It's about time Shield oath and Grit become Abilities instead of Spells. (off-GCD)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

snip

---

i belive removing tank stances is a fair solution like any other, tank responsabilities are hold agro, positioning, use you skills properly to mitigate damage and in last degree dealt dps.
tecnically dealing dps is a secondary aspect, but not in realilty, dealing dps as a tank is on top of the prioritys more bcs the other aspects are brain dead to a point tank stances are basically useless outside of dungeons and first 5 seconds of the boss pull.

i asume removing tank stances will be mean we recive traits to increse the emity we generate with our agro combos and increse the mitigation, in the end will not change nothing, no new player look at the tanks and pick one bcs this one have a tank stance, more bcs most new tanks i find on duty finder dont even know what the hell are unless spend 2 mins to explain it.

in fact i belive it will be more straight foward for new players and tanks in general bcs they dont need to worry about have it on or off, and honestly have tank stances as a rookie tank buttom is just more terrible that dont have one, if we want help for new players we have echo, no split tank learning curve on stay on tank stance or not.

anyway, syphon strike mana bonus and bloodspiller extra potency on grit are bonus from grit himself to make grit gameplay almost equal as gritless with bloodweapon, those are not base bonus we loose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shao32

i belive removing tank stances is a fair solution like any other, tank responsabilities are hold agro, positioning, use you skills properly to mitigate damage and in last degree dealt dps.
tecnically dealing dps is a secondary aspect, but not in realilty, dealing dps as a tank is on top of the prioritys more bcs the other aspects are brain dead to a point tank stances are basically useless outside of dungeons and first 5 seconds of the boss pull.

i asume removing tank stances will be mean we recive traits to increse the emity we generate with our agro combos and increse the mitigation, in the end will not change nothing, no new player look at the tanks and pick one bcs this one have a tank stance, more bcs most new tanks i find on duty finder dont even know what the hell are unless spend 2 mins to explain it.

in fact i belive it will be more straight foward for new players and tanks in general bcs they dont need to worry about have it on or off, and honestly have tank stances as a rookie tank buttom is just more terrible that dont have one, if we want help for new players we have echo, no split tank learning curve on stay on tank stance or not.

anyway, syphon strike mana bonus and bloodspiller extra potency on grit are bonus from grit himself to make grit gameplay almost equal as gritless with bloodweapon, those are not base bonus we loose.

---

If we gain traits to compensate for the loss of tank stance, then I can definitely see tank stances being removed but honestly I'd rather we have what we have now. We're given a choice where we can trade damage for defense which I think is awesome. If we have a passive trait that gives us all of the benefits a stance stance offers, that would be a very simple and brainless solution but I want to be able to participate in my tanking and not have it feel automatic.

As for the Grit bonuses, the point that I made originally is that it is inexcusable for a tank to have bonuses in tank stance only for them to want to avoid using the stance at all costs just because of how steep the cost is compared to another stance, like Defiance, which is so much more efficient in comparison. Anytime a stance gives you bonuses, regardless of job, you should be able to go into that stance without paying a premium so you can access those skills and feel satisfied with them. The reason why WAR's stances are so seemless is because of those bonuses from Defiance (Inner Beast, Equilibrium) and that makes sense. So why is that not the case for DRK and in a similar vein, PLD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

snip

---

yeah i agreed, tank stances are part of our kit, it will be weird if they remove it at some point, but from my part i dont see it as we have a choice, and it will never be as long tank stances offer so much damage pentalty and im not talking about the MP cost or the GCD, for me is pretty silly choose betwen unintented high performance vs a obviously low performance,there is where tank stances fail, im just tired for this desing WAR is being unfairly superior and SE dont doing nothing, while in the end on high end performance is not really a big problem per se bcs we avoid the stances in lower performance the gap its just bigger for that, for me tank stances have only a few solutions, add mechanics to avoid stance penaltys so it will make deep in to tan stance gameplay,remove the skills and add a new ones in form of a CD you get extra emity and add more defense on gear or by trait, make tank stances mandatory for MT with they ususal penaltys or remove it complety and fix the gap with thraits, it will be alwais a "fake" feeling of choice as long one of the sides dont offer anything usefull, its just silly being called "stance" if you only use it 5 seconds.

but thats what i say, grit have some many bonuses to make grit gameplay smoothly on other way grit will be just ugh... compared to gritless, there is the problem with tank stances, the trade is useless and WAR wins bcs they can avoid every penalty they suffer, to be fair due our tank stances have bigger switch penaltys is have a way to avoid those penaltys so we can stay 24/7 on it and turn it off when we dont need it, but is not the case and WAR will be always superior no matter you remove the oGCD or the MP cost bcs WAR will always have the way to avoid the primary tank stance problem the direct damage penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

Anytime a stance gives you bonuses, regardless of job, you should be able to go into that stance without paying a premium so you can access those skills and feel satisfied with them. The reason why WAR's stances are so seemless is because of those bonuses from Defiance (Inner Beast, Equilibrium) and that makes sense. So why is that not the case for DRK and in a similar vein, PLD?

---

Theres a fundamental difference on why SE allows war EZGG stances but not Pld/Drk. War swapping into defiance is the same as turning on convalescence. If you pop tank stance an instant before a tank buster, theres no difference. If you do that as Pld/Drk you have rampart and can survive it. War's tank stance doesn't have an instant effect. It has to have additional actions piled on top to actually do anything. Pld/Drk don't because it is instantaneous mitigation. So instead of piling on additional actions to realize an impact, they frontload the cost more. There are ways to 'reduce' the cost or shift it, but as long as tank stance is instant rampart, it will be harder/cost more to get into than instant convalescence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

Theres a fundamental difference on why SE allows war EZGG stances but not Pld/Drk. War swapping into defiance is the same as turning on convalescence. If you pop tank stance an instant before a tank buster, theres no difference. If you do that as Pld/Drk you have rampart and can survive it. War's tank stance doesn't have an instant effect. It has to have additional actions piled on top to actually do anything. Pld/Drk don't because it is instantaneous mitigation. So instead of piling on additional actions to realize an impact, they frontload the cost more. There are ways to 'reduce' the cost or shift it, but as long as tank stance is instant rampart, it will be harder/cost more to get into than instant convalescence.

