Knight: Samurai and Dark Knight Proposal

[Exstal]

Heresy !! this link is missing jobs from the FFT

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/L...y_Tactics_Jobs
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/L...s_Advance_Jobs

I'll wait.

[Aethergoggles]

Templar totally needs to be secondary job for Lancer.

[MartaDemireux]

Templar totally needs to be secondary job for Lancer.

Have an idea for that too in my signature (although admittedly could use some further tweaking)!

[Mimilu]

I can definitely see the parallels between our ideas, guess that's what happens when you have to use the same material (older FF games). >w>()
I like how you solved the "Breaks be broken" problem with the use of a stack.

Here are the things I can critique:
- I half agree with DarkStar that you need something to pull monsters farther away but I can also see that Iai Strike is a gap closer... Hmmm...
- I also agree with Kuwagani that Bonebreaker/shatterer seems OP, even with the longer recast. Especially for your Dark Knight, who uses their HP and have those stacks tick it away. It could easily get down to just before 15% and Nether Void's auto-shut down, Bonebreaker and get the Boneshatter buff, use Drain, and have a Healer max the rest.
- Also, your Templar idea already has Bonebreaker. >A>()
- EDIT: I'm also concerned about the inclusion of magical damage with your Samurai's skills. It coming from a physical DPS class, I don't see it having a high enough magic attack to really effect the attack unless you're flat out adding the two attack stats together, which would then seem kind of broken considering if you can get Breaks and/or Power Extracts up. It's more acceptable on Dark Knight because the spells they can us are DoTs (Bio and Shadow Flare) and Drain.

[MartaDemireux]

Yeah, Templar does have Bonecrusher too but that's another idea altogether haha.

Important to note that Boneshatterer buff only lasts for 5 seconds and with the need for gaining MP the DRK would likely be at orange-red enmity at all times. So if they were to use it at 11-15% HP they'd have 85-89% mitigation for perhaps one hit, maybe two but if they don't get the drain off in time or the healer heals pre-emptively then it would mess up a lot. The high damage would likely get them flashing hate as well with their already high threshold which would have to be taken into consideration with mechanics and mob positioning (like landsliding an unprepared tank for instance). They'd have to have a competent tank to grab hate back before they died as well since their armor rating would be similar to DRG's. High risk, high reward if used appropriately. Best use of it for DRK would be around 50-70% HP as that is a relatively safe amount and easier to reach. They should be using it on cooldown as long as they're maintaining a Scourge combo.

As far as the magick attack abilities I literally mean what I say in their descriptions in that it simply affects them. I haven't thought of an actual equation or how to incorporate the multipliers but essentially a move like Hoarfrost Blade would incorporate both physical and magical damage sources in its equation. This way it can also benefit from some of the magic based Breaks and not just the DRK. With their naturally low magic attack the 10-15% boost will be small but a boost nonetheless. It's mainly set that way for when they are off-tank or not needed for tanking so they can still push out some decent numbers. Both DRK and SAM would have low magic attack, DRK similar to DRG's (around the 80s iirc) and SAM similar to WAR's (around the 70s iirc).

[Kitru]

As for the stance, it's not exactly like PLDs. The stance reduces damage dealt by an additional 5%. :P

I'm curious as to how you got to "5% more than PLD" (which is a massive increase in survivability, actually; it's 6.67% less damage taken/healing required over time, which is more than what a WAR gets out of IB used on CD). PLD is a straight up 20% reduction in damage taken; you have that coupled with a 25% increase in evasion and parry. The parry itself is a ~6.25% reduction in damage taken, and the evasion is going to account for a metric crapload more. As written, that tank stance is monumentally overpowered.

But in actuality I was afraid that using defense wouldn't scale well in later levels. A direct reduction to damage received would always scale appropriately. I'm pretty adamant in keeping both parrying and evasion bonuses but perhaps defense could work in lieu of damage reduction. Any idea on a good baseline? I'm not in a numbers mindset at the moment.

There are a number of problems with using parry and evasion as the tank mitigation mechanism. First off, they do not affect eHP in any way. Secondly, they don't work on magical attacks. Third, evasion doesn't do anything for attacks that cannot be dodged (which include almost every single burst mechanic; the only exception that I can think of is Titan HM's Mountain Buster).

Def/mDef don't really work either because they scale in a really weird manner and, towards the endgame, you'd start encountering rounding errors which would increase or decrease the (additional) effective contributions of the stance by significant amounts (increases from i90 to i100 is only +2; if it rounded down, unless the bonus was at least +50, which is pretty insanely high, you'd see absolutely no benefit from the tank stance compared to what you had before). The only reason I would ever put a Def/mDef modifier onto a tank stance is if the tank was not intended to use tank gear (e.g. a tank wearing MNK gear would need a ~80-85% Def/mDef mod to keep their defense equal to the other tanks and ensure equivalent scaling).

