Every Tank should have dps/tank stance be off-GCD and not reset their combo

[Giantbane]

There is actually a reason why Shield Oath/Grit is on the GCD while Defiance is not. Defiance merely increases your maximum HP, but doesn't heal you to top yourself off, whereas using Shield Oath immediately gives you 20% mitigation. If you're at 10k life, going into defiance won't help you against a 10k ability unless you get healed up. If shield oath is off GCD, you pretty much have an on demand rampart.

Putting Oath stances and Grit off the GCD are too powerful as it highly minimizes the risk of going into dps stances.

too powerful? exaggerate much?

It still costs a resource to go into/out of the tank stance for DRK/PLD. War pays the cost in HP. For the DRK this is a primary resource, arguably more important than the 20% hp (lot easier for a healer to restore the HP than for anyone, including the DRK to get that mana back). For the PLD, who cares, they're supposed to be the easier, more straightforward tank. The risk is that you take more damage while you're in DPS stance, that's more than enough.

If you took the oaths/grit off the GCD it wouldn't imba anything. It would just be a nice QoL change for DRK/PLD, and that's it.

[Arkard]

If you took the oaths/grit off the GCD it wouldn't imba anything. It would just be a nice QoL change for DRK/PLD, and that's it.

And then what? Defiance/Deliverance still has a cooldown while Shield/Sword Oath/Grit do not? Yeah, no, totes balanced.

It's not a QoL change. You don't even know what that means. People throw around that term and you haven't the foggiest idea of what it means for the game. You can't just use a term like that as an absolute when you have zero idea of how it affects the game.

Queueing for a dungeon with a chocobo could be called a QoL change. What is being proposed here is a balancing change. It may not seem like a huge balancing change to you, because you haven't the means to test what it does for encounters. Still, it is a class change, so call it what it is.

Stop pretending this was a clunky implementation for an ability, which is what QoL changes correct. There's a reason Defiance and Deliverance were both explicitly programmed to work the way they work and other tank stances were not. You can't even make the claim that it is an outdated implementation of stances because they did the same god damn thing with a class that came out a fucking month ago.

It is a design decision. Not an oversight. Is the decision based on what people in this thread are speculating it's based on? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is a choice the design team made, for whatever reason, and they are unlikely to unmake that choice based on a five-page thread that provides, at best, flimsy reasons to do so.

So far the only argument made for this change is in the OP: 'There isn't a single reason not to.'

Really? That's the argument you're making for this change?

[Reynhart]

There's a reason Defiance and Deliverance were both explicitly programmed to work the way they work and other tank stances were not.

There WAS a reason when WAR didn't have a second stance, and had to build its wrath stack from scratch before being able to use any skill.

And back in the days, I found it totally justified from that alone.

[Giantbane]

And then what? Defiance/Deliverance still has a cooldown while Shield/Sword Oath/Grit do not? Yeah, no, totes balanced.

It's not a QoL change. You don't even know what that means. People throw around that term and you haven't the foggiest idea of what it means for the game. You can't just use a term like that as an absolute when you have zero idea of how it affects the game.

Queueing for a dungeon with a chocobo could be called a QoL change. What is being proposed here is a balancing change. It may not seem like a huge balancing change to you, because you haven't the means to test what it does for encounters. Still, it is a class change, so call it what it is.

Stop pretending this was a clunky implementation for an ability, which is what QoL changes correct. There's a reason Defiance and Deliverance were both explicitly programmed to work the way they work and other tank stances were not. You can't even make the claim that it is an outdated implementation of stances because they did the same god damn thing with a class that came out a fucking month ago.

It is a design decision. Not an oversight. Is the decision based on what people in this thread are speculating it's based on? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is a choice the design team made, for whatever reason, and they are unlikely to unmake that choice based on a five-page thread that provides, at best, flimsy reasons to do so.

LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE

PLD stance is a spell that costs mana. It's quite likely that at the time it was created, spells that cost resources had to be on the GCD due to either programming or an overarching design decision that all abilities that cost resources (TP/Mana) had to be on the GCD. Grit was simply half copied off of the PLD.

Heavensward has begun introducing abilities that cost resources off the GCD (Dark Passenger). So they have shown new willingness to break this paradigm. With that, the stances are a good candidate for treating the same way because it has a fairly limited impact on the game. An opinion I base on having played the game, and used both the WAR & NIN stance abilities which basically function as requested. It's not super hard to imagine what the impact would be.