Warrior is OP! Paladin is OP! Make one tank class and be done with it....

....since that's what Warriors want. You know, because another class can mitigate damage different than them therefore OP.

Warrior: "Waaah i cannot mitigate damage as good as a Paladin! Give me more mitigation!"

SE buffs Warrior mitigation<

Paladin: "Waaah, what's the point of a Paladin if Warriors now have more hp AND our mitigation! Give us more HP!"

SE buffs Paladin HP<

Warrior: "Waaaah, Paladins are now the same as us! What the hell SE!"
Paladin: <see Warrior statement>






Learn the different playstyles of the two, and understand that they mitigate damage DIFFERETLY.

or

Combine them into the same class, or understand that you too can grind both to 50 and switch between them for specific encounters that they're meant for.


/rant

Regards,
-Bear :mad:

Learning is far far too hard for 99% of the people out there. Why learn when you can just roll FoTM right?! Worked so well for WoW ;)

I can't speak for endgame content. But here's a hypothesis/thought:


Let's say tanking is tanking, and the idea behind it (enmity, survivability) is the same for both PLD and WAR. But, from what I hear, things are unbalanced in this way for sustainability = PLD, enmity = WAR. Mit = PLD, extra DPS/VIT = WAR.

So presumably, SE already thought of this and that's where the term "on and off" tanks derive from. If this is the case, the complaining is silly. But considering many dungeons do not have the options for 2 tanks pre-8 person content, there could be problems. Well, that's as far as my knowledge expands here, but after reading countless people complaining about the WAR, this is the logical conclusions I came to:

If there is always room for an on/off tank, don't be pissy if you can't be both ALWAYS. Such is good game design, actually, encouraging cooperation and variety between classes. But if they are made to be COMPLETELY INTERCHANGEABLE (even for endgame content, this is important), then there are problems with balance as they obviously are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowblind

I can't speak for endgame content. But here's a hypothesis/thought:


Let's say tanking is tanking, and the idea behind it (enmity, survivability) is the same for both PLD and WAR. But, from what I hear, things are unbalanced in this way for sustainability = PLD, enmity = WAR. Mit = PLD, extra DPS/VIT = WAR.

---

Exactly, I would much rather be in a raid and it be "Well this fight is good for a Warrior to control the adds and a pally to tank the boss..ok next fight we want high dps/threat on boss while pally picks up a hard hitting add"

Enmity across the 2 classes is actually very close. The only major differences is how durable each class is, and how much DPS they dish out (the higher DPS rotation of WAR's is about the same in terms of enmity as the higher enmity rotation of PLD).

What it all boils down to is will there be a niche for both classes? Everything that makes a good main tank also makes a good off tank. So having one class relegated to the lesser role (off tank) while the other can effectively do both would be a bad situation.

Alright let's combine the classes into one.

Just like a warrior, they have:
-no shield
-high tp use

Just like a paladin, they have:
-lower hp pool
-low dps

Now no one will complain about the tank being OP!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowblind

...actually, encouraging cooperation and variety between classes. But if they are made to be COMPLETELY INTERCHANGEABLE, then there are problems with balance

---

Unfortunately this is exactly what many people want. WoW, while doing wonders for expanding the audience of MMO players, also watered everything down to be accessible to absolutely anyone. So that anyone could tank/heal/dps regardless of their class. Due to WoWs success most other recent MMOs have also followed this formula in an attempt to steal a sliver of WoWs player base. So for a large majority of "MMO" players, this has become par for the course, and the idea of requiring a specific role to do a specific thing is "UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED".

I love games that have defined roles. If you want to do x, you need y. If you think "balance" means that a war/pld should be able to do the exact same thing regardless of the fight/situation/party make-up, then you don't know what balance is.

I honestly HATE WoW....

Unlike the WoW MMO generation my first MMO was Ultima Online followed by FFXI.
Every class should not be able to do every role in the game. Blizzard rolled over and took it up the @ss for all the QQ'ers out there (truth hurts).

