Making Jobs Rotationally Easier in 4.0

Don't touch tanks pls. Our rotations are fine. I don't wanna fall asleep between tank-busters.

I think tank jobs should lose tank and dps stances, and rely on actually needing to keep enmity rather than being a dps (like PLD, NIN, and WAR in FFXI).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim_Berry

I think tank jobs should lose tank and dps stances, and rely on actually needing to keep enmity rather than being a dps...

---

Why should TANKS lose their TANK stance if you don't want them to DPS? I get that you want tanks to spend more time tanking, but removing BOTH stances for that to happen? You have some incredibly flawed logic there. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that WAR and DRK have skills that can only be used with that stance on or are changed by that stance.

Besides,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim_Berry

(like PLD, NIN, and WAR in FFXI).

---

This isn't FFXI. This is FFXIV. They shouldn't be compared and FFXI definitely isn't the official guide on how FFXIV should and shouldn't work.

Moving back to the OP's post, if there's any skills I want to see removed/changed for 4.0, It'd be Bloodbath and Foresight being merged into one skill. Fracture should also be buffed to be worth keeping up outside of specific scenarios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnanimousCynic

Why should TANKS lose their TANK stance if you don't want them to DPS? I get that you want tanks to spend more time tanking, but removing BOTH stances for that to happen? You have some incredibly flawed logic there. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that WAR and DRK have skills that can only be used with that stance on or are changed by that stance.

Besides,



This isn't FFXI. This is FFXIV. They shouldn't be compared and FFXI definitely isn't the official guide on how FFXIV should and shouldn't work.

Moving back to the OP's post, if there's any skills I want to see removed/changed for 4.0, It'd be Bloodbath and Foresight being merged into one skill. Fracture should also be buffed to be worth keeping up outside of specific scenarios.

---

In ffxi tanks didn't have tank stance or dps stance. Their enmity tools were enough to hold hate so it was just a choice to use them or not. It could technically work this way in ffxiv too since tanks don't actually need their tank stance to hold hate, most end game tanks full time dps stance anyway.

Since we're talking about simplifying rotations, what this would do is remove the need to stance dance, you'd just focus on generating enmity or focus on dpsing removing that middle man of changing your stance to whichever you're planning on doing.

It would require some fine tuning and tweaking and in some cases (as you said WAR relies on its stances for half its skills) complete overhauls.

i just want to say that if tanks dps lowers too much more, no one would be able to beat story quests with them even, so please no. i know you might love ff11 but i dont want to see tanks taking 10 minutes to solo one overworld regular mob thanks

Tanks in ffxi has tanks and dps stances. It was called PDT gear and TP gear.

If anything I would like to see PLD be made MORE complex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

If anything I would like to see PLD be made MORE complex

---

this sort of touches on another thread about worrying about skill gutting, and that theyre gonna add a list of role cross class abilities.
Not sure what angle you mean by complete, but i personally would like it to be more paladin-like which kind of worries me that they may just take the cnj thing out of it completely, instead of giving it more complete things like esuna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim_Berry

I think tank jobs should lose tank and dps stances, and rely on actually needing to keep enmity rather than being a dps (like PLD, NIN, and WAR in FFXI).

---

If you want that, you don't have to remove their stances. You just have to remove the enmity bonuses on their single target rotation. (And give Shield Oath at lvl 30...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

If anything I would like to see PLD be made MORE complex

---

Um, would this be with more offensive actions than someone can realistically pay attention to, just like dark, or by having a larger toolkit of useful skills and interesting traits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnanimousCynic

Why should TANKS lose their TANK stance if you don't want them to DPS? I get that you want tanks to spend more time tanking, but removing BOTH stances for that to happen? You have some incredibly flawed logic there. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that WAR and DRK have skills that can only be used with that stance on or are changed by that stance.

---

This entirely depends on how abilities are tuned.

Hypothetically, if you removed tank and DPS stances you'd have to make the enmity combos for all tanks the centerpiece of holding aggro. Which means a PLD would have to focus on using Halone, and only when they have a threat lead would they be able to sneak in Goring Blade or Royal Authority. The design would lead to increasing the enmity bonuses on Savage Blade and Rage of Halone, with Riot Blade, Goring Blade and Royal Authority getting a damage buff to compensate for the loss of Sword Oath.

That is, of course, unless we're also aiming to reduce tank damage with this change rather than reducing the opportunities to use Goring Blade/Royal Authority during a boss fight.

Quote:

---

Moving back to the OP's post, if there's any skills I want to see removed/changed for 4.0, It'd be Bloodbath and Foresight being merged into one skill. Fracture should also be buffed to be worth keeping up outside of specific scenarios.

