my game skill and knowledge, as there is no
such thing which is not readily apparent. Any posting of levels or equipment
would simply be percieved as bragging, or disputed by calling it a lie. What
am I going to do, invite you to my server so you can come talk to me and see
it? Heh. I don't care about this, or you, enough to bother.
Lets just say I'm sufficiently high level enough to be experienced, I group
with both rangers and druids often, and with both in the group, generally our
rangers handle snare aggro better than the druids. Perhaps I just know
several high quality rangers. But they are still better at it.
Celaeno
>
>"Celaeno" <cel...@shavenwookie.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3c1a31e5...@news.world-online.no...
>> You will not evade me, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>:
>>
>> >Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a
>ranger
>> >to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
>>
>> And if the druid has other things to do?
>
>They don't have anything nearly as important as preventing runners to do.
>
>I have a 52 druid.
So? I have a 54 druid
- who just happens to spend large amounts of her time as primary or
only healer in groups with up to 5 melees.
The incident that triggered my comment about not being too pleased
when grouped with rangers who forget they're the snarer was when I was
only healer in a group in some corner of Chardok. For more than an
hour, I kept a a level 60 warrior in berzerker state (on his request),
buffed everyone, and fire/AC debuffed our targets. The ranger was in
charge of snaring, and I was medding just far enough away to not see
spell messages when things landed. So, it was annoying to suddenly see
one in every three or four mobs start running and have to snare them
myself before they got too far away, because it'd slipped the ranger's
mind that HE was the one supposed to be doing that.
But then again, I wasn't really doing anything nearly as important as
snaring anyway, was I?
Maxx Taxx
> >> >Rangers snaring is a joke. They have other things to do. You use a
> >ranger
> >> >to snare if you have no druid, but druids are definitely preferred.
What game are you playing ?
Rangers get the ensnare spell at level 51 and after that they are much
better at snaring simply because they can handle aggro much better than a
druid.
Rangers can take hits until the main tank gets back on top of aggro list and
have the (cinder)jolt spell to reduce aggro which should be cast right after
the mob hits you to prevent interruption. If he runs out of mana he can
usually just take a step back until he gets lower on the aggro list.
Depending on situation and how aggro is shared the ranger can snare early or
late.
If you are grouped with a person that gets much more aggro then you (higher
level tank that causes more damage) or there is a high risk of trains etc
you can snare early, this can however lead to having to use the jolt spell
to avoid tapping the clerics mana - bad if you don't have enchanter/clarity
in group because you will soon run out of mana after snares/jolts since you
keep a standing position and don't meditate to well that way.
You are one of the first I have seen that seem to believe that Rangers are
worse group players than druids.
Generally people say the opposite because many druids keep soloing from 1 to
50 in a way that rangers couldn't, at least before they got the panic animal
spell.
I met many druids that know less of the lines of spells they have than me
but I have never met a ranger that can't use snare.
It's almost as bad as an enchanter that do not use clarity.
PS One thing I have seen many times though is pallys that do not cast their
buffs or use their healing mana even when clerics are low on mana. =)
Richard
Yeah, you will find bad players of all classes, at all levels, right up to
60. All you can do, is note the names, and try to avoid them in the future.
Dan Harmon
"Davian" <dav...@mindspringNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> I haven't shown any "evidence" of my game skill and knowledge, as there is
no
> such thing which is not readily apparent. Any posting of levels or
equipment
> would simply be percieved as bragging, or disputed by calling it a lie.
What
> am I going to do, invite you to my server so you can come talk to me and
see
> it? Heh. I don't care about this, or you, enough to bother.
Well, no more than you have shown any evidence that you know what you're
talking about.
My druid has a pathetic 60+ days /played (any time someone plays a character
that long it's pathetic...I mean, come on, get a life, will ya? And it
might be as bad as 90, but I can't remember), the vast majority in groups.
It's been my experience that the average 50+ ranger can't even remember to
manage aggro, let alone cast a spell when required. This new spell doesn't
help in the slightest. And that's why rangers are called mana sinks, and
druids are not.
wolfie
"Dan Harmon" wrote
> Root gives you a chance to sit and med until it breaks.
