PLD and sks

[IskarJarak]

I fail to see how all this discussion has to do with SkS. A good Drk maybe able to do slightly more deeps then a Pld, but with a Pld healers can dps more which means overall raidwide dps is higher.

[Donjo]

I fail to see how all this discussion has to do with SkS. A good Drk maybe able to do slightly more deeps then a Pld, but with a Pld healers can dps more which means overall raidwide dps is higher.

I fail to see what this discussion has to do with Skill Speed either. This is just what happens once the question in the OP has been answered :P

[Sarcatica]

I fail to see how all this discussion has to do with SkS. A good Drk maybe able to do slightly more deeps then a Pld, but with a Pld healers can dps more which means overall raidwide dps is higher.

Okay, for the sake of clarifying, good groups will do way more DPS total than what the average joes are doing. And it just so happens that DRK with any healer is still a DPS gain over taking PLD. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. Proof? See the fastest clears of Midas Savage in FFlogs, they are mostly DRKs as MT slot.

PLD with SkS isn't optimal, that's has been said throughout the entirety of 3.0. Period.

[Donjo]

...

All of those Paladin adjustments, if each is taken alone, can certainly seem like they weren't major. However, the 3.2 Paladin adjustments were granted to us in a lump sum. You put all that together and it's a major improvement to both performance and playability. If you want to believe a patch that made enmity trivial, allowed Clemency to properly be an emergency heal, made Divine Veil PUG-proof, notably increased DPS, prevented unnecessary time in an unwanted stance while preparing to switch, and made TP pools last long enough to not bottom out in the vast majority of fights while minimizing the consequences of actually running out, all at once, isn't major... you're certainly free to. You'll still be wrong.

[Februs]

...

I don't see it that way. Enmity was already trivial, even before this patch. Clemency got a little more flexible, but it is still best (if not only) used in very scripted instances, especially in the MT position where it could still be interrupted.The dps increase was a joke. Calling it "notable" is a laughable overstatement, because it only totals 40 potency, and Shield Oath was only reduced by 5%. No one really cared about the Shield Oath reduction, either, because Pld's were already (and are still currently) dropping Shield Oath for Sword Oath the second they get a lead on enmity. The overall reduction to Dps checks post 3.2 had a much bigger effect on dps viability than Pld's changes did, and that was not a Pld specific change. Making DV "PUG-proof" is probably the only thing I'd say even comes close to a "major" change, because it actually changed the way we use the move in an average dungeon run, even if it does cost us personal Dps with each Clemency cast.

Regardless, in the end this boils down to a difference of opinion. If we're looking at the sheer number of adjustments made, then sure. I suppose you could call it "major." I'm not saying that the number of adjustments weren't impressive (though we have seen bigger adjustments made to other jobs in the past). The fact that we got them all at once and that they actually fixed a few glaring errors was great, but each individual adjustment didn't actually do much to change anything. They just fixed a few QoL issues that really shouldn't have been issues in the first place, especially if SE had been as dedicated to Pld from the start. So, if we're looking at the quality of the adjustments made, then no. It's completely fair to say that there's nothing major about them, and that they could have been much better. Again, that's not to say that they're not decent changes and weren't a welcomed sight, but no one is re-evaluating the way the play and/or use Pld in content post 3.2. The job still handles almost exactly the same way it did before, and it still suffers from some of the problems it had. If you want to call that "major," then you're certainly free to, but from where I'm sitting that makes you just as wrong as I am.

[Donjo]

...

God, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.

[Shurrikhan]

God, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.

+10 RA potency (used 33 to 66% of time), +100 GB potency (used 33% of time). Assuming tri-combo, that would be +0, +10, +100, or averaging out to a 36.7 potency increase per combo. With RA-RA-GB, that'd be +10, +10, +100, averaging to +40 potency per combo. Not hard to see what he meant.

Given that we only dealt ~2300 weaponskill potency per 3 combos before (RA-RA-GB), I'd call the additional 120 sizeable. It's over 5%, after all, to be taken quite often atop the 6.67% increase to Shield Oath dps. That's pretty great.

However, I have to agree that it didn't change a damn thing except to (1) make GB your slightly increased potency spam attack during excessive enmity while leveling, to (2) make GB per 4 combos for high-SS PLDs even less viable by increasing the GB-RA potency gap by an additional 40% (1020 to 700 from 920 to 690), and (3) to increase juicy cleave DPS... which DRK still blows us away in (at 575 potency per [Darksided] Scourge, with no time wasted in combos). The second reduced options, the third increased capacity, but only the first actually affected gameplay, and not by much.

[Donjo]

+10 RA potency (used 33 to 66% of time), +100 GB potency (used 33% of time). Assuming tri-combo, that would be +0, +10, +100, or averaging out to a 36.7 potency increase per combo. With RA-RA-GB, that'd be +10, +10, +100, averaging to +40 potency per combo. Not hard to see what he meant.

Given that we only dealt ~2300 weaponskill potency per 3 combos before (RA-RA-GB), I'd call the additional 120 sizeable. It's over 5%, after all, to be taken quite often atop the 6.67% increase to Shield Oath dps. That's pretty great.

However, I have to agree that it didn't change a damn thing except to (1) make GB your slightly increased potency spam attack during excessive enmity while leveling, to (2) make GB per 4 combos for high-SS PLDs even less viable by increasing the GB-RA potency gap by an additional 40% (1020 to 700 from 920 to 690), and (3) to increase juicy cleave DPS... which DRK still blows us away in (at 575 potency per [Darksided] Scourge, with no time wasted in combos). The second reduced options, the third increased capacity, but only the first actually affected gameplay, and not by much.

Uh, it's completely unreasonable to just drop the number 40 down and expect everyone who reads it to start doing average combo potency calculations, especially when there's another method one can use to reach +40: +10 to RA, +20 to GB's initial hit, and +10 to GB's DoT potency. Now that you've posted this interpretation Februs would almost certainly claim he meant what you said if pressed, but I'll bet gil that it's just coincidence.

Related to your numbers I would wonder about something else, though. What were the ramifications of PLD receiving the largest buff to enmity between the tanks in 3.2? They have to use Shield Oath less, they don't lose as much during the time they do spend in Shield Oath, and they can get away with fewer Halones even without a Ninja. MT damage has risen more than a few potency buffs would suggest. I wonder how much it has risen in comparison to OT Damage.

Also, I do have to say... SE enabling Paladins to use Halone even less kind of puts a damper on the whole "oh hey PLD finally has 3 combos" thing.

----------

And... Paladin TP consumption? There's probably a reason that people aren't bothering to argue the point that "Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now". Because... it's really quite wrong. Sure, it crippled the job at one point. Now? I haven't run out of TP as a Paladin since 3.2 dropped. I don't even look at that bar anymore. Paladin may still have the worst TP preservation among the Tanks, but that only hurts if you have uninterrupted uptime long enough to actually bottom out. Even then, it's only a true problem if you're the only person bottoming out at the time in a party without a Ninja. It's hardly "crippling" at the moment.

[Sarcatica]

And... Paladin TP consumption? There's probably a reason that people aren't bothering to argue the point that "Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now". Because... it's really quite wrong. Sure, it crippled the job at one point. Now? I haven't run out of TP as a Paladin since 3.2 dropped. I don't even look at that bar anymore. Paladin may still have the worst TP preservation among the Tanks, but that only hurts if you have uninterrupted uptime long enough to actually bottom out. Even then, it's only a true problem if you're the only person bottoming out at the time in a party without a Ninja. It's hardly "crippling" at the moment.

It's only in A7S. Ask for a Goad for that one.