A tank stance needs to provide roughly the same benefit as the existing tank stances, which means ~25% increase in mean mitigation to both magic and physical attacks and at least 25% increase in effective hit points (PLD, which has the absolute best form of mean mitigation since it is *absolutely* constant and proactive, provides 25% increased eHP so the use of any unreliable or reactive mechanisms would need to be made up by providing *at least* as much eHP). The only mechanic that increases eHP without affecting mean mitigation is +hp, which means that, if you don't want to basically "copy" the WAR model (+hp and then an exclusively mean mitigation mechanism), you have to do some kind of combination of the PLD model and WAR model (though this has the side effect of using what could easily be seen as using *too many* mechanics).

I would likely do away with evasion improvement completely, mainly because, traditionally, FF characters have only had evasion because there wasn't an RNG-style "take less damage from an attack" mechanic (largely for simplicity). The RNG mechanism was either complete avoidance or being hit by it. It makes a lot more sense for the heavily armored sword user without a shield to specialize in parrying rather than dodging (at least as a passive capability; an evasion CD wouldn't be out of place).

Since parry is both unreliable and exclusive to physical attacks, if you're going to rely upon them to any appreciable extent, you have to find some way to extend benefits to magical attacks as well, whether it be providing a separate "reduce damage taken from magical attacks" aspect to the stance (this is a pretty suboptimal option because it dramatically increases eHP for magical attacks, which could easily turn them into tanks that are way too good at magical fights) or *possibly* allowing for the parrying of magical attacks (not sure about the practicality of this, however).

Furthermore, parry values are really low in ARR (compared to pretty much every other MMO out there). If you wanted to provide a parry rate bonus that provided similar mitigation as one of the other tank stances, you'd basically be required to increase parry chance to 100% (which also ends up getting rid of any chance of a critical hit, I believe). As such, you need to do something to both increase parry value as well as parry rate to avoid turning an RNG mechanism into a static mechanism permanently.

Parry also has the problem of being an attribute that is additive and logarithmically more powerful the more you get of it. For DR, an ability that provides 20% DR will reduce the damage you would have otherwise taken (all of your existing values factored in) by 20%. For parry, a 20% increase in parry rate (for simplicity's sake, say it reduces damage by 100%; it illustrates the point better since it's not dealing with an extra layer of math) when you have a 10% chance to parry reduces your damage taken by ~23%; if you had a 70% parry chance, that same 20% would reduce your incoming damage by 66%: the more parry you have, the more valuable said parry becomes. As you start getting better gear (and more parry), your stance would slowly become more and more powerful, unlike the other 2 tank stances which remain the same. The exact same is true of parry *value* since your parry value goes up as you get more and more STR. This isn't really a problem for CDs since variation in short term performance is generally acceptable (Keen Flurry on a tank would be fine, even if it effectively made said tank guaranteed to parry, specifically because it's only available for short stints).

This all basically boils down to the point that building a tank stance around improving parry *or* evasion would not work in a balanced manner in ARR: evasion is too unreliable and, for good reason, worthless on massive attacks (or magic) so it would put said tank at a significant disadvantage for recovering from burst damage scenarios (plus, relying heavily upon evasion creates a truly spiky incoming damage profile which is just annoying to heal because it cannot be reliably predicted), and parry has significant problems with scaling.

The only real solution that I can see is to not have all of the mitigation mechanisms necessary to balance with the other tank stances on the tank stance itself. Conditional/partial uptime on stuff like guaranteed parrying can fix some of the balancing/scaling issues (you would want to have said condition set up so that, as you get better parry rate/value, it reduces the chance of triggering the condition in the first place), and that can only really be done through having a separate ability. Design wise, this isn't really problematic and, in fact, has some precedent given that WAR has Inner Beast (triggered ability separate from tank stance, gained 5 levels later) to make up for a lack of shield blocking (passive attribute).

A possible set up could be a tank stance provide a 10% decrease in damage taken (provides a baseline cushion of DR and increased eHP) and allow for the parrying of magical attacks (along with increasing enmity generated), and a second ability (at 35) that provides a 100% parry chance for 5-8 seconds; put it on a 30 sec CD that gets instantly recharged when you get hit by a single attack that takes away more than half of your hp (you can use it before a big hit for eHP/mitigation and then, if it's big enough, as a recovery-assist afterwards). You would probably want to restrict this so that it can only be used while said tank stance is active (or, if it's an off-GCD attack, that it only provides the parry bonus and recharge chance while in the tank stance).

I really don't see any really effective solution for having a single tank stance that provides the benefits that a tank stance needs to provide *without* having said tank stance mimic one of the two existing tank stances (or using so many mechanics that it just becomes onerous). If you want to have a "creative" tank stance, you're basically going to have to combine it with something else (which means figuring out a way to have it consistently provide the necessary mean mitigation as well as eHP).

[Kitru]

I was thinking of adding a ranged pulling mechanic but decided on the charge for a couple reasons. First of all GLA & MRD already use a ranged attack and I didn't want to copy it directly. Then when I thought about it, should you pull a monster, any nearby will link and probably to the same effect of charging in. The only difference would be that they wouldn't have to run to you. If a mob is close enough to agro when you charge in, it's probably close enough to link to the monsters you would have pulled with a ranged attack anyway.

