Quote Originally Posted by MomomiMomi View Post
I've brought up that SAM has a tanking stance in XI. But clearly that doesn't matter because apparently having a tanking stance can be used to argue for it being a dps.



Obviously he meant that Samurais in real life were tanks. Is this where I roll my eyes?
Quote Originally Posted by MomomiMomi View Post
He said nothing about dps or tank.
At yourself? Sure. I mean you're clearly ignoring everything else he said about DPS not having a sword for reasons, and claiming no mention of tank or DPS was stated. It's hard to admit you were wrong, so it's fine. Not to mention ignoring everything else I've stated that contradicts your own arguments.

Also, yes a defensive stance can be argued to exist on DPS, simply because it can be argued as a survival mechanism, something many jobs have (like my mention of MNK). You have Seigan for your defensive stance, that only buffs Third Eye and allows for a low chance to counter (with or without TE). You pop Seigan and TE, all avoidance potential is used up after 10-20sec, you're left with 40-50sec of low chance to counter as your justification of it being able to tank uniquely from other DPS that also have tank-like properties. No additional abilities to mitigate damage without needing to rely on a subjob, where even then, it needs to deal with extensive cooldowns once the next TE is used up and another 40-50sec are left remaining unmitigated reliably.

Sounds like a great tank, right? Maybe it sounds a lot more like the defensive abilities I've mentioned other jobs have to survive temporarily until an actual tank can take over.