---

On paper I would agree with you, but as mentioned in the OP, WAR has ways to bypass the negatives of their tank stance thanks to Equilibrium giving them HP in Defiance. Im sure some people feel like that isn't fair since Equilibrium is a CD, but really where are you going to use Equilibrium elsewhere? Tp should not be an issue for any tank in single target. I feel like the reason why WAR's stances are oGCD is because their stance skills (Inner beast/Fell cleave) take a GCD on their own, so wasting a GCD to activate Defiance and then another to activate Inner beast would be absolutely awful. Also, when having Inner beast up as a WAR, you still have Defiance's effects so you have 20% mitigation on top of your bonus HP and HP recovery, which is damn powerful. The problem is, WAR's stances just feel way too free compared to the other stances since all of your downsides (DPS loss solved with Unchained, HP loss solved with Equilibrium) can be answered but that isnt the case for PLD/DRK. Because SE wanted to give answers to WAR's stance downsides, Shield oath and Grit have fallen far behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

On paper I would agree with you, but as mentioned in the OP, WAR has ways to bypass the negatives of their tank stance thanks to Equilibrium giving them HP in Defiance. Im sure some people feel like that isn't fair since Equilibrium is a CD, but really where are you going to use Equilibrium elsewhere? Tp should not be an issue for any tank in single target. I feel like the reason why WAR's stances are oGCD is because their stance skills (Inner beast/Fell cleave) take a GCD on their own, so wasting a GCD to activate Defiance and then another to activate Inner beast would be absolutely awful. Also, when having Inner beast up as a WAR, you still have Defiance's effects so you have 20% mitigation on top of your bonus HP and HP recovery, which is damn powerful. The problem is, WAR's stances just feel way too free compared to the other stances since all of your downsides (DPS loss solved with Unchained, HP loss solved with Equilibrium) can be answered but that isnt the case for PLD/DRK. Because SE wanted to give answers to WAR's stance downsides, Shield oath and Grit have fallen far behind.

---

This is exactly why a 1 size fits all solution wont work. War's kit is designed very differently than the (much similar) Pld/Drk design. If you want to be in tank stance and use a light CD for example:
War: Defiance>Innerbeast. 1 OGCDs, 1 GCD. ~10%HP (from IB defiance), 20% IB.
Pld: Shield oath>Shelltron. 1 OGCD, 1 GCD. 20% stance, 25%+ shelltron (more effective on single hits, less for multi hit. nuances, etc, but you get the idea).
Drk: Grit>TBN. 1 OGCD, 1 GCD. 20% stance. 10% HP shield.

On the face of it, its really pretty close. All of them costs GCD, OGCD, and damage. There are pros and cons to TBN, Shelltron, IB that change which is most effective when, but the general effects are pretty similar. Then to drop stance, Drk just clicks it off for no cost. War clicks it off (possibly loosing HP unless not capped before changing it off. So 'sometimes' free). Pld pays for sword oath in MP and GCD (but pays less MP than Drk on the front end.)

The net effect is really not that problematic.

The problem isn't that Pld/Drk have to pay for stance swaps. Everyone pays the GCD/OGCD tax to swap effectively. The issue comes up with unchained negating much of the penalties afterwards (and depending on your position, equilibrium). Drk is supposed to make up with that by gaining access to more MP via blood price to serve that role of softening a short duration swap. But that got nerfed due to mass pull issues (which I don't understand. Balancing around trash pulls in dungeons is dumb imo).

War is 'supposed' to be in tank stance more often as IB is locked behind it while TBN/Shell isn't and why unchained is so strong. But SE painted themselves into a corner when they made Shelltron/TBN not tied to stance and left IB in stance. They had to buff up war's defensive suite to make it compete with Pld/Drk out of tank stance missing IB. But that makes defiance overly powerful. If they nerf the CD suite, war will be 'balanced' in defiance, but weak in deliverance without IB to prop it up the way TBN/Shelltron does on Pld/Drk.

But the solution to this problem is not to make everyones tank swaps the same. The War vs pld/Drk problem is centered around the cornerstone mitigation abilities being uneven. Shell/TBN always available while IB isn't creates a balance nightmare. So long as war has to pretend to play in two states (with and without IB access) and still match Pld/Drk mitigation all the time, we will have problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

Im sure some people feel like that isn't fair since Equilibrium is a CD, but really where are you going to use Equilibrium elsewhere?

---

How about right after whatever damage you're entering tank stance for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Launched

How about right after whatever damage you're entering tank stance for?

---

You would still be using Equilibrium in Defiance, not outside of it which was my point. I also feel like Equilibrium is better used before the damage than after but either or works.

I support your idea of turning them into oGCD abilities. It is silly at this point that if you warrior is main tanking and dies unexpectedly you need to: waste a GCD getting into tank stance and then potentially needing to waste an additional GCD getting to your enmity combo since aggro is generated on the second step meanwhile a raid boss is eating a dps. However, I think there should be costs associated with activating the paladin and dark knight abilities along with their penalties, though paladin would need higher mp costs on its abilities.

I don't see such an issue with balance, since the mp costs still makes the stances undesirable, and because warrior has tools to remove the understandable features of their stance. It is true warrior does not get an immediate benefit from their stance, but they can circumvent most of their penalties.

Problem 1: Max HP raised 25% but actual hp is unchanged
Answer 1: in your next oGCD use equilibrium (keep in mind double weaving exists)

Problem 2: Damage penalties are applied to attacks
Answer 2: Use unchained and minimize this to a lower amount lost

IMO Warrior's stance should be balanced around being flexible. You may not get an "immediate benefit" but you can circumvent the down sides, and so far no fight I'm aware of actually requires tank stance use at all.
No GCD cost
No resource cost
Penalties can be circumvented
Defensive cooldowns shortened to increase durability since inner beast is locked behind tank stance.

This is really powerful stuff they are getting for the "perceived" weakness.

