2H Tanks: 9001th thread edition

[Dreadspectre]

Just because another archetype has a similar tactic doesn't excuse it, both are equally bad in terms of design and should be changed or that those specs should be viable without having to use a purposely over powered tactic (shitty bandaid fix) for that spec to work.

The only other option is to give each class a built in stance dance with a CD, similar to Harbinger for Zealot but would have to actually increase base damage by % and nerf healing.

That being said my DPS Zealot wouldn't mind freeing up a tactic slot from DF

[Tklees]

My only issue is that a 2h tank still needs to be a tank. Not a dps. That's where I kinda draw the line. Because if a two handed tank can do as much or more DPS than a dps. Why would anyone bring one to group when you could run 4 guards, mass CC, and increased survival.

[Dreadspectre]

My only issue is that a 2h tank still needs to be a tank. Not a dps. That's where I kinda draw the line. Because if a two handed tank can do as much or more DPS than a dps. Why would anyone bring one to group when you could run 4 guards, mass CC, and increased survival.

Eh, MDPS bring their own utilities they're not just raw damage abilities and nothing else.

Plus I don't think even with the current FO slotted a 2H tank puts out anywhere near the damage of a true MDPS.

Even with our updated FO ideas they still wouldn't put out the same damage I don't think, which is good. I don't want MDPS eclipsed by 2H tanks. But right now 2H is pretty much eclipsed by SnB.

[th3gatekeeper]

Just because another archetype has a similar tactic doesn't excuse it, both are equally bad in terms of design and should be changed or that those specs should be viable without having to use a purposely over powered tactic (shitty bandaid fix) for that spec to work.

I guess we can agree to disagree but I like the tradeoff. A dps AM shouldnt heal as well, and vice versa. I wouldnt even be opposed to a tactic that said the opposed AS WELL for AMs (Your healing increased 25% but you deal 20% less damage)

Or even other options like: (Your heals are 25% more effective on allies but 20% less effective on yourself).

Stuff like that changes the way you play the class and offers pros with cons to move the class towards the roll its supposed to play.

As mentioned above, the issue ATM with FO is that you gain so little (15%) for a BIG loss (33% armor). I would even be more infavor of adjusting %s to match those others where it would be 25% increase in damage for 20% loss of armor, however even that wouldnt "fix" the issue between 2H and SnB.

I dont like the idea of adjusting "great weapon focus" since some classes dont get this tactic - unless you wana make it available to all tanks (like F.O. is).

I also dont see how its mandatory at all, it would just be a big benefit for using it, if you go 2H....

I mean what else is the option, remove those tactics and then have to rebalance every ability and every "buff". Like make DPS "encounters" much stronger but even then, whats to stop a SnB from going into the "DPS path" with a shield?

The issue right now for tanks that other classes dont have, when we go to 2H from SNB we lose quite a bit of tankiness for very little loss of damage.

You cant just "buff" 2hs since MDPS would get a big bump which frankly isnt needed.
So the other option is to start buffing every DPS path for tanks - but then this comes with liability of SnB Tanks going that path.

It seems to be the only viable fix is to do this via tactics. Tactics define the character and how you play.... Great Weapon Focus does this decently well providing damage + parry however not everyone gets that tactic.

Every Tank gets F.O (that I know of) and seems like the BEST way to make a DPS spec viable - make it require 2H, remove the armor debuff, then give it some additional damage.

heck maybe combine "F.O" with the above recommendation:

"Increases damage dealt with a 2H by 15% and also increases the damage dealt to taunted targets by 20%"

Now you have 20% more damage to taunt and no armor reduction but requires a 2h.

[th3gatekeeper]

My only issue is that a 2h tank still needs to be a tank. Not a dps. That's where I kinda draw the line. Because if a two handed tank can do as much or more DPS than a dps. Why would anyone bring one to group when you could run 4 guards, mass CC, and increased survival.

Eh, MDPS bring their own utilities they're not just raw damage abilities and nothing else.

