We Want SAM... <make it happen>

[Claire_Pendragon]

Attacking from the front then? Time to get booty slammed by cleaves and additional frontal cone AoEs.

You assume they have to sit there and take cleaves, nor have a means to deal with them.

Remove cleaves to cater to SAM? Positioning for tanks getting nerfed to make gameplay more braindead?

No, why would they do that?

Be a DPS that is hated by healers next to BLM? Give it virtually no useful utility but high DPS for this higher risk gameplay? NIN+DRG meta prolonged?

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. Who says it has to have high DPS only? (Not that its bad for a DPS, nor was I suggesting what their support utility would be.)

Let's give our infamously horrible DF pugs a class that needs to dodge frequent untelegraphed cleaves when they already have trouble dodging telegraphed AoEs with huge orange markers.

Very VERY few attacks are like this, and of course, that doesnt mean there isnt a work around for that. I can go into detail at the bottom. Plus a players lack of skill doesnt mean we should never require them to do anything that requires effort.

Have skills that mitigate damage?

Skills to mitigate dmg, obviously, all DPS have something, and I'd be fine with having higher defense like DRG, with higher HP/mitigation effectiveness.

Lose some DPS skill slots and effectively turn it into... *gasp* a tank?

I dont see why they lose DPS skill slots. Nor do I see a problem with a DPS having near tank like playstyle/abilities, w/o the actual ability to hold hate.

But worse because a real tank doesn't need to hit the front to deal it's full damage?

What you said is like saying "A PLD is a WHM, but worse, because a real healer doesnt run out of MP with just 3 cure casts (Clemency) to heal?" Sometimes there is variation, and finding ways to use that variation brings new playstyles and less copy/paste classes. I love DEFENSIVE play styles. I find offensive playstyles boring. I find mitigation more interesting that an attack buff. So if you balance a DPS to mitigate dmg to keep itself at its best, then I'd love to play such a class. Maybe YOU wouldnt, and that is fine, not every class is meant to be the same.

Have no positionals? Release patch NIN?

Would never suggest that, If anything the idea is to not stand in front of the boss when you DONT have positionals (and using a buff to remove positionals occasionally. Though a penalty to attacking from behind would most likely remain)

inb4 SwordMage with melee range cast bar mechanics *shudder*

Who on earth would ever suggest this, w/o some sort of "stacks" to make spells intant cast, to encourage melee skills before spells?

I truly hope we aren't suggesting they become some kind of front positional DPS because... That is what Tanks are.

You're half right, but not quite.

I guess Cover would have some miniscule use here. A treat to the PLDs?

Honestly the most clever thing you've mentioned so far, as this might be a way to stack mitigation and make this class too broken, which is the only part I'd agree to rethink the design. (Nor have I already thought of a way ahead of time to deal with this.)

WHM: Stop getting cleaved!

Solution, Dodge more.

If you are the creator, there is ALWAYS a way to make unique builds work. Stop trying to suggest something couldnt ever possibly work, just because you cant think of how.

Yes because this is so much better...


I'd just love to be the healer for that, as the entire alliance's dps go down on the first cleave from the boss. That sure does sound fun!

That's not even touching problems like mechanics that target DPS with ground target attacks now getting placed on top of your tanks, requiring tanks to move bosses more often when a lot of fights require the tanks to keep the boss in a specific spot. And other incredibly numerous other problems that come with a DPS job designed to attack from the front, all for what? When you could just make that job a tank.

1,2,3 combo, 3rd combo, more dmg from the front +10 potency. you can deal w/o doing it. (Looking at Dark Arts as an example, where you have the ability to use the MP for more potency, but you dont always do it. Sometimes you need to space it out, and wait till you have the MP for it. In this case, the Mitigation for it.)
all 3, hit from behind effect: lose a stack of honor.
Honor: raise accuracy from the front and +1% DPS per stack (lets say 3 cap for now)
side ability: base dmg and gain 1 stack of honor.

In short, stay on the side of the enemy, move to the front for a single attack.
Mitigate it before you walk in front of them, such as an utsusemi like ability, move back.

Stronger mitigation, for times you plan to stay in front of them longer, to lower enmity, but raise mitgation.

Is it really that hard to imagine work arounds for these issues?
(I also intended more -enmity in the class, liek an "anti tank" Stance, to prevent them acting as OTs or something too broken. Along with weaker AoE on par with NIN or something. Which requires more support on their part, etc, so on, and so forth.)

[FallenWings]

-

The issue is the clear break of balance when you attempt to make this design choice. What I listed in response is not only the general desires of the DPS sides and its reprecussions, but what the possible issues that may arise and how it could tilt the balance of the game for the worse.

If you make the positionals only a difference of 10, why even bother? The reward for executing it would be so abysmal, why even implement it. Just for the flavour of "Ooooh we can hit the front"? Pointless. The cost of properly executing an action needs to be of a sufficient reward to incentivize the effort. But the punishment of not executing it needs not be as steep as pre-buffed Heavy Thrust.

Yes, all DPS have something to mitigate the damage, but not TANK levels of damage in which you need the TANK level defensive CDs, especially for DPS levels of HP.

