PLD dps needs to be buffed, current dps a joke

[NFaelivrin]

storm's path is also better than delirium and rage of halone combined since the latter two only decrease int/str instead of damage straight out and, to my knowledge, bosses and mobs also have a det stat that influences their damage.

[Xenosan]

^ That's true. The silver lining though is that % reduction buffs/debuffs stacking is multiplicative not additive.

Haven't tested for confirmation, but theory crafting wise: STR/INT Down + Path would mitigate more damage (though marginal) than Reprisal + Path. Same reason why you usually don't want to stack Rampart + Sentinel (Although Dark Mind is throwing a wrench in this rationale), and Inner Beast provides a full 20% damage mitigation opposed to PLD/DRK's Damage Reduction CDs due to their tank stances having 20% reduction builtin - which reduces any buff's damage reduction by a couple %s (and becomes greater with each CD stacked). It's one of the reasons I think SE has Oaths/Grit on GCD + MP cost, Rampart/Shadowskin.. these CDs are 'more effective' when not in tank stance and they don't want us stance dancing around them exploiting that - obviously hi inc damage and tankbusters are an exception

Since STR/INT down is applied on a different variable in the maths, it doesn't suffer the diminishing returns of stacking like straight damage reduction buffs/debuffs do.

Same is true of slashing/blunt/piercing Damage Increases (Dancing/Eye/Disembowel/Dragon Kick) vs Attack Power (Berserk) vs Damage Increase (BfB FoF) vs STR/DEX/INT+ (X-Pots, Hawk Eye)

edit: a few pages back was talking about this.. why I mentioned an example of PLD having both INT and STR Down, WAR having Path, and DRK having some other unique mitigation debuff (absorbing physical/magical attack power?). That way all 3 tanks have a different form of raid wide mitigation debuff utility that can stack without diminishing or irrelevant returns

[Phoenicia]

Snip.

Now here's someone that understands mechanics and makes discussions meaningful instead of taking arguments in circles.

As you said, WAR applying Storm's Path is a trade-off. Which I tried to point out many times. Reynhart speaks as if WAR can apply SE, SP and keep aggro/DPS high with BB and throwing triple Fell Cleaves while maintaining the same (or better) mitigation as PLD with no trade-offs. Which made me think the guy doesn't have any reading comprehension or is just trolling for no reason.

As for buffs stacking, buffs stacked still increase eHP by the same % and each layer multiplies the new eHP by that %.

For example:

PLD has 10,000.

With Shield Oath: eHP is 10,000 * 1.25 = 12,500.

With Shield Oath + Rampart: eHP is 12,500 * 1.25 = 15,625.

While Rampart would reduce less than 20% from the total damage (16% actually), it is still reducing damage received after shield oath by 20%.
So even though you get less damage% mitigated per CD per hit, the effect is still the same in terms of eHP.

This multiplicative effect is less "noticeable" when you apply different effects instead of layers of the same effect: Like how WAR increases max HP with 1 CD and reduces damage with another. Or like how stat down and Storm Path. But in terms of eHP (effective damage) the buffs effects are the same.

For DPS increasing buffs, multiplicative stacking is always better for obvious reasons.

[Disc]

storm's path is also better than delirium and rage of halone combined since the latter two only decrease int/str instead of damage straight out and, to my knowledge, bosses and mobs also have a det stat that influences their damage.

I haven't seen any test on this in a while. Last results I saw put STR/INT down at about 10%, same as Storm's path. So decided to go out and do one real quick.

MaxHit is ignored because it is not as reliable, and STR down did drop occasionally during tests. No buffs/debuffs other than Shield Oath & Rage of Halone used in any test. Shield Oath is a constant for both tests.

Lv 60 PLD Base(Shield Oath)
Lv 59 Clockwork Harvestman
558 Hits Received
0 parry(back turned)
0 block(no shield, back turned)
MinHit:265
Focused on getting more test samples from this one because any flaws in the MinHit from this one will drastically change results.

265(MinHit)/0.80(Shield Oath) = 331.25 Damage

Therefore presumed Base MinHit is ±331.25 Damage.

Lv 60 PLD with Rage of Halone STR down(Shield Oath)
Lv 59 Clockwork Harvestman
82 Hits Received
0 parry(back turned, used Halone combo attacks between enemy attacks)
0 block
MinHit: 241
Very active testing, looking for any significant change to MinHit.

241/331.25 = 0.728 ~= 72.8% of base damage, or 37.2% mitigation
0.80(Shield Oath)*0.90(Storm's Path) = 0.72 = 72% or 38% mitigation
Conclusion: Halone STR down = 9~10% mitigation, meaning STR/INT down should result in the same mitigation as Storm's path for their respective damage type. Xenosan's theory may be correct, but the difference in mitigation would be small enough that you would need extensive testing and number crunching to spot it.(talking like 250 damage on a 25,000 damage tankbuster) Note that fight times were 11minutes vs 4 minutes & average damage varied by nearly 20% with the only change being Rage of Halone.

[Phoenicia]

Snip.

Thanks for testing.

I think people assumed STR/INT down were about 8% damage reduction because of the damage formula having Weapon Damage in it. (Same reason people presumably "calculated" Berserk to be 40% damage increase or 80% of Atk Power added.)

