Paladin vs Warrior - ARR better set roles!

[Altena]

I think you mis read my post the pld being to far gone to not be a tank means exactly that it to far down the design path for a tank. It is a tank you cant make it more versatile and somewhat balanced with out removing what it already has and as a design putting later skills to add more versatility to pld are gimping it if other classes are getting things that improve its direct design. Which clearly is stated in a logical way if you read the whole paragraph instead of pulling a CNN and taking out a section with out context.

Ah I see, I misunderstood your post. My apologies, I will edit it out. Then in fact yes I agree with you.

[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.

[fusional]

At the end everything I did it was Warrior. Every dungeon it was ask for a warrior, Garuda, King Moogle, Ifrit was ask for a warrior. The only battle I did not see a warrior all the time maybe 50/50 was Raven. The only one for sure that was ask for a Paladin that I ever did was Hamlet Defense since Paladin could heal himself.

i won't say it would've been *impossible*, but rivenroad (hard) and ifrit (extreme) would have been idiotic with a warrior tank. completely and utterly awful.

also, with DDs who actually push limits, most all situations favored paladin tanks in the end. including garuda and av/cc. warriors just couldn't keep hate off DDs going completely all-out (and if you disagree, that's fine- it just means either your DDs weren't actually that great, or they were holding back), and additionally paladins were so strong that they could just about cover most or all of their own healing- freeing your group up to do even more dps by swapping out healing for more damage.

in fact, using a paladin tank for AV meant you could get away with having *no healing* for MM if you knew what you were doing.

if you had made this thread in early 2012 it would've been fairly accurate, but after they updated paladin the entire dynamic shifted. anyone who kept using warriors after that were mostly just doing it because it's what they knew, or because they were simply far behind the curve.

as far as burst aoe goes, though, warrior is at or near the top. while dragoon is hands down better in the right hands, warrior is *easier* to aoe with and that makes it more consistent and attractive for inexperienced players or groups wanting as much margin for error as possible (ie: using warriors for most of your aoe in ifrit extreme rather than dragoons. dragoons do the job much much better if your dragoons are great- but if not, you're better off just bringing an extra warrior or two... and most groups did)

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

lolwut? i.. what?

[Solace]

I like a bit of role versatility. Saves me from those well remembered nights of. "Great, we can't find a pld"
Well, at least you can find a warrior..

[Chardrizard]

Warrior was almost unwanted after SC nerf in any content that matters, they do below subpar damages and a very subpar tank too. Their only saving grace was where Ifrit ex requires a warrior to break one of their horn, otherwise they were pretty useless imo.

[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.

[Ricky]

WAR was not the end all, be all tank towards the end of 1.0. What are you smoking OP? Please pass it this way.

It was the tank of choice for the majority of the game leaving the solely tank class on the sidelines, which is why people still discuss ways to avoid it in the future

[Naraku_Diabolos]

Just wait until Dark Knight gets released... *snickers* Will we see DRK outdamaging WAR then?