There are already two dps-tank jobs, please don't make Paladin the third.

[Reynhart]

Do we have any abilities with a mana cost though?

Dark Passenger and Darkside cost MP while being oGCD.

IIRC, they're the only abilities like that.

[Shurrikhan]

Dark Passenger and Darkside cost MP while being oGCD.

IIRC, they're the only abilities like that.

Just wondering how that would work, CD-wise, though. Would it be a CD on entry, like Wanderer's Minuet or Cleric Stance, locking you into Grit (seems more likely / precedented), or would you be able to break out of it again even while the CD is on, and unable to get back in until the CD is done (probably a longer CD in that case), CD both ways?

But yeah, I definitely left my brain elsewhere when I asked that, apparently... If we can have the mana cost and basically Cleric Stance, we've got our new ability-based Grit.

[Brian_]

My point is very simple.

Fixing SwO is easy. Fixing enmity while MTing in ShO and SwO are easy. Why the solution for certain posters involves an essay just shows how counter intuitive and unrealistic their proposals are. Why SwO needs to be completely changed to address another simple and unrelated issue is just stupid.

When people talked about Shield Swipe's issues in 3.0, we saw a similar situation. People would post essays about their fantasies about changes SE could do. What did we get? SS removed from the GCD -- the fall back solution for any realistic poster who understood the class.

And with their latest interview regarding tank changes in 3.2, we're in the same situation again. For months people have posted ridiculous and unrealistic changes to oaths. On the other side of the spectrum you had people saying that SwO and ShO cannot be brought in line with WAR for their own BS reasoning. Everyone in the middle (which is sadly a minority here when it desperately needs to be the majority) ended at the same conclusion -- remove SwO from the GCD at the very least. We don't know the details yet but what we do know points to a similar conclusion from SE.

SE has always opted for the simplest, cleanest, most straight-forward and efficient solution to any given problem. Why? Because that's the basics of game design. You don't make your game unnecessarily complex and counter intuitive -- especially in a genre that needs a low bar of entry. None of the solutions here will be what SE ends up doing.

[Reynhart]

SS removed from the GCD -- the fall back solution for any realistic poster who understood the class.

I still think Shield Swipe should have been kept on GCD but made a conal AoE (With potency and TP adjusted), fixing a much more important issue of PLD than a simple DPS loss.

[Shurrikhan]

My point is very simple.

Fixing SwO is easy. Fixing enmity while MTing in ShO and SwO are easy. Why the solution for certain posters involves an essay just shows how counter intuitive and unrealistic their proposals are. Why SwO needs to be completely changed to address another simple and unrelated issue is just stupid.

When people talked about Shield Swipe's issues in 3.0, we saw a similar situation. People would post essays about their fantasies about changes SE could do. What did we get? SS removed from the GCD -- the fall back solution for any realistic poster who understood the class.

And with their latest interview regarding tank changes in 3.2, we're in the same situation again. For months people have posted ridiculous and unrealistic changes to oaths. On the other side of the spectrum you had people saying that SwO and ShO cannot be brought in line with WAR for their own BS reasoning. Everyone in the middle (which is sadly a minority here when it desperately needs to be the majority) ended at the same conclusion -- remove SwO from the GCD at the very least. We don't know the details yet but what we do know points to a similar conclusion from SE.

SE has always opted for the simplest, cleanest, most straight-forward and efficient solution to any given problem. Why? Because that's the basics of game design. You don't make your game unnecessarily complex and counter intuitive -- especially in a genre that needs a low bar of entry. None of the solutions here will be what SE ends up doing.

Not disagreeing with your general statement but,

A shortened, slightly adjusted tooltip hardly qualifies as an essay. Which is all that these suggestions have actually been in terms of design.

Sword Oath - Deals additional damage with a potency of 50 after each auto attack. Cannot be used with Shield Oath. Effect ends upon reuse.
25 characters

Sword Oath - Increases auto-attack damage by 67%. Cannot be used with Shield Oath. Effect ends upon reuse.
[Effectiveness normalized over multiple weapon speeds - dps untouched] [25-character tooltip]
18 characters

Sword Oath - Increases damage by 12%. Cannot be used with Shield Oath. Effect ends upon reuse.
[AoE improvement, Skill Speed contribution, indirect enmity contribution, burst contribution - ST dps untouched]
17 characters

Sword Oath - Increases the potency of your abilities and weaponskills by 30. Cannot be used with Shield Oath. Effect ends upon reuse.
[Same as above, with slightly larger effect on shorter oGCDs, indirectly reduces rotational potency gaps slightly]
23 characters

