Kneejerk reaction to PLD changes.

[Jeeqbit]

You do have 20% mitigation when covering as an OT. This is because the mitigation trait that replaces tank stance's 20% mitigation is still there when off tanking.

It's not as if PLD ever needed the 20% mitigation when covering. There is plenty of time during casts to hit Sheltron or some other action.

PLD doesn't want for cooldowns, because Sheltron is a 5 second recast and will now block multiple attacks.

PLD can proc its own Divine Veil with Clemency if absolutely needed. I use it when the party is getting low, I feel further heavy damage is incoming and am expecting a heal to be casted. It helps healers when they don't have time to apply shields.

They want all tanks to be viable MT and OT and the changes to tank stances mean that is the case. It really doesn't matter who pulls anymore because they can be in tank stance the whole time without sacrificing DPS.

I don't disagree with describing this thread as a knee-jerk reaction.

[Ivellior]

Sheltron need gauge so it's definitely not a 5 second recast.
They also nerfed Sentinel, removed bulwark, Convalescene (which was originally a PLD cooldown before giving to other tanks), awareness (which was originally a PLD cooldown before giving to other tanks), tempered will was also nerfed (and given to everyone else).
They pretty much gutted PLD defenses.

[Cabalabob]

You do have 20% mitigation when covering as an OT. This is because the mitigation trait that replaces tank stance's 20% mitigation is still there when off tanking.

It's not as if PLD ever needed the 20% mitigation when covering

That’s not the point. Why spend 50 gauge on cover when you can spend 50 gauge on intervention? Or just provoke and spend 50 gauge on sheltron? There’s no advantage to using cover anymore. When it offered 20% mitigation you could use that + a mitigation tool and it was giving you way more mitigation than intervention or sheltron. while the 2min recast made it so intervention wasn’t invalidated because it could be used in the time between covers.

Now you might as well just use intervention because it offers at least 10% mitigation where cover offers nothing for the same price and if you use cover + rampart you’re getting 20% mitigation (the same mitigation the MT would get from you using intervention + rampart).

The only time cover is better than intervention when covering another tank is with sentinel because it offers 30% mitigation compared to interventions 25% (10% + 15% half of sentinel’s new value) so cover + sentinel gives you a whole 5% mitigation over intervention + sentinel. WOW! *eye roll*

If you have 100 gauge (for some odd reason) then yes you can cover + sentinel + sheltron and it might be worth you taking the buster instead of the MT, but that still raises the question of “why not just swap and use sentinel + sheltron and have 50 gauge to spend on another sheltron?”.

So the only time cover is worth using really is on someone other than a tank. Which is niche at best. Situations like ranged taking the tether in O11s comes to mind.

[MaraD_]

You do have 20% mitigation when covering as an OT. This is because the mitigation trait that replaces tank stance's 20% mitigation is still there when off tanking.

When everyone's super, no one's super.

I'm sure you see the flaw in that logic.

[Jeeqbit]

I'm sure you see the flaw in that logic.

There is no flaw in the logic.

Right now, OTs in Sword Oath that Cover get 20% mitigation from Cover itself.

In future, OTs that Cover will get that 20% mitigation because they have it already in their traits.

[Bright-Flower]

There is no flaw in the logic.

Right now, OTs in Sword Oath that Cover get 20% mitigation from Cover itself.

In future, OTs that Cover will get that 20% mitigation because they have it already in their traits.

Yeah, something to keep in mind when talking about 5.x mitigation is full time benefit from old tank stance defense.

[MaraD_]

There is no flaw in the logic.

Right now, OTs in Sword Oath that Cover get 20% mitigation from Cover itself.

In future, OTs that Cover will get that 20% mitigation because they have it already in their traits.

All enemies will just have their damage scale upward to compensate. Its like raising minimum wage, everything else goes up in price.
Also, you forget current tanks can put up tank stance, and use cover for 40%~ mitigation.
So the future 20% mitigation is still less.
(Not that I care if cover has mitigation on it or not)

To give another example, current tanks have increased HP and defense compared to other jobs.
Does this mean the current cover also adds HP and defense?

SE is going to balance damage given to future tanks, as if thier -20% dmg taken, was the standard non mitigated damage. So its the same thing as not having any built in mitigation, other than non tanks getting hit harder than a tank, which shouldnt happen outside of raid wide dmg anyways.

