Paladin adjustments = PALLY BUFFS!

[Februs]

TW and Cover are working as intended though. TW is essentially knockback protection. The difference is unlike WAR/DRK it does not have to expend its oh-shit-button/withhold oGCD DPS to achieve the same end. There's different ways to look at that of course, but the ability works as intended.

You have no idea how much I hate the words "working as intended." It has been SE's number one excuse for not fixing real problems with certain jobs in this game (Pld, being the longest running).

Tempered Will might as well not even be in the game. Yes, it "works as intended," which is to say that it does what it says it does. However, that does not mean that you actually have any use for that effect whatsoever. You can probably count on one hand the number of fights in the entire game in which TW is even remotely close to being useful (and that's using the term "useful" very liberally). Further, the CD timer on it is so damn long that it cannot be used consistently to maintain that usefulness. Ideally, TW's primary use is in maintaining position (not Dps, because Pld's TP issues actually make increased up-time worse for Pld's in the long run), but Pld's can not consistently maintain position using TW because the CD is too long to be useful. Compare that to Drk's, who can essentially use Plunge as a positional maintain every 30 seconds (on top of a dmg increase). There's no competition. TW is pathetic by comparison. The utility of removing heavies is nice, but that's not an issue either, because the healer will remove the status regardless of what tank they're healing.

Cover is still fantastic utility as MT or OT, the main difference being that this raid tier didn't have many mechanics to take advantage of it. Stop me if I'm wrong, but in A3S for example, a PLD OT could have easily lightened the blunt-resistance stack load on their MT by using Cover. Its an ability that again, works as intended, but just didn't see many opportunities for use due to raid design.

Cover has no utility in when in the MT position. Additional dmg is neither wanted, nor even necessary when MT'ing since you already have aggro in that position. I'm not saying that cover doesn't have good utility. It does. When it works, it works well. However, that utility is so incredibly niche that you hardly ever get to use it, especially considering it's ridiculous CD timer and restriction on dmg type. You cannot cover magic dmg, so most AoE's and any magic TB's are out of the question, limiting it's use even further. Inventive Pld's can, and do, find uses for Cover (I, myself, often use it for proxy aggro on healers), but those uses are limited at best and do not include Main Tanking, which is pretty much the only role Pld's get pigeon holed into.

In the end, both Cover and TW are so niche that they are almost never used, with TW scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel. How many Drk CD's can say the same? None. Every move is useful and can be used in ever fight. TW and Cover might "work as intended," but that doesn't mean anything when their intended use is never actually useful.

The same couldn't be said for Clemency/DV which are now "fixed".

Not exactly. They did "fix" a problem with DV in that Pld's should have always, from day one, been able self-activate it. That was a blatant oversight on SE's part (especially considering Clem is a cast-ed heal), but really, what does this actually change. Both DV and Clem are still used in the exact same way as before the change. The utility is identical. The only difference is that Pld's can self activate the barrier with a cast of clemency ... that they can't actually use freely, because it will get interrupted if you don't time it right. The uses of Clem are limited to very specific times in scripted fights. Granted, Clem can be used a lot more frequently than most Pld's realize, but the fact that they do have to be careful when and where they use it means that it is still ideal for the healer to activate DV. Nine times out of ten, DV will not be activated by the Pld.

Now, technically, this change works really well for OT Pld's. So, in any combo of Drk MT/Pld OT, Pld's will be able to manage their Veils a lot better, but Pld's are still far from the preferred option for OT. It's still FAR more preferable to bring a War as OT, so Pld (if there even is a Pld) gets shafted to the MT position every. single. time. In the MT position, half of Pld's raid support is restricted. On paper, their raid utility is good. In practice, though, it has been proven to be anything but good. On the flip side, if they are placed with Drk's then the Drk is shafted to the MT position ever. single. time. because they have increased dps and absolutely no raid utility in the OT spot. In that regard, I totally agree with you that Drk's really, desperately, needed something to make them a viable OT option, but they didn't get that. Like I said, SE missed the mark with these "fixes" in that they did not fix anything.

