I wish Gunbreaker would be a DPS class.

[Seraphor]

It won't, it would just make SAM's only utility even more redundant.

Which is already redundant to WAR and NIN anyway...

[linay]

Isn't SAM supposed to be a 'selfish dps' anyway lacking utility but with high personal dps?

Sure, so either way, a slashing debuff from gunbreaker won't do anything to the meta (by itself).

Which is already redundant to WAR and NIN anyway...

Hence more redundant.

[Seraphor]

Sure, so either way, a slashing debuff from gunbreaker won't do anything to the meta (by itself).

There’s currently a 33% chance that your tanks won’t have the ability to apply any slashing debuff (PLD/DRK) that makes having a NIN or a SAM more important.
Now that half of our tanks will be able to apply a slashing debuff (WAR and GUN) that NIN and SAM will be less essential.
While this might be a mark down for the somewhat neglected SAM, it’s a bonus against the essential inclusion of NIN.

[linay]

There’s currently a 33% chance that your tanks won’t have the ability to apply any slashing debuff (PLD/DRK) that makes having a NIN or a SAM more important.
Now that half of our tanks will be able to apply a slashing debuff (WAR and GUN) that NIN and SAM will be less essential.
While this might be a mark down for the somewhat neglected SAM, it’s a bonus against the essential inclusion of NIN.

I was under the impression that current meta includes WAR.

[Seraphor]

I was under the impression that current meta includes WAR.

"The Meta" goes further than one precise load out, or it wouldn't be that big of a problem. The problem is that people try to replicate it to some extent in content that it isn't necessary to do so.

[Bright-Flower]

All in all Gun Breaker will probably be more popular and appealing than a hammer using class, but part of me kind of wishes we'd gotten one similar to hammers I think we saw Grynwaht and Nero use at different points unless I'm mistaken, if only to give another job that does blunt damage like monks so they're not the only one, but I guess adding it for the sake of doing that may just complicate things and make the new tank less desirable in the meta not being able to sync up with other slashing damage tanks or something. I don't know. Though it may all be moot anyway if they end up adjusting how it works in the combat system changes, but we won't be getting that info for quite a while still.

[kikix12]

Honestly, by that logic, nobody other than Paladin should be able parry at the moment, though. And I shouldn't be able to tank Head On so effectively with Raw Intuition...

You can parry anything with anything, provided you can move fast enough with it in comparison to the attack to hit it from the side. It's just going to be a lot easier when you use small weapon in comparison to a large weapon.

I guess trying to bring logic into this isn't really working...

Logic never could have been included with parrying because you still receive most of the damage. A successful parry prevents the attack from hitting at all. There's no damage to be had from an attack parried. Basically, parrying forces the opponent to miss.

But that would be overpowered, hence why parrying is used in games with the lowered damage mechanic. It's actually quite irksome, especially when there's "block". Unlike parrying, block actually allows for damage to "pass". Since it does not deflect force away from the user but adds a middleman (shield or weapon), some of the force is still passed unto the users hands (and possibly more if the attack is powerful enough). Whatever is used to block can also be destroyed in the process. Maybe not as easily in real life, but I can imagine a giant dragon to wreck a wooden shield rather easily. But hey, parrying and block were different for the sake of paladin and his shield and there's no third option, unless a rough "mitigate".

What does the gun provide to the tank class, other than more "Beefy DPS Meta" that I could really do without?

Um...this may get a bit long...but let's see here.

Let's start with this. What IS a tank?! In real life from which the term comes a tank is a vehicle that have three traits.
It's armored, it protects its users and it does have high firepower. Yes, high firepower. It's not a tank if it does not have a cannon of some sort. That would be just an armored vehicle. A tank is an offensive powerhouse that protects on the side, not a shield that can also attack. There are tons of armored vehicles, on wheels and on tracks, that are not tanks because their heaviest weaponry is the like of a minigun (a powerful weapon itself).

In a game, which "borrows" the term, a tank is the class that draws enemies enmity, surviving more than other classes. As a bonus, tanks usually have high-damage weapons (unless they have shields). Their damage is reduced for balances sake with low-damage skills and slow attack rate, but their weapons themselves are high-damage.

In a games lore, what is a tank?! This is a little bit less obvious. Because people tend not to read lore in games or just forget. In lore in just about any game that makes it explicit, enmity (or however it's called in a given game) is a measure of how much mobs want to kill a given person. That is usually born from anger (Provoke uses this) and...most often...from the threat the character poses to the enemy (gruesome attacks, which tanks certainly have thematically). That's why part of the equation for enmity generation is damage. The only reason why tanks don't have the highest damage is for balance, but in the games lore, they ARE the highest damage dealers. They ARE the most destructive (alright, Warrior and Dark Knight in FFXIV, Paladin just gets himself in-between the enemy and ally...hence "Cover").