Plus I don't think even with the current FO slotted a 2H tank puts out anywhere near the damage of a true MDPS.

Even with our updated FO ideas they still wouldn't put out the same damage I don't think, which is good. I don't want MDPS eclipsed by 2H tanks. But right now 2H is pretty much eclipsed by SnB.

This is exactly true.

Just to give an example. I have both an SM and Knight btw, My Knight has 700 STR unbuffed. Runefang adds 210 AND 210 WS and M2 adds another 210. I also have the lvl 35 EPIC 2h (BIS 2H weapon).

So when BOTH of those proc I have ~500 WS and over 1100 STR (yes I know its over softcap) and im still EXTREMELY lucky to crit a squishy player for 1k and in fact have only done it a VERY SMALL number of times.

I guard a 5/5 Dev Slayer who uses the lvl 29 PVP weapons still you constantly AoE crits everyone for 1.1k+

Bumping F.O. to even ~25% means I would lose (140?) toughness since Runefang is still nearly required and so is Encouraged Aim.

Even then I would MAYBE crit for 1100 but it would be single target with the best weapon in the game right now...


When I guard this slayer and we get a healer in a good game he puts out 200-300k damage. My best game (not running fluff AoE damage auras) I broke 100k damage.

Increase that 25% and it puts me @ 125k?

Still not even close to MDPS levels.

[Jaycub]

My only issue is that a 2h tank still needs to be a tank. Not a dps. That's where I kinda draw the line. Because if a two handed tank can do as much or more DPS than a dps. Why would anyone bring one to group when you could run 4 guards, mass CC, and increased survival.

2H tanks either need to bring some kind of special utility unique to the weapon, for instance the knight wounds debuff or BG crit debuff on crimson death and that utility... or the need to trade that utility and defense for a sizable amount of damage compared to tanks not other DPS. Their role should always be centered around the guard ability and never become viable as a MDPS slot in a group.

people are for some reason latching onto the idea that buffing FO will make them viable, as it sort of does with divine fury on certain healing classes. Which only addresses their ability to deal damage, but does not in any way create a separate identity for 2h tanks that is not like you said a pseudo MDPS which is what you don't want to see happening.

In my book the ultimate goal would be when a group is forming there is a real decision being made by the tanks what spec they should run, and what weapon set they will be using that best fits with the group. That would mean there is something very valuable that both the 2h spec, and shield spec bring to a party that is independent from damage.

Not to say that doing more damage isn't utility in itself

[Dreadspectre]

My only issue is that a 2h tank still needs to be a tank. Not a dps. That's where I kinda draw the line. Because if a two handed tank can do as much or more DPS than a dps. Why would anyone bring one to group when you could run 4 guards, mass CC, and increased survival.

2H tanks either need to bring some kind of special utility unique to the weapon, for instance the knight wounds debuff or BG crit debuff on crimson death and that utility... or the need to trade that utility and defense for a sizable amount of damage compared to tanks not other DPS. Their role should always be centered around the guard ability and never become viable as a MDPS slot in a group.

people are for some reason latching onto the idea that buffing FO will make them viable, as it sort of does with divine fury on certain healing classes. Which only addresses their ability to deal damage, but does not in any way create a separate identity for 2h tanks that is not like you said a pseudo MDPS which is what you don't want to see happening.

In my book the ultimate goal would be when a group is forming there is a real decision being made by the tanks what spec they should run, and what weapon set they will be using that best fits with the group. That would mean there is something very valuable that both the 2h spec, and shield spec bring to a party that is independent from damage.

Not to say that doing more damage isn't utility in itself

Which is the reasoning behind me suggesting GW should affect Taunt to 50% boost damage. Gives 2H Tanks small burst windows to assist the MDPS in securing a kill and it's tied to class specific mechanic and doesn't increase 2H Tanks overall damage output to MDPS levels, just small windows.