My only disappointment in playing Maruader/Warrior was when I found out that I couldn't queue up in an instance as DPS as a Marauder. After I found that out I ditched Mar, I already have a 50 PLD tank and I don't want another tank class.

I would be perfectly content if War could fill the role of DPS or Tank in a party and not be pigeon holed as a tank. (I stopped playing war at lvl 26 in v1.0 and now it's stopped at lvl 30)

complaints are coming from people at endgame heading out of titan and into bahamut

anyone complaining about less... well, PEBKAC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanDvai

I honestly HATE WoW....

Unlike the WoW MMO generation my first MMO was Ultima Online followed by FFXI.
Every class should not be able to do every role in the game. Blizzard rolled over and took it up the @ss for all the QQ'ers out there (truth hurts).

---

I don't get what you're trying to say.

In World of Warcraft, I can't heal, gun down things from range, or learn how to cast fireballs at a boss all on one character. I mean I guess you could be complaining about how a Paladin could be a healer then be a tank or dps, but how is that any different from FFXIV?

if anything you have more options in FFXIV

Op get off the tank forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delorean

In World of Warcraft, I can't heal, gun down things from range, or learn how to cast fireballs at a boss all on one character. I mean I guess you could be complaining about how a Paladin could be a healer then be a tank or dps, but how is that any different from FFXIV?

if anything you have more options in FFXIV

---

to be fair WoW has 2 other classes that can fill up any roles
monks: melee dps, tank, heals
druids: melee dps, magic/range dps, tank, heals

not disagreeing w/ you but I can see why Cyan thinks that about Blizzard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delorean

I don't get what you're trying to say.

In World of Warcraft, I can't heal, gun down things from range, or learn how to cast fireballs at a boss all on one character. I mean I guess you could be complaining about how a Paladin could be a healer then be a tank or dps, but how is that any different from FFXIV?

if anything you have more options in FFXIV

---

What are you talking about? In FFXIV, pld can tank, tank, or tank. This is exactly NOT like WoW. Which is what we're trying to say. It is BAD that you can do anything regardless of class, that is exactly what we DON'T want to happen here. If that's what you want, then go play WoW.

This is NOT a game where each class can be exchanged for another, and it shouldn't be. The classes are designed to do different things and be be better/worse at certain things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

If you think "balance" means that a war/pld should be able to do the exact same thing regardless of the fight/situation/party make-up, then you don't know what balance is.

---

i totally agree with this variety isn't always a bad thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

What are you talking about? In FFXIV, pld can tank, tank, or tank. This is exactly NOT like WoW.

---

You can level up another class. Switching your class in FFXIV is just like switching your specialization in World of Warcraft.

Like say, for example... if you want to cry about how warriors are bad and you cant run amdapor keep because of how unplayable you might perceive them to be, you can just level GLA and CNJ and use the same gear you were using for MRD/WAR.

i mean just because you have to level specializations in this game doesn't mean that you don't have the option to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delorean

You can level up another class. Switching your class in FFXIV is just like switching your specialization in World of Warcraft.

---

Switching specs in WoW and switching classes in FFXVI are nothing alike. If on WoW you are a paladin and decide you wanna switch from tanking to healing and you had to logout to switch to your healer character that you lvled up completely seperately, sure, then they would be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

I love games that have defined roles. If you want to do x, you need y. If you think "balance" means that a war/pld should be able to do the exact same thing regardless of the fight/situation/party make-up, then you don't know what balance is.

---

And the paladin and warrior have the same defined role. Tank. If you think balance means one class is inferior to another, despite sharing the same role, then you don't know what balance is either. Variety is not an excuse for poor design.

