Paladin: Designing for One resource, streamlining and a dedicated offtank role @70

[Sylvain]

snip

I really didn't see the PLD under that light. Seeing how you portray it, I guess OT makes sens, I'm still bugged by the fact that it owns a shield and is basically not using it.
Well regarding the stance, Imo it's simply poor design.

They said there would be changes with stance.
I really hope they remove, at the very least, the -20% dmg done and make all stance ogcd. The loss of benefit from the DPS stance itself is more than enough of a penalty (Felcleave +5% crit, SO aa bonus, blood weapon)

I also hope stance become much more than what they are now, an enmity generation tool you turn on for 3 gcd.

[Lambdafish]

I really didn't see the PLD under that light. Seeing how you portray it, I guess OT makes sens, I'm still bugged by the fact that it owns a shield and is basically not using it.
Well regarding the stance, Imo it's simply poor design.

They said there would be changes with stance.
I really hope they remove, at the very least, the -20% dmg done and make all stance ogcd. The loss of benefit from the DPS stance itself is more than enough of a penalty (Felcleave +5% crit, SO aa bonus, blood weapon)

I also hope stance become much more than what they are now, an enmity generation tool you turn on for 3 gcd.

We shall see. In a way, PLD is kinda like 3.0 WAR but less broken. It can fulfill both the MT and OT slots, it just likes OT more due to the loss of damage from shield oath.

As for identity, it is a bit weird, but I don't think we can use that as an argument as the roles shift depending on balance, and PLD can fit in either MT or OT based on the way it is portrayed.

[jameseoakes]

We shall see. In a way, PLD is kinda like 3.0 WAR but less broken. It can fulfill both the MT and OT slots, it just likes OT more due to the loss of damage from shield oath.

As for identity, it is a bit weird, but I don't think we can use that as an argument as the roles shift depending on balance, and PLD can fit in either MT or OT based on the way it is portrayed.

It's a much worse MT than the other two tanks, it can't be compared to 3.0 as that was beyond broken

[Lambdafish]

It's a much worse MT than the other two tanks, it can't be compared to 3.0 as that was beyond broken

I say that in the fact that skills like sheltron and hallowed ground are some of the best mitigation in the game.

[jameseoakes]

I say that in the fact that skills like sheltron and hallowed ground are some of the best mitigation in the game.

I thought people where rating Holmgang better due to it's shorter cool down.

[Lambdafish]

I thought people where rating Holmgang better due to it's shorter cool down.

Holmgang's shorter cooldown makes it good for different reasons (you can use it for two mechanics rather than one), but hallowed ground can be used to skip mechanics, which holmgang's can't

[Megguido]

It can fulfill both the MT and OT slots, it just likes OT more due to the loss of damage from shield oath.

As for identity, it is a bit weird, but I don't think we can use that as an argument as the roles shift depending on balance, and PLD can fit in either MT or OT based on the way it is portrayed.

PLD OT or MT isn't about Shield Oath. Paladin MT or OT in Sword Oath most of the time (ShO is mostly used in dungeon or when learning a fight, when they don't really have a choice for aggro generation). They like OT more because of their utility.

Otherwise, PLD isn't that much worse than DRK and WAR as MT (just a bit squishier due to longer CD). What makes them a worse MT is because they "lose" a part of their support abilities while doing. Cover and Intervention are a lot less useful when being MT. Anyway, with current fight design (for savage and extreme fights at least), both tanks are MT and OT throughout the fight due to tank swaps.