Quote Originally Posted by Roaran View Post
With the current battle team's approach, Paladin will never be as good as Warrior.

Think about it. What do you need from a tank? Just enough damage mitigation to allow 1-2 healers to keep you alive as well as the rest of the group. Nothing more is necessary, and anything less is unacceptable.

Warrior and Paladin both fulfill those conditions. However, because no more is necessary for a tanking role, improving each classes ability to tank does not make them a more valuable party member. And it is what makes them a valuable party member that gets them in the party, not how well they tank.

The difference between Warrior and Paladin, is their sub-roles. Warrior (when tanking) subs as a DD, while Paladin subs as a healer (and DD to a degree as well).

Because the benefits of Warrior's sub role far outweigh those of the Paladin, it becomes obvious that bringing a Warrior is superior. It wouldn't matter if the Paladin took next to zero damage, or had a million health. Your party will still need healers for the rest of the group, and as long as the same number of healers can keep both tanks alive, they are essentially interchangeable ( as far as their primary tanking role is concerned).

Thus, the only rational way to proceed is in balancing their tanking roles, getting them roughly equal, while giving each class separate and distinct sub roles.

Now, Imagine that every encounter until now did not require tanks. The optimal group would be the Maximum amount of DD, with just enough healing to get by. If you were suddenly to introduce tanks into the game, you would have to choose between Paladin and Warrior.

When you choose a Warrior, you only sacrifice some DD, and because, with the addition of a tank, the group is taking slighly less damage overall and some of your healing potential is wasted (The healers you had were able to heal without a tank, with the addition of a tank, they have an easier job and no longer need to perform as well).

When you choose a Paladin, you Sacrifice a greater amount of DD, but this is supposedly compensated for the Paladin having healing abilities. Because (if we are to suppose the two jobs possess a similar ability to mitigate damage), the group as a whole is still taking slightly less damage overall, the exact same proportion of healing potential is wasted again. The healing abilities of the Paladin should allow one of the healers to take the role as a DD.

To summarize, if you really want to balance these classes, you must focus more on their sub roles, rather than their actual tanking abilities. As tanks, the Paladin and Warrior should be equitable in mitigation and survivability for both physical and magical damage. However, the choice should lie in which sub role fits your group more. The Paladin being part tank and part healer, should allow the group to approach encounters with less dedicated healers than a group using a Warrior tank. The Warrior being part tank and part DD should be able to deal enough damage to justify the extra healing necessary from not using a Paladin.
Great rationale. They need to make PLDs better healers so parties can ditch one (both) of its healers.