What on earth are the people talking about WoW going on about? This isn't one role trying to become another, this is a tank trying to be on equal ground with the class of the same role. At this point I'm sure someone will want to bring up the main/off tank idea, but the developers have never said that themselves, and it's not even true anyway. What makes warriors such better offtanks exactly? Extra aoe aggro? Aggro is simply not an issue for a skilled player of either class.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting paladins are overpowered, or warriors or useless, that kind of hyperbole doesn't help anyone. But thus far we have had several tanks who are doing endgame content attest to the fact there is some sort of balance issue, one that needs to be addressed. So far I have not seen anyone who disagrees with this either have experienced such content themselves or even begin to offer a coherent argument, unless "that's the way it is, get over it" is now considered an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadRNG

And the paladin and warrior have the same defined role. Tank.

At this point I'm sure someone will want to bring up the main/off tank idea, but the developers have never said that themselves, and it's not even true anyway. What makes warriors such better offtanks exactly? Extra aoe aggro? Aggro is simply not an issue for a skilled player of either class.

---

Not true, Yoshi-P has mentioned in several interviews that the warrior/marauder is designed to be exactly what it sounds like, a barbarian if you will. They are both tanks yes, but they are tanks that are good at different things. This is a team game, people need to stop worrying about which tank is 10% more effective than the other and think about how they work together.

They SHOULD NOT be interchangeable.

Except none of that is a confirmation of the distribution of roles you talk about, only flavor for the classes mechanics. You also seemed to have completely ignored the second half of the post you quoted. Let's say warriors just are better at different things, what are these different things? What exactly are they getting in exchange for their tanking inferiority? I've seen you bring up this tired mantra many times in other threads, so maybe I'll use it here, what in your mind makes a warrior worth taking over a paladin?

They should be interchangeable as far as you should never be put in a situation where the group questions the viability of that class for it's role. Yoshi himself has mentioned he doesn't like the idea of a single class being required, or at least massively preferred, over another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

Not true, Yoshi-P has mentioned in several interviews that the warrior/marauder is designed to be exactly what it sounds like, a barbarian if you will.

---

Firstly, I'd like to see a link to one of those interviews. Secondly, I'd like to see *any* interview where the actual innate balance state of the two jobs was being discussed such that one is *intended* to be inferior to the other at their intended role.

"Different" is not the same as "intentionally imbalanced". In pretty much every case I've ever seen, "different" is used to describe the *manner* in which the class operates rather than the end point. Balance is based upon the end point and differentiation is in how you get there. As long as WARs continue to have a contrasting CD suite and rely on self-healing rather than blocking, they'll be different. Claiming that they're *supposed* to be worse tanks because they're barbarians rather than knights is simply arbitrarily choosing to assign your own preconceived notions of those terms rather than adapting those to a gaming environment. "Barbarian" and "knight" are thematic constructs, not mechanical ones. They refer to the aesthetic, not the practical.

From an End-game Warrior's perspective:

Paladin has the edge but not by much. Gear really plays a big role but it balances out once you have the same end-game gear or close. Warriors need the gear more than Paladin since they scale off of Vit. Our hp at end-game will easily be enough to outweigh the lack of mitigation we have.

I've tanked Titan Hardmode so this is just my opinion on the matter. A buff would be nice but nothing revolutionary. Defiance just needs a little more tweaking. I end up not being able to use Inner Beast as much as I would want to due to having the need for the 15% extra healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

Firstly, I'd like to see a link to one of those interviews.

---

This is an old interview, but I'm pretty sure they have kept this in mind moving forward.

"JPGAMES.DE: The marauder is a very good damage dealer and also, for example in the Ifrit fights, a really good tank, even a better one than the gladiator. What are your plans for the marauder and its job warrior? How can the paladin/gladiator keep up?

Yoshida Naoki: We are going to make sure to do everything to get the balance right and then we are going to make adjustments to that. For example, the marauder is going to be a really strong attacker, but we don’t want to spoil all the gladiator’s tank positional skills....Of course we need to improve some areas and some areas might be shifted to a different job, so some people might get disappointed. *laughs* So, you can look forward to it, but you can also be quite wary of it.

http://www.bluegartr.com/archive/ind.../t-107491.html

There are some more I'll need to do some digging to find them again where they are both talked about, but point is. If you're waiting for dev to say "btw guys war is offtank" that won't happen, but you can see by the way it's designed, how it plays, and how they talk about it, that that's what they're going for. Again I'm not saying this means they're offtank by default, they may have plans for fights in the future where you need a war over a pld, it's too soon to tell. But they shouldn't homogenous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

This is an old interview, but I'm pretty sure they have kept this in mind moving forward.