Paladin and Dark Knight get "immediate" benefits, but have no way to circumvent their costs. Losing 20% to 25% of my damage for mitigation for a few seconds is enough of a penalty along with mana costs, we don't need to lose a GCD or two to balance us further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono_Rising

snip.

---

Well said. Even if the devs say oGCD stance is too powerful, at least ease up on the cost of the tank stance or perhaps give an Unchained equivalent to all tanks. Defiance and WAR has so many great features with their stance that the weakness of the stance may as well not be there. The fact that they can remove even the damage penalty with Unchained is a bit much when the other tanks can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

Well said. Even if the devs say oGCD stance is too powerful, at least ease up on the cost of the tank stance or perhaps give an Unchained equivalent to all tanks. Defiance and WAR has so many great features with their stance that the weakness of the stance may as well not be there. The fact that they can remove even the damage penalty with Unchained is a bit much when the other tanks can't.

---

DRK iirc can also do it. Darkside breaks even the damage penalty. But Darkside and DRKs abilities linked to Darkside are quite a few tiers below WARs.

PLD is on the same boat with FoF if temporarily. But like Chrono and many others point out. WARs toolking has a really high synergy among its skills and abilities. the other two tanks don't even have anything half as "efficient" for a lack of a better word/term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahrze

DRK iirc can also do it. Darkside breaks even the damage penalty. But Darkside and DRKs abilities linked to Darkside are quite a few tiers below WARs.

---

As it turns out, having both Grit and Darkside up is a 4% damage loss. Your base power is always 100% before buffs. After Darkside, it's 120% since 100+20%=120. Then, after applying Grit, you lose 20% of your new power, so it would be 120-20%=96.

Another thing to consider is that Dark Knight's enmity multipliers are much lower than the other tanks. You could argue that Darkside helps with this, but PLD has fight or flight and WAR has Storms eye, Unchained. It doesn't work out well for DRK at all when it comes to enmity. https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/wiki/enmity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahrze

DRK iirc can also do it. Darkside breaks even the damage penalty. But Darkside and DRKs abilities linked to Darkside are quite a few tiers below WARs.

PLD is on the same boat with FoF if temporarily. But like Chrono and many others point out. WARs toolking has a really high synergy among its skills and abilities. the other two tanks don't even have anything half as "efficient" for a lack of a better word/term.

---

In general I wouldn't compare these quantities in this way. The reason for why not is that FoF can be used without tank stance, and it has more damage that way since it does not have a 15% penalty imposed on it. Likewise dark knight has a 20% damage buff that as Saeno said reduces the 20% penalty to only 4% penalty, I would consider that against doing 120% damage without tank stance (comparing .96 modifier to 1.2).

Unchained doesn't suffer from this because it is specifically designed to only cancel the tank stance penalties, it has no value when not in tank stance. However, you are still out the 5% damage buff of deliverance which is why I say nearly cancel the loss and not "free".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

As it turns out, having both Grit and Darkside up is a 4% damage loss. Your base power is always 100% before buffs. After Darkside, it's 120% since 100+20%=120. Then, after applying Grit, you lose 20% of your new power, so it would be 120-20%=96.

Another thing to consider is that Dark Knight's enmity multipliers are much lower than the other tanks. You could argue that Darkside helps with this, but PLD has fight or flight and WAR has Storms eye, Unchained. It doesn't work out well for DRK at all when it comes to enmity. https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/wiki/enmity

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono_Rising

In general I wouldn't compare these quantities in this way. The reason for why not is that FoF can be used without tank stance, and it has more damage that way since it does not have a 15% penalty imposed on it. Likewise dark knight has a 20% damage buff that as Saeno said reduces the 20% penalty to only 4% penalty, I would consider that against doing 120% damage without tank stance (comparing .96 modifier to 1.2).

Unchained doesn't suffer from this because it is specifically designed to only cancel the tank stance penalties, it has no value when not in tank stance. However, you are still out the 5% damage buff of deliverance which is why I say nearly cancel the loss and not "free".

---

Ah, TIL. Thanks for the info. I did know about the enmity part. Wasn't acquainted with how instead of canceling out, DRKs buff/debuff was applied in separate steps. I know that Unchained is designed that way. Was trying (and being horribly wrong I guess) to point out that maybe SE interprets those abilities as equivalents. Even more so now with the zerk/IB changes.

But that is my (at this point: erroneous) interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahrze

snip

---

It's completely fair to assume that SE tried to balance enmity between the tanks so that it's fair (like it should be). DRK's enmity needs help, but it does function. It also doesn't help that they lose by far the most damage of all tanks when using enmity combo over their DPS combo since not only is it lower potency but also lower MP gain.

DRK also lacks enmity abilities in its DPS rotation, where paladin has circle of scorn and warrior's highest potency combo is also there aggro combo. DRK has to front load more enmity to ensure they stay in the lead, and are more reliant of things like shadewalker and diversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kashi11

DRK also lacks enmity abilities in its DPS rotation, where paladin has circle of scorn and warrior's highest potency combo is also there aggro combo

---

The warrior comment seems like such an odd argument to make considering Butcher's Block is ideally never used, and both Power Slash and Butcher's Block combos have identical potency values (the only difference being that the first hit from WAR does 10 more than DRK's and the second hit dealing 10 less than DRK's.)

whenever you use Power Slash combo instead of Souleater combo you lose 180 potency (70 potency for Dark Arts because no mana gain, 80 potency for Bloodspiller because no blood gain and 30 potency from the combo itself). when you are in tank stance the loss is higher (265 potency), but i guess you should not have any issues to hold enmity then ^^

how much does WAR lose when he is doing enmity combo?

edit: okay, i did some math myself. i have no idea about WAR, but it seems he lose 74 potency whenever he does enmity combo. 30 potency gain for the combo and 104 potency lose on Fell Cleave because the combo builds less Beast Gauge.

I'm not intimately familiar with WAR so I can't say for sure. But from my understanding, Butchers Block is a DPS gain if used once every 2 minutes, or used when you will cap out on beast gauge by using storms path. Butchers Block combo is a 30 potency gain over Path, but generates 10 less beast gauge.

