How can tanking and healing be made more broadly useful in more "role-specific" ways?

[Reynhart]

Alternatively, would simply reducing the passive mitigation and HP bonuses of being a tank, regardless of stance, have a similar effect, such that tanks are more reliant on active and stance-based mitigation?

I think it's not enough by itself. For me, the problem with stances is that the damage difference between tank stance and DPS stance is too low. If you increase damage regardless of stances, this difference would stay the same and once people are accustomed with the higher damage, they'll go back to DPS stance...unless the increased damage is so high that they can't do it anymore.

Sure, a mandatory tank stance would indeed put more emphasis on tanking, but it would piss off the whole population that loves agressive tanking. For me the sweet spot would be that damage are high enough so that a healer paired with a DPS-stance tank would had to focus more heavily on healing, and the mitigation on tank stance would be high enough so that a healer who likes to DPS could do that a lot more when paired with a turtle tank.

So no types of tanks and healers would be left behind.

[Shurrikhan]

I think it's not enough by itself. For me, the problem with stances is that the damage difference between tank stance and DPS stance is too low. If you increase damage regardless of stances, this difference would stay the same and once people are accustomed with the higher damage, they'll go back to DPS stance...unless the increased damage is so high that they can't do it anymore.

Fair enough, but let's consider: An increased penalty on "DPS stance" functions identically to reduced passive mitigation and a tank stance strengthened to its previous eHP levels. Moreover, no matter how great the gap is increased, there will undoubtedly be a point at which it's worth and a point at which it is not. At present, gear tends to favors avoiding tank stance, as it receives no benefits that DPS stance does not capitalize upon further (if tank stance eHP was sufficient at lower gear, then it will be excessive with additional gear), but at any given point as DPS gradually and increasingly outscales percentile mitigation (since encounter damage does not increase with your gear, and therefore neither can percentile mitigation) that decision is straightforward, and probably ought to be. Making one stance intentionally punishing won't change that; it just bloats the ability and introduces counter-intuitiveness.

Sure, a mandatory tank stance would indeed put more emphasis on tanking, but it would piss off the whole population that loves agressive tanking. For me the sweet spot would be that damage are high enough so that a healer paired with a DPS-stance tank would had to focus more heavily on healing, and the mitigation on tank stance would be high enough so that a healer who likes to DPS could do that a lot more when paired with a turtle tank.

So no types of tanks and healers would be left behind.

I've never recommended a mandatory tank stance. If it's mandatory, it's not a stance, but rather just bloat (in all but maybe solo play or in the destruction of defenseless objects). I'm just saying that the more something appears to be made effectively mandatory (optimal by a notable margin) not because of universally applicable scalars but through appended punishments, the worse it feels.

And note the situation your broaching is in every way a compromise. There's no point at which no one is "not left behind" unless you consider the most marginal presence or satisfaction as complete inclusion.

[Reynhart]

Moreover, no matter how great the gap is increased, there will undoubtedly be a point at which it's worth and a point at which it is not.

It sure will, but at that point, the requirement for DPS stance is also reduced. When a savage content is just released, the gap in tank DPS could make the difference between winning and hitting enrage. Once you have 30 or 40 more ilvl, chances are your DPS will be enough even if you sit in tank stance 24/7.

And note the situation your broaching is in every way a compromise. There's no point at which no one is "not left behind" unless you consider the most marginal presence or satisfaction as complete inclusion.

Sure, it doesn't leave anyone behind if the damage is increased reasonably. But it won't change the dynamic of tank stance vs DPS stance either, and only lower healer's DPS by increasing the base healing requirement.

[Shurrikhan]

It sure will, but at that point, the requirement for DPS stance is also reduced. When a savage content is just released, the gap in tank DPS could make the difference between winning and hitting enrage. Once you have 30 or 40 more ilvl, chances are your DPS will be enough even if you sit in tank stance 24/7.

Sure, it doesn't leave anyone behind if the damage is increased reasonably. But it won't change the dynamic of tank stance vs DPS stance either, and only lower healer's DPS by increasing the base healing requirement.

Now I really don't understand what you're suggesting.

[Reynhart]

Now I really don't understand what you're suggesting.

Let's imagine that ShO and Grit reduces damage by 50% instead of 20%. Suddently, the healing requirement between "tank stance" and "DPS stance" is very different. If we increase the overall damage a tank suffers, a healer will have less room to DPS than it has now when paired with a DPS-stance tank. But, if paired with a "turtle" tank, he can much more damage since the tank will take significantly less damage.

The idea is that, "what DPS the tanks loses by sitting in tank stance is covered by what DPS the healer gains", so that, in the end, "DPS stance" and "tank stance" are more personal preference and compromise with what type of healer player you have in your party.

My last try on O1S, even if not a significant sample, shown that by sitting in tank stance for all the fight, I lost 500 DPS while my healer only gained 100. If he would have gained 500 DPS, then my stance wouldn't have mattered on the overall raid DPS.

[Shurrikhan]

Let's imagine that ShO and Grit reduces damage by 50% instead of 20%. Suddently, the healing requirement between "tank stance" and "DPS stance" is very different. If we increase the overall damage a tank suffers, a healer will have less room to DPS than it has now when paired with a DPS-stance tank. But, if paired with a "turtle" tank, he can much more damage since the tank will take significantly less damage.

The idea is that, "what DPS the tanks loses by sitting in tank stance is covered by what DPS the healer gains", so that, in the end, "DPS stance" and "tank stance" are more personal preference and compromise with what type of healer player you have in your party.

My last try on O1S, even if not a significant sample, shown that by sitting in tank stance for all the fight, I lost 500 DPS while my healer only gained 100. If he would have gained 500 DPS, then my stance wouldn't have mattered on the overall raid DPS.

But for the tank stance to be an actual part of your kit, rather than something that could be basically performed via an out-of-combat customization option, it should be incredibly, incredibly rare for you to want to be entirely in one or the other. Having a blanket option that always affords itself removes the synergetic perspective between tanks and healers, because even if your mitigation stance may award them additional DPS, it's not through anything that actually accounted for your or their skill, let alone the actual events involved in that exchange.

While I, too, would like to have more "turtling" viability, I don't want that to be some isolated or effectively locked-in thing. It should be an active concern: Can I stretch the window for leniency of healing enough to give my healer more potency than I'd be losing over the duration, when accounting also for the costs of swapping?

By all means, narrow the gap by mitigating tank stances' obvious scaling issues, but by the time you make it just a "preference", it's essentially nothing at all, in my opinion. You've just made one of the biggest areas for potential tank-healer fun allegedly unmasterable and irrelevant.

EDIT: To be clear, this all goes up on the tally regardless of my own feelings towards the idea, as soon as I have a cogent, cohesive, and essentially comprehensive way to argue for it in its own description.

[Reynhart]

But for the tank stance to be an actual part of your kit, rather than something that could be basically performed via an out-of-combat customization option, it should be incredibly, incredibly rare for you to want to be entirely in one or the other.

I don't have a real issue with sitting in one stance for whole fights. I just have an issue that "DPS stance" is the one you'll sit on. Besides, we still have enough forced tank swaps to make use of the two stances. In fact, if that "DPS stance required" situation didn't exist, I think most people would be ok with how the tanks are designed now.

If we want something more active, we should look eslewhere. Long time ago, I suggested than each tank WS would give some kind of cumulative shield effect, so you should aim for the highest "SPS" you could. And instead of focusing mainly on damage reduction skill, we could have skills that increase the shield you have on you. And the amount of shield you generate could scale with tenacity.