So what exactly IS the issue with Warrior?

[Kitru]

1. Less effective HP.

You're conflating effective hit points with required healing (i.e. mean mitigation). PLD and WAR have effectively identical effective hit points: an unmitigated attack hitting a WAR is going to do the exact same damage in percent of total hp as it would hitting a PLD. What you're attempting to say here is that WAR has inferior mean mitigation, even when you factor in the self healing that WAR gets that is intended to close the gap.

2. Inner beast is terrible. The heal is kind of meh but the worst part about it is that it removes your 15% healing buff, which means you're making it EVEN HARDER for healers to keep you alive, it's really stupidly designed.

Inner Beast is actually a *very* powerful tool, allowing you to get pretty close to making up for the extra 8.7% healing that WAR is going to require thanks to the loss of Wrath stacks. The problem is that Inner Beast doesn't scale which means that it works wonderfully in 4 man content but becomes a monumental liability in 8 man content. The entire point behind it is that you have to weigh the short term benefits of using it against the long term costs. It's not *supposed* to be a tool appropriate for all situations. If it didn't have the Wrath cost attached to it, there wouldn't *be* any reason not to use it all the time, which means that it would need to be weakened to compensate.

The devs have pretty much stated that they intended for WAR to be the skill tanks and for PLD to be the faceroll tank. In the first Live Letter, Yoshi-P dismissed any player concerns about WAR as players just not knowing how to use the class properly and that they fully expected WAR, when played well, to outperform PLD. That's pretty much the definition of a skill tank. Abilities like Inner Beast are what *define* skill tanks: if you use them arbitrarily, you're going to get piss poor performance but, if you know how to leverage them properly, you get excellent performance out of them.

For Inner Beast, it's all about knowing the ebb and flow of the fights: you can safely use Inner Beast without feeling much of the effects of the loss of Wrath stacks by using it right before you know the boss is going to stop attacking you for a window. In Coil Turn 2, use Inner Beast right as the other tank is about to pull off of you, since you can easily get those Wrath stacks back while your own stacks are fading. On Titan, you can use Inner Beast right after the even Mountain Busters without any issues since he proceeds to spend the next 15 or so seconds on Weight of the Land and gaol, which means that all that's hitting you is the 1 auto-attack he throws at you between using the two.

Inner Beast is bad (in 8 man content) because it doesn't scale like static mitigation (so that it becomes effectively worthless on any fight with more damage than your average 4 man boss fight), not because it has an opportunity cost. If you removed the cost, you'd be removing the "skill" aspect from it, which is counter to the intent of the class.

[Aureliami]

You're conflating effective hit points with required healing (i.e. mean mitigation).

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

Why should FF14 be different?

[Exstal]

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

Why should FF14 be different?

Warrior has 7500 HP (with Defiance)
Paladin has 6000

Attack hits Warrior for 5000
Attack hits Paladin for 4000

Cure II/Cura does 2200

Warrior now has 5030
Paladin now has 4200

Cure II/Cura again

Warrior now has 7530
Paladin is now has 6400

[Judge_Xero]

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

Why should FF14 be different?

That's why in my comparison I take the party composition as a whole. The only combination that seems to match perfectly is Warrior with two healers vs Paladin with one healer and one DPS. Things I looked at are, Party DPS, Tank Survivability, and class mechanics.

In short, War + 2 Healers (Each 60% Healing, 40% DPS) = PLD + Healer + DPS

CON
- Relies heavily on good healers vs just clicking a button.
- Damage Mitigation from Heals/Self Healing occurs after damage. Maximum HP needs to account for getting 1 Shotted. >6800 HP Coil

PRO
- Generates much more enmity
- Better party composition with 2 x Healers for 1 Tank - Relative to a 4 Man Party
- Greater Survivability compared to Paladin. (138% More Heals on a Warrior with 2 X Healers + Wrath Buff which is equal to Paladin in Shield Oath + all CD's) *** Warrior will still have it's own CD's too use on top of this.

[Kitru]

That's why in my comparison I take the party composition as a whole.

Except that the game is obviously designed around a 1:1:2 ratio instead of the 1:2:1 ratio you're using thanks to the DF, as well as how the fights themselves are design (DPS races and whatnot).

On top of that, there *isn't* any advantage when using that composition for a WAR compared to a PLD: you're sacrificing damage to increase survivability. Since WAR and PLD deal effectively the same damage, a PLD could get the exact same increase in survivability by going with your 2 healer composition and it would *still* be more survivable than the WAR while having the same damage output.

