New Prelim Tank updates

[Phoenicia]

+1

inb4 "Quit complaining"

lel... I'm not complaining... yet. Only tank I can play decently is WAR. I hate PLD and I space out too much on dork.

I want to, however, complain about MCH Rook Hypercharge not buffing magic damage. I'm tempted to go BRD in my static because BRD + MCH + DRG is probably better raid DPS than Foe-less caster.

[Torunya]

At least TP is not an issue, I guess?

Sadly, it's far too easy to floor a Paladin's TP. And a 10 TP reduction cost to Fast Blade probably won't change that at all, however SE seems intent on us Pally's throwing out heals and stoneskins now an then to adjust for this. At least that's how I've come to understand it. Still, it makes a little sad. ;^;

[Knahli]

It's not my job to keep dps from dying as a tank.

I would argue that it very much is when it is in your ability to do so... and who wouldn't want such a thing? Naturally not having to would be an ideal run for the perfectionist but I think most people happily embrace the opportunity to help save a run from the brink of potential failure by acknowledging the existence of human error even in the best of us.

[Februs]

Sadly, it's far too easy to floor a Paladin's TP. And a 10 TP reduction cost to Fast Blade probably won't change that at all, however SE seems intent on us Pally's throwing out heals and stoneskins now an then to adjust for this. At least that's how I've come to understand it. Still, it makes a little sad. ;^;

I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure the TP adjustments will help, but I can't imagine that they will actually "fix" the problem. This is not the first time that they have adjusted Pld TP costs. With increasing skill speeds (especially on Pld), it's not impossible that Pld's will be right back in the same boat that they are in now by the end of the expansion life cycle. Even with these changes, they still have the highest Tp draw out of the three tanks, which puts them at a disadvantage in any fight in which they can maintain their attack.

Quite frankly, as nice as these changes are, they didn't really "fix" anything when it comes to Pld. They still have the lowest Dps. They still have the highest TP draw (despite having the lowest Dps). Their defense is still on par with the other two (not ahead, like SE would like us all to believe). They still have questionable OT utility (lets face it, Clem and DV changes are not substantial enough to make a difference to the way they are used now), and they are still not balanced with the other two tanks. War's are still hands down the preferred OT. Drk's are still hands down the preferred MT. Pld's are just there. None of these changes bring anything new to Pld's that make losing a Drk on MT worth it, so in the end nothing has changed.

The only true plus side to these changes is that Pld's are getting a spike to their enmity that might help them establish a better lead in the event that they do, in fact, end up getting used for MT. That should make dungeon runs a little less frustrating when it comes to micro-managing enmity, as well, but, other than that, there's nothing here to get overly excited about. I was kind of expecting it, but it doesn't make it any less disappointing.

[Ragology]

Maybe they want main tank mp to floor to encourage tank swapping?

[Syzygian]

snip

I would say that PLD absolutely is preferable over a DRK for the OT slot at this point, in a vacuum anyway. Remember that OTs frequently have to handle the same mechanics that DPS do, and are often denied 100% uptime, making DV and Clem much easier to use combined with the changes.

DRK only has such a stranglehold on the MT slot because, if you have one, you never want them to OT. Its a waste, because the other two tanks can offer all of their utility that they bring in the MT slot in the OT slot with equal or greater ease.

[Februs]

I would say that PLD absolutely is preferable over a DRK for the OT slot at this point, in a vacuum anyway. Remember that OTs frequently have to handle the same mechanics that DPS do, and are often denied 100% uptime, making DV and Clem much easier to use combined with the changes.

By that same point, OT Tanks have to contribute to stringent Dps checks involving add mechanics. To which, Pld's bring almost nothing to the table, especially when self casting which is a dps loss of 100%. Given that the HW fights have been more about Dps checks than actual Raid Mechanics, the utility of Pld's in that position is the absolute lowest among all the tanks (not including the new fights, which I am really hoping are not as bloody stupid as the current ones).

I do agree though. SE has pigeon holed the Tank jobs too much. Drk really needed OT support. When you have a Drk in the group, regardless of what the other tank is, Drk's are MT, because there's really no better option. Pld's are at least get the option of being OT when there is a Drk in the party, so that's nice...

At this point, if there are two things that I would ask for from SE, it is that Drk gets some kind of OT support, and that Pld gets an actual solution to their TP problem instead of just a band-aid. There are several other, little, things that could and should be addressed, but these are the biggest two, and they should have been addressed with this patch.

[Phoenicia]

Snip.

I said it in my previous post, as long as PLD + DRK is not a thing, nothing is fixed. EPSECIALLY when w are at a point where people have rerolled into DRK and WAR. Only thing that changed is some DRKs will revert back to PLD. WAR is still the preferred OT, if anything it's because the other two can't OT as well (Because no one that knows a little math can argue WAR's MT mitigation and DPS against the other two).

We are still at a point where out only consideration is the following:

MT: DRK or PLD.

OT: WAR with a crown.

Basically, it will never be balanced unless people considering the following:

MT: WAR, PLD or DRK.

OT: WAR, PLD or DRK.

[Ultimatecalibur]

I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure the TP adjustments will help, but I can't imagine that they will actually "fix" the problem. This is not the first time that they have adjusted Pld TP costs. With increasing skill speeds (especially on Pld), it's not impossible that Pld's will be right back in the same boat that they are in now by the end of the expansion life cycle. Even with these changes, they still have the highest Tp draw out of the three tanks, which puts them at a disadvantage in any fight in which they can maintain their attack.

They (Paladins) also have 4 or 5 (Flash, Stoneskin, Clemency, Shield/Sword Oath and possibly Cure) "free" GCD actions and no non-combo single GCD TP users that can be interwoven into the 9 GCD GB -> RA -> RA/RoH combo rotation. This could be something to consider at skill speeds that drop Paladin GCDs below 2.4 sec (i.e. 10 GCDs per Goring Blade dot).

[Shurrikhan]

They (Paladins) also have 4 or 5 (Flash, Stoneskin, Clemency, Shield/Sword Oath and possibly Cure) "free" GCD actions and no non-combo single GCD TP users that can be interwoven into the 9 GCD GB -> RA -> RA/RoH combo rotation. This could be something to consider at skill speeds that drop Paladin GCDs below 2.4 sec (i.e. 10 GCDs per Goring Blade dot).

Fracture DoT potency 20->25 would make it a possibility (probably with TP 80->90 to keep the same cross-class efficiency)... if we weren't already going to be TP-starved, and of course WAR dps being as it is. This is why the weaponskill Shield Swipe was actually preferred by us unfortunately high-SS PLDs. Less than a % dps increase, but 20 TP saved (now 10 with the concurrent GB change to 50 TP). For now though, at least it would mean we aren't losing a tick when swapping stances.

@Phoencia
At least the Vit changes have one other nice side-effect. MT and OT are no longer split by gear, only by Provoke. If we need Reprisal for upcoming damage, the DRK need only swap in in time for a parry. With this we might just see soft-swapping become more prevalent again. WAR might even be willing to use RI and Vengeance for their mitigation atop their Abandon/Wrath generation. Still doesn't really excuse those toolkit inabilities, but at least makes them workable, as true OT/MT segregation doesn't need be a thing.