How do these changes fix the issues with Paladin?

[Kyne_Lyons]

I'll post it here too, the changes to Shield Swipe should have been the beginning of the list of adjustments, not essentially the end of them. The people on this forum are throwing out ridiculous figures for the relative DPS adjustment that are just totally detached from reality. 5%? 7%? 9%? Really guys? Look up my A1S kill this last week on FFLogs and Reprisal on A1S, which was pushed every time it came up, on a boss with a physical auto-attack uptime of 100% every time they're on screen yielded 2.35% of my damage done. That's it. Shield Swipe in 3.1 used perfectly on cooldown, with a 0ms lapse between uses, is an increase over Reprisal of 90 potency. That's a nice, rounded 30% increase over Reprisal. Factor that into Reprisal's damage and you end up at just over 3%.

This is roughly a 3% damage increase, by the numbers. Stop making shit up.

EDIT: I should also note, that a 3% increase, ONLY while main tanking, does nothing to solve the problems the job faces. It's something, but the job is still fundamentally broken in the current meta. With the changes to Limit Break being role-based, and not job-based, there is now zero argument against running a 2-Warrior setup. Anything else is just worse.

[Synestra]

With the changes to Limit Break being role-based, and not job-based, there is no zero argument against running a 2-Warrior setup.

This was propably most biggest thing in patch notes when it comes to battle content, with this change double warrior will be the way to go. I still kinda hope that it was mis translated as it seems to brake things even more, lucily i only need one more level for my warrior so if this LB thing ends to be true then i can pretty much bench both PLD/DRK and roll for WAR(not to mention double war offers easier way to maintain 100% uptime on both debuffs and it allows both do even more DPS as they can BB combo moar).

[Freyyy]

With the changes to Limit Break being role-based, and not job-based, there is now zero argument against running a 2-Warrior setup. Anything else is just worse.

No. DRK has higher MT DPS than WAR. It's well known now. If you take a WAR over a DRK as a MT you're gimping your groups DPS. Sometimes, a MT DRK out of Grit will outDPS a WAR in Deliverance (especially in fights like A3S with a lot of parry-able stuff). DRK also allows to not run a MNK without losing the INT debuff. There is zero reason to replace it by another WAR considering that your OT WAR already gives the Storm's debuffs. The MT WAR does not add anything to the party.

(not to mention double war offers easier way to maintain 100% uptime on both debuffs and it allows both do even more DPS as they can BB combo moar).

This is also false. WARs have to keep Maim and Fracture up while using Fell Cleave, so they pretty much have to use a Maim combo every other combo most of the time. And if you say something like "this WAR is in charge of Path, the other one is in charge of eye" then it's even worse because the WAR using Path will lose the DPS that the other WAR will gain by never using it. Don't forget also that Path doesn't need near 100% uptime, it just needs to be up here and there, and in A4S it does nothing. Having 2 WARs instead of DRK/WAR is essentially useless and just makes you lose the small but existent utilities of the DRK and its incredibly high MT DPS.

[Seku]

With the changes to Limit Break being role-based, and not job-based, there is now zero argument against running a 2-Warrior setup. Anything else is just worse.

Except they didn't say anything about removing the previous penalty you get if you take two or more members of the same job/class and instead looks to be a means to prevent from taking 3 healers, 3 tanks, 3 physical dps or 3 ranged. Also you don't que for Savage via duty finder, maybe that'll change.

If anything seems that new primal fights such as the new Thordan battle is going to be effected by these changes assuming it doesn't go right to DF with the option to que for it solo.