Also, as I pointed out last time you brought up that composition, you're not going to a perfect conversion with healer DPS. A healer that spends 40% of their time is not going to provide 40% of the DPS of an actual DPS. If they *could*, there would be no point in bringing DPS because healers in DPS stances could match them while also being able to swap to healing when needed. A healer in a DPS stance does roughly 75% of what a DPS does (a CNJ will manage ~200 mean magic potency per GCD whereas a BLM does ~270), so the comparative loss of DPS is actually 16% (40 * .75 + 100 + 50 = 210; 100 + 100 + 50 = 250; 210 / 250 = .84). Even if you only assume that they'll use attacks 40% of the time, they'll only get as high as 32.5% of what a DPS would manage in that same time frame, which is a 14% loss (32.5 * 2 + 100 + 50 = 215).

Generates much more enmity

Where are you getting *this* from? WAR doesn't generate more enmity than PLD. In fact, it ends up generating slightly less. It's also not like healers increase enmity generation or having more healers stops that 1 DPS from still putting out full numbers, so you can't argue that it's better comparative enmity.

Greater Survivability compared to Paladin.

That's a complete and utter farce. Even if you average out the CDs rather than accounting for their burst contributions, they provide a lot more than 10.4% increased survivability: Rampart provides 4.44% over time, Sentinel 2.22%, Foresight 1.67%, Convalescence 5%, Bulwark 1.75%, and Hallowed Ground 1.39% (16.47%). Even if you factor in the WAR CD suite (Foresight provides 2.22, Featherfoot 2.5%, Convalescence 3.33%; ToB is a complete and utter joke because it's a 20% heal every 3 minutes), a WAR is going to be taking 91.95% of pre-CD damage and a PLD is taking 83.53%, which means that WAR is going to be requiring 110% of what a PLD is going to require. As such, you composition ends up providing WAR with, at best, *equal* survivability to a PLD and that's only if you're willing to treat the reactive and RNG mitigation provided by Featherfoot and Convalescence the same as the straight up static mitigation provided by 5/6ths of the PLD CD suite.

Put it all together and you get a composition that deals less damage and has no advantages. You really need to stop talking about your alternate composition as if it somehow *solved* problems rather than being completely and utterly absurd from the start (assuming you're capable of making simple logical leaps like "healers do less damage than DPS" and realizing that the PLD CD suite stops the living *hell* out of the WAR CD suite).

[Judge_Xero]

Except that the game is obviously designed around a 1:1:2 ratio instead of the 1:2:1 ratio you're using thanks to the DF, as well as how the fights themselves are design (DPS races and whatnot).

There are no issues with Warrior in any of the DF Battles.

On top of that, there *isn't* any advantage when using that composition for a WAR compared to a PLD: you're sacrificing damage to increase survivability. Since WAR and PLD deal effectively the same damage, a PLD could get the exact same increase in survivability by going with your 2 healer composition and it would *still* be more survivable than the WAR while having the same damage output.

Warrior DPS = PLD DPS in Sword Oath - the extra Potency on PLD AA accounts for quite a bit on DPS. Switching both to Tank Stances, Warrior does ~20% more damage than Paladin in all DPS gear.

Also, as I pointed out last time you brought up that composition, you're not going to a perfect conversion with healer DPS. A healer that spends 40% of their time is not going to provide 40% of the DPS of an actual DPS. If they *could*, there would be no point in bringing DPS because healers in DPS stances could match them while also being able to swap to healing when needed. A healer in a DPS stance does roughly 75% of what a DPS does (a CNJ will manage ~200 mean magic potency per GCD whereas a BLM does ~270), so the comparative loss of DPS is actually 16% (40 * .75 + 100 + 50 = 210; 100 + 100 + 50 = 250; 210 / 250 = .84). Even if you only assume that they'll use attacks 40% of the time, they'll only get as high as 32.5% of what a DPS would manage in that same time frame, which is a 14% loss (32.5 * 2 + 100 + 50 = 215).

I actually played as White Mage to figure out a reasonable amount of DPS they can do while still healing. Because their DOTS provide great potency, with casting downtime for heals I was able to pull 60 DPS while still being a functional healer. This was with less than 400 MND and only a 58 Magic Damage staff, while switching to Cleric Stance. 70 DPS per healer is not that unreasonable as it's ~30% of an actual DPS.