Sword Oath - Increases attack speed by 12% and reduces TP costs by 15%. Cannot be used with Shield Oath. Effect ends upon reuse.
[Mostly same as above. Makes GB-per 4 combos option viable. Reduces TP consumption by 2%.]
23 characters

Yes, some of these designs have tried to venture into PLDs other problems, but that's partly because they haven't been even faced in prior changes, such as Shield Swipe's move to oGCD (a minor dps increase, still unusable against magic enemies, now with even less use for Skill Speed, with even thought in rotations, and now with reduced PLD-unique crowd-control; PLD remains the least dps MT, least magic-mitigating, with 0 AoE apart from CoS).

When every other tank's dps buffs indirectly affect their enmity-modified abilities, sometimes letting that gap lie seems the more complex and counter-intuitive.

[Brian_]

Except your entire adjustment is unneeded.

They don't need to completely change the way SwO works. If they want to adjust skill potencies to help enmity generation or damage... they can just do that. Instead of needing to rework how a stance works while essentially turning it into a crappier copy of Dark-side without all the additional flavor, they can just change 1 number instead (RoH potency 260 --> 290). Which do you think is the more time efficient change?

[Shurrikhan]

Except your entire adjustment is unneeded.

They don't need to completely change the way SwO works. If they want to adjust skill potencies to help enmity generation or damage... they can just do that. Instead of needing to rework how a stance works while essentially turning it into a crappier copy of Dark-side without all the additional flavor, they can just change 1 number instead (RoH potency 260 --> 290). Which do you think is the more time efficient change?

I'd start with the RoH. Like I did with my suggestions. I have never stated that the two would be unusable together (the only way that would be the case is if SwO had excessive threat). Nor have I said that SwO was the primary concern.

I simply said that RoH changes alone would not fix everything, not even in regards to ST enmity, because while other jobs have both potency buffs and higher potencies, our one dps buff, and ours alone, has no appreciable effect on our enmity. That is an issue limited to our dps stance. And the simple fix for it... is in the dps stance. Only if we buffed PLD average enmity-generation beyond DRK or WAR enmity-generation levels would that not at all be an issue, and SwO having an indirect effect on enmity, and in turn causing excessive enmity, become one instead.

[Februs]

When people talked about Shield Swipe's issues in 3.0, we saw a similar situation. People would post essays about their fantasies about changes SE could do. What did we get? SS removed from the GCD -- the fall back solution for any realistic poster who understood the class.

I'm not disagreeing with you outright, but Shield Swipe is, perhaps, not the best example to use. Removing it was definitely the simplest solution SE could have gone for ... and it actually caused more harm than good. Dps for mob tanking was reduced. Enmity in mob tanking was reduced. TP consumption went through the roof in both boss and mob tanking environments. The only plus side was that single target dps on bosses went up a minuscule amount (and that's only in cases when the fight ends before the Pld bottoms out on TP. After that, it's a dps loss).

You're right that simple solutions are often the best solutions, but they're not always the best solutions. The fact is, SE has taken the "simplest" solution to fixing Pld several times in the past (not including their latest blunder with Shield Swipe, there were several enmity adjustments in the 2.x days as well an adjustment to CoS), and none of them actually fixed the job. They just threw a band-aid on it and let the problem fester.

[Blazen765]

As a paladin main id like to say things first. this is my first post on the forums but id like to clarify that there are good things to the paladin updates. first these extra potency does not make it a dps tank. The way i see these buffs are not when i main tank but for when im off tanking. Yes paladin is suppose to negate damage and is well suited for physical damage due to the block rates. These slight buffs are not breaking the basis of the paladin but are more improving on what it lacks in the current end game. Paladins are falling job because of the higher damage tank jobs and that was to be expected. All tanking with these jobs come down to a preference in play style and the advantages each one can bring.

[Bashum]

As a paladin main id like to say things first. this is my first post on the forums but id like to clarify that there are good things to the paladin updates. first these extra potency does not make it a dps tank. The way i see these buffs are not when i main tank but for when im off tanking. Yes paladin is suppose to negate damage and is well suited for physical damage due to the block rates. These slight buffs are not breaking the basis of the paladin but are more improving on what it lacks in the current end game. Paladins are falling job because of the higher damage tank jobs and that was to be expected. All tanking with these jobs come down to a preference in play style and the advantages each one can bring.

I would have preferred something more inventive to help paladins, like adding a capability to increase the dps for the rest of the raid etc, but I'm not surprised at all with the direction they went. At least SWO is off GCD now.