---

This sort of depends on what we want to do with WAR. I still argue WAR should lose the drains (really, DRK should have those for the sake of theme) and focus on using skills to sort of ignore part of the damage aimed at them.

Fracture could be changed into a skill that reduces damage the mob deals to the WAR for its duration in addition to the DoT effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPNZ

Um, would this be with more offensive actions than someone can realistically pay attention to, just like dark

---

wat

Tracking DRK's offensive CDs is really easy, just make a separate hotbar at max size and place the CDs there as well. The only complicated part of playing DRK is figuring out how to keybind all the abilities if you don't have a gaming mouse, same with DRG.

Also, RE: removing tank stance/DPS stance -> It's not gonna happen. I think people are misunderstanding the 4.0 changes - they want to make jobs easier, not change their direction completely. WAR would need an entire rework from the ground up if they got rid of Deliverance and Defiance since nearly all of it's kit plays into it. The only thing currently wrong with the stances is the clunkiness of DRK/PLDs, which I do hope they find a fix for in 4.0, but I don't think just removing all the stances is the solution.

personally i wouldn't mind if they get rid of the third combo finisher. either merge them remove them.
move all the debuffs (str down, int down, path) to the hate combos and tread the others as damage/filler combo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

This sort of depends on what we want to do with WAR. I still argue WAR should lose the drains (really, DRK should have those for the sake of theme) and focus on using skills to sort of ignore part of the damage aimed at them.

Fracture could be changed into a skill that reduces damage the m.

---

100% agree Duelle!

Remove Fast Blade/Hard Slash/Heavy Swing.

Combine Foresight, Bloodbath, and Convalescence into one skill.

Remove vestigial crossclasses like Internal Release, Awareness, and Stoneskin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPNZ

Um, would this be with more offensive actions than someone can realistically pay attention to, just like dark, or by having a larger toolkit of useful skills and interesting traits?

---

The latter, PLD doesn't need to be more offensive, it needs to be more interesting and more viable to play (especially in the OT and AOE meta), PLDs niche is CC/buffs/support, and they need to expand on this and actually work out what they are doing with the class rather than throwing around the term "wall" (PLD has bigger buffs yes, but all tanks can MT no problem, why bring a PLD if that is all it is good for?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

The latter, PLD doesn't need to be more offensive, it needs to be more interesting and more viable to play (especially in the OT and AOE meta), PLDs niche is CC/buffs/support, and they need to expand on this and actually work out what they are doing with the class rather than throwing around the term "wall" (PLD has bigger buffs yes, but all tanks can MT no problem, why bring a PLD if that is all it is good for?)

---

Their allegiance to the trinity has made the game this way - they can't make content where you need particular jobs ie: something only a pld can tank, which ends up making jobs basically a spin on a role. It is what it is... I don't think we're going to be heading towards specs or the diversity of XI so might as well enjoy it for what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckc22

Their allegiance to the trinity has made the game this way - they can't make content where you need particular jobs ie: something only a pld can tank, which ends up making jobs basically a spin on a role. It is what it is... I don't think we're going to be heading towards specs or the diversity of XI so might as well enjoy it for what it is.

---

That's my point, we can't make content that requires a PLD, so they need to go down a different route with the jobs core in order to make it able to compete with the other tanks (It is now raid viable but still falls short of the mark).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ckc22

Their allegiance to the trinity has made the game this way - they can't make content where you need particular jobs ie: something only a pld can tank, which ends up making jobs basically a spin on a role.

---

Yes, they can't, but PLD should need significantly less support than WAR and DRK. It means much more usage of Cleric Stance in 4-an content, and maybe solo-heal and/or solo tank setups in 8-man.

If every job can do everything but is locked in exactly the same kind of setup, there's no point of having that much jobs in the end...

The hints at fanfest were super vague, but I think tank attack rotations will remain mostly intact. Fracture or Scourge might be cut or combined with a WS combo (path, power slash). I hope for Sword Oath to either be removed or put on the same button as Shield Oath and for something similar to happen with Defiance/Deliverance and their mirror actions. I also expect stuff like Awareness, Bulwark, Tempered Will, Foresight, Bloodbath, and even Convalescence to be either removed or combined with other skills. A lot of that stuff is useful, just not useful or class-defining enough to occupy a single button.

What's more interesting is I seem to remember them saying something about cross class getting some pretty significant overhauls with abilities being grouped by role instead of class. If all tanks are drawing from the same crossclass pool then that opens up some possibilities. If Flash were made into a targeted AOE (rather than point blank) so that you could pull with it, they could remove Shield Lob/Tomahawk/Unmend. If Overpower was cross-classable, they could get rid of Unleash. Perhaps we'll get some new skills there that don't even belong to any one class but provide a tool that every tank has to have (like Provoke).