Except you're forgetting about the significant increase to mobility that it affords since it's instantly closing the gap. Because it doesn't have a CD, you're providing a remarkably cheap "instantly jump 15y" ability. The tanks (and LNC) have a ranged attack for good reason: it keeps them balanced against each other.

Because DRK and SAM take a bit of warming up to show their full potential while still using roughly the same TP as anyone else I wanted them to have a way to recover small amounts of TP during the fight.

Except when soloing, DRK should never be getting TP generation from Tactical Parry (NPCs don't parry). SAM, on the other hand, will be parrying a lot, which affords them with a significant advantage over the course of long fights because they're must less likely to run out of TP, made even *less* likely they'll run out of TP because they will be regularly using MP consuming attacks instead of TP consuming attacks. Assuming a 25% parry chance and 1 attack per GCD, your same would be getting, passively, roughly half of an Invigorate every 3 minutes (the Invigorate CD).

Now consider how Tactical Parry would work in AoE situations: if you're being attacked by 6 enemies at once, you're going to be getting ~15 TP/GCD from Tactical Parry. You're already giving them a cheaper than normal AoE (100 TP compared to Overpower's 130) with a larger area of effect (front and back cone) and only slightly lower damage (110 potency compared to 120). Combine that with the extra TP they're getting and they'll be spamming the living bejeebus out of AoEs with negligible penalties (in fact, compared to fighting a single target, they'll have similar TP drain).

Tactical Parry is basically going to allow your tank to never have to worry about resources ever.

DRK would likely be at orange-red enmity at all times.

Absolutely, totally horrible idea. The devs can add high enmity tags to attacks as soon as you swap into a job. DPS should *not* have high enmity attacks for good reason: DPS should not be riding the living hell out of a tank's enmity generation, mainly because, if the tank is anywhere near *not* an optimal enmity generator, said high enmity DPS will be blowing them out of the water. You've got the base class as DPS. Since it's DPS, it shouldn't have any high enmity attacks. Any attacks that you want to be high enmity should get the tag only after you swap into the tank job.

There a bunch of other nit-picky things that I could get into (Armor Break is crazy strong; Mental Break only really helps BLM; DRK is an incredibly simplistic DPS playstyle; Third Eye is OP as hell; you're taking abilities as cross-class that have no right to be cross class; etc.), but I've already written a crapload and it's getting kind of old pointing out how your "creative" ideas are either shooting themselves in the foot or lazy design.

[MoarLegion]

I'd like to point out that the Samurai were taught to never block with their blade, and that their armor was made mostly of loose metal plates and heavy cloth, meant more for stopping arrows than any kind of real damage. Also, because the leggings were the under kimono or hakama wrapped around the legs, it could constrict the knee and hips and make it difficult to move. Some schools of Kenjutsu even have an unusually low stance to counteract this. Katana are also very delicate as far as swords go and kind of high maintenance. Granted it doesn't have to be that consistent with real life, but what we end up with is a tank class that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be a tank class.

I would like to see Sam being a bit like mnk, but with a throwback to XI skillchains. Use 3 moves in a sequence, get a skillchain that is somehow more than the sum of its parts.

[Volsung]

Marta I'd definitely be ok with a class that splits to sam tank and another dps
job. Afterall the more thanks the better at this point. I had an idea for a katana
class that became sam tank and and demon like job for dps (to feed on a lot of
mythology, basically learn learn demon based abilities and fight with an extra
haunted katana that fights with you). so it's definitely doable and could be beneficial.
Thanks for the post

sam has usually had some tankiness or defensive abilities in the past.

[Nahara]

Lifesurge, Bio, and Shadowflare are not viable options for cross-class abilities, so they shouldn't even be on the table when discussing them (doubly so for Shadowflare, which is Arcanist's capstone ability).

On top of that, having Arcanist as the cross-class requirement (much less even an option at all) for Dark Knight is a huge mistake. You're giving up the Pugilist's Internal Release and Second Wind and/or anything the eventual Rogue class will give, which are way more helpful to you than anything the Arcanist can provide. I get why you want Arcanist as one of the cross classes, but mechanical viability should be a higher priority than what you think is thematically appropriate.

Also, DarkStar is right that Knight should have some kind of ranged initiator made available at Lv15, just as Gladiator and Marauder have Shield Lob and Tomahawk (respectively). Pulling a mob with a ranged attack gives you the option of picking and choosing which enemies you fight, rather than charging in head-first and aggroing things you don't want to fight.

Plus, the Knight should have more utility to it prior to Lv30. There's nothing in it's kit pre Lv30 that gives it the ability to tank, which it should because if you're a Samurai, you're a tank no matter what level you're at, and you should thus have some native skills that at least let you do your job somewhat compentently (because you're not getting anything from your job prior to 30).

Oh, and Shockwave should just hit everything in a radius around the Knight, just like Arm of the Destroyer or Circle of Scorn. Much easier to hit enemies that way than something that only hits things in a cone directly in front of and behind you.