[roadkillrobin]

@th3gatekeeper
Your counting numbers on a scenario scoreboard here.
You said you're lucky to crit people for 1100 dmg add AA on that and thats probobly 1/4 of their hp in general. Slayer prob hit those guys for 1500 withh AA aswell Now thats 50-60% of their HP in a GCD. Add another 25% on your attack and you've and you're up 70% to of their total HP in 1 GCD. This isn't about fluff numbers in scenarios it's about TTK. 25% extra dmg on tanks would be totally retarded OP.

[th3gatekeeper]

My only issue is that a 2h tank still needs to be a tank. Not a dps. That's where I kinda draw the line. Because if a two handed tank can do as much or more DPS than a dps. Why would anyone bring one to group when you could run 4 guards, mass CC, and increased survival.

2H tanks either need to bring some kind of special utility unique to the weapon, for instance the knight wounds debuff or BG crit debuff on crimson death and that utility... or the need to trade that utility and defense for a sizable amount of damage compared to tanks not other DPS. Their role should always be centered around the guard ability and never become viable as a MDPS slot in a group.

people are for some reason latching onto the idea that buffing FO will make them viable, as it sort of does with divine fury on certain healing classes. Which only addresses their ability to deal damage, but does not in any way create a separate identity for 2h tanks that is not like you said a pseudo MDPS which is what you don't want to see happening.

In my book the ultimate goal would be when a group is forming there is a real decision being made by the tanks what spec they should run, and what weapon set they will be using that best fits with the group. That would mean there is something very valuable that both the 2h spec, and shield spec bring to a party that is independent from damage.

Not to say that doing more damage isn't utility in itself

Point well taken. I wholeheartedly agree but what is the best way. Changing F.O. takes a worthless tactic and also addresses the 2H issue.

Classes do have abilities that are "locked" to weapons like the Knight wounds debuff, you also have 2 Knights discussing which auras to run and making sure they stay within 100 feet of eachother as well.

I agree as well that "taunt/Guard" are the two primary functions of the tank. And each "spec/weapon/etc" should bring its own flavor to those pieces.

The issue, though, is that tank spec doesnt somehow increase "guard" or anything. Maybe if there was a tactic in Tank trees that increased the "split" to 60/40 that would be more appealing but maybe too powerful....

You could always give 2h weapons an innate buff to "taunt" however all this requires much more work and 2H tanks already are forced to rely on taunt for the damage where tanks dont care and just use for interrupt....

I would even in in favor of somehow making "shield" have an innate "guard extension" where it etends up to 40 feet, where a 2H for tanks somehow increased the taunt function. This seems overly complicated though.

There are infinite # of "cool" things we can think of. But I guess I get back to:

-What is the problem? 2H tanks are not as good.
- What is an easy solution? take a bad tactic, revise it so it makes the problem better.

This would be the "F.O" approach. Or as suggested, make F.O. increase the damage bonus from taunt and remove the armor reduction.

"Increases damage by 15% with a great weapon and increases the bonus damage from taunt by 20%" or something like this... Now it still requires taunt and isnt as "vanilla" as just "more deeeps brah!"

[th3gatekeeper]

@th3gatekeeper
Your counting numbers on a scenario scoreboard here.
You said you're lucky to crit people for 1100 dmg add AA on that and thats probobly 1/4 of their hp in general. Slayer prob hit those guys for 1500 withh AA aswell Now thats 50-60% of their HP in a GCD. Add another 25% on your attack and you've and you're up 70% to of their total HP in 1 GCD. This isn't about fluff numbers in scenarios it's about TTK. 25% extra dmg on tanks would be totally retarded OP.

I said I was lucky to break 1k which is something ive done a single digit number of times and if I recall correctly it was against a lower level player who clearly had little armor and toughness. My "normal big crits" on squishy targets are usually 700-800 range. I will crit more "tanky" targets for 400-500 range. This is BIS gear, WELL over soft cap STR with BIS weapon and a crazy amount of WS....

I also have to give up toughness to slot this making me not as tanky in the first place... So its honestly VERy reasonable.