I'm sure it's been asked before, but what sks should I be shooting for on my lvl 60 PLD?
PLD and sks
Printable View
-
06-24-2016, 11:38 PMmdha02PLD and sks
-
06-25-2016, 12:00 AMDonjo
I believe the answer for PLD is "as little as possible". SS benefits them less than any other tank in raw numbers(see Dervy's theorycrafting blog for up to date stat weights). This is because they're still the worst off when it comes to TP preservation and Sword Oath only enhances auto-attacks, which aren't sped up by Skill Speed.
The only significant application of it I can think of is the potential of getting three combos between each reapplication of Goring Blade but napkin math indicates that you'd need a GCD in the ballpark of 2.0s to pull that off. This isn't exactly feasible XD -
06-25-2016, 12:02 AMmdha02
Thank you!
-
06-25-2016, 01:35 AMSarcatica
Expanding on the point, SkS is also bad for PLD because you are generally working with the 9GCDs timing for the GB DoT reclip. The issue now is just that there are plenty of SkS around the best combination of gear which is unavoidable. I once had close to 800 SkS and I was clipping GB really quick, using Fracture to compensate for that is a DPS loss too.
-
06-25-2016, 04:50 AMFebrusI wish it was, though. I think it would be kind of fun to have such a ridiculous skill speed on Pld. It would make the job a bit more exciting to play, and I think being the fastest tank hands down would compensate a little for their generally lower dps and enmity gen; though, I haven't done the hard math on that ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Donjo
Fanciful daydreaming aside, skill speed is a wonky thing to work with on Pld. Having a little extra isn't terrible, but it seems like the default gear in the game provides far more than is necessary. -
06-25-2016, 10:57 PMShurrikhanWas playing a few rounds of 'pad someone's dps' with some AST friends in normal Alexander once. Enhanced Arrow got me close enough the majority times not to miss a global DoT tick before refresh. But I had disgustingly high, TP-plummeting SS to begin with (around 2.33). Fun stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donjo
Now if only my 1.9 GCD Monk rotation was TP-feasible. I already have the SS for that... -
06-26-2016, 11:34 AMFebrusI feel you on this. The Tp adjustments they made in the last Pld patch stemmed my Tp bleeding for a bit, but with only a few upgraded gear pieces I'm already starting to feel the pinch again. I've noticed my Tp is already getting strained in any prolonged fights. It's still not quite as bad as it was before the patch, but it's slowly creeping back to that point. Without a viable means of sustaining Tp, Skill Speed is a dangerous stat to have on Pld.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
06-26-2016, 11:54 AMRagology
Since macros cant be queued, I was wondering if using them for the combo finishers would let us regen enough TP to help offset the gains from excess skill speed?
Just one action per macro like
/ac "Rage of Halone" <t>
/micon "rage of halone"
If a slight speed increase is enough to get us to run dry, maybe a slight delay (produced by how macros work) can put us back where we once were? -
06-26-2016, 12:25 PMShurrikhanBetter to nearly run out of TP than purposely reduce your output. As long as you have enough to combo your necessary weaponskill without delay in preparation for whatever, you're good. You can always cycle Clemency for alternate means of output and enmity (a crit overheal Clemency is quite the AoE enmity nuke). Apart from that, just avoid SkS in general, especially for any fight with a phase long enough to TP-starve you after Goads and between-phase TP AoE restoration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragology
-
06-26-2016, 12:27 PMShurrikhanI just still want GLD to be the tactical speed-hitting tank who feels more dual-wield-y (Sword & Board) than a Rogue does... Sadly, TP generation oversights and unwillingness to meaningfully revisit class/job designs will make that impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
-
06-27-2016, 05:02 PMFebrusI couldn't agree more. There were a lot of early indicators that Gld was going in a different direction from Pld. I was really hoping for a much faster kit which placed more emphasis on build up, prepping, and alternating between the sword and shield, but Pld's kit totally destroyed that idea. Unsustainable Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now (on top of Pld's numerous other deficiencies). I'd really like to hope that SE might, someday, do something about it, but their last set of adjustments made it pretty clear that they'll never actually make any real and committed efforts to fix the job. The fact that they called those changes "major adjustments" was a pretty big kick in the nuts to that job. It would have been funny, if it wasn't so pathetic and sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
06-27-2016, 05:13 PMWhite_Devil
As far as I know with PLD, I believe SKS to only be useful in a PVP scenario in terms of stunlocking, I've yet to put this to practice and it wouldn't matter because lolpvp.
