Regarding Endgame DF and Tank Design

[Yagrush]

This idea is directed towards fights like Ifrit and Titan, where two tanks aren't actually required. In Ifrit's case, the only reason the two tanks are viable is because one is just a stun bot, while on Titan he is just being a gimped DPS. This means that one of the tanks ends up being a burden, which is bad design.

This idea is gonna assume that SE is gonna keep the rigid 2 Tanks, 4 DPS, and 2 Healers set-up for all of the DF encounters, and it's mostly directed at Warriors, since Paladins have something similar to this already.

Give Warriors a proper non-tank stance

Hear me out. I specifically say "Non-tank" stance rather than "dps stance", since the idea isn't to make Warriors match-up with other dps, but, rather, let them be less of a burden to DF parties when they aren't gonna actually be doing their main role (i.e. Tanking), and at least do sufficiently more damage than the main tank. This way, SE isn't pigeon-holed into ALWAYS looking to keep tanks busy, SPECIALLY when Crystal Tower comes out and you have 6 tanks going around.

You bet some of those tanks aren't gonna be tanking on some points, why not give them a tool to let them make a significant contribution to the raid, instead of leeching, doing trivial dps, while they wait for the moment to tank, if there is any?

Now to address some points:
-I'm aware Warrior has something that kind of tries to do this, Unchained, but, let's be honest, it does not the same job for Warrior like Sword Oath is for Paladin. It blows, should be buffed, or should be turned into a difference stance all-together. If this does happen, my issues would be mostly solved.

-Yes, I understand that this is dangerous in a way, since, if tank unbalances happen, like, say, Paladins are always preferred, there'd be even LESS reason to use Warriors as MTs, since they might aswell just stay doing average dps than being a mediocre tank. I understand that this can be an issue, but it can be fixed if Paladin + SO and Warrior + Unchained dps is well balanced. Also, the idea isn't to design encounters to take advantage of this new idea, but rather to have a back-up plan to fall on when SE designs an encounter where an OT isn't needed, but you still need to q with two tanks.

-There's also the issue that Tank classes inherently create more enmity than other classes due to the nature of their weaponskills, this could be easily fixed if mentioned stances nullified enmity bonuses from their weaponskills.

What is this trying solve?

When content gets harder, the community will value efficiency over everything else. If SE keeps designing encounters that only requires one tank, but the DF needs 2, you will have situations like Titan HM, where going with the DF you are guranteeing yourself 1 Tank, 4 dps, 2 healers, and 1 gimped dps, essentially, which is why many people will favor forming groups outside of random DF, looking only for 1 tank, making tank's chances of getting content done slimmer. This will only get worse when CT content gets harder and SE doesn't assure a reason for 6 tanks, or encounters that don't justify 2. In clearer words, encounters with DPS races that only requires 1 tank, but DF looks for 2 tanks, is bad design.


My two cents, feel free to critique or discuss these ideas. They are more than welcomed.

[Amyas]

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P

Eh, and not use any Warrior ability in the process, Paladins don't need to do this, why should Warriors?

Wars can do substantial dps without defiance, and what abilities would we miss out on? Inner beast? Steel Cyclone? You can just pop defiance on, infuriate, use IB/SC, pop defiance off and continue dpsing away.

[Yagrush]

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P

Eh, and not use any Warrior ability in the process, Paladins don't need to do this, why should Warriors?

Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P



Wars can do substantial dps without defiance, and what abilities would we miss out on? Inner beast? Steel Cyclone? You can just pop defiance on, infuriate, use IB/SC, pop defiance off and continue dpsing away.

Maybe if you're overgeared for the content. Also, if this were true, people wouldn't mind picking up a Warrior who isn't gonna tank into a Titan HM.. They aren't doing this.

[Ri_ri]

Make Paladins heal, then. Or else you'll still have the same problem if you get a group with two Paladins.
Using Sword Oath to attack as Paladin doesn't work, as you'll steal aggro from the main tank.