I'm surprised people are asking for bloodbath to be combined with foresight. If anything I think I'd ask for bloodbath to be combined with berserk lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

I'm surprised people are asking for bloodbath to be combined with foresight. If anything I think I'd ask for bloodbath to be combined with berserk lol.

---

Bloodbath, Conval, Awareness, and Foresight are minor crossclasses, Berserk is not.

Good point, I guess mixing bloodbath into berserk makes it inaccessible by other tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

Good point, I guess mixing bloodbath into berserk makes it inaccessible by other tanks.

---

That might not be a problem post-4.0

SE seems to be moving away from the class system. At the start of HW, Yoshi confirmed that ALL future jobs will not have starter classes. There will just be jobs from here on out. They also already confirmed that they want to reassess how the cross class system works, as some skill are seen as mandatory in the community. Provoke, in particular, was singled out for Tanks, because it's required for any content with a tank-swap mechanic. I wouldn't be surprised to see SE completely remove cross-class skills in the future and replacing it with something else, like universal skills that are role-specific. The only question would be which skills become universal and which remain exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

This sort of depends on what we want to do with WAR. I still argue WAR should lose the drains (really, DRK should have those for the sake of theme) and focus on using skills to sort of ignore part of the damage aimed at them.

Fracture could be changed into a skill that reduces damage the mob deals to the WAR for its duration in addition to the DoT effect.

---

The one thing I like about Warrior drains and self-heals is that they better give a feeling of a combatant in the midst of a long battle. The drains particularly also give a sense of overwhelming the enemy with sheer force, or that a good offense can be great defense. If you put just "drains" on a Warrior job page, it probably wouldn't immediately strike me as thematic as someone newish to the concept, but once you've played around with it, the playstyle might well seem hollowed without it.

Personally I just kind of to see Fracture as a skill that (1) deals potentially heavy damage, (2) creates personal bonus damage, and/or (3) mitigates (in the sense of Fracturing an enemy's ribs, their armor, or their arms), based largely off recent outputs and/or inputs. Go ham on an enemy in Deliverance and then Fracture to deal a finishing burst, or Fracture into an improved Zerk-triple-Cleave, or from Defiance and sap enemy attack power based on amounts you've been mitigating thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim_Berry

I think tank jobs should lose tank and dps stances, and rely on actually needing to keep enmity rather than being a dps (like PLD, NIN, and WAR in FFXI).

---

I'm guessing you REALLY like those Butcher Block, Rage of Halone, and Power Slash animations? Because, that's all your going to see on any short fight then. At present enmity gives the ability to actually invest in holding threat from the offset without trimming your choices down to one combo every pull. Additionally, if you remove the stance variant on AoEs, how would the better geared (temporarily/mechanically-set) OT ever not pull from the MT? They can't differentiate enmity outputs. Are we going to add a second AoE to every tank, identical to the first except in that it has little to no enmity boost?
_________________________________________________________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brannigan

The hints at fanfest were super vague, but I think tank attack rotations will remain mostly intact. Fracture or Scourge might be cut or combined with a WS combo (path, power slash). I hope for Sword Oath to either be removed or put on the same button as Shield Oath and for something similar to happen with Defiance/Deliverance and their mirror actions. I also expect stuff like Awareness, Bulwark, Tempered Will, Foresight, Bloodbath, and even Convalescence to be either removed or combined with other skills. A lot of that stuff is useful, just not useful or class-defining enough to occupy a single button.

---

Then that's one more window you lose that would otherwise make rotations more interesting. I like timing my Scourges into the stance-dance; I just want the opportunity cost of Grit reduced so that I can use that full range of the DRK's toolkit and complexity more viably.

Toggles and auto-swapped keys would indeed be a godsend. Personally, I'd like to the Oaths revised as well, but as you've said, you don't need to remove an mutually exclusive ability for it not to take up space; you just need to stack it with its mutual exclusives.

Quote:

---

What's more interesting is I seem to remember them saying something about cross class getting some pretty significant overhauls with abilities being grouped by role instead of class. If all tanks are drawing from the same crossclass pool then that opens up some possibilities. If Flash were made into a targeted AOE (rather than point blank) so that you could pull with it, they could remove Shield Lob/Tomahawk/Unmend. If Overpower was cross-classable, they could get rid of Unleash. Perhaps we'll get some new skills there that don't even belong to any one class but provide a tool that every tank has to have (like Provoke).