---

I'm still not seeing anything that suggests that WAR is supposed to be an inferior tank in any sense of the word. The dev specifically compared WAR damage dealing to PAL positioning skills rather than survivability. He even says that Warrior will be more "warrior-like" than Marauder, which would lend credence to the view that the Warrior is supposed to be just as tanky rather than just a more durable Marauder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

I'm still not seeing anything that suggests that WAR is supposed to be an inferior tank in any sense of the word. The dev specifically compared WAR damage dealing to PAL positioning skills rather than survivability. He even says that Warrior will be more "warrior-like" than Marauder, which would lend credence to the view that the Warrior is supposed to be just as tanky rather than just a more durable Marauder.

---

Being an offtank does not mean you are an inferior tank, it means they are better at dealing with groups of enemies, dealing damage, and being more self-sufficient than a pld; which can't deal dmg, can't heal themselves (don't even try to say cure counts, at least not until we get swords with matk) and has a harder time holding aoe threat. They're simply different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

Being an offtank does not mean you are an inferior tank

---

Yes, it does. That's pretty much the explicit definition of "off tank". It is inferior for anything where a tank is actually required and, as such, is only suited for those situations where you don't need a tank that can actually tank as effectively as possible. A DPS with a decent survivability CD can *easily* qualify as an "off tank" for any situation that is actually designed for an off tank rather than a second tank entirely.

You're *choosing* to interpret the assignation of "different" as "one is an off tank the other is an actual tank", which makes *no* sense. The devs have set up the game with 3 roles: tank, DPS, and heals. You don't see off DPS and off heals. When you queue up as a WAR, it says *tank*. You are forcing the creation of an entirely fictitious role upon the game so as to justify the current state of WARs being inferior to PAL in the single most important way that a tank is defined: mitigation.

By your own logic here, Summoners should have inferior DPS compared to every other DPS class because they bring some heals. You could make the same argument for Bards because they pack some +mp.

There *are* no fusion roles. That's the entire point of a game with a trinity: DPS is DPS, heals is heals, and tank is tank. Off tank only exists as an arbitrary justification rather than an explicit design concern, which is especially comical since you're claiming that the self heals that WARs pack is somehow more useful for them as an "off tank" because, you know, tanks (in groups) are well known for walking up to massive packs of adds without a healer. The issue of WAR self sufficiency only ever comes up when discussing soloing content; in any group context, it's pointless because self-sustainability means nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

There *are* no fusion roles. That's the entire point of a game with a trinity: DPS is DPS, heals is heals, and tank is tank. Off tank only exists as an arbitrary justification rather than an explicit design concern

---

That's absolutely not true. They are not designing the game to be "Hey you need 1 tank, 1 healer, and 1 dps, doesn't matter which class, any will do, just 1 of each." They are balanced to work together, and I'm sure content will be released that makes that more apparent to you. They are intentionally designing the class to do something DIFFERENT. Right now there are 2 tanks, if they have equal defense, and one has higher hp and damage, then that is imbalanced. I'm sorry if you're hung-up on the idea that "main tank" is the only "real" tank and that "off-tanking" is inferior, but that simply isn't true. Like I've said before I'm sure there will be boss mechanics later that REQUIRE warrior over paladin for specific things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

Switching specs in WoW and switching classes in FFXVI are nothing alike. If on WoW you are a paladin and decide you wanna switch from tanking to healing and you had to logout to switch to your healer character that you lvled up completely seperately, sure, then they would be the same.

---

The argument was that the option is available in this game and that there were more options, not that they did not exist because you had to level them up.