> It doesn't ADD aggro. It may not last long enough to
> 100% REMOVE aggro, but it doesn't ADD any.
Huh? Find a mob, even a nice amiable one, and root it.
Of course it adds aggro. And it never removes aggro at
all. It's just that, if you're lucky, the root will hold long
enough for Taunt or other means of generating aggro to
move you lower than someone else on the hate list or
for you to move out of the mobs follow range if that mob's
range isn't zone-wide.
Davian
>
> "Davian" <dav...@mindspringNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:9vogar$u52$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > I haven't shown any "evidence" of my game skill and knowledge, as there is
> no
> > such thing which is not readily apparent. Any posting of levels or
> equipment
> > would simply be percieved as bragging, or disputed by calling it a lie.
> What
> > am I going to do, invite you to my server so you can come talk to me and
> see
> > it? Heh. I don't care about this, or you, enough to bother.
>
> Well, no more than you have shown any evidence that you know what you're
> talking about.
>
Your sentence here makes no sense. Perhaps you'd prefer to clarify it if
you'd like a response.
If you're that hung up on me "proving" I have high level experience though,
fine.
http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=50248
> My druid has a pathetic 60+ days /played (any time someone plays a character
> that long it's pathetic...I mean, come on, get a life, will ya? And it
> might be as bad as 90, but I can't remember), the vast majority in groups.
>
> It's been my experience that the average 50+ ranger can't even remember to
> manage aggro, let alone cast a spell when required. This new spell doesn't
> help in the slightest. And that's why rangers are called mana sinks, and
> druids are not.
>
Pure and utter bullshit.
A druid who cannot manage his aggro is about the worst cleric mana sink there
is.
wolfie
"Davian" wrote
> "Dan Harmon" wrote
> > It's been my experience that the average 50+ ranger can't even
> > remember to manage aggro, let alone cast a spell when required.
> > This new spell doesn't help in the slightest. And that's why rangers
> > are called mana sinks, and druids are not.
>
> Pure and utter bullshit.
>
> A druid who cannot manage his aggro is about the worst cleric mana
> sink there is.
Rubbish. A druid dies too fast for the cleric to waste mana. A
ranger can hold on long enough to actually take a heal or two.
It's more mana efficient to rez the druid than heal the ranger. ;)
Richard
news:FC3U7.825$sp.44...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Better yet, take an add, that has aggroed on your group, noone has hit it
yet, root it. When root breaks, who will it go after, if noone else has hit
it still? The person it was beating on before, or the person who rooted it?
Barring other aggro factors, like sitting, very low health, etc. Of course
Root adds aggro.
TwoHead
> > manage aggro, let alone cast a spell when required. This new spell doesn't
> > help in the slightest. And that's why rangers are called mana sinks, and
> > druids are not.
> >
>
> Pure and utter bullshit.
>
> A druid who cannot manage his aggro is about the worst cleric mana sink there
> is.
Speaking as a cleric I would like to say you are both wrong. Neither
rangers nor druids (heck not even wizards <EG>) who manage agro poorly
are mana sinks. Let them die!
/em enjoys an Underfoot Triplebock...Glug Glug Glug, ahhh that was
refreshing!
th
Dan Harmon
"Davian" <dav...@mindspringNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> A druid who cannot manage his aggro is about the worst cleric mana sink
there
> is.
Along with any INT caster, no argument. But I see rangers much more often
getting aggro more often and for longer periods of time. Rangers who think
that hitting the Taunt button is somehow a good idea (/boggle) when they
aren't MT.
Druid snares early...takes some hits while the MT gets its attention back.
Bad aggro management happened and dealt with. Ranger beat on critter...gets
aggro. Does nothing but continue to beat on the critter expecting the
cleric to heal them.