So STR PLD vs STR WAR both in Tank Stance - with two healers
PLD 140 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (480 DPS)
WAR 168 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (508 DPS)
**VIT PLD - 110 DPS - DD x 2 400 DPS - (510 DPS)

So the STR Paladin doesn't do enough damage to warrant bringing two healers. There are only so many DOT's they can apply, so there are wasted heals. Bringing the extra DD is more effective for that party make-up.

Where are you getting *this* from? WAR doesn't generate more enmity than PLD. In fact, it ends up generating slightly less. It's also not like healers increase enmity generation or having more healers stops that 1 DPS from still putting out full numbers, so you can't argue that it's better comparative enmity.

I should have been more specific. It was STR War vs VIT Pld.

That's a complete and utter farce. Even if you average out the CDs rather than accounting for their burst contributions, they provide a lot more than 10.4% increased survivability: Rampart provides 4.44% over time, Sentinel 2.22%, Foresight 1.67%, Convalescence 5%, Bulwark 1.75%, and Hallowed Ground 1.39% (16.47%). Even if you factor in the WAR CD suite (Foresight provides 2.22, Featherfoot 2.5%, Convalescence 3.33%; ToB is a complete and utter joke because it's a 20% heal every 3 minutes), a WAR is going to be taking 91.95% of pre-CD damage and a PLD is taking 83.53%, which means that WAR is going to be requiring 110% of what a PLD is going to require. As such, you composition ends up providing WAR with, at best, *equal* survivability to a PLD and that's only if you're willing to treat the reactive and RNG mitigation provided by Featherfoot and Convalescence the same as the straight up static mitigation provided by 5/6ths of the PLD CD suite.

Put it all together and you get a composition that deals less damage and has no advantages. You really need to stop talking about your alternate composition as if it somehow *solved* problems rather than being completely and utterly absurd from the start (assuming you're capable of making simple logical leaps like "healers do less damage than DPS" and realizing that the PLD CD suite stops the living *hell* out of the WAR CD suite).

The reason I say with that setup that Warrior has better survivability is because it will be receiving 120% more healing with two healers. Add in the extra 15% with Infuriate and it's a total of 138% more healing received.

While it doesn't equate to Paladin's eHP value, as long as the Warrior doesn't get 1 shotted, then that alone will be equal to PLD CD suite.

[Hitokirinomad]

So STR PLD vs STR WAR both in Tank Stance - with two healers
PLD 140 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (480 DPS)
WAR 168 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (508 DPS)
**VIT PLD - 110 DPS - DD x 2 400 DPS - (510 DPS)

So the STR Paladin doesn't do enough damage to warrant bringing two healers. There are only so many DOT's they can apply, so there are wasted heals. Bringing the extra DD is more effective for that party make-up.




I should have been more specific. It was STR War vs VIT Pld.



The reason I say with that setup that Warrior has better survivability is because it will be receiving 120% more healing with two healers. Add in the extra 15% with Infuriate and it's a total of 138% more healing received.

Gonna break down my problems with your logic. First, I get your comparison of 1:2:1 may put the WAR slightly ahead (even though these numbers are extremely rough). However your VIT PLD for some reason ignored the DPS contribution of the Healer you used as a given for the other examples. So the VIT PLD composition would provide (using your own numbers) 580 DPS, utterly blowing your WAR comp out of the water.

Second...STR Warrior VS VIT PLD means 4 mans, or heavily outgearing the content. Otherwise the WAR just won't have the HP to survive the hit to use the IB. The extra STR brings extra DPS, it doesn't bring *that* much extra damage from IB to bridge the heals received gap.

Also, saying that bringing two the healers means an increase in survivability over one healer doesn't really...well of course it does. Does that make it the optimum group composition? As evidenced by Titan, you bring the least number of Tanks and Heals you can get away with so you can meet the DPS check. Why exactly would you start trickling back in Heals to make up for inefficient tanking, when you can just get an efficient tank?

[Judge_Xero]

However your VIT PLD for some reason ignored the DPS contribution of the Healer you used as a given for the other examples.

The reason I didn't include healer DPS in the case of Paladin is because in endgame content the Paladin would require near 100% healing. Saying that Paladin can survive with only 60% healing in any content that a Warrior would have eHP issues with would be a bit excessive.