WAR also has onslaught, which has a large enmity modifier, it's usually a loss but can be a gain when used appropriately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kashi11

I'm not intimately familiar with WAR so I can't say for sure. But from my understanding, Butchers Block is a DPS gain if used once every 2 minutes, or used when you will cap out on beast gauge by using storms path. Butchers Block combo is a 30 potency gain over Path, but generates 10 less beast gauge.

---

Ideally, there will be 0 Butcher's Blocks used in a fight. If you are going to overcap or need to utilize an infuriate you will use a spender. They do not break your combo, so there is no reason to alter your rotation. Outside of onslaught which will primarily be used for movement, there will be no extra enmity generated in an ideal DPS rotation - just like DRK, and will need to similarly frontload enmity and utilize shirking with the co-tank to manage threat through the encounter.

hoooowever, the lack of an off-gcd enmity modifier and the GCD-locked tank stance on DRK is a problem when adds spawn and you aren't well prepared beforehand. also the only enmity boost DRK has is tied to the combo finisher, wich will take a while to execute (and is again a huge dps loss).

DRK needs an oh shit enmity move :O usually i use Unleash in that moments, but that's very far away from ideal xD

swapping off-GCD into tank stance would solve that issue. maybe give us a vulnerability debuff wich cancels out the mitigation gain for a few seconds, but give me more enmity please o.o/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casualty

Ideally, there will be 0 Butcher's Blocks used in a fight. If you are going to overcap or need to utilize an infuriate you will use a spender. They do not break your combo, so there is no reason to alter your rotation. Outside of onslaught which will primarily be used for movement, there will be no extra enmity generated in an ideal DPS rotation - just like DRK, and will need to similarly frontload enmity and utilize shirking with the co-tank to manage threat through the encounter.

---

Is this what people meant when people said that 4.2 simplified WAR? So it doesn't matter what you do as long as you fit 5 fell cleaves in the IR windows, and maintain storms eye? So just fell cleave whenever it's up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kashi11

Is this what people meant when people said that 4.2 simplified WAR? So it doesn't matter what you do as long as you fit 5 fell cleaves in the IR windows, and maintain storms eye? So just fell cleave whenever it's up?

---

More or less. You also want to use Upveihel on CD and line up two fell cleaves in the second trick since you cannot IR in that trick window.

There is no net HP cost associated with changing stance on WAR. If you go Deliverance > Defiance > Deliverance, you do not end up with less HP than you started with. If you do an equivalent set of swaps with Grit or Shield Oath, you'll end up with an 1800 MP deficit in both cases.

The idea that Defiance doesn't provide an instantaneous benefit is false as well. The Convalescence effect (20% healing bonus) is instantaneous. The enmity gain bonus is instantaneous.

The true cost of Defiance, historically, was the fact that the damage penalty was steeper compared to other tanks (25%). This was partially offset by Unchained, but bear in mind that this ability previously cost 5 stacks (equivalent of 50 gauge).

With the advent of Stormblood, the developers attempted to homogenise costs. The Defiance penalty was reduced to 20%, but a gauge cost was added. While the gauge cost on stance swapping as well as the gauge cost on Unchained was removed due to complaints, the damage penalty on Defiance was not returned to its former level. So even if you felt that stance swapping on tanks was equitable in Heavensward (hint: it wasn't), the balance certainly tips in WAR's favour in the aftermath of the Stormblood powercreep.

A final point worth considering is that because gauge usage under Inner Release is now free, the potency cost of using gauge on an Inner Beast instead of a Fell Cleave outside of IR is significantly less than it was prior to 4.2. If you ever feel pressed to actually use IB, that is.

At the very least, a review of how tank stances function on all three tanks is in order. Things have changed.

One side note on enmity combos: one of the biggest costs to using your enmity combo is lost resources. WAR is unique in that you have gauge generation built into the enmity combo. PLD and DRK both lose MP (and in the case of DRK, blood) on top of having a larger relative potency loss when comparing the combos. So having more snap aggro tools on these jobs is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

There is no net HP cost associated with changing stance on WAR. If you go Deliverance > Defiance > Deliverance, you do not end up with less HP than you started with. If you do an equivalent set of swaps with Grit or Shield Oath, you'll end up with an 1800 MP deficit in both cases.

The idea that Defiance doesn't provide an instantaneous benefit is false as well. The Convalescence effect (20% healing bonus) is instantaneous. The enmity gain bonus is instantaneous.

The true cost of Defiance, historically, was the fact that the damage penalty was steeper compared to other tanks (25%). This was partially offset by Unchained, but bear in mind that this ability previously cost 5 stacks (equivalent of 50 gauge).

With the advent of Stormblood, the developers attempted to homogenise costs. The Defiance penalty was reduced to 20%, but a gauge cost was added. While the gauge cost on stance swapping as well as the gauge cost on Unchained was removed due to complaints, the damage penalty on Defiance was not returned to its former level. So even if you felt that stance swapping on tanks was equitable in Heavensward (hint: it wasn't), the balance certainly tips in WAR's favour in the aftermath of the Stormblood powercreep.

A final point worth considering is that because gauge usage under Inner Release is now free, the potency cost of using gauge on an Inner Beast instead of a Fell Cleave outside of IR is significantly less than it was prior to 4.2. If you ever feel pressed to actually use IB, that is.

At the very least, a review of how tank stances function on all three tanks is in order. Things have changed.

One side note on enmity combos: one of the biggest costs to using your enmity combo is lost resources. WAR is unique in that you have gauge generation built into the enmity combo. PLD and DRK both lose MP (and in the case of DRK, blood) on top of having a larger relative potency loss when comparing the combos. So having more snap aggro tools on these jobs is important.

---

Yes and no. You end with the same HP, but only if you didn't get any cures, which defeats the whole point of defiance. Max HP and cure potency. If you aren't using any of those why did you swap? If youre savy sometimes the timing works where you can take a hit then drop defiance, sometimes you cant. Its not as cut and dry as Pld/Drks as the HP related cost will vary.

