Shaman Totems Edit

Question: I don't know whether Shaman Totems generate aggro for the Shaman who created them. Anybody know?

--TedC 14:41, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Main Tank / Main Assist Edit

I'd argue that the MT (Main_Tank) and the MA (Main_Assist) are completely independent rolls.

  • The MT's roll is to keep on top of aggro, making sure that mobs don't start attacking the squisies
  • The MA's roll is to direct the fighting for the party. IMHO a MA is ideally a rogue, since it is in their interest to keep fighting one person till dead but hunters / mages can also direct and since they are further back they have a better overview of the battle. However to me the mages / hunters also want to be able to switch targets if needed, I.E. to catch runners

Just wandering what other people think?

--Eid 11:29, 29 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Me, I think the MA should be a paladin, where possible. Why? Because a paladin can't by himself kill really fast, but can tank effectively because he has decent armor. But still he can't effectively be the MT, so that eliminates him from that.
So why MA? Because paladins that know what they're doing will use Judgement of Justice, which prevents baddies from fleeing; and because later on they might have Judgement of Wisdom and Judgement of Light, which either have a chance-on-hit or a guarantee for mana or health increase for anyone who hit the judged mob. (Of course, a paladin can have only one judgement at a time, but together they can have as many as there are paladins, but they don't stack.)
Other than that, to me it seems like a hunter would be the obvious choice because they have that thing that puts an arrow over the target so it can be very visible. Schmidt talk 00:21, 30 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Eid, I think this is completely accurate. In fact, I doubt that any effective raiding group will expect the MT to MA.
Schmidt, you might have a valid point, but the discussion page for Tank isn't really the place for it. (I realize these comments are almost 2 years old at this point, but figured it might as well be said.)--Scrotch 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Druid Tanking Edit

Wikked your enthusiam is noted and appreciated the articles re: tanking were heavily biased and contained much disinformation. OTOH I will be blunt you can't read (I am a druid tank not a 'confused warrior'), can't edit (Frenzied Regeneration is simply not worth mentioning in this article), can't add (+30% threat =/= "130% more threat"), and in general show the same bias and hyperbole just in the other direction.

Stecko to be blunt, I don't apreciate your condescending attitude, and if you don't think your biased you are deluding yourself. Otherwise you would know that there was no hyperbole or bias there at all. Was its positive rather than negative? Yes. I can see how after 2 years of constant negativity regarding bear tanking, how you might confuse that with hyperbole. You are confusing your own bias with the truth. (Mathematically proven, empirically tested *yawn yawn not going there*) A fully "tank" specced bear druid will do 145% of threat per damage say a paladin, not including the additional threat modifier on maul and swipe. I never put the frenzied regen in. I agree that on an end boss it makes no difference. I would have taken it out myself except that I didn't presume the right to arrogently rework others efforts, at least the parts that were accurate. As far as the confused Warrior, frankly I didn't really believe you claims to being a druid tank... I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said confused warrior rather than truely ignorant druid. There: insults traded, flamewars aside... I am honestly mostly,satisfied with the current state of page. This isn't really the place to go into the mechanics of tanking, just brief blurbs. The worst of the false information is gone. Good work.

Shaman tankingEdit

The article should probably be updated to describe how a shaman may (or may not) tank with rockbiter weapon not generating aggro. Something like:

"Shamans can do well at one part of tanking, generating aggro, but have less defensive skills than other classes regularily called on to tank. Shamans can use their high threat frost shock to draw aggro onto themselves, and use the skill lighting shield to add damage to draw more aggro to attacking monsters.

Shaman damage reduction is poor, however, compared to other tanking classes, as they can only wear mail armor with a shield after level 40, leather armor with a shield below, and are limited to totems for defensive spells. They can add extra parry and dodge chances through equipment, though this only provides a small amount of damage reduction."

Someone more experienced with higher levels should be able to improve on this, but some sort of update is needed.Minionman 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Having both a bear tank and a shaman, I really don't think that's necessary. The existence of +threat abilities does not imply that Blizzard intends them to fill a tank role. Warlocks and hunters also have them, and most often use them to kite--as haman can and do with frost shock. Shaman have a fraction of the mitigation, limited +threat (which lasts only as long as their mana), and no taunt. They really cannot be considered tanks at all. -- Dandelion 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


When you train a sports team (and I consider WOW a nonathletic team sport) you generally give them drills to run through. Drills are meant to create instincts that will be needed in competition (like ball handling). Perhaps we should suggest that newbie warriors go out and solo PVE in a way that trains their instincts properly. Drill one: solo PVEing in defensive stance using shield block and revenge as much as possible. Drill two: solo PVE with a stance change for every mob Drill three: solo PVE with multiple mobs - rotating every other blow

I've recently realized that my PVE experience is leading me to make bad decisions in an instance and actually decided to retrain myself.