I mean hell if you want to push it even further Druids can be every role in the game and just have to visit a trainer to respec. Either way, I think we've gone off on a bit of a tangent. I was just trying to understand why someone hates options in another video game when they are given more options in the game they are currently playing.

Quote:

---

Not true, Yoshi-P has mentioned in several interviews that the warrior/marauder is designed to be exactly what it sounds like, a barbarian if you will. They are both tanks yes, but they are tanks that are good at different things. This is a team game, people need to stop worrying about which tank is 10% more effective than the other and think about how they work together.

---

There is a difference between "Warrior is harder to play/has a more difficult time" and "Warrior is so much harder to play or worse by comparison that it would be a better investment of time to just play Paladin".

Though I really don't think that's a problem many people are facing at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

Yes, it does. That's pretty much the explicit definition of "off tank".

---

not really

warrior is offtank on maloriak because they could spec into piercing howl etc., off tank just means you are the tank that is not tanking the boss.

Though I do laugh when people say "warriors make good offtanks". if anything we are better suited to the role of main tank than off tank.

GLDs Flash gives Blind and they have the passive 20% damage reduction as PLD. If they are swarmed by adds a few misses and passive reduction is going to amount to significantly more than 15% healing.

in the role of tanking the only thing an enormous healthpool is good for is taking a large hit. that is why when you can avoid being almost one shot comfortably, you stack stats to smooth out damage spikes, not more health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

They are not designing the game to be "Hey you need 1 tank, 1 healer, and 1 dps, doesn't matter which class, any will do, just 1 of each."

---

The trinity refers to roles, not group composition. They *are* designing content with an explicit ratio though: 25% tank, 25% healer, and 50% DPS.

Quote:

---

They are intentionally designing the class to do something DIFFERENT. Right now there are 2 tanks, if they have equal defense, and one has higher hp and damage, then that is imbalanced.

---

Once again, you have decided, via fiat rather than logical assertion, that "different" means "effective at different things" rather than "effective at the same things using different methods".

You're also using a straw man argument of what the WAR issue is. WARs are not asking for equal defense: we're asking for equal *survivability*. PALs are *supposed* to have higher mitigation. That's how they operate. WAR, on the other hand, is supposed to have higher hp and incoming healing. That's how they operate. As it stands, WARs have lower survivability because they do not receive enough incoming healing because of the known mathematical disparity.

On top of that, it's not as if the *only* things that the tanks bring is damage and survivability. The interview essentially states that PALs are supposed to have better support capability (positional skills), whether through being able to additional in CON spells or through better control on their own abilities. *That* is intended to be the offset for WAR's higher damage, not a decrease in survivability.

Nowhere has it been stated by someone who actually has an influence over the design of the game that WAR is an offtank class or that PAL is the main tank class; those are *purely* player assumptions about the given state of affairs. All of the developer commentary, on the other hand, indicates that it's not supposed to be like that at all. WAR and PAL are both "tanks". There is no differentiation between the two.

As to there being content made that emphasizes WARs over PAL, I'd be curious to see you concoct a scenario that actually does so without it being horribly contrived. Any case where higher WAR's damage (AoE *or* ST) might help isn't a case where having a WAR is better: it's a case where you need better DPS, since difference between a WAR and a PAL is smaller than the difference between a good DPS and a great DPS. Any case where a WAR's self healing might help would be predicated upon not having healers for an *extended* period of time (i.e. long enough for a PAL to have died with a WAR actually staying alive because of said healing) while having said incoming damage below a given threshold.

Just claiming that "well, they'll make content that has WARs be awesome!" doesn't mean anything when it's effectively impossible to come up with anything that isn't so horribly contrived and designed to within a *tiny* degree with WARs in mind. In a group context, the benefits that WARs bring are so small that they're overwhelmed by everything else whereas the benefits that a PAL brings are explicitly felt because *they bring what tanks are actually brought for*. Behaving as if anyone would ever choose between two tank classes based upon their damage rather than survivability is simply naive. Choosing between *utility* and damage, on the other hand, is an entirely appropriate, which is likely what the devs intend the distinction to be: do you value a more comprehensive tool box or more damage? At that point, it's a balanced state. Until such time, it's not going to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

The trinity refers to roles, not group composition. They *are* designing content with an explicit ratio though: 25% tank, 25% healer, and 50% DPS.