[Syzygian]

snip

Fair enough.

But, the only thing I really consider DRK competitive over PLD for is personal DPS, at this point. RoH, DV, Clem, TW, and Cover combined, along with the fact that you can at least use them to varying degrees of effectiveness regardless of being OT or MT, outshines or is at least competitive with DE+Reprisal and absolutely outshines DE by itself when a DRK is OTing. PLD got DPS buffs as well, and those combined with its existing utilities means PLD is going to give DRK a run for its money as I see it.

The DPS checks aren't going to be as heavy nor is the incoming damage going to be as magic centric. PLD is pretty well poised right now if you ask me.

DRK on the other hand.... le sigh.

PLD is now a considerably smaller DPS loss to bring, with WAY better utility. So DRKs are gonna be like "uhh... I do more DPS? and uhh... ummm..."

If I mained PLD, I'd be happy with these changes. Are they the best? No. Are they particularly creative? Definitely not. Do they change the balance and make PLD a more viable option in either tank slot? Abso-fucking-lutely.

[FallenWings]

I'd like to point out that PLD is not so strictly shafted into the MT position because a WAR does not have to be an OT. It plays pretty much exactly the same in the MT position and thus its arguably a raid increase to have WAR MT, PLD OT. Just like to put that out there. This nonsense that WAR can only be OT needs to burn.

[Shurrikhan]

I'd like to point out that PLD is not so strictly shafted into the MT position because a WAR does not have to be an OT. It plays pretty much exactly the same in the MT position and thus its arguably a raid increase to have WAR MT, PLD OT. Just like to put that out there. This nonsense that WAR can only be OT needs to burn.

WAR has a roughly 20% mitigation-equivalent, 25% eHP tank stance (though uniquely unable to take any effect from ability heals) that costs 25% damage (90% of norm damage per potency w/ Maim), and an average of 7-8% dps (considerably more when factoring in Fell Cleaves) increase dps-stance (close to 130% with Maim).

PLD's tank stance mitigates and extends eHP by the same amount, but for only a 15% cost to DPS. Tts dps stance increases only single target damage, although by ~13%.

Both lose a fair bit of potency (48 WAR, 90 PLD) for using their mitigation weaponskills (which PLD will have to use more frequently, for enmity, in MT). However, WAR also requires some loss of dps opportunities for its mitigation tools, whereas the two are in no way exclusive (besides the aforementioned weaponskills) for PLD.

Yeah, looks like it can go either way, especially if tanks are at all struggling for threat. Probably gradually switching from WAR MT preference w/o NIN (or WAR opening before PLD voke) to PLD MT preference.

[Sarcatica]

I find it more disturbing that people say WAR is so good blablabla and PLD/DRK suck ass, when the people themselves are incapable of min/maxing the skills they are given.

In the end, the balance issue impacts progression to teams that aim for Worlds 1st or the likes. It really blows out of proportion when people keep on trying to address balance issues when they themselves can't even do A3S++ (Yeah, please elaborate how good war/drk are in this patch and you suck at it). Just saying, because at this point, it's quite a shame when you are full ilvl but still meet enrage in A3S. The DPS checks aren't even tough to meet anymore in the case of all the available gear.

Oh, and don't pretend that PLD is so underwhelming in Gordias Savage. And also, don't pretend as if PLD needs a lot more gear vs DRK to clear A4S, when you compare that most raiding teams should have close to full ilvl to realistically clear it. The gap isn't that big between PLD/DRK to make PLD completely "useless" as what people are saying.

[Shurrikhan]

Oh, and don't pretend that PLD is so underwhelming in Gordias Savage. And also, don't pretend as if PLD needs a lot more gear vs DRK to clear A4S, when you compare that most raiding teams should have close to full ilvl to realistically clear it. The gap isn't that big between PLD/DRK to make PLD completely "useless" as what people are saying.

