Warrior Rework Idea

[Izsha]

Honest question. Does Warrior even need a rework?

I would say yes, but not really for war's sake, but for tanks as a role. War is the cause of some odd problems centered around IB and Holmgang that makes it hard for all tanks to ever be equal defensively because IB is designed to function as the 'always available' defensive option to pair with other items and manage fluff. Pld does this with shelltron to pair with CDs for tank busters and a shield in general for fluff mitigation. Drk does this with TBN. War does this with.....a lower CD on HG to free up CDs to both stack on the remaining busters and as fluff mitigation and an extra CD over the other tanks.

This puts war in 2 states. Deliverance tanking where the extra immunity use in a fight and extra CD makes up for the lack of a 'spammable' mitigation tool. But also means warrior in defiance is utterly beastly on defense as they now have that 'spammable' mitigation tool on top of low immunity timer and extra CD. If you remove the extra stuff (HG timer and extra CD) then defiance warrior is on par with tank stance Drk/Pld but utter crap outside by comparison in DPS stance. Or you have what we have now wich is more balance in DPS stance but OP in defiance. It gets more confusing when you add in easier tank stance for war and some ways to mitigate the tank stance penalty. It ends up being significantly better in some situations if you can leverage those things properly.

As long as warrior has 'spammable' defense locked up in defiance and pld/drk dont, we are stuck in this situation where warrior has 2 states of defense that somehow both need to be equal to pld/drk and thats just not possible.

Then theres the IR thing, which is more of a preference. I hate it the 1 button wonder skill and really enjoyed managing resources for the old zerk windows, but some people seem to like it. But any time a job is changed that happens. I'd like to see it changed, but this one is purely individual preference.
________________________________________

My issue with this is what becomes of combos?

Like, WAR has 3 combos (Butcher, Path, Eye). Currently only 2 are worthwhile.

With this suggestion, again, only 2 become worthwhile (Butcher and Eye) for MP gain (Much the same as why DRK has only 1 combo and PLD only has 2 combos that are worthwhile because MP gain... Also, damage because, inexplicably the MP regain combos also have higher potency for them)

(etc more comments)

I must not be explaining it properly. In my example, you would never just spam FC ad nausium over IB because you NEED to use IB to unlock your most powerful action.

Going from 3 to 2 combos isnt the end of the world to me. We already just use 2 combos. So might as well make it official. This still uses your framework where enmity combos are replaced with unchained, so instead of finding a use for the 'enmity combo' we just nix it. In this example, the combos are very similar to today and gain resource for FC/IB (MP). I'm assuming a similar setup to now with a maintenance buff like eye, and a second combo to use when not refreshing eye with slightly higher potency: ie butchers. New combos are eye for buff maintenance and MP. Butchers for potency when eye is up, also with MP (basically replace current gauge with MP)

So the gameplay is basic combo rotation similar to now that gives you resource to use IB/FC/SC/Dec just like now. The change being that resource is MP, not gauge. Using the MP costing skills (current gauge GCD skills) will reward you with your two gauge resources. IB/SC reward you with say, 1/3 defiance gauge. FC/Dec reward you with 1/3 deliverance gauge. After 3 uses of each capping out both gauges you can spend BOTH gauges to access a powerful action/buff. That action/Buff increases damage by more than 600 potency (asssuming same IB/FC potencies as now). So you WANT to use IB over FC 50% of the time. You would never just spam FC forever because that would be suboptimal damage as it would delay the use of your powerful dual gauge expenditure. (all numbers subject to change, but thats the framework)

This system would do 2 things that are the main goals I have:
* encourage balanced use of both IB and FC instead of 'one or the other' that plagues us now.
* Gives you flexibility on WHEN to use IB so you can use it defensively. Pld/Drk skirt this in different ways. Pld doesnt REQUIRE shelltron to proc shield swipe as it can happen via bullwark and passive procs so you can 'save' it for when you need it without heavy punishement. Drk does this by having TBN be functionally DPS neutral out of grit so theres no penalty to saving it when needed. This quick sketch napkin idea does it by requiring IBs in equal number to FCs, but no restriction on when. 3 IBs>3FCs? great. 1IB>2FCs>2IBs>1FC? Great. Pretty flexible to adapt to the fight. You also have a pool of MP that you can stack up to add additinal timing flexibility. In the same way you 'could' spam shelltron on CD, you can also save it for a while with the gauge bar, or be a scrub and spam it asap. At least you are mitigating something, but proper use still involves planning, which is a good thing.

The conundrum now is there is never a reason to use IB over FC because of all the damage penalties. This gives reason to use IB, but doesnt 180 the problem where you now ignore FC and only spamming IB. You HAVE to use IBs intermittently, so a good player will use that by optimizing IB timing in a fight.

Along with this, HG can get the properly longer timer and war wont need extra CDs over drk/pld as they now can access frequent mitigation. Tweak DPS numbers as neccessary so DPS is equal.