-
06-27-2016, 05:21 PMBrian_They were major adjustments, though. If you think closing the gap with DRK to within ~100 DPS (<10% at current DPS levels), buffing their utility quite a bit, and making some much needed QoL changes didn't have a major impact on PLD's end-game viability, then I don't know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's not what it is. Are you saying it's pathetic and sad SE didn't redesign PLD from the ground up in a regular content patch? -
06-27-2016, 08:13 PMShurrikhanI feel like the changes did a pretty good job at bringing in line the perks of bringing a PLD to a fight; it's just that it does feel limited to exactly that. DV times out better against numerous mechanics, and what little time we spend in Shield Oath feels that little bit stronger, and the Oath changes (while far less effective to me than their being oGCDs that would still cancel your combos) are appreciated, but it did very little to make the job feel any more attractive in its own right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
I'm damn glad for the buff. I'd just be a lot more glad if I wasn't fairly sure it's the last I'll see of positive changes. Now that it's balanced it's basically a done deal.
It'd have to say that it is a bit pathetic that it took that long to be adjusted at all. And, it's a bit sad that we've no reason to believe it will be touched hereafter. Slap one modifiers on, adjust one CD, remove two conflicts. And that will be it. I feel like we might see something come 4.0 if SE decided to completely readdress the way all tanks function, but until then, the band-aid is working, which gives us a well-tuned result, but without looking into any of more internal workings of the job, which most posters I've seen talking about tanks on these forums have agreed feels about the flattest or outright dullest of the three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
-
06-28-2016, 04:08 AMFebrusNot even. The stun duration of a Pld in PvP is 4s > 2s > 1s. The standard Skill Speed cap is more than enough to apply a full stun lock on a target, assuming they don't use Purify. At a 2.33 (ish) GCD with standard skill speed, you're only .3 seconds slow on the final stun of the rotation. That's not enough time to really make a difference unless the target exercises their own CC on you (such as a knock back + sleep combo).Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Devil
The only time additional Skill Speed would be useful is if the target uses purify on your first stun, but even then it's not overly useful as your GCD will never be fast enough to reapply the stun instantly. You already lost time on the total duration, so it's a mute point after Purify is involved. -
06-28-2016, 05:41 AMFebrusSurely you're joking ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
Firstly, Dps is not the be all end all of Pld's problems. I couldn't care less about how much they closed the gap between Drk and Pld, especially when that gap, no matter how small, still exists. As long as Dps is the highest standard of party utility, then Pld will always take a back seat. 3.2 buffed their Dps a bit, but so what? Drk and War still do it better, so there's no reason to bring a Pld to the party as long as Dps is the only thing you're concerned about. As it happens, Dps is not the only thing I was concerned about, which is why I found the changes so lack luster.
Secondly, those QoL changes are exactly that: QoL changes. That's not what I consider a "major" change, because most of those changes are things that should never have been needed in the first place. Further, none of those changes actually changed ANYTHNG about the way Pld plays. It still works and operates exactly the way it did before. The only difference is that some of it's moves (namely Divine Veil and Clemency) are slightly more convenient to use. I'm not about to throw a parade over that. As convenient as they are, they didn't actually change Pld's utility. They just made it more accessible.
Regardless, what I was calling "pathetic and sad" was the way in which SE handled Pld's Tp consumption. There's no way in hell this can be considered a "major adjustment." All they did was reduce a few Tp costs, and it didn't work. That band-aid starts to peel off the moment Skill Speed starts to increase with gear upgrades. It's already started to slip now, and it didn't take very many upgrades for it to happen. Reducing Tp costs was quite possibly the laziest and most ineffective way in which they could have approached this issue, and given the level of commitment they've shown to Drk and War, I think "pathetic" is actually being quite generous.
