How would stance-dancing as an option be redundant with, rather than enhanced by, combo choices? From the very moment I got Goring Blade onward in leveling, especially before the enmity buffs and if my DPS were actually really good for once, I was typically swapping once per FoF, scoring an enhanced GB, RA/RoH, RA, GB with both damage buffs up for the multiplicative bonus, because it was worth the occasional extra RoH per tri-combo in Shield Oath in order to allow that much greater damage contribution later. Preparation and pay-off, small-scale and large-scale. If that seems a redundancy to you—no, I don't what to say—and if it doesn't, I don't get the what point is here.
I don't believe the triple Fell Cleave was in itself unintended at all, nor do I think they "forgot" to add a cost to WAR stances. WAR had a variable stance cost in 2.x. Changing from DPS non-stance to a stack-retaining DPS stance two levels later would seem to be purposeful removal of that cost on a theme that SE felt should WARs should push over the added levels. What I think they may have underestimated is the communities' tendency to gawk and stare, and to sacrifice potentially greater returns for unique strength, just because the latter's more spectacular (namely: OT WARs blowing all their defensive abilities for 3FC, again and again, even if no single MT has the toolkit to handle all incoming damage on its own unless the whole team can actually manage to push phases, which at starting ilvl will take more than just the OT's added damage).
Then again, they did make the original, typically-a-DPS-loss variant of Wanderer's Minuet. So if the same team's behind each, who the hell knows?
As for the last bit, I've just never personally seen this. I've only ever seen the MT prioritized up to what the expected necessary eHP is for the next floors, or the shield-healer as an alternative when necessary for raid survival, the nuke-healer for output, or the top dps. OT's always seemed to be back of the line.
[?] Because doing the math and knowing exactly how much health you need, and how little healer potency it will cost compared to your bonus potency, is a questionable pursuit?
Forgive me if I'm reading too much into this based on your suggested WAR changes before with near-obligatory swaps just to use certain weaponskills, but wouldn't that just be a high APM tank, rather than a hard mode or high skill-ceiling tank?
And why remove a huge portion of interesting gameplay from every other tank, pigeon-holing all any "skillful play" tank into a single job?
If you don't care about maximizing performance to achieve better results, then what would be wrong with finishing raid content with a like minded group a couple weeks later than others?
And if you do care, then shouldn't you be looking to add skill ceiling and entertaining concepts and complexity to your preferred style of play instead of simply trying to devalue anything that would compete with it? Why only the reductive?
Your "placation" here is basically a "I don't like how things are done now, so let's exile those who do to a fringe camp as to have less sway."
______________________________
@Lyth
Kind of makes me wish a XIV version of the real-time complete tracking warcraftlogs was an official thing... But in the meantime, at least it's easy enough to learn the breakpoints and spot-configure rotations according to mechanics. So long as one actually spends the moment to consider the math.
Makes me wonder if SE will eventually try to go to actual depth on any of these core mechanics in their in-game tutorials, or if we might eventually get improvements on mentor, or even some form of spectator, systems.