It doesn't take more skill to play warrior (I suppose skill is subjective, however the game is fairly easy from a tanking point of view) or should I say the skill required is very minimal on both tanks realistically. The damage difference between tanking war/paladin is pretty big (30%~?), however that damage isn't entirely amazing if your main priority is tanking. For trivial content both tanks can realistically tank using either non-defiance or sword oath(although for MTing twin i'd rather play warrior next patch). Do people like playing the 'non effective class for the role?' It's a game, you're supposed to have fun, if you're not having fun because you're not playing what you want to (warrior), what the point of playing in the first place? The same goes for healers/teamplay, if you're in a super serial progression raiding fc(going for world firsts) then you're going to stack whatever's strong and stick with it (EG 2 PLD/4Range dps for twin setup). If you're a group of competent players then realistically the only thing creating a barrier for warrior in turn 5 is gear, since I'd argue that warrior needs gear a lot more than paladin does for turn 5. Even then, warriors aren't holding back people from content as they're perfectly viable in turn 5 as offtank/dps I guess, with turns 1-4 not being too hard (other than dreads in turn 4, which requires gear for a warrior to tank). The reason I'm personally switching to war next patch is so we have a warrior/paladin setup for tanking, the warrior mitigation buffs plus the damage debuff will add greatly to the group. I honestly don't understand why warriors are so 'skill' based, they're not.