---

But none of that frees up SPACE. It only homogenizes jobs far more obviously. The very word for ranged/AoE tank enmity would just be "Flash". Why do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Yes, they can't, but PLD should need significantly less support than WAR and DRK. It means much more usage of Cleric Stance in 4-an content, and maybe solo-heal and/or solo tank setups in 8-man.

If every job can do everything but is locked in exactly the same kind of setup, there's no point of having that much jobs in the end...

---

I agree with everything your saying... I'm just being realistic about where things are and how they're going to stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

But none of that frees up SPACE. It only homogenizes jobs far more obviously. The very word for ranged/AoE tank enmity would just be "Flash". Why do that?

---

Allows you to delete Shield Lob from paladin, freeing up a space. Shield Lob/Tomahawk/Unmend are all basically the same and worthless outside of pulls and add pickups. A targeted/ranged AOE flash could serve the dual purpose of AOE enmity and a pulling/add pickup tool. Doesn't necessarily have to be used by all tanks, but it's an example of what could be done. Really, there's not enough info on what the changes are going to be, so it's all just kinda blind speculation atm.

Also I wouldn't have even mentioned scourge/fracture if they hadn't brought up fracture in the powerpoint. I guess Scourge probably isn't going anywhere considering how bland the drk rotation already is.

The difficulty of rotations, and the need to simplify this in 4.0, I believe YoshiP was referring to the DPS jobs and their 3.0 abilities.

Tanks already got a simplification with the STR/VIT adjustment.

I'm not expecting much more except 1-3 role specific, shared cross-class options, (Provoke being moved to this new set) with PLD getting a new lvl22 ability. At worst PLD may lose Protect as a cross-class because Protect will become one of the role specific Healer cross-class options, with Conjurer getting a new lvl8 ability/spell to replace it.

But I think the gameplay rehaul or whatever that was they teased isn't going to be oh so much. QoL fixes is all I anticipate, maybe change some back-end calculations to make some skills like Foresight have a multiplicative buffing benefit when stacked with other mitigation CDs instead of always fixed % of base DEF.

They only change I hope they make is that they combine the stances into one button and at endgame you will never be without a stance as you will either be in your dps or tanking stance. No more "Tank go into your stance" at the start of every fight. The exception to this is DRK as Darkside acts more like a persistent dmg buff and opening up more tools than an actual stance. This specifically relates to PLD and WAR.

For example, for WAR, Inner Beast and Fell Cleave will be on the same button but is dependent on their respective stances and can only be accessed as such. So by merging Defiance/Deliverance, Inner Beast/Fell Cleave, and Steel Cyclone/Decimate, you've effectively opened up 3 more slots on your crossbar.

But honestly I think the tanks got it good in terms of "easy rotations". They have an enmity combo, a dps combo and a dot button/combo. That's really all they need and now they just need to focus on more defensive cds or ways to enhance said combos similar to DRK. No other rotations needed as we are tanks and we already have a defensive cd rotation to focus on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brannigan

The hints at fanfest were super vague, but I think tank attack rotations will remain mostly intact. Fracture or Scourge might be cut or combined with a WS combo (path, power slash).
.

---

you do know that scrouge shouldn't be cut on dark its the 2nd highest potency skill( this doesn't included combos) Salted is number 1 carve and spite is number 2. if you want the potency scourge is 500 single target salted is 525 and carve and spit under Da is 450. Fracture shouldn't be cut. fracture is 330 with maim and Storm eye without Berserk. Fracture with berserk maim and storm eye its 380. the second highest potency (not including combos). unless you change there toolkit to make up for the loss of potency they shouldn't be cut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

The one thing I like about Warrior drains and self-heals is that they better give a feeling of a combatant in the midst of a long battle. The drains particularly also give a sense of overwhelming the enemy with sheer force, or that a good offense can be great defense. If you put just "drains" on a Warrior job page, it probably wouldn't immediately strike me as thematic as someone newish to the concept, but once you've played around with it, the playstyle might well seem hollowed without it.

---

I admit that my comment is based on what I already know about DRK and what is associated with it, which is why drains feel more natural to DRK than WAR. I'm not alone on that one, because a lot of people were speculating DRK would be a job branching off MRD because it had Bloodbath.

If you want a tough combatant feel, I'd still go the ignore pain route. Refine the idea behind it, or turn it into active mitigation that costs wrath stacks (you'd need to redesign inner beast for this) and it would still feel relatively the same. Your WAR instead of magically recovering HP from attacks is now gritting his teeth and is so tough parts of certain attacks don't hurt him at all.

