PLD and sks

[Februs]

...

I don't see it that way. Enmity was already trivial, even before this patch. Clemency got a little more flexible, but it is still best (if not only) used in very scripted instances, especially in the MT position where it could still be interrupted.The dps increase was a joke. Calling it "notable" is a laughable overstatement, because it only totals 40 potency, and Shield Oath was only reduced by 5%. No one really cared about the Shield Oath reduction, either, because Pld's were already (and are still currently) dropping Shield Oath for Sword Oath the second they get a lead on enmity. The overall reduction to Dps checks post 3.2 had a much bigger effect on dps viability than Pld's changes did, and that was not a Pld specific change. Making DV "PUG-proof" is probably the only thing I'd say even comes close to a "major" change, because it actually changed the way we use the move in an average dungeon run, even if it does cost us personal Dps with each Clemency cast.

Regardless, in the end this boils down to a difference of opinion. If we're looking at the sheer number of adjustments made, then sure. I suppose you could call it "major." I'm not saying that the number of adjustments weren't impressive (though we have seen bigger adjustments made to other jobs in the past). The fact that we got them all at once and that they actually fixed a few glaring errors was great, but each individual adjustment didn't actually do much to change anything. They just fixed a few QoL issues that really shouldn't have been issues in the first place, especially if SE had been as dedicated to Pld from the start. So, if we're looking at the quality of the adjustments made, then no. It's completely fair to say that there's nothing major about them, and that they could have been much better. Again, that's not to say that they're not decent changes and weren't a welcomed sight, but no one is re-evaluating the way the play and/or use Pld in content post 3.2. The job still handles almost exactly the same way it did before, and it still suffers from some of the problems it had. If you want to call that "major," then you're certainly free to, but from where I'm sitting that makes you just as wrong as I am.

[Donjo]

...

God, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.

[Shurrikhan]

God, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.

+10 RA potency (used 33 to 66% of time), +100 GB potency (used 33% of time). Assuming tri-combo, that would be +0, +10, +100, or averaging out to a 36.7 potency increase per combo. With RA-RA-GB, that'd be +10, +10, +100, averaging to +40 potency per combo. Not hard to see what he meant.

Given that we only dealt ~2300 weaponskill potency per 3 combos before (RA-RA-GB), I'd call the additional 120 sizeable. It's over 5%, after all, to be taken quite often atop the 6.67% increase to Shield Oath dps. That's pretty great.

However, I have to agree that it didn't change a damn thing except to (1) make GB your slightly increased potency spam attack during excessive enmity while leveling, to (2) make GB per 4 combos for high-SS PLDs even less viable by increasing the GB-RA potency gap by an additional 40% (1020 to 700 from 920 to 690), and (3) to increase juicy cleave DPS... which DRK still blows us away in (at 575 potency per [Darksided] Scourge, with no time wasted in combos). The second reduced options, the third increased capacity, but only the first actually affected gameplay, and not by much.