[Bright-Flower]

All enemies will just have their damage scale upward to compensate. Its like raising minimum wage, everything else goes up in price.
Also, you forget current tanks can put up tank stance, and use cover for 40%~ mitigation.
So the future 20% mitigation is still less.
(Not that I care if cover has mitigation on it or not)

Well it depends on if they were balancing enemy damage based on tanks being in tank stance or dps stance before. If they were balancing it based on tank stance there shouldn't really be much of a change at least for this reason.

[MaraD_]

Well it depends on if they were balancing enemy damage based on tanks being in tank stance or dps stance before. If they were balancing it based on tank stance there shouldn't really be much of a change at least for this reason.

They never directly stated what their intentions/designs were for tanks in that regard, except in SB they indirectly referenced making content for tanks outside of tank stance, but most likely just because everyone was already doing it in HW, and didnt feel the need to change anything.

But you also need to look at why developers would make a "stance" in a game where the tank class cant be a pure DPS/healer (like in WoW)
Stances were invented in old western MMOs as a way for them to swap roles. (And eventually shying away from that, via other methods)
People think tanks werent meant to stance dance, or take hits outside of tank stance, despite forgetting SE said all tanks were viable at endgame. This includes 2.0 WAR which didnt have mitigation.

So how did they manage a double WAR PT clearing Twintania Twisers? (Which they said was possible)
Same issue they ran into with Alexander Savage1-4.

People couldnt clear harder fights with certain jobs, until those jobs were far more geared up. (nearly maxed geared)

WARs required way better gear, which was weeks worth of locked tomes in 2.0.
Why wait on a WAR, when u can bring a PLD, who lowers the enemies damage directly?

Now, if you noticed, WARs stances may have been oGCD, but the part that actually mimics the mitigation of a PLD, was on the GCD.
so a PLD can double up with stance and rampart while WAR couldnt (excluding the CDS on much longer CDs)

Tank stances are emergency CDs. If you didnt plan to handle the tank buster correctly, you have an emergency CD that penalizes you in your DPS.
Every boss could be handled without tank stances, but requires better gear and teamwork.
If you cant mitigate a TB enough, then you arent properly tank swapping, so as to maximize your CDs better.

Even now, when people ask yoshida how he intended people to play jobs, he refuses to answer. So its easy to say we dont know his intentions, but you can piece enough of it together based on what is presented.
Only four times have we as players ever come up with a strategy the Devs didnt think of, and they immediately addressed it, usually because it helpped the players make the content easier than intended. (that im aware of)
I'm fairly certain if players did something unintended, SE would mention it. (back when tanking w/o a stance was picking up, yoshida ONLY mentions the healers being asked to DPS, and doesnt mention the tanks. All he said is tank DPS is already taken into consideration. Which most likely means he was surprised by healers focusing on DPS, but not surprised by tanks)

is a BIG stretch to make updated cover seem worse than it is.

Only as much of a stretch as saying the baked in -20% is the replacement to cover, when its clearly not (all tanks get it, not just PLD)
its just easier to say the PLD can just use the better Sheltron as a means to lower dmg as an OT. (and proc shield swipe) this is more accurate from a development perspective.
But i picked current tank stance, due to the fact ist going away. sheltron isnt going away, just changed, so using that in the comparison makes no sense.

EDIT: to clarify why its not a stretch. He's assuming the baked in -20% is somehow not the standard, when its not possible to NOT have the -20% active in SH. That also assumes that the current devs plan content with tanks staying in tank stance. The -20% is removed because it was being used on the MT, rather than squishy allies. (You'll almost never see a PLD cover thier healer, to survive raid wide that would otherwise wipe the party, so they can then LB3.) By removing it, it can still be used to cheese mechanics, but the current PLD players will no longer feel it was wasted on a non tank. Currently you feel its wasted if used on a BLM, rather than on the MT. But non tanks take more dmg than tanks, so -20% was baked in, as if the squishies had tank stance on.
So if his idea that the devs intended tanks to stay in tank stance, and the fact they inteded the tank to protect non tanks, then it would be comparable, and not absurd.

[Bright-Flower]

Snip

I can't say for sure what the intent was with FFXIV stances, but the way it felt to me was that they intended for tanks to tank in tank stance, and to use dps stance when doing quests or off tanking or parts of fights with nothing to tank. And that since tanks in high end content are using tank stance as little as possible they just gave up on that worked out the new system with just enmity stances. I can't say for sure that I'm right but that's my guess. I don't think they ever intended for tanks to be tanking raid bosses in sword oath, but I could be wrong.