Xeno believes paladin should NEVER be main tank

[Gameplayzero]

e.

I find it rather odd then that in his most recent vids he only goes double warrior or dark haha. The one video where he does have paladin he is relegated to being OT. I know Dark does is best for MT damage with slashing debuff but thats strange.

but my issue with his statement is that paladins or any main tank WONT be in tank stance for entire encounter. There was absolutely NO reason to bring up shield oath alone because no optimal paladin is going to be in shield oath if they dont have to and harm the group. Their paladin in that video has been tanking with them for awhile and has cleared content with them. There would be no issue with that paladin to stance dance since he does it on dark already and warrior.

the poster asked in that specific instance (or that video in general) why the paladin in question wasnt main tanking like every other paladin does.

but I won't beat a dead horse. If I'm wrong so be it. I just don't see why Zeno would mention something that you two said was a non-issue if the paladin was switching stance regardless.

[Gameplayzero]

I would say Xeno is very correct. It comes down to simple math, the WAR/DRK loses relatively little DPS when in the MT role vs their OT potential, however, the PLD loses an insane amount of DPS when forced to MT. The fact comes down to the PLD pretty much needs to be in Shield to MT effectively because of the required emnity modifier to maintain hate, the lack of fluid stance switch also hinders the ability fine grain the dance like DRK/WAR.
The reason the PLD is in this awkward position is because the DRK/WAR have sufficient mitigation to go through most fights rendering the additional mitigation afforded by the PLD to be

this is more or less what I was looking for. So really in an optimal set-up it's still far better to have dark+war and only bring paladin in select few instances (like when elysium brought paladin to m3)?

though doesn't dark basically have the same stance dancing as paladin? The emnity tables on combos and moves are on my laptop (I'm not at home). Aside from dark arting your Power slash, which is a no go, I thought only PS barely had more emnity than RoH? And paladins riot blade having more emnity than second dark emnity combo skill. If they aren't around the same then correct me. All I know is that at least RoH has its uses for tank busters and a safety net.

edit: nvm I forgot grit is pretty easy to turn off rather than awkwardly going back and forward between oaths and dark doing more damage contributing to their emnity.

[Brian_]

I feel you're being very selective with what you're choosing to actually listen to and probably have some type of personal agenda.

For instance, you quote someone who actually supports your view but conveniently ignore the line within the post that assumes PLD MTs lose DPS because they're in ShO for enmity when many PLD MTs do not need ShO to hold enmity or survive.

[CookieMonsta]

this is more or less what I was looking for. So really in an optimal set-up it's still far better to have dark+war and only bring paladin in select few instances (like when elysium brought paladin to m3)?


edit: nvm I forgot grit is pretty easy to turn off rather than awkwardly going back and forward between oaths and dark doing more damage contributing to their emnity.

Yes and no, aside from the obvious arguments like good PLD vs mediocre DRK etc etc. Its more like what does your strat favor? DRK does trade survivability in specific fights with specific strats for DPS. Player skill is also a big elephant, its easier to find good-excellent PLD players than it is to find even above-average DRK.

We took our PLD through the whole of Gordias and will take for the whole of Midas because they are good players, not necessarily because of class.

[Gameplayzero]

I feel you're being very selective with what you're choosing to actually listen to and probably have some type of personal agenda.

For instance, you quote someone who actually supports your view but conveniently ignore the line within the post that assumes PLD MTs lose DPS because they're in ShO for enmity when many PLD MTs do not need ShO to hold enmity or survive.

I agreed with you on multiple accounts and never said your information was wrong. I just said I don't agree with what PoV you think Xeno is taking on this. I admit that some of what cookie says overlaps into what you mentioned. Cookie did however add more of a tid bit on what Zeno said however. You were mainly mentioning why paladin shouldn't be MT if they were just going to be in Tank stance. That I already knew . I have nothing against you as I'm not a child and this is all a discussion on a video game haha.

you are actually the few people who provide solid data with your previous post in other topics instead of shoveling false information that you can't back up. so I have no reason to dislike you at all really lol.