[Yagrush]

Make Paladins heal, then. Or else you'll still have the same problem if you get a group with two Paladins.
Using Sword Oath to attack as Paladin doesn't work, as you'll steal aggro from the main tank.

I don't understand your first point. Also, the second point is addressed in the OP.

[juniglee]

I find Sword Oath to not be that great of a skill. In fact, the effects of it are quite insignificant (+50 to auto-attack potency, in a class where damage is low to begin with), that it's really no different than running without an Oath skill turned on.

Shield Oath however is pretty significant. The 20% damage reduction, and 20% damage dealt reduction is quite noticeable, but it's able to keep up a job of generating aggro (maybe a bit more) than with Sword Oath.

As I understand it, Warriors have Defiance - so it would really be the same as turning it off, to not get the 20% damage dealt reduction penalty.

One of the Warriors I do Titan HM with regularly equips DPS gear (ie. Hetairos Gear) just for Titan HM. Warriors will also be buffed as of 2.1, when Crystal Tower would also be released, so it might be better to wait until then and see whether the changes impact the presence of Warriors in parties.

[Yagrush]

I find Sword Oath to not be that great of a skill. In fact, the effects of it are quite insignificant (+50 to auto-attack potency, in a class where damage is low to begin with), that it's really no different than running without an Oath skill turned on.

Shield Oath however is pretty significant. The 20% damage reduction, and 20% damage dealt reduction is quite noticeable, but it's able to keep up a job of generating aggro (maybe a bit more) than with Sword Oath.

As I understand it, Warriors have Defiance - so it would really be the same as turning it off, to not get the 20% damage dealt reduction penalty.

One of the Warriors I do Titan HM with regularly equips DPS gear (ie. Hetairos Gear) just for Titan HM. Warriors will also be buffed as of 2.1, when Crystal Tower would also be released, so it might be better to wait until then and see whether the changes impact the presence of Warriors in parties.

Yeah, Sword Oath isn't that significant, but, then again, if people have to choose between a Paladin or a Warrior to MT, unless it's something specific like Ifrit, they will choose Paladin right now.

Also, Warriors having to gear up with DPS gear to do Titan HM is.. not acceptable. Either SE should be more diligent with dungeon design in the future and justify 2 tanks in every encounter, or increase their non-tank dps to avoid the "I can't really clear this encounter with two tanks" (Assuming none of the players are overgeared and are on the intended gear level of clearing said content).

[Garnatian]

They should remove Sword Oath, not give WAR a DPS stance. I'm not even sure what their intention was with adding it.

[FlowerPower]

I easily pull over 300 DPS on my warrior... maybe your warriors are doing it wrong?

[Gamemako]

This idea is directed towards fights like Ifrit and Titan, where two tanks aren't actually required. In Ifrit's case, the only reason the two tanks are viable is because one is just a stun bot, while on Titan he is just being a gimped DPS. This means that one of the tanks ends up being a burden, which is bad design.

Godsdammit. Say it with me now: WAR is not a DPS.

You see, PLD needs Sword Oath to be able to match WAR non-Defiance DPS. This is the reason for the existence of Sword Oath in the first place. Second, you've overestimated the difference between tank and DPS damage output -- it's 20-25%, not 70%. Compare WAR to DRG, and know that both have PGL and MRD abilities. The difference between the two is exactly 32 strength, then potency and ability considerations. End result is that DRG gets ~7-9% more damage from STR differences and another 10% or so out of greater potency on attacks, then the bonus off-GCD abilities. Additionally, WAR is already getting a buff to address some of the endgame struggles.

Maybe if you're overgeared for the content. Also, if this were true, people wouldn't mind picking up a Warrior who isn't gonna tank into a Titan HM.. They aren't doing this.

You're seriously demanding that a tank be a full-fledged DPS. That won't ever happen, obviously. However, you also have to realize that people often aren't doing things because they're just as easily confused as you are about the game's mechanics. Parties of 4 tanks have handily downed Titan -- take this thread, for example.