Belamar 03:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that outlook, Belamar, 'non-athletic team sport'. And drills are an interesting idea for practicing - a lot of classes could benefit from such practice - tanks not the least, since tanking is so different from soloing with the same character. Perhaps a section on "Learning to Tank" would be a useful addition to this article... I'll see if I can integrate it gracefully...
Hrocdol 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It might be a better idea to get another person or two instead of practicing while you're soloing. While your idea is a good start, a person new to tanking needs to be able to practice tanking in a GROUP setting; they need to know how to use Taunts properly, generate enough threat to keep the mobs on them, and be able to keep the aggro on them no matter what the other group members do (apart from some DPSer "über-nuking" a mob to the point that a tank can't pull it off before the DPSer dies). Felindre

About Prot PalliesEdit

1. As with patch 2.3, prot pallies get a total of 16% stam buff from talent. So most of the prot pallies now have similar hp as prot warriors. In fact, due to the % bonus hp instead of fixed hp from gear, many top geared prot pallies have more hp than warriors. So I think it is fair to rate both hp as 95:95. (Actually I would even say 90 war: 95 pally.)

2. It seems to me the article is written by someone not familiar with pallies. Prot pallies don't need tons of spell dmg to hold aggro. Typically, a good caster weapon is enough for Kara level. Weapon plus one to two pieces of good "pally tanking gear" is enough for T5 level. So I won't say prot pallies have less armor than warriors because they need to spend point on spell dmg. In fact, good tankadins need to ensure uncrushable with 30% blocking from holy shield before tanking in raid, so they typically have higher avoidance/block than warrior tanks of the same gear level. (Warriors need much less avoidance to be uncrushable due to 75% shield block.) Therefore, I added the comment that prot pallies is a bit more difficult to gear up in the beginning.

WakemanCK 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New Table for Your Consideration Edit

Hi I started work on this comparison table and would like the community's feedback/help in fleshing it out.

Comparison of tank classes

The intent is for a raid leader who is unfamiliar with one or more tanking classes to have a quick-reference guide based on the encounter.

Tanks not always requiredEdit

I know I'm going to get massive aggro from this (just an FYI: I wasn't trying to be funny with that comment, so I don't care if you think it's funny or stupid), but it isn't always necessary to have a tank. With enough DPS, it's possible to go through an instance with only damage dealers and a healer or two. I wouldn't recommend trying to go raiding in Kara or ZA without a tank (you will die), but it's doable in the pre-TBC 5-man instances. Felindre

Agreed. That's why there's a whole section about alternative tanks. Doesn't have to be a warrior/druid/paladin. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean without a tank AT ALL. Without a Feral Druid, without a Warrior, without a Paladin, without a Shaman, without a Hunter pet or a Warlock's Voidwalker; just DPS and healing. Felindre
Well, you could add that to the alternative section. Honestly, I still think you'd have a tank - it would just be a mage or a rogue or something. But if you feel strongly enough about this, feel free to mention it on the page. It doesn't say anywhere on this page that I can see that a tank is always required, but you could add more to the alternative tank section if you see fit. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
While I won't say you are wrong, I won't recommend adding this into this page either. A no-tank-group is highly situational and, in high level instances, generally dangerous and not recommended. For low level instances, it is too obvious that you don't need to bring a tank if at least some of the players are out-leveled greatly. However, there is no point to have a no-tank group for high level instances except for the amusement. Even if you insist this should be added, add it somewhere else. This is a page talking about tanks. A section saying that tanks are not needed is irrelevant to the content, if not ridiculous. --WakemanCK (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Stop fooling around. I wrote in the Edit summary a few times already. Do I need to fax you the source? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay my edit is now lost. I am not going to write it all over again. If someone wants to continue my work then the "source" = World of Warcraft Battle Chest Guide pg. 192-194, 204-206. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 05:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, those line of text that was probably written during vanilla WoW in that book that was released more than one years ago does not count.
ESRB NOTICE: Gaming experience may change during online play.
You can write up a post that "shamans can MT" at official forum and link it here. If a blue turns up and says shamans can, then I will agree with you. -- WakemanCK (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What is vanilla WoW? Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"vanilla WoW" is a common term used on forums, which means the original WoW. -- WakemanCK (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it is the guide for the original WoW making it a bit old, although it is a bit newer than the first version of the official guide as this was in the Battlechest package which came out about a year ago. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 12:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Warrior section- Warbringer? Edit

In the warrior section, it says: "Warbringer makes warriors the most mobile tanks in the game."

The link to Warbringer is a level 70 epic 1 handed sword. I don't see how this weapon makes warrioes "the most mobile tanks in the game". I've taken a look at its stats; it seems like a normal level 70 epic tanking weapon. If anyone (the author of that section for instance) believes that it does, even if only for level 70 warrior tanks (I can't imagine a level 80 using it), please explain the reasoning.

An improper link to Warbringer (talent)?--SWM2448 23:23, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
That's it :-). I'll change it. --Scott75 (talk) 23:35, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.