When you give a DPS class Tank levels of mitigation, you give it an edge in cutting edge progression where it can survive AoE's the others can not which is again, imbalance. (See DRG T13 or MNK Dragon Kick pre 3.0)

So if it has few and far between front positionals, and multiple ways to effectively null it, it really is just a positionless Melee with an unnecessary mechanic to juggle akin to BotD.

And if it doesn't even need to front positional, why suggest it? Negating front positioning essentially breaks the idea of it even being front positional.

(Protip: You cannot "live" without Dark Arts because of it's massive effect on all the skills it effects.)

Putting forward ideas of front positionals and it's niche is one thing, vaguely hinting at it without the proper context of balance is another.

[Claire_Pendragon]

The issue is the clear break of balance when you attempt to make this design choice. What I listed in response is not only the general desires of the DPS sides and its reprecussions, but what the possible issues that may arise and how it could tilt the balance of the game for the worse.

While I agree with that sentiment, it's not too much different from when you implement a new tank/healer/dps, and you want it to be "different" from the other classes of the same role, w/o just being a copy paste. There's always a way to balance it. (Granted older content will always be an issue, as they arent always built with new mechanics/classes in mind)

If you make the positionals only a difference of 10, why even bother? The reward for executing it would be so abysmal, why even implement it. Just for the flavour of "Ooooh we can hit the front"? Pointless. The cost of properly executing an action needs to be of a sufficient reward to incentivize the effort. But the punishment of not executing it needs not be as steep as pre-buffed Heavy Thrust.

While I absolutely agree, this example was exaggerated for 1 of 2 possible ideas. (The DA comparison being a different idea, not nessisarily meant to go with this one.) I'd have to fully make the class, then actually play it out, to see how much I could actually push, forcing frontal positionals, but also allowing a few combos through, where you dont hit your positional. (Just threw out the number for a generalized/simplified concept)

Yes, all DPS have something to mitigate the damage, but not TANK levels of damage in which you need the TANK level defensive CDs, especially for DPS levels of HP.

Those DPS also have sustained mitigation, and tanks even greater sustained mitigation. I was more so thinking "burst" mitigation, along the lines of Sheltron, with a single hit being taken in mind, and then wearing off, and having to wait till its back up. If issues arose, a balance of damage taken+ like blood for blood comes to mind as well, after the initial mitigation, you have increased dmg taken. Though ppl tend to mess this up, proper understanding of the fight is required, like a BLM prepping laylines.

When you give a DPS class Tank levels of mitigation, you give it an edge in cutting edge progression where it can survive AoE's the others can not which is again, imbalance. (See DRG T13 or MNK Dragon Kick pre 3.0)

DRGs were able to survive, but they needed VIT accessories/materia in coils. (The Devs clarified they beat all content with all combinations of PT builds, excluding overlapping classes.) This of course doesnt mean ppl wont have preference of classes. As for "Using its mitigation to avoid raid wide AoEs" this would come at the cost of its DPS if its mitigation was meant for avoiding frontal cones/AoEs. Though the survivability makes up for a possible dead DPS. Either way, this difference is roughly on par with a PLDs invincible, and a DRKs Living Dead. One is clearly better, but that doesnt make DRK useless/broken.

So if it has few and far between front positionals, and multiple ways to effectively null it, it really is just a positionless Melee with an unnecessary mechanic to juggle akin to BotD.

While I was only specifying a means to make frontals possible, I can derail a second to say if I were in charge of making the class, I'd add another mechanic to the class, similar to how NIN has Mudras on top of its limited positionals. But I dont disagree with DPS have too much "busy work" just to make them convoluted.

And if it doesn't even need to front positional, why suggest it? Negating front positioning essentially breaks the idea of it even being front positional.

I didnt mean negate it every time, just an occasional negate, like BLM having swift cast to negate cast times occasionally for emergencies.
(Honestly I was pretty much basing SAM on BLM, but as a melee, copying how BLMs have to soak hits sometimes while casting, and a melee doesnt get planted still for casts, so they had to soak a hit in another way. But frontals requires taking way more dmg than a BLM does, so stronger burst mitigation was needed, with less sustainability.)

(Protip: You cannot "live" without Dark Arts because of it's massive effect on all the skills it effects.)

Correct, the DA example being a secondary concept, where you can only mitigate every "other" cone or so. Or something along those lines. But of course you'd get more reward out of doing it, making you want to attempt it. (May even attempt it w/o the mitigation, if u know there's no frontal comming)

Putting forward ideas of front positionals and it's niche is one thing, vaguely hinting at it without the proper context of balance is another.

While I agree, I'm saying it's not automatically incorrect. If I were to suggest something with detail, that cant work, such as "Make a class that never takes dmg, and has no down sides, while able to solo 24 man content" then obviously its impossible.

I agree I was vague, but I didn't post anything to contradict its design (That Im aware of, other than the question of how would "Cover" effect this class?) which is why I say it shouldnt be automatically considered impossible. (Though you just clarified you were just pointing out possibilities, rather than saying its impossible.)