Quote:

---

Personally I just kind of to see Fracture as a skill that (1) deals potentially heavy damage, (2) creates personal bonus damage, and/or (3) mitigates (in the sense of Fracturing an enemy's ribs, their armor, or their arms), based largely off recent outputs and/or inputs. Go ham on an enemy in Deliverance and then Fracture to deal a finishing burst, or Fracture into an improved Zerk-triple-Cleave, or from Defiance and sap enemy attack power based on amounts you've been mitigating thus far.

---

Considering fracture is rarely used as is, increasing the damage won't really help. The reason I suggest turning it into a skill that reduces the damage the mob deals to you is to give WAR an additional mitigation tool that still has some opportunity cost due to Fracture's relatively low damage. If you truly want to take WAR in the direction of using more skills to build up their mitigation, such a version of Fracture would easily fit as part of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brannigan

Allows you to delete Shield Lob from paladin, freeing up a space. Shield Lob/Tomahawk/Unmend are all basically the same and worthless outside of pulls and add pickups. A targeted/ranged AOE flash could serve the dual purpose of AOE enmity and a pulling/add pickup tool. Doesn't necessarily have to be used by all tanks, but it's an example of what could be done. Really, there's not enough info on what the changes are going to be, so it's all just kinda blind speculation atm.

Also I wouldn't have even mentioned scourge/fracture if they hadn't brought up fracture in the powerpoint. I guess Scourge probably isn't going anywhere considering how bland the drk rotation already is.

---

And in doing so it would remove choice in the same way that collapsing Unmend and Abyssal Drain into a single option would. Why not just actually make the skill itself more interesting and relevant? Why make the fewest buttons used the goal, instead of the highest ratio of choices to button strokes? The goal is interesting, intuitive gameplay, right? But if you set SE off on that direction, do not be surprised if you end up with 12 skills total, each viable only in one particular circumstance. It's partly because this is still largely in the air that community opinion (less so NA's) could have an effect. While reducing button bloat can be important, I'd just recommend that you consider whether you want it to be the top priority, at cost even of opportunities for more interesting abilities and gameplay.

The main reason Fracture came up is that it's awkward in two ways: (1) on Warrior itself, rather than being something you can use strategically to maximize the skill's own potential, you actually have to hold off on Fracture frequently to keep from losing dps—which really isn't how any skill should work—and (2) although TP-inefficient, it's a much larger dps gain overall on a Monk than on its native class, and then an absolute waste on all other jobs. Scourge is solely a native skill, is the strongest per-execute skill in the DRK toolkit, and determines a large portion of their typical-play cleave damage and all of their by-choice cleave damage.

________________________________________________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

I admit that my comment is based on what I already know about DRK and what is associated with it, which is why drains feel more natural to DRK than WAR. I'm not alone on that one, because a lot of people were speculating DRK would be a job branching off MRD because it had Bloodbath.

If you want a tough combatant feel, I'd still go the ignore pain route. Refine the idea behind it, or turn it into active mitigation that costs wrath stacks (you'd need to redesign inner beast for this) and it would still feel relatively the same. Your WAR instead of magically recovering HP from attacks is now gritting his teeth and is so tough parts of certain attacks don't hurt him at all.

Considering fracture is rarely used as is, increasing the damage won't really help. The reason I suggest turning it into a skill that reduces the damage the mob deals to you is to give WAR an additional mitigation tool that still has some opportunity cost due to Fracture's relatively low damage. If you truly want to take WAR in the direction of using more skills to build up their mitigation, such a version of Fracture would easily fit as part of that.

---

(1) And I don't see why Souleater's drain is considered as identity overlap with Bloodbath's. They feel very, very distinct to me. That said, if I had to remove either the drain on either Bloodbath and Inner Beast or Souleater, I'd remove Souleater's for sure (albeit with great confusion and regret for having a groundless ultimatum thrown upon me). In my experience, it doesn't fit the surrounding play as well as the other two do for Warrior.

(2) I have no interest in simply copying WoW's Protection Warrior's Ignore Pain over to our Warrior. The two are thematically different beasts. The 'Bulwark of a tank' theme that a Prot Warrior has better fits a Paladin if anything, and poorly even then. Balancing aside, the original 2.0 Warrior's means of survival seemed about the closest to all the lore says the Warrior is. (Yes, we're thoroughly into the subjective by now.) The changes done later were helpful but plain, and moved partly away from that. For me a Warrior is more likely to revel in the dynamics of his health bar, and when left alone may drop low before springing back until out of time or strength enough to do so, but never is his demise an inevitable slow descent like that of death by Ignore Pain's 10% remaining damage taken. That is... pretty near the opposite of what I imagine. I have all the tanks at 110, save for two I've tested over a friend's PTR copies extensively, and none of them quite feel like what a Warrior is alleged to be.

