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

[BadRNG]

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.

[Sephirah]

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.

[BadRNG]

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.

[Kitru]

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.

[Laxus_Dreyar]

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.

[Sakasa]

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.

[Sephirah]

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.

[Kitru]

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.

[Sephirah]

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.

[Kitru]

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.