I'm not asking for SE to rebuild that job from the ground up (though I wouldn't be opposed to it, at this point), but they should at least by applying the same level of commitment across all three tanks. It only took one patch cycle for them to decide on meaningful adjustments for Drk (the same can be said for War back in 2.1). Yet, Pld has gone from 2.0 all the way up to 3.3, and hardly any of it's longstanding problems have been addressed. That's pretty pathetic and inexcusable, in my opinion. -
06-28-2016, 11:52 AMBrian_
In basic theory, DPS has never been the "highest standard of party utility." The only standard for utility is whether or not it helps you clear the fight. When we're given an A3S or A4S with very tight DPS margins, that means utility with a DPS focus is important. When we're given an A8S with very tight eHP margins, that means utility with a survivability focus is important. There is one constant here. It's not DPS. It's a focus on clearing content.
How good PLD is will always be balanced on the back of content design. For the most part, the DPS checks in Midas are pretty tame and do not require a DRK comp by any measure. For three straight major patches now, we've seen PLD completely demolish DRK in terms of their usefulness in EX trials.
Divine Veil getting reduced from a 150s CD to a 120s CD is a huge deal -- especially when paired with the changes to STR and VIT. That's 20% higher up-time on a ~3k raid-wide shield. For many fights, it results in an additional activation and AoE coverage you otherwise wouldn't have had. Shield / Sword Oath no longer breaking your combo does change the way you play because it gives flexibility to a job that was notoriously inflexible before. These days, I actually feel more restricted playing WAR due to stack manipulation and debuff up-time issues than I do playing PLD. That was not the case in Gordias.
PLD was largely fine in 2.X. Again, you can complain about design but that's a separate issue from balance. PLD was the highest single target DPS MT and OT and had some very substantial advantages over WAR. Block with an i135 shield was much stronger than it currently is and it worked on meaningful attacks like Critical Rip, Revelation, Flatten, etc. Shield Swipe was at worst DPS neutral and actually worked for TP conservation. RoH was their only combo so threat never was an issue.
Most of PLD's most glaring practical issues didn't even emerge until the dust settled in 3.0. By that standard, it took SE the exact same amount of time to adjust both DRK and PLD. And, if you consider DRK's adjustments meaningful and PLD's not, that's just blind bias.
And level of commitment to DRK and WAR? What commitment? They hit a redesign home-run with WAR and have just stayed the course since. If you think PLD in its current state is as bad as WAR was before their redesign, again, that's just blind bias. DRK? Since 3.0, PLD has gotten more buffs than DRK and 3 very favorable EX trials in a row. I'd say it's pretty blatantly clear SE is more committed to helping PLD. -
06-28-2016, 07:48 PMIskarJarak
I fail to see how all this discussion has to do with SkS. A good Drk maybe able to do slightly more deeps then a Pld, but with a Pld healers can dps more which means overall raidwide dps is higher.
-
06-28-2016, 09:45 PMDonjoI fail to see what this discussion has to do with Skill Speed either. This is just what happens once the question in the OP has been answered :PQuote:
Originally Posted by IskarJarak
-
06-28-2016, 11:19 PMSarcaticaOkay, for the sake of clarifying, good groups will do way more DPS total than what the average joes are doing. And it just so happens that DRK with any healer is still a DPS gain over taking PLD. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. Proof? See the fastest clears of Midas Savage in FFlogs, they are mostly DRKs as MT slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by IskarJarak
PLD with SkS isn't optimal, that's has been said throughout the entirety of 3.0. Period. -
06-29-2016, 06:55 PMFebrusThat was not a Pld specific change, so it hardly can be considered to be part of their "major adjustment." That would be no different than saying that Whm's got more utility out of casting Stoneskin on a Tank because the changes to Vit/Str. Yes they did, but no one's calling that a "major adjustment," nor does it actually do anything to change the utility of the move. The fact is that DV (and Stoneskin) are still being used the exact same way they were before, just with the added convenience of self-activation and a slightly higher shield. It's still being used in the same instances at the exact same, scripted, times as it was before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
Oath Swapping, as well, is simply more convenient. Before the change, good Pld's were prepping their swaps in time with Fight or Flight in order to get maximum potency. That hasn't changed. The only difference is that, as you said, we have a bit more flexibility in when the oath is swapped, and I do mean a bit, because it can only be delayed by a maximum of 2 GCD's before the first combo is lost and the total buffed potency is reduced. The thing is, assuming the Pld does their swap correctly and completes their full Fight or Flight rotation, then the total buffed potency is identical to what it was when a Pld did it correctly the old way. Nothing really changed, assuming you were doing it right before the "major adjustments" took place. Is it more convenient? Most definitely, but that's all it is. If you want to call that a "major adjustment," then that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but I don't see it that way. The fact that the actual utility of the move remains the same, and absolutely nothing about the way the job is played or utilized has changed, means that I don't consider any of those adjustments to be "major."