(3) It is rarely used because it has a long duration and it deals little damage. I did not attach a duration in that example, and specifically said "high damage" for that first possible take on Fracture. I don't see anything wrong in and of itself with adding another possible mitigation tool (which will come at some cost to the rest of its mitigation toolkit, minus only what portion SE imagines that Fracture won't typically be used due to said damage cost), but it certainly wouldn't be unique in being an exchange between mitigation and damage. Warrior is pretty well the icon of that concept, the poster-child for its meta. Tuning is the only thing that decides whether we more commonly see damage "actively" sacrificed for mitigation (really just that we think about it in those terms, rather than the tank stance as the default and the rest as sacrificing mitigation), instead of the usual, opposite perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

(1) And I don't see why Souleater's drain is considered as identity overlap with Bloodbath's. They feel very, very distinct to me. That said, if I had to remove either the drain on either Bloodbath and Inner Beast or Souleater, I'd remove Souleater's for sure (albeit with great confusion and regret for having a groundless ultimatum thrown upon me). In my experience, it doesn't fit the surrounding play as well as the other two do for Warrior.

---

I'm not sure why you'd bring up Souleater into this conversation. The point I'm trying to make is that theme, mechanics and concept have to actually meet in order for this sort of thing to work. Again, using what was known about dark knights between sacrificing HP to deal damage (which wasn't going to fly because a tank making themselves more likely to die is a bad thing) and draining HP from their targets (courtesy of Drain/Drain II/Blood Weapon in FFXI and Night Sword in Final Fantasy Tactics), I'd lean toward working the drains into DRK and giving WAR some other means of mitigation that would make more sense for them.

Quote:

---

(2) I have no interest in simply copying WoW's Protection Warrior's Ignore Pain over to our Warrior. The two are thematically different beasts. The 'Bulwark of a tank' theme that a Prot Warrior has better fits a Paladin if anything, and poorly even then. Balancing aside, the original 2.0 Warrior's means of survival seemed about the closest to all the lore says the Warrior is.

---

The only things the WAR questline emphasize are that you're using your fury to protect your allies and that said fury needs to be kept under control. That's pretty much it.

Quote:

---

For me a Warrior is more likely to revel in the dynamics of his health bar, and when left alone may drop low before springing back until out of time or strength enough to do so, but never is his demise an inevitable slow descent like that of death by Ignore Pain's 10% remaining damage taken. That is... pretty near the opposite of what I imagine.

---

The health bar is more a mechanic to make it possible to tank without increasing defense values via Defiance. That's why Defiance and Shield Oath offer comparable increases in EHP despite the former not doing anything to your damage taken or armor value.

The point of my mentioning ignore pain is that it plays more into the inner fury/beast thing that WAR tries to advertise more than random drains attached to attacks. Think of it like a guy that is so focused on the fight that attacks don't hurt as much and do little to hinder them. If you want a visual reference, go watch one of the Undertaker's early wrestling matches. His opponents would hit him, his head would tilt a bit from the impact and he'd continue on his advance unhindered. That's how I imagine our WAR to be like. The inner beast theme plays into this easily (itself an extension of the berserker motif FFXIV has given to WAR), which would also draw on the theme of control (which is basically the moral of the whole WAR questline).

I think a lot of topics like this miss the point.

In regards to the simplification of rotations, SE's main line of reasoning was that the gap between top players and everyone else was simply growing too large. It made content hard to design and even harder to tune.

Looking specifically at tanks, we might be more guilty of this than DPS. The performance gap between a top tier tank and your average tank is gigantic right now. Not only does a top tier tank deal way more damage individually, the difference in how a top tier tank takes less consequential damage and handles the nuances of positioning and mechanics also increases the DPS of the raid and the overall smoothness of the fight.

But the solution is a bit more complicated than changing our rotation. Tanks already have a very low skill floor with a very simple rotation. The gap in performance is generally not from their rotation but that's not to say the rotation can't be changed to make the gap in performance smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

I think a lot of topics like this miss the point.

In regards to the simplification of rotations, SE's main line of reasoning was that the gap between top players and everyone else was simply growing too large. It made content hard to design and even harder to tune.

Looking specifically at tanks, we might be more guilty of this than DPS. The performance gap between a top tier tank and your average tank is gigantic right now. Not only does a top tier tank deal way more damage individually, the difference in how a top tier tank takes less consequential damage and handles the nuances of positioning and mechanics also increases the DPS of the raid and the overall smoothness of the fight.

