Paladin vs Warrior - ARR better set roles!

[Duelle]

Every situation I have experienced that requires 2 tanks has included 1 tank often stuck in a corner holding useless trash mobs while the rest of the party kill the boss.

Kel'thuzad had that, though I wouldn't call the Guardians of Icecrown useless, as they had as much HP as Kel and were technically impossible to kill without highly risking a wipe. It's really all about context.

I read the first paragraph of your response and gave up trying to understand what you were on about truthfully.

I'm guessing that's on me for assuming people easily understood the concept of having multiple targets to control during a fight.

*takes long breath*

The concept of the four horsemen is that you have four bosses. Two of them stationary and two of them mobile. The stationary pair would stay in the back of the boss room and needed to have someone within range of them, otherwise they would spam a nuke that would hit everyone in the room for huge damage. The mobile pair needed to be held by one tank each.

Lady Blaumeux & Sir Zeliek = Stationary

Thane Kor'thazz & Baron Rivendare = Mobile

Anyone within 45(!) yards of a horseman would get a stacking debuff called a mark (Rivendare yould give you Rivendare's Mark, Zeliek would give you Zeliek's Mark and so on). The marks did more damage the higher the stack it was. The amount of damage could be releably healed until around 4 marks, as higher stacks would hit you for more damage and would eventually one-shot you.

The point of having two tanks is to have Thane and Baron far enough that the tanks and DPS on each would only be afflicted by one mark. At around 4 stacks, the tanks and the DPS had to switch targets and drag them apart again to allow one stack to drop and start getting marks from the new target. So if you're tanking Baron and I'm tanking Thane, at 4 marks we would switch so that you get Thane and I get Baron, allowing your marks from Baron to drop and getting marks from Thane (and vice versa for me).

Try reading the other examples I mentioned, please.

PS: I don't put much stock on 1.0 encounters aside from Garuda and Nael, as I understand it's mostly hold-over content and doesn't have much in the way of mechanics outside of adds and super-one-shot moves. We haven't seen a proper encounter that really requires a second tank, but we may get there in 2.0. I hope, anyways.

[Hyrist]

Did Nael with both a PLD and a Warrior. Paladin kept better hate, Warrior was less fragile and did more damage.

As a Dragoon, I preferred to have Paladin as the primary tank and, if feasable, a Warrior as the secondary.

With a Paladin tank it could be pretty much assured that I am second on the hate list unless a warrior is present as the mounting damage.

I would flatly rip hate off of a warrior if the fight was long enough. I had to pace myself too keep in line with hate and that meant I was doing lower damage. (and exposing myself more as it meant I absolutely needed chameleon which sadly bumps the much more useful featherfoot off my list.)

With both, the Warrior's damage can offset the hate I generate, but I'll still fluctuate form third to second on the hate list. But with elusive jump I can ditch to the secondary tank if the Paladin drops for any reason, and the run survives.

Sadly, the situations in which a Dragoon, Paladin, and Warrior are all together and preferable were non-existent in 1.xx. Hopefully that'll change in ARR.

[FireBud]

I would flatly rip hate off of a warrior if the fight was long enough. I had to pace myself too keep in line with hate and that meant I was doing lower damage.

That's part of being a dps, you were doing it right.

The dps mentality of DPS DPS DPS DPS, for some situations it's fine when you "have" to get things done before death comes knocking but dps should always be paying attention to there situation, others situations and their hate control in battle. Sounds to me like your just doing your job right unlike many that seemingly want to burn through content as fast as possible and think we tanks can compensate for their stupidity.

[Altena]

That's part of being a dps, you were doing it right.

The dps mentality of DPS DPS DPS DPS, for some situations it's fine when you "have" to get things done before death comes knocking but dps should always be paying attention to there situation, others situations and their hate control in battle. Sounds to me like your just doing your job right unlike many that seemingly want to burn through content as fast as possible and think we tanks can compensate for their stupidity.

To an extent. If we have used all enmity- tools available to us and we are still flashing red - then the tank has a problem. This forces DPS to hold back, which basically means the tank is holding the party up. It's not about "rushing" through content, it's about winning fights efficiently.

[Altena]

Random scenario

Are you talking about another game here? Because I still don't understand where this is coming from.. Kel'whatnow? Guardians of Whatcrowns? Sorry I don't know the game, fight or battle mechanics of whatever you are talking about so can't judge.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and can understand that multi-big-boss fights can work with dual tanks, but in the end it is more efficient for the DD's in a party to focus on one mob at a time.. Therefore you inevitably have one tank either kiting or holding the 2nd mob that isn't the focus.

My question about these dungeons you are talking about - how many players are in there? If we are talking 12+ players then yes I am all for seeing 2 tanks in there for more complex battle content.. However for now, I don't see a "2 tank" scenario fitting in with the typical content we have currently seen in XIV both in 1.0 and the alpha videos.

Did Nael with both a PLD and a Warrior. Paladin kept better hate, Warrior was less fragile and did more damage.

Yes Nael was a prime example of a long fight, mixed with harsh mechanics that didn't allow the tank to establish extremely solid hate. Even a decent PLD struggled when Nael starts teleporting all over the place.

However I do disagree that "Warrior was less fragile" as they take pretty similar damage, the only difference is a bit of HP. A well geared PLD falls just shy of a WAR's HP if in a HP set of course, and in most cases is still able to hold plenty of hate. In order for a WAR to keep some kind of hate - you will want them wearing full DD gear so there is no real comparison.

Not to mention PLD has farrrrrr more damage mitigation abilities.

I would flatly rip hate off of a warrior if the fight was long enough. I had to pace myself too keep in line with hate and that meant I was doing lower damage. (and exposing myself more as it meant I absolutely needed chameleon which sadly bumps the much more useful featherfoot off my list.)

This too. WAR has candy hate compared to PLD especially in long fights.

Sadly, the situations in which a Dragoon, Paladin, and Warrior are all together and preferable were non-existent in 1.xx. Hopefully that'll change in ARR.

I know some people that used a DRG/WAR/PLD setup for Garuda, and IE it is a pretty known strategy to include 2x WAR's 2x DRG's. The content was there, nearing the end of 1.xx, but that may also have been due to WAR being a preferable tank to some content before their nerfs.

[Duelle]

My question about these dungeons you are talking about - how many players are in there? If we are talking 12+ players then yes I am all for seeing 2 tanks in there for more complex battle content.. However for now, I don't see a "2 tank" scenario fitting in with the typical content we have currently seen in XIV both in 1.0 and the alpha videos.

10 man runs. 2 tanks, 3 healers, 5 DPS.

Scaling it down to 8-man you can have it be 2 tanks, 2 healers, a bard and 3 DPS. Could change that to 4 DPS if buffs become a little more spread out to not make the bard mandatory (assuming mages are given MP refund mechanics or additional help to restore MP in the middle of a fight).

Having an 8-man boss fight requiring two tanks is not much of a stretch, really.