Regardless, I wasn't talking about any of those things in the first place. I was talking about Tp conservation, which has been a problem for Pld's since before 3.0. I never said that Pld didn't function in the 2.x content. I also didn't say anything about tank balancing in that content, either. That's a whole other can of worms that I'm not gonna get into. What I did say was that Pld's Tp was, and is, a problem, because it is unsustainable. In 2.5, and at maximum kit, a Pld could easily flat-line their Tp in any prolonged fight. That's not even contestable. The issue took a back seat for a bit when 3.0 was released because of new gear sets and leveling, but it reared it's ugly head again when Pld's reached cap. The Tp adjustments in 3.2 pushed it to the back seat once more, but, yet again, it's coming back as skill speeds start to increase. So, no. I do not consider SE to have taken a committed stance on fixing the problem, because they didn't fix it at all.
This also has nothing to do with bias. It's a documented fact. Pld had Tp issues as early as patch 2.5 (technically, before that, as Dreadwyrm gear became available in 2.4). SE did nothing, quite literally nothing, to fix those issues until patch 3.2. By comparison, Drk had Tp issues in 3.0. Blood Weapon was patched in 3.07. It only took them 2 months to respond to that problem. Whereas, it took them almost half a year to do the same for Pld. The same can be said for War. The fact that they actually did a redesign at all on War is pretty telling of their impressive commitment to that job, but it goes even further, because they did such a good job of it that they were able to build on it without causing any issues at all. In fact, all of the most recent War adjsutments have been nerfs because they did too good of a job ... Now compare that to Pld, who has had nothing but a series of patch jobs spanning all the way back to the 2.x in a poor attempt to throw band-aids over it's deficiencies. It's appropriate that you mention enmity as "never" being an issue, because most of the 2.x patches were actually enmity adjustments to various Pld moves. Seems to me like SE considered that an issue... Regardless, the only bias I see here is very clearly on SE's side of the table, only I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it an oversight ... -
06-30-2016, 02:28 AMDonjoAll of those Paladin adjustments, if each is taken alone, can certainly seem like they weren't major. However, the 3.2 Paladin adjustments were granted to us in a lump sum. You put all that together and it's a major improvement to both performance and playability. If you want to believe a patch that made enmity trivial, allowed Clemency to properly be an emergency heal, made Divine Veil PUG-proof, notably increased DPS, prevented unnecessary time in an unwanted stance while preparing to switch, and made TP pools last long enough to not bottom out in the vast majority of fights while minimizing the consequences of actually running out, all at once, isn't major... you're certainly free to. You'll still be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
-
06-30-2016, 07:28 AMFebrusI don't see it that way. Enmity was already trivial, even before this patch. Clemency got a little more flexible, but it is still best (if not only) used in very scripted instances, especially in the MT position where it could still be interrupted.The dps increase was a joke. Calling it "notable" is a laughable overstatement, because it only totals 40 potency, and Shield Oath was only reduced by 5%. No one really cared about the Shield Oath reduction, either, because Pld's were already (and are still currently) dropping Shield Oath for Sword Oath the second they get a lead on enmity. The overall reduction to Dps checks post 3.2 had a much bigger effect on dps viability than Pld's changes did, and that was not a Pld specific change. Making DV "PUG-proof" is probably the only thing I'd say even comes close to a "major" change, because it actually changed the way we use the move in an average dungeon run, even if it does cost us personal Dps with each Clemency cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donjo