You get the conv and enmity, but every tank gets the enmity, and all would agree if you have to choose between putting rampart or conv on your hotbar, you choose the mitigation because its a stronger skill than reactively healing it back. War gets an immediate effect, it is just a much weaker effect that pays back over time instead of the frontloading mitigation effect. The up front costs to get into tank stance reflect that benefit (I don't mean the exact MP cost, but the concept design of drk using a GCD and MP up front, but costing nothing to take it off. Frontloaded, free click off on the back end for zero cost.)

You mention defiance penalty from 25 to 20% but forgot they also reduced pld from 20% to 15% and increased darkside flat bonus at the same time iirc.

New IR change has narrowed IB penalty to just that individual IB vs FC trade off instead of boning your whole rotation. Fair enough.

I don't know why SE hates enmity combos so much on pld/drk but not war. War's enmity combos have always been less punishing than any other tank, but I've never seen an explanation as to why. #JustSquareThings

But, as you stated, a reexamination is long over due with the dramatic changes to tanking in pretty much every aspect in the last year or so. But as long as the tank stances are so different in function and access to abilities, it would be problematic to apply a 1 size fits all for all 3.

No. Starting from Deliverance at max HP and cycling through the stances, you end up at the same HP when you complete the cycle regardless of whether you received heals or not. If you didn't, cycling through Deliverance and Defiance would progressively drop your HP until you died. This sort of implementation wasn't uncommon in older MMOs (looking at you, Last Stand).

Defiance creates a temporary HP buffer which you and your healers may or may not decide to take advantage of. Actually, any time you leave Defiance at less than 80% HP, that buffer isn't being used anyways.

Shield Oath is set at 15% because you lose auto damage when you're not in Sword Oath. Autos are generally one of your top sources of damage. The damage gain from Darkside hasn't been changed, and is functionally analogous to how Storm's Eye (or the old Maim) works. It has nothing to do with "negating" tank stance. It's a job mechanic that has to be correctly executed in order to reach your baseline potency values.

The drop in the Defiance penalty was added in response to adding resource costs to WAR's stances. This was a case of every job needing to have equivalent costs, or none at all. When those costs were removed, the penalty was not reverted. Not that it particularly matters, though, because having Unchained without any resource cost attached provides a workaround to the damage penalty, regardless.

The instantaneous enmity effect of Defiance is its single most important asset. The fact that you can weave Defiance, Equilibrium, and Onslaught in your initial enmity grab, on top of having Unchained for free, gives you a lot of snap aggro for virtually no cost. If you could independently replicate that effect on the other tanks for free, oGCD vs GCD swaps wouldn't be so important. It's not like you decide to change stance the second before a tank buster, anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No. Starting from Deliverance at max HP and cycling through the stances, you end up at the same HP when you complete the cycle regardless of whether you received heals or not. If you didn't, cycling through Deliverance and Defiance would progressively drop your HP until you died. This sort of implementation wasn't uncommon in older MMOs (looking at you, Last Stand).

Defiance creates a temporary HP buffer which you and your healers may or may not decide to take advantage of. Actually, any time you leave Defiance at less than 80% HP, that buffer isn't being used anyways.

Shield Oath is set at 15% because you lose auto damage when you're not in Sword Oath. Autos are generally one of your top sources of damage. The damage gain from Darkside hasn't been changed, and is functionally analogous to how Storm's Eye (or the old Maim) works. It has nothing to do with "negating" tank stance. It's a job mechanic that has to be correctly executed in order to reach your baseline potency values.

The drop in the Defiance penalty was added in response to adding resource costs to WAR's stances. This was a case of every job needing to have equivalent costs, or none at all. When those costs were removed, the penalty was not reverted. Not that it particularly matters, though, because having Unchained without any resource cost attached provides a workaround to the damage penalty, regardless.

The instantaneous enmity effect of Defiance is its single most important asset. The fact that you can weave Defiance, Equilibrium, and Onslaught in your initial enmity grab, on top of having Unchained for free, gives you a lot of snap aggro for virtually no cost. If you could independently replicate that effect on the other tanks for free, oGCD vs GCD swaps wouldn't be so important. It's not like you decide to change stance the second before a tank buster, anyways.

---

I am quite sure Shield Oath used to be a 20% reduction while Defiance was 25% and both were reduced to 15/25 respectively at the same time darkside was buffed from 15% buff to 20%. Unfortunately wiki pages don't list the patch history and I didn't take the time to search through every patch note, but I'm pretty sure all 3 tanks received tank stance damage (and drk overall damage) simultaneously to soften up the tank stance penalty across the board. Not in response to war getting resource costs. It was SE trying to get people to use tank stance by making it less crappy for everyone.

Yes, changing from Deliverance>Defiance>Deliverance costs no HP. But I don't see the relevancy of that point because being the OT and doing Del>Def>Del wouldn't gain you anything because defiance alone doesn't actually defend you. The fact that it costs Pld/Drk resources to do the same doesn't matter if you aren't using the tank stance for anything. The only time you would use stance is to benefit from it and so to look at the cost vs benefit, you have to look at the benefits+cost, not just cost in a vacuum like HP doesn't change. It has to have other actions to have any defensive effect at all. If your HP doesn't move, you also don't get any benefit from the extra HP and cure potency. Defiance is useless as a defensive tool if you don't pile on additional actions to leverage the effect which means taking damage then healing, while pld/drk immediately get the benefit. Benefits now are more valuable than benefits later.

You say the instant enmity of defiance is the single most important asset, but that is only because it is the ONLY instant asset it has while Pld/Drk can flip their on for instant mitigation and enmity. Pld can just as easily Shield>Circle as War can Defiance>Tackle. This points out Drk's lack of OGCD enmity snap action than tank stance issues.

People don't flip tank stance (often) an instant before a tank buster, but if you make Pld/Drk stances OGCD and (lower or free MP cost) then people WOULD change stance the second before a tank buster. That's my point about 1 size doesn't fit all because the mitigation is immediate while it isn't on war. Tankbuster coming: Pld/Drk- OGCD TBN/Shell+Stance GCD. War Stance OGCD>IB GCD. If the mitigation aspect also becomes OGCD, we will instantly have an abusable system flashing tank stances.

