Tank Stances, Traited

[Reynhart]

Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

[Launched]

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

Completely removing enmity sounds like a much better idea than forcing me to stop casting Fire IVs for any reason besides mechanics.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

Like Launched, I would rather they remove enmity entirely than force DPS jobs to stop attacking or purposely perform gimped openers. Furthermore, it's an arbitrary solution that doesn't make tank stance rewarding or inherently beneficial. It's similar in concept to the devs slapping a stance penalty on Warrior. People despised it not because their DPS was lower but how awful it felt.