Tank Stances, Traited

[Reynhart]

I do not believe the dps loss should be removed from tank stance, but rather that a non-stanced tank should be more vulnerable.

Like I sai,d if ShO and Grit reduced damage by 50%, not having your stance would make you much more vulnerable

Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro.

It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.

Uh, no. You aren't delaying your burst to lineup with buffs but merely rearranging things. Once the boss is pulled, I have my opener on DRG set and it does not deviate as buff alignment has already been pre-determined. Your proposal would force me to hold back Jump, Spineshatter Dive and etc because tanks couldn't establish aggro.

Again, my only options in this scenario would be to literally stop attacking. Undergear tanks already have difficulty with aggro when paired with certain jobs. Making aggro management more difficult and DPS enmity generation higher would make it impossible for me not to pull hate unless I gimp half my arsenal or flat out stop attacking. Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.

[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.

[frostmagemari]

Like I sai,d if ShO and Grit reduced damage by 50%, not having your stance would make you much more vulnerable

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't make you more vulnerable. You would be more protected within shield oath or grit, but you would not be more vulnerable out of it.
Since it's always been established that tanks can survive WITHOUT using the tank stances, there still wouldn't be a reason to step into tank stance except as damage prevention for tank busters or other heavy hitting moves.

You can only make a tank more vulnerable by reducing it's baseline defense so that the enemies would hit the tank harder than they do now if they were out of tank stance.

[Reynhart]

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't make you more vulnerable. You would be more protected within shield oath or grit, but you would not be more vulnerable out of it.
Since it's always been established that tanks can survive WITHOUT using the tank stances, there still wouldn't be a reason to step into tank stance except as damage prevention for tank busters or other heavy hitting moves.

It's more complicated than that. The main point is not that tanks can survive without the tank stance, but that, by staying in tank stance, they reduce their DPS, thus, the overall raid DPS, for a surplus of mitigation that don't really impact healing requirements.
The idea behind a stronger tank stance is mainly to create a larger gap between healing a DPS-stance tank or a tank-stance tank, to the point that what DPS the tank loses is compensated by what DPS the healers can afford.

And you could also increase enemy damage so that keeping a tank alive in tank stance would stlll not be trivial.

[MauvaisOeil]

Don't need to increase damage to fulfill the point. Decrease defense on gear and increase stance benefits.

[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.

[Selova]

Terrible idea. Part of the fun of tanking is switching between the two stances, maximizing your damage output and damage reduction respectively. This playstyle makes it so that you, the player are rewarded based on your skill with the job. What you're suggesting would dumb down tanks to the point where the only difference between ever tank is pure aesthetics. Just no.

[shao32]

Terrible idea. Part of the fun of tanking is switching between the two stances, maximizing your damage output and damage reduction respectively. This playstyle makes it so that you, the player are rewarded based on your skill with the job. What you're suggesting would dumb down tanks to the point where the only difference between ever tank is pure aesthetics. Just no.

i not support reynhart idea, but we are not switching betwen both stances, we are stuck in dps stance and our skill have no place on this, have decent healers? dps stance, thats all.