Quote Originally Posted by EaMett View Post
[...] Still, a DPS taking aggro off a tank is the DPS' fault. [...]
That's painting a wide variety of possible situations with a very broad stroke, which is pretty silly since there's a few situations where it's totally out of their hands.

Anyway, as I've mentioned earlier, Monk and Samurai have lackluster enmity management, however I'm not particularly bothered by this because the DPS I lose for having to push harder on enmity is most likely made up by their high personal DPS; for the rest of my point, please consider this scenario to be the exception so I don't have to keep calling back to it as such.

A tank's primary objective is to establish enmity, which ensures the enemy targets them rather than the less defensive members of the party. Once enmity established, their objective shifts to maximizing their damage output while minimizing damage taken. If everyone uses their management tools, the tank will rarely have to (if ever) go back into tank stance in order to maintain aggro after it has been established. The problem comes when party members refuse to use these abilities, either because they're ignorant of how important it is to do so or because they do not believe the responsibility falls on their shoulders. Ultimately, if the tank loses aggro they're responsible for getting it back, however unless they did a particularly poor job of establishing enmity (which can be as simple as 2 overpowers and popping equilibrium before swapping to DPS stance as warrior) then the fault lies solely on the person who ripped it in the first place.

Please be aware that I do not endorse a petty idea like "you aggro it, you tank it", because people make mistakes; and let's be real, most content isn't hard enough to justify that level of punishment. However, I also dislike the idea that a role isn't responsible for anything but their namesake, because if this were the case then nearly every job would look radically different from their current iterations.