Why are you using current ilvl vs. content comparisons, 4 days before their obsoletion, as an implication of whether something new will be easily clearable with a/regardless of given tank choice? We'll all be effectively i180 again on Tuesday in regards to "content".

The "you're all poor players" excuse for differences in class only goes so far when mathematical optimization and world firsts through fifths tend to back up the statements you're denying. PLD, due to its toolkit, most certainly did need more gear to perform as well as a DRK in A4S. Not a "lot", necessarily, but a noticeable amount. Yes, a lot of people latch on to the "Warriors are too strong" idea blindly, but if look, point for point, at a Warrior's toolkit in comparison to the other two, it's certainly hard to say they're not in a better place.

I too wish that more people would first optomize what they're given, but let's take two examples, each easily fixed, in a sense. One, DRKs, with a Monk in party, provide zero raid utility as OT. Two, PLD effectively loses a CD and its only sustained mitigation advantage when facing all magic damage. The first can be fixed by making the DRK MT until he can parry and Reprisal. (With Low Blow and Blood Price also being tanking-dependent, and the OT role providing too little unique benefit to compensate, the DRK is almost certain to spend the majority of a fight in that role anyways.) The second can be fixed by never allowing the PLD to MT against casters. (Until now, given the large difference between MT and OT dps, that would again be the case anyways. And yet its OT dps cannot compete with a competent Warrior's so long as dps checks are tight.) But should they be MT/OT locked by design in the first place? Especially when the third in their trio loses nothing (apart from Vengeances' on-hit damage) when no longer tanking and can provide, stackingly, their combined weaponskill mitigation?

[Sarcatica]

Why are you using current ilvl vs. content comparisons, 4 days before their obsoletion, as an implication of whether something new will be easily clearable with a/regardless of given tank choice? We'll all be effectively i180 again on Tuesday in regards to "content".

The "you're all poor players" excuse for differences in class only goes so far when mathematical optimization and world firsts through fifths tend to back up the statements you're denying. PLD, due to its toolkit, most certainly did need more gear to perform as well as a DRK in A4S.

Except that Elysium and Lucrezia didn't clear A4S in i180s and i190s, 5 weeks into it. Like I mentioned, it matters mostly to the world firsts. The way people have insinuated, PLD was useless/broken, way harder to clear A4S, EVEN after sitting mostly at i210s. It won't matter THAT much if you aren't pushing for world firsts as you aren't hindered by ilvls. Period.

[SpookyGhost]

Except that Elysium and Lucrezia didn't clear A4S in i180s and i190s, 5 weeks into it. Like I mentioned, it matters mostly to the world firsts. The way people have insinuated, PLD was useless/broken, way harder to clear A4S, EVEN after sitting mostly at i210s. It won't matter THAT much if you aren't pushing for world firsts as you aren't hindered by ilvls. Period.

People did greatly exaggerate PLD's weaknesses post-world race. Gear, without a doubt, solves everything. PLD's initial problem was that it simply lacked the DPS to conquer A4S' initial checks, though - honestly - with the cheese strat I question whether PLD was below the threshold enough to not make it with an optimized comp. That aside, PLD's DPS grew with gear, and if there was a wall it climbed it eventually. The problem, and the one that's hopefully being solved, is that while PLD grew in power through gear so did DRK. So DRK could not only meet the check, but exceed it, and possibly make up for some under-performance from other members. It's a very weird balance that's off kilter, but it was entirely possible to clear stuff with PLD as long as it had the gear - kinda like WAR in 2.0, where with enough gear you could power through tanking stuff.

[Wizhard]

Except that Elysium and Lucrezia didn't clear A4S in i180s and i190s, 5 weeks into it. Like I mentioned, it matters mostly to the world firsts. The way people have insinuated, PLD was useless/broken, way harder to clear A4S, EVEN after sitting mostly at i210s. It won't matter THAT much if you aren't pushing for world firsts as you aren't hindered by ilvls. Period.

Oh it wasnt that hard to clear with a pld. It was harder to clear it without a warrior.