Regardless, in the end this boils down to a difference of opinion. If we're looking at the sheer number of adjustments made, then sure. I suppose you could call it "major." I'm not saying that the number of adjustments weren't impressive (though we have seen bigger adjustments made to other jobs in the past). The fact that we got them all at once and that they actually fixed a few glaring errors was great, but each individual adjustment didn't actually do much to change anything. They just fixed a few QoL issues that really shouldn't have been issues in the first place, especially if SE had been as dedicated to Pld from the start. So, if we're looking at the quality of the adjustments made, then no. It's completely fair to say that there's nothing major about them, and that they could have been much better. Again, that's not to say that they're not decent changes and weren't a welcomed sight, but no one is re-evaluating the way the play and/or use Pld in content post 3.2. The job still handles almost exactly the same way it did before, and it still suffers from some of the problems it had. If you want to call that "major," then you're certainly free to, but from where I'm sitting that makes you just as wrong as I am. -
06-30-2016, 07:58 AMDonjoGod, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
-
06-30-2016, 08:52 AMShurrikhan+10 RA potency (used 33 to 66% of time), +100 GB potency (used 33% of time). Assuming tri-combo, that would be +0, +10, +100, or averaging out to a 36.7 potency increase per combo. With RA-RA-GB, that'd be +10, +10, +100, averaging to +40 potency per combo. Not hard to see what he meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donjo
Given that we only dealt ~2300 weaponskill potency per 3 combos before (RA-RA-GB), I'd call the additional 120 sizeable. It's over 5%, after all, to be taken quite often atop the 6.67% increase to Shield Oath dps. That's pretty great.
However, I have to agree that it didn't change a damn thing except to (1) make GB your slightly increased potency spam attack during excessive enmity while leveling, to (2) make GB per 4 combos for high-SS PLDs even less viable by increasing the GB-RA potency gap by an additional 40% (1020 to 700 from 920 to 690), and (3) to increase juicy cleave DPS... which DRK still blows us away in (at 575 potency per [Darksided] Scourge, with no time wasted in combos). The second reduced options, the third increased capacity, but only the first actually affected gameplay, and not by much. -
06-30-2016, 12:39 PMBrian_You need to take a step back and check your bias, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
Stoneskin went from a 1700~1800 shield on only the tank to a 2900 shield on only the tank.
DV went from a 1700~shield on everyone but the tank to a 2900 shield on everyone but the tank.
And you imply that there is no difference? There is a huge difference because DV has a much bigger scaling impact than Stoneskin.
When you judge any skill, it is always a matter of context. When judging DV, you compare it to other unique raid mitigation you get from the tank slot -- namely Reprisal and Path. While Path is still king, by shaving 20% off the recast of DV while buffing the shield by a huge amount, you make it a much more competitive option against Reprisal's 10% reduction with 66% up-time. Now, because you can have a stronger DV reliably available for enough hard raid-wide hits, the persistent effect of Reprisal isn't miles ahead anymore. This is especially meaningful in long fights with periodic hard hitting raid-wide damage like A7S and A8S that require precision and controlled responses.
What has changed is that before, you were severely punished for small errors in planning and judgement. At times in content with RNG elements that throw off your GCD alignment, you are relying on intuition, feel and sometimes timeline to time your stance swaps. If you flubbed it, the consequences were bad. As such, you always needed to see the game a few GCDs ahead of where you were. The same situation exists with WARs and IB or 3FC Berserk windows but they had more leeway due to being able to adjust their stack alignment with RI, Vengeance, Infuriate, and Fracture. Now that swapping Oaths no longer breaks combos, you can get away with playing much more reactionary and in the moment rather than being very proactive about your swap timings. So yes, the way you play PLD has changed. The fact that you can't see it means you probably never really pushed PLD to that brink. Playing PLD before and after the changes, it feels like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
Your words:Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
My words:Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
Conclusion: Stop being blind and forgetting what you've written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
They had to redesign WAR because they were unplayable in the content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
In the meanwhile, PLD was the strongest tank of 2.X.