---

More than anything IMO healers are more guilty than any other roles, not to say tanks don't have any part but yeah. Good healers can do both healing and DPS really well and this synergizes well with tanks that know how to maximize their potential. The hard topic is that not everyone is on the idea of tanks and healers able to maximize DPS due to them relying each other to do well. Some groups have high DPS tanks and healers, some have high DPS tanks and low DPS healers, likewise some have low DPS tanks and high DPS healers. The tank and healer role feed off each other depending on the skill level of the users, unlike the DPS role that only mostly benefit from the positioning and ability to do mechanics at the same time.

At first I thought the gap between top tanks and average DF tanks can be attributed to the ability to maximize dps stance uptime, but apparently even in OT position these average tanks still do a lot less dmg than they should, based on their gears. Maybe simplifying the rotations will reduce this performance gap more than we imagine now lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

At first I thought the gap between top tanks and average DF tanks can be attributed to the ability to maximize dps stance uptime, but apparently even in OT position these average tanks still do a lot less dmg than they should, based on their gears. Maybe simplifying the rotations will reduce this performance gap more than we imagine now lol.

---

Most tanks I see OT/MT alike hover at 50% of my DPS as MT, which is even worse. Even if they just spam 1 combo over and over, that number is not even remotely achievable. The only excuse I can think of is them using macro, and even then that still doesn't justify the low DPS. And people keep saying PLD easiest tank to play LUL, 500dps PLD OT too good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

snip

---

(1) Because it and Abyssal Drain are the only native DRK drains, and so in a comparison between which two native drains better fit the surrounding aesthetic of the job, I listed why I felt Warrior's felt more essential to me than DRKs.
____

That being said, I still don't see why HP sacrificing abilities would be a downside for a DRK so long as the output of those HP-spenders were increased defense or, effectively, equal or greater eHP that fades slower. That would simply give DRK increased control over its health pool, allowing it to better take advantage of skills like Essential Dignity even while smoothing out burst damage, and would provide no output increase in a easily healed OT setting. For the all the people who were shouting that HP spenders would make no sense for an MT, if you think about it, it's the ONLY place it could actually make sense while remaining balanced. HP is a tank resource; its investment should similarly be for another tank resource. For non-tanks, health no more or less than a safety check, rather than the economy your whole role revolves around. But hey, SE took the same side as those complaints so all's good.

(2) I'm not talking about the existence of an HP bar, or added maximum %HP. I'm aware that eHP can be modified both by the hp value and its coefficient (% damage taken). That's not being debated, nor are its benefits. I'm talking about the playstyle that forgoing standard passive mitigation provided, especially more towards the original 2.0 iteration of Warrior.

When I read your reference to Ignore Pain, I thought your reference was a bit more directly linked to WoW's version of the skill. I would guess that our only large differences in how we view Warrior is that, if it were in some part both a hulking beast of a combat and one that's just persistant, outlasting, I maybe lean towards the latter and you the prior? To me, a Warrior is at home in the middle of a battlefield, where he can last almost indefinitely under medium pressure, but is also able to rise to the situation, enthused by the heat of battle in either situation.

So long as it ties into the output, the momentum and energy so to speak, of this large and persistent beast of a combatant, then I'd be fine with a more analog take on the aspects of the Warrior's Inner Beast, and using that for damage mitigation and resistances. I'd also love to see a take on Berserk by which we're more visibly sacrificing sanity to some extent for that adrenaline- and rage-fueled state. That would be awesome, and would really drive home what lore we got. I just got a bit thrown off by the reference, and my thoughts quickly jumped to the idea of a tank who takes as little damage as possible but has no way to regenerate his health outside of his healer, which seemed, again, the opposite of a Warrior to me. Again, I lean more to the idea of the Warrior as a tenacious, persistent fighter in seemingly everlasting combat; neither just a strong but limited wall nor just a hulking brute to hit or tank like a truck and then die out quite covers that for me.

In short, the self-heal component, by which a Warrior could hold his own against a limited set of attackers without a healer is something I'd really like to still see on a Warrior, if not enhance.

(I'd also like to see more of the aspect or drawing enemies into insanity, feeding on their aether, pooling your power into certain enemies and then rending it back from them for a power or HP buff, and more frequently reaping the souls of enemies on death, etc., while still keeping near to the current, more normal thematic, for DRKs. To me, their drains should have capitalized more on that bastard tank and faintly off-role elements than they were. But hey, honestly I care a lot less about that perfecting the heading for Warrior into 4.0 and beyond; gameflow-wise DRK is still my favorite tank by a tiny margin even as is.)

Aside:
This shit makes me wish there were full-party job quests. Intense ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

(1) Because it and Abyssal Drain are the only native DRK drains, and so in a comparison between which two native drains better fit the surrounding aesthetic of the job, I listed why I felt Warrior's felt more essential to me than DRKs.