Second...STR Warrior VS VIT PLD means 4 mans, or heavily outgearing the content. Otherwise the WAR just won't have the HP to survive the hit to use the IB. The extra STR brings extra DPS, it doesn't bring *that* much extra damage from IB to bridge the heals received gap.

Using Titan as an example, PLD (VIT) vs WAR (STR) in Darklight + Garuda Weapon - the Warrior would have ~5700 HP, the Paladin would have ~5300 HP. Mountain Buster @ 4400 HP (3500 on PLD) - Inner Beast would heal for ~1300 HP (average) - only needs to be used on the MB prior to Tumult followed by Infuriate.

*** Also interesting for that fight is that the average MB + Average Inner Beast (equal gear for equal content) = 5700 HP, so if you are between 4400-3200 HP and there are no incoming heals - you will live by using Inner Beast.

Also, saying that bringing two the healers means an increase in survivability over one healer doesn't really...well of course it does. Does that make it the optimum group composition? As evidenced by Titan, you bring the least number of Tanks and Heals you can get away with so you can meet the DPS check. Why exactly would you start trickling back in Heals to make up for inefficient tanking, when you can just get an efficient tank?

In a short answer, it's because of Warriors design. From other discussions it seems that HP Absorb Tanks are difficult to balance. If the HP absorb scales the same as Damage then Warrior would be OP. Why bring Paladin, when Warrior has the same mitigation and more damage right? You could just increase the potency of Warriors self heals right, then it wouldn't need to deal as much damage and could just stack HP. But what if you did stack STR anyways, so that every 20 seconds you could self heal 4k HP. *** still wouldn't scale with damage the same way PLD does.

Stacking just VIT on WAR, as others have said, requires your party to have some really good healers, who would have an easier time just using a Paladin. So it seems SE in an attempt to balance the HP Absorb style of Tank to the traditional Mitigation Tank, based it around party composition and DPS.

From my estimates given the current skillset - Damage wont scale higher than 120% HPS (equal gear for equal content to Healers).
So if a single healer can do 1000 HPS - DPS would be 1200.

It would be relative to the fight of course too. If for some reason SE does a fight that requires 3 Healers 100% to keep a Paladin alive, then it would take 3 100% Healers and 1 60-40 to keep a Warrior alive.

[Leiron]

Warrior DPS = PLD DPS in Sword Oath - the extra Potency on PLD AA accounts for quite a bit on DPS. Switching both to Tank Stances, Warrior does ~20% more damage than Paladin in all DPS gear.

That makes no sense.
If Warrior DPS is equal to PLD DPS in sword oath, and Warrior DPS suffers a 25% damage debuff compared to 20% Paladin debuff, they would still be doing the same damage.
The logic makes no sense.

I should have been more specific. It was STR War vs VIT Pld.

You just confounded your argument.

While it doesn't equate to Paladin's eHP value, as long as the Warrior doesn't get 1 shotted, then that alone will be equal to PLD CD suite.

I don't see why anyone should listen to what you say regarding PLD vs WAR.
Its so far off its not even funny.

[Giantbane]

*** PLD will receive 120% Healing in Shield Oath.

Not quite. PLD require 20% less healing due to Shield Oath because they take 20% less damage. But this isn't what you're saying. For a fair comparison, you need the inverse of this. How much more effective HP does the PLD have because he is taking 20% less damage, and how much more effective healing is the PLD receiving?

1.0 / 0.8 = 1.25

PLD has 125% total effective HP and receives 125% effective healing due to shield oath

That makes no sense.
If Warrior DPS is equal to PLD DPS in sword oath, and Warrior DPS suffers a 25% damage debuff compared to 20% Paladin debuff, they would still be doing the same damage.
The logic makes no sense.

WAR should be doing more in tank stance for 2 reasons.

1) the PLD suffers more than the WAR when switching stances, the PLD not only loses the 20% due to Shield Oath, he's also losing something like the 16%? (no idea, i think kitru had it around this during one of his/her math fests) from the loss of Sword Oath (<---- EDIT, clarified that the additional 16%? was from loss of Sword Oath).

2) Defiance isn't exactly a straight 25% penalty either. Defiance also brings 10% boosted crit with full wrath. This almost makes up for the 5% base difference between defiance and shield oath by itself. However, defiance also allows the use of inner beast (a solid dps move with no penalty when used with infuriate), and unchained (which can be stacked with berserk & Inner Release for some excellent burst).

So in ideal conditions the WAR should be pulling ahead while tanking.