Since Berserk seems to be actually adding 50% damage to attacks, I think we are missing something in the damage formula.

Either that, or the formula is correct but NPCs do not have WD in their calculations.

[Giantbane]

Thanks for testing.

I think people assumed STR/INT down were about 8% damage reduction because of the damage formula having Weapon Damage in it. (Same reason people presumably "calculated" Berserk to be 40% damage increase or 80% of Atk Power added.)

Since Berserk seems to be actually adding 50% damage to attacks, I think we are missing something in the damage formula.

Either that, or the formula is correct but NPCs do not have WD in their calculations.

It would have to be something off with the damage formula since Berserk looks like it's giving a full (or very close to full) 50% attack boost. Either that or the tool tips are misleading, IE: it *says* attack power (berserk) or STR/INT (halone/delerium), but it really applies the damage boost/reduction after the weapon component has been included and doesn't just effect the base stats you see on the character stat sheet.

[Brian_]

snip

But according to your logic, AST requires no fixes. They still clear A3S. In your words, it doesn't matter because statics will adjust around them.

Obviously, reality is different. While they can clear the content, balance issues are apparent just as with PLD.

Again, unaddressed in your posts is the tanking meta. Variation is fine, but with tanking, there are 3 aspects that are obviously king because they are the baseline functions of the job. First, they need to be able to live through the incoming damage and mitigate it in a meaningful way. Second, they need to be able to hold aggro. The third is their DPS output. Those are the three main functioning points of a tank in this game. If you have a tank unable to live through the damage, they are unplayable. If people are constantly ripping hate off the tank, that's not going to work. If you have a tank unable to pull their weight offensively, they are swapped out for one that can. Again, we have real examples of this happening in past and present terms.

Currently, all tanks live through the incoming damage with no real differentiation in healing so the "safety" advantage you keep harping on is irrelevant. IT'S IRRELEVANT. All three tanks survive just fine. All three tanks hold aggro well enough. Only one tank obviously lags behind the other two in DPS.

As for the homogenization, variety should come from their utility. So STR debuff vs. INT debuff vs. Path (stacking issues aside) is the type of variety that should set the tanks apart and differentiate the jobs. Self healing vs. weaker targeted healing is another variation in utility. TBH, tanks should all provide their own damage type debuff. WARs have slashing, DRKs and PLDs should also have their own damage debuffs -- so maybe piercing so you aren't so heavily incentivized to pair a DRG with a BRD.

Variety should also come from their play styles and visual styles. It's called different means to the same end.

If you're having a PLD OT, you might as well just have a DRK OT instead. They're better suited for the job than PLDs are and allow you to further increase raid DPS by dropping MNK for NIN / DRG.

Again, why does this problem arise? Because of an imbalance in the baseline. If the DPS was the same, then you would be having a real debate rather than one swayed so heavily by DPS. There is a reason why people call this game DPSXIV.

In ANY scanario (Physical, magical or mixed), PLD's mitigation is more-or-less on-par to WAR.

In EVERY scanario, WAR receives less effective healing than PLD.

PLD is NOT shafted in that it takes high magical damage. It mitigates magical damage JUST FINE. Same as WAR.

There are two scenarios where one of the two other tanks will do better, mitigation wise, than PLD:

First, you're just agreeing with what I said. PLD does not always have the best survivability. Plain and simple. But, again, they are always the lowest DPS.

Second, if you played PLD or watched any PLD clear videos, you would realize something. PLDs are spending the large majority of fights IN SWORD OATH. In ideal situations, they spend basically the entire fight in sword oath. Why? Because that's the only way they push out even close to sufficient DPS. So much for that safety and effective healing advantage.

Third, it's hilarious that you're basically saying "the difference in survivability doesn't matter because PLD (and DRK/WAR) are still living through the damage just fine" to prove your point but you seemingly ignore that truth when it's true for the other tanks and is basically the crux of the larger issue with trading safety for DPS. SAFETY DOESN'T MATTER. PLDs are dropping that safety to MAKE UP FOR THEIR CRAPPY DAMAGE ANYWAYS. So in the end, you have a tank that isn't safer and just deals less damage. BALANCED.

[NFaelivrin]

I still kinda wonder why PLD is the only tank without any spammable aoe whatsoever. It's one thing that they do less damage, its another that their AoE isn't even half of what the other tanks pull out. It's a relatively minor complaint though since most raids are single target fights and PLD actually performs decently in the one current AoE raid since it plays to their physical defensive strengths, but still, it feels odd that your potential AoE damage is like, probably 30% or so of what DRK and WAR can dish out.

[Brian_]

I still kinda wonder why PLD is the only tank without any spammable aoe whatsoever. It's one thing that they do less damage, its another that their AoE isn't even half of what the other tanks pull out. It's a relatively minor complaint though since most raids are single target fights and PLD actually performs decently in the one current AoE raid since it plays to their physical defensive strengths, but still, it feels odd that your potential AoE damage is like, probably 30% or so of what DRK and WAR can dish out.

That's balanced though because Paladins are safer.

[Disc]

Because PLD is not meant to be an offensive tank like the other two. The devs have openly stated this.