[Gameplayzero]

Yes and no, aside from the obvious arguments like good PLD vs mediocre DRK etc etc. Its more like what does your strat favor? DRK does trade survivability in specific fights with specific strats for DPS. Player skill is also a big elephant, its easier to find good-excellent PLD players than it is to find even above-average DRK.

We took our PLD through the whole of Gordias and will take for the whole of Midas because they are good players, not necessarily because of class.

gotcha gotcha. I'll have to keep that in mind then! I know you can completely cheese some mechanics with hallowed ground and the extra coverage from divine veil for heavy hitting parts isn't too bad, but the comp is what matters like you said. Appreciate the feedback. I just really wish the support (like cover) had a reason to use in raids. Situational moves really shouldn't be a thing on a lot of the classes periods.

[DWolfwood]

Xenosys has very strong opinions and is very unapologetic about them, that's just how he is. PLD is fine in the MT slot, but yes, having them there is the worst for raid wide DPS regardless of what the party comp is, almost 100% of the time.

I think he's coming across that strongly because the majority of PLDs you come across seem to automatically think they're the MT. Some people even think they make better MTs than WAR, which is completely false. It should be said that the best MT in the game is WAR, because the best tank is WAR, period. If you're placing a PLD in the MT slot, it's because you want the passive shield mitigation and Shield Swipe procs, which I'll agree, isn't that amazing. The main reason for DRK being in the MT position is for Reprisal procs and Low Blow procs, but unlike PLD, DRK's DPS is significantly improved by this.

That said, again, Xeno has very specific opinions. He's a very DPS-oriented tank who believes that healers should pick up the slack from the increased auto-attack damage coming in. There are other ways to view it, so don't take everything Xeno says as irrefutable. If Xenosys played with a very good PLD that was able to MT w/o stance, I think he'd be perfectly fine having them in the MT slot when all was said and done. Even though Shield Swipe ain't much, it's still something and could add to raid DPS under his implied scenarios.

[Gameplayzero]

Xenosys has very strong opinions and is very unapologetic about them, that's just how he is. PLD is fine in the MT slot, but yes, having them there is the worst for raid wide DPS regardless of what the party comp is.

That said, again, Xeno has very specific opinions. He's a very DPS-oriented tank that believe healers should pick up the slack from the increase auto-attack damage coming in. There are other ways to view it, so don't take everything Xeno says as irrefutable.

he certainly comes across that way with how he mentions things and some of his previous replies to viewers. Honestly I also think it's just this stigma thats been the standard where pally always main tanks that's been going on for a long time. I honestly just assumed paladin should be MT thanks to watching loads of raid vids and that's why I asked when Xeno said this. Now I understand. Thank you for the clarification and a little bit of insight on howhat Xeno operates.

[Violette]

snip

Pld has a lot of things going for them as a DEFENSIVE OFF-TANK, but that's just what they are. Defensive.
So while they will always be the WORST MT for DPS, in situations when surviving/mechanics>dps, they're a lot more popular.

Not to say that if say, you're in a fight that's mostly dps (i.e. something with a HARD ENRAGE) that you should feel pressured to take drk/war for the epic dps. Just that when DPS checks are less important, that building around PURE dps is not the only path, which is what Xeno always seems to go for.

Which was fine in Gordias and is fine now, but doesn't accept the reality of defensive based progression (where taking a heavy dps comp might have resulted in more deaths, but also made soft enrages easier. It's all about options, where different strategies start to shine).

[Yuni_Queen]

PLD will pull out more dps when mt. Compared to WAR, it benefits from blocking attacks, like shield swipe oGCD.

Now that paladin can generate little, but still, enmity by using Royal Authority combo, there is no need to sit or switch to shield oath too often.

The lone fact, that pld can benefit from getting hit in the face, while war do not, makes it better MT in terms of max possbile dps output.
Same goes to DRK. i prefer to MT... reprisal + blood price?

if I can't hold aggro against warrior on OT, I am bad MT. That's it.
You tank only in opening, and later during tankbusters. If you do it in other moments, you either do it for healers, or you scared over nothing.