---

Assuming they plan on keeping the same ratio as 4 mans for 24 is not that likely, that would be 6 tanks, 6 healers, and 12 dps. I've never played a game in existence that required 6 tanks for a fight. (could be interesting to see though lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

As to there being content made that emphasizes WARs over PAL, I'd be curious to see you concoct a scenario that actually does so without it being horribly contrived.

---

First scenario I could think of off the top of my head is a boss mechanic that targets the tank and deals a set amount of unmitigatable damage. Something like that may require the HP pool of a WAR to absorb the hit, an HP pool that is just impossible for a paladin to reach.

I think you know your stuff Kitru, but I see many wars make the same argument about being able to do more damage is irrelevant when you're there to tank. When you say things like that, I think you should just roll a pld, if your concern is being the "main tank". You clearly view being an "off-tank" as being sub-par, all I can say is I don't think everyone sees them that way. Offtanks are a necessity, you can't send any dps out there to do it, some very skilled players could pull it off sure, but it would be an extreme strain on your healers, and why would you want to do something like that to your group when you have the option of sending a "dps" that is in actuality a "tank" to handle those adds, making things easier on everyone.

OP misrepresents things by attempting to use the buff-nerf rollercoaster as a reason to not have working rosters for tanking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThatAngryBearGuy

Learn the different playstyles of the two, and understand that they mitigate damage DIFFERETLY.

---

Playstyles and mechanics are one thing, one being built to work and the other being built on a faulty premise is another. Kindly learn to differentiate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowblind

If there is always room for an on/off tank, don't be pissy if you can't be both ALWAYS. Such is good game design, actually, encouraging cooperation and variety between classes.

---

Encounter mechanics are what encourage a raid to work together to oversome a boss, not whether there are main and off-tanks involved. And as someone who's tanked for years, I have done both main and off-tanking on the same class. Thus, your assertion is false and poorly developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

Unfortunately this is exactly what many people want. WoW, while doing wonders for expanding the audience of MMO players, also watered everything down to be accessible to absolutely anyone. So that anyone could tank/heal/dps regardless of their class. Due to WoWs success most other recent MMOs have also followed this formula in an attempt to steal a sliver of WoWs player base. So for a large majority of "MMO" players, this has become par for the course, and the idea of requiring a specific role to do a specific thing is "UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED".

---

Requiring roles is par the course, because the roles are tank, heals and DPS. What people developed a hatred for is their favorite classes being designed to be inferior for the sake of niche gameplay. You obviously weren't there when mages (all three specs) were sat out for the entirety of Sunwell Plateau for not being "ideal" DPS. You weren't there when paladins, shaman and druids fought an uphill battle to be more than healbots to their raids. You weren't there when warriors struggled to convince their raids they could DPS if specced and geared for it instead of the eternal tank pigeonhole.

It's not fun playing a class and then finding out you were intentionally designed to not be good enough. Being able to change classes never made that any less wrong and never will, because if a guy wants to run as a WAR for his whole tanking career through the life of FFXIV he damn well has the right to do so and the game should accomodate that. I can main and off-tank as a PLD (I also did it as a prot warrior, which plays similarly to PLD), and I sure as hell would expect and want the same for WAR and any future members of the tank roster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachiko

What it all boils down to is will there be a niche for both classes? Everything that makes a good main tank also makes a good off tank. So having one class relegated to the lesser role (off tank) while the other can effectively do both would be a bad situation.

---

This.

PS: Just to get it out there, I'll admit some of the reactions are jumping the gun. We're not seeing "top" FC's going on record saying WAR is inadequate, but anyone who has paid attention to how MMO communities move and think is right to show some concern. For the FFXI fogies, it wasn't too long ago that the players became convinced DRG was a gimp class that didn't warrant its existence, not to mention the BS in 1.0 where WAR outperformed PLD. People are right in not wanting that sort of thing to repeat itself.