But as TH said, anyone who can't manage aggro dies. Some idiot players need
to learn the lesson by dying a few times. Unfortunately most clerics
continue to keep idiot players playing rangers alive, so in their 50s they
still haven't learned how to manage it.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Rubbish. A druid dies too fast for the cleric to waste mana. A
|ranger can hold on long enough to actually take a heal or two.
|It's more mana efficient to rez the druid than heal the ranger. ;)
We eventually came to that conclusion. :-)
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|"Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
|news:%52U7.159827$C8.11...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
|> It's been my experience that the average 50+ ranger can't even remember to
|> manage aggro, let alone cast a spell when required. This new spell doesn't
|> help in the slightest. And that's why rangers are called mana sinks, and
|> druids are not.
Mr. Harmon, you are full of shit.
The last time I drew agro I didn't want was several weeks ago in Temple of
Veeshan (HoT), because at 56 my Jolts don't stick to the Wurms often enough.
(Jolting Blades was a big help, though.) In the general case, if I don't want
a mob on me, it's not.
And I'm using an Earthcaller.
During my 5 month vigil in Hate for the Shattered Emerald of Corruption, I
can't tell you how many times in wipeouts I was one of the last ones standing,
swinging all the time. My weapons during this period were a Revultant Whip to
start with, then a Spined Dragon Claws. I wasn't using a Wurmslayer. Any
Ranger who cares to avoid agro can just use a Wurmslayer up to about level 58
and maintain an acceptable damage output. I don't advocate this because any
Ranger who uses a Wurmslayer exclusively up to 58 will be ill-suited to deal
with a higher agro profile.
Rangers are called "mana sinks" because of game dynamics that changed well
over a year ago. Pinheads like you continue to spread misinformation,
oblivious to the fact that Rangers now have better tools to manage their agro,
better equipment and better defensive skills. Our only real shortcoming these
days is HP; we have lower HP than just about any of the fighter classes. (I
am pretty sure Rogues and Monks outpoint us; not sure about Bards.)
We may not be "essential" the way Warriors and Clerics are, but there is
no class in this game that can do what a well-played Ranger can do.
|A druid who cannot manage his aggro is about the worst cleric mana sink there
|is.
Davian and I are in the same guild, and thanks to a now-departed member,
can personally attest to this....
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Rangers who think
|that hitting the Taunt button is somehow a good idea (/boggle) when they
|aren't MT.
Depends. If the mob's eating a Cleric or Enchanter and the MT can't get
it off, should I stand there and watch them die or take the mob off them?
Which of us can take the abuse better? Which, if lost, will hurt the team the
least? A Ranger can save an entire raid by knowing when to lean into the
strike zone...fortunately, we also have the tools to lean back out again.
|Ranger beat on critter...gets
|aggro. Does nothing but continue to beat on the critter expecting the
|cleric to heal them.
And I have never, ever, done this myself or seen a Ranger who did.
You're full of it.
Mark A. Rimer
news:h5s12ukijgfc6bgm6...@4ax.com...
> Our only real shortcoming these
> days is HP; we have lower HP than just about any of the fighter classes.
(I
> am pretty sure Rogues and Monks outpoint us; not sure about Bards.)
Nope...rangers and rogues are on the same hit point table,
I believe.
Maxx Taxx
> |"Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> |news:%52U7.159827$C8.11...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> |> It's been my experience that the average 50+ ranger can't even remember
to
> |> manage aggro, let alone cast a spell when required. This new spell
doesn't
> |> help in the slightest. And that's why rangers are called mana sinks,
and
> |> druids are not.
>
> Mr. Harmon, you are full of shit.
>
/agree
Very full of shit. You have a lot of time to learn to play your character
since getting to level 50 takes a while and it's highly unlikely that
rangers at level 50+ are trying to be main tank or can't manage aggro, also
it would take really stupid group members to let him go ahead and do it
without correcting him.
Rangers are not mana sinks, in fact they are very efficient in a level 50
group because they have snare, can damage shield, regen, heals in between
fights etc plus high damage output. Enchanter, Cleric, Warrior, Monk,
Rogue, Ranger is one example of a great group with really high damage
output.