So, why are you expecting an equal response to two jobs on different ends of the balance spectrum? One needed help and required a committed fix. Desperately. The other made it through 2.X with flying colors. If PLD reaches the point that WAR was at before their redesign and SE does nothing, then you'd have a real argument showing SE's clear neglect. PLD is no where near that level.
Even when you shift the focus to 3.X and SE's quicker response to DRK's TP issues, that's because DRK's TP issues were much worse. And, you also act like 3.07 vs. 3.1 (where PLD got swipe changed and TP reductions to GB and shield bash and DRK got nothing) shows some blatant skew in favor of DRK. When I had to switch jobs to WAR as a career PLD for Gordias Savage I was mad. I also called out SE for their complete lack of action from 3.0 to 3.1 when the issues were very clear. But, with the actions they've taken since, to still think that they aren't trying would be delusional.
Also, enmity was never an issue to PLDs that knew what they were doing and were appropriately geared. The changes to enmity were largely to make tanking easier and enmity a complete afterthought. -
07-01-2016, 01:39 AMFebrusSeriously ... Do you even remember where this conversation started? Let me refresh your memory. I'll even use your formatting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
My words, which were to a completely different person and were on topic of Tp consumption and Skill Speed:
Your words, which were completely unrelated to issue I specified:Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
I disagreed with you, which was my mistake because I'm guessing you found that offensive to your ego or something ... Regardless, I tried to get back on topic with this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
Which was followed by you staying as far from that topic as possible …Which you’re still doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Februs
I could go through all of your ranting and nit-pick it apart, but, quite frankly, I just don’t care. I’m already guilty by getting drawn this far track in the first place, despite my attempts to stay on point, so going any further would be a waste of time. If you want to keep playing the big white knight in defense of SE and arguing that their adjustments were some kind of revolution to Pld game play, then feel free. The world looks a lot better through rose coloured glasses, so who am I try and take them off of you? Just don’t expect me to wear them too, because you have yet to say anything which would convince me that the Pld adjustments were as utterly astounding as you're so desperately trying to make them out to be. As far as I’m concerned, as good as the Pld adjustments were (and they were good. I’m not contested that), they were lack luster, and they could, and should, have been much better. Saying that War and Drk had it worse (which Drk’s didn’t, by the way), is a pretty weak excuse for not making adequate changes, in my opinion. Just because one job had it worse in the past does not mean that the problems another job has right now should go ignored and be allowed to fester. That’s a pretty unprofessional and irresponsible attitude to take towards the subject, but, again, that’s just my personal opinion. You don’t have to like it. Feel free to disagree. Rage away at the internet, or whatever makes you feel better, but I'm done with it. -
07-01-2016, 03:49 AMDonjoUh, it's completely unreasonable to just drop the number 40 down and expect everyone who reads it to start doing average combo potency calculations, especially when there's another method one can use to reach +40: +10 to RA, +20 to GB's initial hit, and +10 to GB's DoT potency. Now that you've posted this interpretation Februs would almost certainly claim he meant what you said if pressed, but I'll bet gil that it's just coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Related to your numbers I would wonder about something else, though. What were the ramifications of PLD receiving the largest buff to enmity between the tanks in 3.2? They have to use Shield Oath less, they don't lose as much during the time they do spend in Shield Oath, and they can get away with fewer Halones even without a Ninja. MT damage has risen more than a few potency buffs would suggest. I wonder how much it has risen in comparison to OT Damage.
Also, I do have to say... SE enabling Paladins to use Halone even less kind of puts a damper on the whole "oh hey PLD finally has 3 combos" thing.
----------
And... Paladin TP consumption? There's probably a reason that people aren't bothering to argue the point that "Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now". Because... it's really quite wrong. Sure, it crippled the job at one point. Now? I haven't run out of TP as a Paladin since 3.2 dropped. I don't even look at that bar anymore. Paladin may still have the worst TP preservation among the Tanks, but that only hurts if you have uninterrupted uptime long enough to actually bottom out. Even then, it's only a true problem if you're the only person bottoming out at the time in a party without a Ninja. It's hardly "crippling" at the moment. -
07-03-2016, 07:08 PMSarcaticaIt's only in A7S. Ask for a Goad for that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donjo