---

And you know why Souleater and Abyssal Drain are the only two skills with drains on DRK? Because the rest had already been given to WAR. As I said earlier, there was a lot of speculation DRK was going to sprout from MRD because of all the drains built into MRD/WAR.

Quote:

---

(2) I'm not talking about the existence of an HP bar, or added maximum %HP. I'm aware that eHP can be modified both by the hp value and its coefficient (% damage taken). That's not being debated, nor are its benefits. I'm talking about the playstyle that forgoing standard passive mitigation provided, especially more towards the original 2.0 iteration of Warrior.

---

WAR at launch was not dropping Defiance for the sake of e-peen damage. The whole point behind the stance was to simulate the EHP gain from Shield Oath without being a direct damage reduction by increasing HP along with Wrath's increase to healing received.

Yes, the system was poorly implemented, but that was the intent.

Quote:

---

When I read your reference to Ignore Pain, I thought your reference was a bit more directly linked to WoW's version of the skill. I would guess that our only large differences in how we view Warrior is that, if it were in some part both a hulking beast of a combat and one that's just persistent, outlasting, I maybe lean towards the latter and you the prior?

---

Basically. The NPC dialogue for both MRD and WAR point to WAR being this immovable object in combat. It plays on the elements of toughness and intimidation, which I find fitting for WAR, and the mechanics behind the job should reflect that too. Put in another way, while a PLD hides behind their shield and DRK hides behind their big sword, a WAR will stick their chest out and then laugh as if the enemy's attack didn't hurt. Hence my suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

And you know why Souleater and Abyssal Drain are the only two skills with drains on DRK? Because the rest had already been given to WAR. As I said earlier, there was a lot of speculation DRK was going to sprout from MRD because of all the drains built into MRD/WAR.

---

Really? So an augmentable drain ST attack, a drain AoE, a drain ST attack with an attached mitigation duration, and a physical-damage drain duration buff are EVERY POSSIBLE variant by which a drain might be used in a job?...
Haven't you seen at least that many player-made suggestions for new and unique drain ideas just across the posts you've frequented over the last couple years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

WAR at launch was not dropping Defiance for the sake of e-peen damage. The whole point behind the stance was to simulate the EHP gain from Shield Oath without being a direct damage reduction by increasing HP along with Wrath's increase to healing received.

Yes, the system was poorly implemented, but that was the intent.

---

I actually spent even less time in Defiance at launch as after the buff. Maybe damage just didn't have such a negative connotation then? We didn't feel the need to call raid dps contribution a matter of digital genital stroking? Heck, I did most of my tanking against 1-3 mobs in Sword Oath from day one at 50 on Paladin unless my healer could dps to compensate, and it took until 2.3 for that to be called "epeen". I don't know, but I generally saw less Warrior tank stance uptime—whether that points at dps prioritization or not—when Defiance was released, because it was simply weaker then.

I usually kept it up enmity and into the first or second Regen, then brought it back up several GCDs before I figured combat would end if needed in order to open the next pull with a larger healthpool and shields, especially to give time enough for a full Bane if Lustrate and/or FI were down, but apart from that, the bonus just wasn't nearly as worth the damage penalty until it was buffed in 2.1, making it used less. Of course, I often held onto full stacks more often too, when the bonus external healing received outpaced my internal healing generated via Inner Beast and I was dependent on direct spell healing (no same value Lustrate to cover the gaps as I regenerate stacks after using Inner Beast to save myself).

I have no idea know what intent you think that "poorly implemented system" pointed at though. Was it poorly implemented because it took longer to regenerate full effectiveness, despite already having a cooldown, and because it forced a restart on every use? Or is it just a "poorly implemented system" whose intent you applaud on the assumption that it kept Warriors from leaving tank stance as often? (It didn't. It did the opposite.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

Basically. The NPC dialogue for both MRD and WAR point to WAR being this immovable object in combat. It plays on the elements of toughness and intimidation, which I find fitting for WAR, and the mechanics behind the job should reflect that too. Put in another way, while a PLD hides behind their shield and DRK hides behind their big sword, a WAR will stick their chest out and then laugh as if the enemy's attack didn't hurt. Hence my suggestion.

---

I get that, but... If the PLD is hiding behind his shield, the DRK behind his sword, and the WAR behind his 'manliness' for all the same sort of mitigation and eHP, what if any difference in playstyle does that really create?

Going back to when we were talking about tanks on another thread, I can only say, if you dress up a shielded tank as a literal turtle but then give all other tanks the same mitigation (read: turtliness), they're still all turtle-tanks. So where do you imagine the real difference in gameplay as it applies to Warrior mitigation should come from? Raid vs. mob scaling? The pacing? What?