Auto-cover!

[LunaTimaeus]

Problem with this is that melee damage does nothing special. If DD are hiding behind ifrit, it's from the 1.2k dmg incinerate, not the 700 dmg swipe. The highest damaging physical ability that can I can think of right now comes from Ureaus's body slam (1.7k to a drg), and thats a huge aoe (which also by your description I take wouldn't be covered at all damage wise) this buff would be utterly pointless. It'd make strongholds easier (as if they need to be) that's about it. No one's gonna stand in front of chimera, no one will stand in front of miser and ifrit. The idea is good, but it would literally have no use.

[Hoshikogi]

Perhaps I missed the type of damage absorbed, but I'd include all AoE physical damage and conal damage (magic and melee). Radial magic damage can be stunned by a decent paladin and, also covering against a radial AoE would not make sense.

[Hoshikogi]

I also see great applications for this ability. Even if a DPS's location in front of the HNM is undesirable, should the DPS be hit hard by an AoE of some sorts, that dps that is "auto-covered" can escape behind the pld to continue dealing some damage and building TP. All the while the PLD can Holy Succor them back to decent health. In a sense, this works out marvelously. Also, Do not forget that we can also heal others (which is probably for the best since the WHM is probably too preoccupied with sustaining the tank to heal the surrounding DPS.) Although a little regen goes a long way...

Also Luna, You've made me realize just how detrimental standing behind the paladin can be, thus I suggest a SUBSTANTIAL damage reduction to the "auto-cover-ee" while standing behind the pld (~80-90% reduction).

[LunaTimaeus]

I agree with Hoshikogi, the damage reduction would have to be massive, and should happen (I wasn't clear on this part so ignore me if it was already intended in your description) even if the player behind the PLD is not currently at the top of the hate list.

Any tank worth his salt shouldn't be taking hate anyways unless your DD (and I mean BLM only here, nothing else can spike like it in a short amount of time) wants to actually take hate. I myself havn't had any problems with hate tanking on PLD and WAR (ifrit here, since he seems to be a stable constant) over WHM hate, LNC hate, and most of a THM's mana pool, usually only one chameleon from a THM can let them burn all the mana they have without ripping off ifrit (ofc BLM could do it due to a nearly double mana pool from vert, but once again, they can easily hold back for a bit).

If even 1 DD could be able to safely DD from behind the tank, MNK would see action in more events (yes I know they're awesome DPS and can still do any event well, but with a heavy cover such as that any risk involved with taking a MNK over a THM/ARC would be cast aside.)

[Hoshikogi]

even if the player behind the PLD is not currently at the top of the hate list.

Definitly... This ability is NOT intended as hate control. It will not protect the target behind the PLD if that particular target attains top emity. It's sole purpose would provide protection from a variety of AoE damage and allow consistant damage output from front-line damage dealers.

When paired against a single target, PLD draws hate magnificently. My intention within these forums is not to improve paladin's "tankability" per say, but instead to protect and bolster the party.

[Vaymathias]

Well, the reduction is something that would have to be toyed with. I was thinking that transference would work like this: The PLD is hit with an attack that would do 100 damage to the PLD, but 300 normally to the "coveree" (just an example), the PLD has a chance to block the attack to reduce the damage, and a percent of that would transfer to the "coveree", so if transference is 20%, the "coveree" would only get hit with 20 damage instead of the original 300, with the PLD getting hit with 100 not calculating the damage reduced from blocking.

As to who the trait would cover, who ever gets there first. Both people have to be targeting the same target, in active mode. Now if it's say a PLD covering a DRG, and the DRG or PLD move to no longer meet the requirements, then whoever moves behind the PLD first, in active mode, targeting the same enemy, get's covered.

Regarding what attacks it would work against. I figure anything that would truthfully have to pass through the PLD to get to the "coveree", anything that extends from the enemies point of origin. So something that comes down from the sky like lightning or flare, this would help, but something like fire breath or a line attack would be affected.

Regarding this not working for Ifirit, it's not meant to make PLD top tier at every instance, bringing certain classes is typically a tactic, just not good for the game when it'sd ALWAYS bring WAR or ALWAYS bring PLD, or like the common Zerg tactics of "Giving Jayne a heavy stick and standing back" like what we have with Mrd/War now.

[LunaTimaeus]

Aside from my personal belief that SE should hold up to their previous statement of making PLD an unparallelled tank as they described it when they released the classes, one cover ability such as this wouldn't do a single thing to make it top tier in every instance. And any job can do any event with proper skill, it's just a bit harder than the cookie cutter strategies.

An auto cover that makes the PLD take MORE dmg (because you stated it would have a chance to block it) would be utterly useless, Vaymathias. PLD shouldn't be taking any extra damage because of this ability/trait, it should only serve as a wall to lower damage to the ally behind it, without taking any extra of its own. When PLD covers someone, currently, both targets do not take damage, why would it be smart to make the PLD take the brunt of the attack, then take it again.