Now, if we combine that...what do we get?!

A tank needs armor for itself. Check. Fending gear is mostly rather heavy armor, regardless of the material. It does represent heavy armor stat-wise in all cases anyway.
A tank needs to protect others (their party). Check. Tanks have enmity bonuses that are a balanced way of them taking hits for others.
A tank needs high firepower. Kinda. Their high firepower is represented in weapons base attack and enmity bonuses, but not in damage over time. Paladin is a special case due to it being more defensive. There were tanks with weaker cannons though, so it's not too much of a stretch. Besides, the magic makes up for it.


A gunblade does work well for that. A weapon is NOT what gives "tanks" their survival, that's what armor is for. A weapon is meant to give firepower, which tanks lore-wise should have in excess. A gunblade is a "cannon" among weapons alright.

So, sorry, but thematically gunblade does actually fit a "tank". You can say that you don't like the idea, but you cannot really say it doesn't fit it.

People are misunderstanding and thinking I'm talking about individual class balance, when what I mean is that the tank and healer roles in this game have serious design issues that affect individual class balance.

No one misunderstood you. But again, the same issue applies to DPS to a greater degree. The in-between balance for DPS is bigger than it is for the tanks or healers. And since there is even more competition, they suffer a lot more as well.

I don't know bout you, but I see DPS complaining about being kicked for their job a lot more than tanks. And as was said earlier, the supposed "weakest" healers and tanks were prominent in the top groups for high-end content. The worst tank and healer is in much better position than the worst DPS, so if there's one role they should focus on balancing first, it should have been DPS in the first place.
That's, of course, useless as I said. Balancing stuff that will change right after it's done (if it will be done in the first place) just cause level cap is increased is a poor mans excuse not to make job of a given role.

As for the "parry logic" argument, do those who make that argument realize that weapons and gear can be repaired? Might not hurt either to go watch some videos of Zweihander use too.

Might not hurt to read carefully what you respond to either. I made the "parry logic" argument, and I don't recall every saying anything in any way relevant that would combine "weapon breaking" and "parrying" in one sentence.

Furthermore, yes, weapons can be repaired. But you should read a bit more about reality if you think that's an argument to make blocking with weapons (which I said may damage weapon) a desirable method of defense. In real combat if your weapon breaks from blocking it means that there is someone that wants to kill you. And if you have no weapon from blocking and they DO have a weapon (if theirs didn't break)...you're dead. In other words, you're unlikely to have an opportunity to repair a weapon that breaks.

Naturally no one is stupid enough not to block if they need to. But in terms of priority it's better only than getting a clear hit on yourself. Anyone fighting will prioritize dodging (which is best option, but least likely to be possible), parry (which is unlikely to really damage your weapon and will put you at an advantage like dodging to boot) and only then blocking (which puts strain on the weapon, may allow some force to get to hands etc. possibly risking letting go of it and forces you into a position from which attacking may be ineffective).
That it was used is absolutely beyond the shadow of doubt. There were weapons (not shields) actually made to make blocking more effective.
That people parried with larger weapons is also beyond shadow of doubt, because as I said above, you can parry with anything.

What I said is that smaller weapons are better at parrying and larger weapons are better at blocking. Nothing more, nothing less. All the other stuff is just in your head.

[whiskeybravo]

As a tank main whose favorite DPS job is MCH.. I'm excited

[Bright-Flower]

A gunblade does work well for that. A weapon is NOT what gives "tanks" their survival, that's what armor is for. A weapon is meant to give firepower, which tanks lore-wise should have in excess. A gunblade is a "cannon" among weapons alright.

So, sorry, but thematically gunblade does actually fit a "tank". You can say that you don't like the idea, but you cannot really say it doesn't fit it.

Yep. And PLD is really the only overtly 'defensive' tank in the game when it comes to weapons, having a shield. There's not really anything defensive about giant swords and axes.

Mechanically, the gun can give a tank some tools for pulling, or ranged attacks when you have to run out of melee range, etc. Tanks normally won't be at range, but it doesn't mean they can't make use of ranged attacks now and then, like holy spirit for paladins.

On top of that, these are FF VIII style gunblades. The gun parts of these weapons are not generally used as a long range attack anyway. In FF VIII it was mostly used to 'fire' while slashing an enemy for extra damage. Contrast Squall in VIII with the cowboy character who just had a straight up gun. Irvine was it? Been a long time.

All tanks need some offensive capability. Even PLD focuses on expert swordsmanship, occasional offensive spell casting with holy spirit, and using the shield offensively with shield lob/bash/swipe. A tank will still make plenty of use with the gun part of a gunblade.

[InkstainedGwyn]

If I can heal someone by throwing a card at them (Lady of Crowns) then I think that "but it doesn't make sense" is no longer an appropriate argument. "But magic"? Ok, well, but magic. That's why gunbreaker works.