Applying the same rules to war as Drk+Pld doesn't work when their fundamental mitigation actions don't work the same way and their stances don't work the same way. IB being a GCD behind defiance and defiance itself not providing instant mitigation requires a different setup than an OGCD stance free mitigation tool and a tank stance that actually mitigates damage up front. They cant all 3 work the same way without someone getting a real short stick. Just making Pld/Drk stances work like wars and changing nothing else will just create issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

People don't flip tank stance (often) an instant before a tank buster, but if you make Pld/Drk stances OGCD and (lower or free MP cost) then people WOULD change stance the second before a tank buster. That's my point about 1 size doesn't fit all because the mitigation is immediate while it isn't on war. Tankbuster coming: Pld/Drk- OGCD TBN/Shell+Stance GCD. War Stance OGCD>IB GCD. If the mitigation aspect also becomes OGCD, we will instantly have an abusable system flashing tank stances.

---

Historic points aside, my recollection matches yours except I think warrior use to have an even higher penalty at one point, I agree, outside of prog, tank stance for mitigation isn’t an often relied on strategy anyway, but I think this points more so to making it oGCD since what it is used for is picking things up when your cotank dies, or just adds that spawn. Grit costing 1 dark arts is enough for me to try and not use it as mitigation at all, Shield Oath and Sword Oath costing a total of 1 requiscats is enough to make me try to avoid using shield oath as mitigation. The GCD cost is just even more deterrent which is unnecessary since the mp cost was enough to make me go “woo lets not get crazy, tank stance?”. I’m not even going to mention the third deterrent, this much negative for an extra rampart and my assumption is devs don’t want me to use this skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

Yes, changing from Deliverance>Defiance>Deliverance costs no HP. But I don't see the relevancy of that point because being the OT and doing Del>Def>Del wouldn't gain you anything because defiance alone doesn't actually defend you. The fact that it costs Pld/Drk resources to do the same doesn't matter if you aren't using the tank stance for anything. The only time you would use stance is to benefit from it and so to look at the cost vs benefit, you have to look at the benefits+cost, not just cost in a vacuum like HP doesn't change. It has to have other actions to have any defensive effect at all. If your HP doesn't move, you also don't get any benefit from the extra HP and cure potency. Defiance is useless as a defensive tool if you don't pile on additional actions to leverage the effect which means taking damage then healing, while pld/drk immediately get the benefit. Benefits now are more valuable than benefits later.

---

I know I’m addressing things out of order, but now that we agree that popping into tank stance to mitigate and then switch off is an uncommon practice I would like to point out the major benefit here we aren’t mentioning.

Switching deliverance defiance deliverance does NOT lower your HP, this has a major implication, you can erase a higher % of an attack than paladin and dark knight if you play your cards right because your mitigation is based on your max hp, not DM on the attack itself. And heres the kicker, its not hard to do it just means you might need to talk to your healers.

Since the common practice is to go dps stance, tank stance, dps stance lets take a look at the whole sequence:
My tank has 66k HP. Lets take a tank buster for 50k

On paladin and dark knight I will mitigate that by 20%, leaving me with 26k hp, I drop my tank stance, lowering my defense, and have 26k hp out of 66k max.

On warrior, I am going to need to give up an equilibrium to heal myself (or plan with my healers to heal me to max hp beforehand but one has to wonder what else we are using equilibirum on). Prebuster my HP should be at 82.5k, I take the buster reducing me to 32.5k hp, I drop tank stance, and have 32.5 hp out of 66k max.

In the warrior sequence you mitigated 16.5k damage by cycling in tank stance and working with healers, for dark knight and paladin you mitigated 10k.
You can check the numbers for a variety of tank buster damage, but provided the damage is not above your max HP, Warrior actually has higher survivability by manipulating their tank stance and using their defiance hp as a shield. Again, maybe it doesn’t have an immediate benefit and needs some planning, but like the rest of the warrior kit, if you work it right your weakness becomes a strength.

Here is the math showing to mitigate an equal amount on paladin and dark knight how much damage you need to get hit for to match the warrior max HP strategy:
starting from the relationship: Direct mitigation*Damage = HP Shield strength
we can rearrange the equation to give: damage taken = HP Shield strength/direct mitigation = .25*HP/.2 = 1.25*HP = warrior tank stance.

To show the range where the HP Shield is more effective than damage mitigation solve the inequality:
Direct Mitigation*Damage < HP shield
Solving: Damage < HP shield/direct mitigation = .25*HP/.2 = 1.25*HP = warrior tank stance.



As tank buster damage increases towards max HP of the warrior in defiance (the 25% bonus), the two styles of mitigation are mitigating more and more of the same. There is a tipping point, above your max HP (in tank stance) warrior's mitigate less and paladin and dark knight begin mitigating more, in this range we begin pairing other mitigation anyway to try and get the mitigated damage down below our max hp anyway. And of course, that is a moving target as well, you also have thrill of battle which further increases your base max HP and allows for more HP shielding (up to 50% of deliverance HP when paired with tank stance), but I don't want to make this post any more complicated than it is already. The point is, this idea of no "immediate benefit" means others must pay a huge price while warrior gets numerous beneficial abilities to counter its tank stance "weakness" is very dated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

I am quite sure Shield Oath used to be a 20% reduction while Defiance was 25% and both were reduced to 15/25 respectively at the same time darkside was buffed from 15% buff to 20%. Unfortunately wiki pages don't list the patch history and I didn't take the time to search through every patch note, but I'm pretty sure all 3 tanks received tank stance damage (and drk overall damage) simultaneously to soften up the tank stance penalty across the board. Not in response to war getting resource costs. It was SE trying to get people to use tank stance by making it less crappy for everyone.

---

At this point WAR is 25% HP for 20% damage penalty. PLD is 20% Def vs 15% damage penalty and DRK is 20/20. WAR can negate that penalty with unchained and to quote Chrono, "a weakness becomes a strength". Now I know the points of contention are what is an equivalent trade off. But if you compare it:

* Def/Del swap comes at a 10s ogcd cost, think of it as a ToW or RI or any other oGCD. Pennies.
* SwO/ShO are at a GCD and 600 MP, while the MP cost is pennies, the GCD isn't. SwO's effect only starts on the next AA or some time after to be a gain iirc.
* Grit and Darkside are not even equivalents among themselves since DRK can stack them. But the MP cost for Grit is 75% a DA, and the double MP for syphon strike under grit isn't really compensation.