Also check your defense values, anything with a dLVL of over 5 will hit a DRG just as hard as a PLD with most abilities. I've had a THM tank Ifrit before, it didn't take any more damage from swipe than PLD or WAR did.

As for tactics, those are referred to as how classes are used, not what classes you bring. Let's use FFXI Sky as an example, PLD was undoubtedly the greatest tank in the game statwise, yet Kirin is tanked/kited by RDM (before they did the hate nerf anyways ;-.-)

[Vaymathias]

Aside from my personal belief that SE should hold up to their previous statement of making PLD an unparallelled tank as they described it when they released the classes, one cover ability such as this wouldn't do a single thing to make it top tier in every instance. And any job can do any event with proper skill, it's just a bit harder than the cookie cutter strategies.

An auto cover that makes the PLD take MORE dmg (because you stated it would have a chance to block it) would be utterly useless, Vaymathias. PLD shouldn't be taking any extra damage because of this ability/trait, it should only serve as a wall to lower damage to the ally behind it, without taking any extra of its own. When PLD covers someone, currently, both targets do not take damage, why would it be smart to make the PLD take the brunt of the attack, then take it again.

Also check your defense values, anything with a dLVL of over 5 will hit a DRG just as hard as a PLD with most abilities. I've had a THM tank Ifrit before, it didn't take any more damage from swipe than PLD or WAR did.

As for tactics, those are referred to as how classes are used, not what classes you bring. Let's use FFXI Sky as an example, PLD was undoubtedly the greatest tank in the game statwise, yet Kirin is tanked/kited by RDM (before they did the hate nerf anyways ;-.-)

While I think PLD should be the top king of tanking, I think more players are enjoying the War God that they have now in Warrior, so whatever.....

How the hell would blocking something cause someone to take more damage? Where have I said this, please, show me, tell me whatever. I didn't and it wouldn't. It's not a catch all hate management tool, designed to add some truth and battle field tactics to the game, it's a single target tool for protecting someone, whether it's all the time or when **it hit's the fan.

And the whole dLVL thing, that's another issue completely.

Bringing the right classes is a tactic yes, but I'm not talking about "what classes you chose to bring". I'm talking about tactics on the battle field and giving players options how to play when they're there.

[LunaTimaeus]

/quotes and whatnot "The PLD is hit with an attack that would do 100 damage to the PLD, but 300 normally to the "coveree" (just an example), the PLD has a chance to block the attack to reduce the damage, and a percent of that would transfer to the "coveree", so if transference is 20%, the "coveree" would only get hit with 20 damage instead of the original 300, with the PLD getting hit with 100 not calculating the damage reduced from blocking." /endquote and whatnot.

Here you have the PLD getting hit, and the DD getting hit, the PLD in turn takes the hit for the DD taking most of the damage. But the PLD is already getting hit by the attack (since you added cone attacks and the like in your original description) therefore he is taking two instances of damage from a single attack. If that is not what you meant then be more clear, for that is how it reads.

A working solution would be to have a single target behind the PLD taking reduced damage with: 1, the PLD takes no extra damage in this instance, 2, the DD does not have to have the highest enmity at this point. In turn, this would literally make the PLD a shield of sorts as you see in movies where the knight protects someone from dragon fire with his shield. The knight would take the hit and his ally takes less damage for it.

[Vaymathias]

/quotes and whatnot "The PLD is hit with an attack that would do 100 damage to the PLD, but 300 normally to the "coveree" (just an example), the PLD has a chance to block the attack to reduce the damage, and a percent of that would transfer to the "coveree", so if transference is 20%, the "coveree" would only get hit with 20 damage instead of the original 300, with the PLD getting hit with 100 not calculating the damage reduced from blocking." /endquote and whatnot.

Here you have the PLD getting hit, and the DD getting hit, the PLD in turn takes the hit for the DD taking most of the damage. But the PLD is already getting hit by the attack (since you added cone attacks and the like in your original description) therefore he is taking two instances of damage from a single attack. If that is not what you meant then be more clear, for that is how it reads.

A working solution would be to have a single target behind the PLD taking reduced damage with: 1, the PLD takes no extra damage in this instance, 2, the DD does not have to have the highest enmity at this point. In turn, this would literally make the PLD a shield of sorts as you see in movies where the knight protects someone from dragon fire with his shield. The knight would take the hit and his ally takes less damage for it.

Okay, let me rephrase that: An attack that would normally (without auto-cover) hit the "coveree" for 300 damage, that would also normally hit the PLD for only 100 damage. With auto-cover, the if the enemy "targets" the "coveree" and swings the PLD gets hit for 100 (granted not taking into consideration blocks with shield) and the "coveree" only get's hit with 20% (just a random number for this example) of what the PLD got hit for (baring elemental or magic resistances, those would be applied after the fact).

So while normally 300 damage would have been done to the "coveree" character without the PLD, now with auto-cover, the PLD is only taking 100 dmagae, while the coveree is only taking 20 damage, for a total of 120 damage between the two characters, which is lower than 300 that the "coveree" would have taken.

And you example of the knight taking the hit is it in exactly except for in game form.