Quote:

---

You clearly view being an "off-tank" as being sub-par, all I can say is I don't think everyone sees them that way.

---

There's more or less zero need for an off-tank in the game so far. Maybe three fights in the entire game can even benefit from a second tank, and paladins still do that better than warriors. Off-tank is not a valid role to the extent where it justifies making one of the tank classes considerably worse at tanking. If warriors are to remain that way, the entire class will simply serve no purpose and have no place in endgame content. It has never been stated by the developers that warriors are meant to be secondary tanks, that's just something people (usually paladin players) came up with to defend the paladin superiority.

Only bad warriors cry about mitigation, I'll take my self heals and out last the paladins mitigation anyday. Let's see take less damage or self heal the damage away? Easy question if you are good in these games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laxus_Dreyar

From an End-game Warrior's perspective:
I end up not being able to use Inner Beast as much as I would want to due to having the need for the 15% extra healing.

---

Question do you ever have a monk using Mantra? Or have you ever tried using Convalescence before you would pop inner beast? This are just some optional ideas to get over that delay period where Infuriate is down. Also a good for the other wrath clears but from how your post read it seems like you just want a legit way to bash the bosses head hope these help. Good luck finding a monk that won't reject idea of using mantra as well if you go that route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephirah

Switching specs in WoW and switching classes in FFXVI are nothing alike. If on WoW you are a paladin and decide you wanna switch from tanking to healing and you had to logout to switch to your healer character that you lvled up completely seperately, sure, then they would be the same.

---

Arcanist disagrees with you

Okay, one class wields a two-handed weapon and conservatively deals twice the DPS of the other class (a good deal more if it doesn't have defiance up and is just choppin').

One class is depicted in FMVs, stylization, ability names/description, the Yoshi interview in the other thread, etc, as a carefree-cleaver, pirate, barbarian badass. The other class is iconically depicted as a sword & board, traditional tank themed around shiny armor and protecting comrades.

Now, thus far, most people (sans the most voracious of self-disparaging Marauder tryhards) seem to concede Warriors can actually still tank anything they're intended to tank just fine. Instead, a week or two after the game's release, the "Tank Roles" section of the forum is saturated with people raging that they can't skip a tier of gear with the more offensively-flavored tank and stand on perfectly even footing with the defensively-flavored tank in content that is missing the segeue to it?

Do continue.

maybe im a bit off here, but isn't GLD/PLD made to handle single targets better and MRD/WAR made to be better at handling groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadeodani

maybe im a bit off here, but isn't GLD/PLD made to handle single targets better and MRD/WAR made to be better at handling groups?

---

It's possible that this was the original intention, but there's two problems with that:

1, There isn't any need for an AoE tank at least in the current content. Unless the 24-man raids are a festival of add waves, there's just no need for a warrior and no situation where they're the better choice. So far there's not a single fight in the entire game that requires - or even really benefits signficantly from - a warrior, but quite a few that require a paladin or are so difficult without one that the imbalance is obvious. It starts the very moment you hit the endgame, with HM Ifrit being vastly harder without a paladin, and this basically just stays true throughout.

2, Warriors still aren't good enough at surviving. There's simply not enough tanking power in the class. The cooldowns are basically worthless for the purpose of survival, and the mechanics are all just so inferior that warriors simply aren't safe for the tank job. Also, since both classes just queue as 'tank' and the game itself doesn't discriminate or even ensure that there's one of each in duty finder raids, they both need to be sufficient for both types of tanking. Paladins currently are, but not warriors. There's a severe lack of worthwhile tanking cooldowns and too many underpowered skills/mechanics, the class is simply not tanky enough.

Paladin tanks are the premier tanks in this game. They have vastly superior armor as it is made of holy prowess and weapons powered by the light that cannot be matched.