To bring it back to the table, I agree that they are not equivalents at all if we compare them directly since they all bring something different and the effects of WAR in particular don't come to play unless something happens. But when you see it like an action with a resource tied to it: WARs trade off is basically 10s and they can still do something while they wait. PLD by contrast has nothing tied to their stances but the stances themselves have a GCD cost AND a resource cost. DRK has Grit on 3 times the cost of Darkside, both as GCDs and both have skills tied to them (one worth more than the other).

WARs synergy is downright broken, they went from "meh" to "this is better" to "one man army" within 9 months? PLD getting SwO/ShO as oGCD would indeed be a buff to a job that has been continuously nerfed since SB launched, and DRK... well, I can't really think of anything considering they are supposedly looking into something on DRK, until then, Grit being oGCD with or without MP cost wouldn't change how discordant DRKs toolkit is.

edit: here's the patch archives https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...patchnote_log/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

...

---

For your reference, Shield Oath was reduced from a 20% damage penalty to a 15% damage penalty in 3.2. Defiance was reduced from a 25% damage penalty to a 20%, the gauge cost of Unchained was reduced to 20 (as opposed to 5 stacks) and a gauge penalty for switching stances was implemented in 4.0. The gauge cost was removed from stance swaps as well as from Unchained in 4.05, and Unchained had both a cooldown reduction and was separated out from IR, effectively removing the cost of its use.

Even if you were to suggest that WAR's stances were originally functionally inferior to those of the other two tanks' back in Heavensward (which I'd disagree with, but more on this later), there is no denying that WAR's stances have had a fairly substantial powercreep over the course of this expansion.

There are no "instantaneous" benefits to PLD or DRK's stances. They are both locked behind a GCD. You do not swap into Grit for an "instantaneous" enmity gain. You pay 18% of your MP, and then one GCD later, you receive the effect. Defiance gives you that benefit for free, the instant you press the button. For 20 out of every 90 seconds, you can remove the damage penalty of staying in stance altogether. Couple that with long range enmity generation with Equilibrium and Onslaught, as well as a very low cost enmity combo, and it's hard not to see why WAR is preferred for initial enmity grabs and add pick-ups.

It's not a good thing for anyone involved. If there's too much of a cost discrepancy, WAR gets shoehorned into always doing the same parts of the fight.

The mitigation differences will always be a source of contention, because people struggle to mathematically equate the two. There are two parts to incoming damage: the amount, and the rate. Effective HP relates to the former, while % healing effects and proc-based mitigation (blocks, parries, etc.) relate to the latter. Damage resistance relates to both.

The main difference with Defiance is that it takes the mitigation effect of Grit or Shield Oath and breaks it down into these component parts. The convalescence effect, which relates to the rate of incoming damage, is instantaneous. Neither Grit or Shield Oath provide an instantaneous benefit; as above, it's locked behind a GCD (and resource costs).

The HP buffer effect isn't instantaneous, but you can gain the effect fairly quickly if you need (it certainly has less of a time cost than a GCD). The effect is somewhat analogous to a stronger version of TBN, in that it soaks up a fixed value of damage. If the incoming damage is less than your baseline total HP, as in Chrono's example, it's more powerful than an equivalent % damage reduction. If it's greater than your baseline total HP, then it mitigates less.

Phrased differently, if you start at 100% HP in Defiance and end up at greater than 20% health after the tankbuster, the HP buffer mitigates more than the equivalents on other tanks. And if you turn off Defiance at less than 80% HP, you don't waste any buffer.

Allowing oGCD stance swaps on other tanks would be a very small concession to make, especially when they're both already penalised with resource costs on top of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono_Rising

Snip.

---

Yes, the HP vs mitigation thing entirely depends on how hard you are getting hit. Same with any shield really, and Shield+Mitigation will always combine more efficiently, (IB+Defiance, TBN+Grit) and why shelltron has stronger mitigation as pld lacks HP synergy. But (imo) the reason why war has so much 'ease' sliding in and out of tank stance is because their cornerstone mitigation is locked behind defiance and a GCD itself. Think of it this way: War/Pld have access to their primary mitigation all the time, but additional mitigation in tank stance is hard to access. War have easy access to tank stance but hard to access primary mitigation.

War is MUCH easier to use tank stance on, but that is because IB is very hard to access so they smooth out tank stance and reduce penalties (unchained, OGCD, etc). As long as IB is a GCD and behind defiance and TBN/Shell is OGCD and freely accessable, the tanks will not be able to work in the same way. This is not to say that Pld/War should not ease the costs (I personally would rather they leave them GCDs but reduce/remove MP cost and make sword oath like grit, click it off not another GCD on the backend). But with TBN/SHell on OGCD and stance free, I don't think the stance also needs to be OGCD without even more dramatic changes to all 3 tanks which would end up homogenizing them even more. Though bringing IB out of defiance would allow SE to put war defensive actions on similar timers and remove the 'extra' CD war's have, make tank stances all similar, etc. But that is a question of is homogenization for balance better than awkward balance but distinctive jobs. /shrug. If we are under the assumption that homogenization is 'bad' then I cant get behind making drk/pld tank stance as easy/forgiving as war's because war trades awkward IB for EZ stance and Pld/Drk have EZ TBN/Shell but awkward stances. (Also drk needs a snap enmity move to match scorn/onslaught so that tank stance isn't needed for add grabs just like Pld/War and not rework tank stance around Drk missing a tool. I like Dark passenger for this).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

Yes, the HP vs mitigation thing entirely depends on how hard you are getting hit. Same with any shield really, and Shield+Mitigation will always combine more efficiently, (IB+Defiance, TBN+Grit) and why shelltron has stronger mitigation as pld lacks HP synergy. But (imo) the reason why war has so much 'ease' sliding in and out of tank stance is because their cornerstone mitigation is locked behind defiance and a GCD itself. Think of it this way: War/Pld have access to their primary mitigation all the time, but additional mitigation in tank stance is hard to access. War have easy access to tank stance but hard to access primary mitigation.

War is MUCH easier to use tank stance on, but that is because IB is very hard to access so they smooth out tank stance and reduce penalties (unchained, OGCD, etc). As long as IB is a GCD and behind defiance and TBN/Shell is OGCD and freely accessable, the tanks will not be able to work in the same way. This is not to say that Pld/War should not ease the costs (I personally would rather they leave them GCDs but reduce/remove MP cost and make sword oath like grit, click it off not another GCD on the backend). But with TBN/SHell on OGCD and stance free, I don't think the stance also needs to be OGCD without even more dramatic changes to all 3 tanks which would end up homogenizing them even more. Though bringing IB out of defiance would allow SE to put war defensive actions on similar timers and remove the 'extra' CD war's have, make tank stances all similar, etc. But that is a question of is homogenization for balance better than awkward balance but distinctive jobs. /shrug. If we are under the assumption that homogenization is 'bad' then I cant get behind making drk/pld tank stance as easy/forgiving as war's because war trades awkward IB for EZ stance and Pld/Drk have EZ TBN/Shell but awkward stances. (Also drk needs a snap enmity move to match scorn/onslaught so that tank stance isn't needed for add grabs just like Pld/War and not rework tank stance around Drk missing a tool. I like Dark passenger for this).

---

The problem with this kind of thinking is that Warrior gets flexibility in stance to use an undesirable mitigation, and then get mitigation buffs so that they never need to use it.

The dev team is giving warrior their cake and letting them eat it too.

The logic behind warrior's balancing appears to be
(1) Warrior has higher dps because it has to give up mitigation
(2) Warrior mitigation is too low without those skills/buff flexibility with multiple uses and synergies so that warriors can use the defensive skills
(3) Flexibility wasn't enough because warriors refuse to use IB and instead use their skills for other utilities. Buff defensive options and flexibility until mitigation issues go away
(4) Oh no warrior is too strong. See you next expac.

There needs to come a point at which we cannot keep making work-arounds for every draw back in a kit. As it stands warrior currently has the following titles:
(1) DPS tank
(2) Emnity tank
(3) Self healing tank
(4) Flexibility tank

Any one of those would be an amazing title, warrior has all of them. Its enough already, start spreading things out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono_Rising

The problem with this kind of thinking is that Warrior gets flexibility in stance to use an undesirable mitigation, and then get mitigation buffs so that they never need to use it.

---

This is why I often say SE painted themselves into a corner with War. The way IB relates to TBN/Shelltron means either (talking about defence/mitigation):
* War is equivalent in defiance to Drk/Pld but weaker in deliverance or
* War is equivalent at in deliverance to Drk/Pld but stronger in defiance
* War is both weaker and stronger but more flexible to 'even it out'.


What we currently have is:
War is slightly weaker in deliverance, significantly stronger in defiance and more flexible to get between them. Savy war's can really take advantage of the flex. Less savy ones don't. At the high end of skill war outperforms when optimized.

Without universal access to a cornerstone mitigation, it will be quite tricky to get them on the same page. We can homogenize everybody, but I'm assuming that's not actually what most people want. In which case were left with the awkwardness of two similar tanks with a completely wonky one that works under a completely different set of rules. But again, I think this problem is far deeper than a tank stance swap can fix or be healthy for.

Its obvious the tank stances need to be revisted. I'd rather we just reduce the resource costs and go from there than just copypasta war's stances on drk/pld. Once you start changing abilities fundamental interactions you are changing the entire class. Tweaking numbers doesn't tend to have unforeseen consequences and meta shaping problems. OGCD stances will dramtically change the way tanks are played which goes beyond a power imbalance. Power can be adjusted with simple number tweaks. Gameplay changes are a whole nother ball of wax.

I think it's about time (next expansion) they just remove the tank stances all together and bake them into the kit. Increase enmity gain from the enmity combos slightly but do not add increased enmity for dps moves. Obviously warrior would need a bit of rework which is why it should be done at the start of an expansion. I'm sure they can come up with ideas for better kit than a tank stance that nobody wants to use outside of the pull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aana

Its obvious the tank stances need to be revisted..

---

Sounds like its time for another rework that nobody asked for!

To the google doc!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

I think it's about time (next expansion) they just remove the tank stances all together and bake them into the kit. Increase enmity gain from the enmity combos slightly but do not add increased enmity for dps moves. Obviously warrior would need a bit of rework which is why it should be done at the start of an expansion. I'm sure they can come up with ideas for better kit than a tank stance that nobody wants to use outside of the pull.

---

But would there be a passive mitigation buff as well? A passive 20% mitigation/25% HP + 20% HP healing buff might be hard to balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

But would there be a passive mitigation buff as well? A passive 20% mitigation/25% HP + 20% HP healing buff might be hard to balance.

---

Maybe 5-10% or so for all tank jobs? they can make up for the other part in other parts of the kit as it would be at the start of expansion anyway so they are free to rework it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saeno

But would there be a passive mitigation buff as well? A passive 20% mitigation/25% HP + 20% HP healing buff might be hard to balance.

---

technically the fights are balanced with those bonus in mind as a MT all the time so it will be not a problem in terms on fights desing, as a raiders how are used to drop tank stances will be find survive more easy at the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

I think it's about time (next expansion) they just remove the tank stances all together and bake them into the kit. Increase enmity gain from the enmity combos slightly but do not add increased enmity for dps moves. Obviously warrior would need a bit of rework which is why it should be done at the start of an expansion. I'm sure they can come up with ideas for better kit than a tank stance that nobody wants to use outside of the pull.

---

And then you'll have people cry foul for WAR and they'll do the same thing they did in 4.0 and we'll be here on this same spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahrze

And then you'll have people cry foul for WAR and they'll do the same thing they did in 4.0 and we'll be here on this same spot.

---

Well they would have to redesign the war a bit as i said to match the new system. I'm sure they can come up with something that works for them if they tried.