Defensive Stance

[Razlath]

<p>I did a comparison of the various fighter's defensive stances to see if / where ours was lacking, and to see if we can get a consensus on how we would like the devs to change it.  I was unable to get info on the Monk's defensive stance from EQ2i, and their info on the paladin def stance seemed to be missing a Worn Armor Increase %, but other than that things lined up pretty well.</p><p>The chart is below, but here is what I noticed.  Each class receives an "extra" defensive modifier in addition to a straight defense add.  For Warriors this is parry, for Brawlers Deflection.  At first glance the Crusaders seem to lack this modifier.  However, you will notice that what we receive instead is a WIS modifier.  No other fighter gets a stat mod on their defensive stance so obviously this stat increase was meant to replace the usual "extra" defensive.</p><p><a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/image_view.vm?imageId=958139" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Link to DefStanceChart</a></p><p>While this WIS add appears to be what we get as an extra, it is sorely lacking I think.  The idea appears to have been to increase our over all resists making us more effective against spellcasting mobs, but I don't believe 137 WIS will make a significant difference in saves.  I will check when I get home and post the difference this grants me.</p><p>So, the question becomes, would we be willing to ask for a removal of the WIS from our stance and have it replaced with a more appropriate defensive ability such as Block or Parry?  If so, which would fit our class best?</p><p>My thoughts would be to lose the +137 Wisdom, and replace with +26 Block.  I say block for 2 reasons.  First, parry is already given to the warriors, and I see no need for our two defensive stances to be identical.  Second, since we are unable to dual wield I think sword + shield is a standard form for most of us.  That would imply that block would make the most sense for us.</p><p>Thoughts?</p>

[Shoutatchickens]

Well, my opinion on the defensive stance is I don't use it. The only way I see it is useful is if you are already set up in a defensive manner (i.e. dont care about damage at all, just trying to pretend to be a guardian). In my opinion the way Shadowknight is made as a class kind of makes going out of the offensive stance kind of dangerous. We simply don't have the great defensive abilities as a Guardian, we rely on heals. These heals are "life taps", which means that the healed amount is directly related to the spell damage. So, if I leave out of the offensive stance.. guess what, I loose a lot of INT and can no longer heal myself as well, I've taken away the only defensive mechanism I have. The defendsive stance makes such a tiny difference when you consider all of the damage/heal you just lost I can't see it's usefulness.I feel that perhaps adding the INT buff as a seperate self buff instead of adding int/wis to the stances would be nice. Perhaps instead of INT boost for the offensive stance we could have something like a haste mod or a STR boost even. Then maybe the defensive could have a STA buff on it instead of WIS?

[Shirodan]

<p>I would like to see them remove the WIS modifier and add something useful, as well as sticking with the SK's mentality. As posted above, the closest an SK really comes to defense is his/her ability to steal the life from their enemies. It would be nice if they could put a lifetap ward, similar to our Unholy Blessing line on our defensive stance. Obviously it would need to be slightly less powerful since it would be up 100% of the time, so long as we're in defensive stance. </p><p>This also keeps with the idea that SKs shine when fighting multiple mob encounters, the more mobs you fight, the more health you'll steal from them allowing for both AE agro as well as having a perk that stands out when fighting multiple mobs that other tanks won't have.</p><p>Sure there aren't that many multiple mob encounters out there (unfortunately) but its the closest thing to a 'niche' we have.</p>

[Skeleton]

<p>First, I'd like to say good job on the research and suggestions. Unfortunetly, I just don't see the devs changing our stances anytime in the future.  With all the complaints rolling in about raid usefullness and dps balancing, We still have not seen any changes.  </p><p>But, to keep on topic, I do believe it's not what we gain in defensive stance that is the problem (yes, extra block mod would be nice), but what we lose when switching to defensive stance. I have no problem keeping agro from heavy hitting dps classes in small instance runs while i'm in offensive stance, but alot of the times when I switch to defensive stance for named encounters, it's a battle for agro (DM, Rescue and DT are needed). This is due to the huge INT hit when switching over like what Shout mentioned. I like the suggestion about a INT boost in both stance, but we all know that is very unlikely to change. </p>

[Razlath]

<p>I fight exclusively in defensive stance.  The only time I switch is when I am fighting solo trash mobs below my level.  Admittedly I am specced for tanking, so that might be different than some of your playstyles.  If I leave Defensive I notice immediately the difference in the amount of damage I take.  On solo even+ trash mobs I go from handling them easily (if a bit longer than in offensive) to dealing with fights that leave my health bar looking weak after a fight.  Adds start posing a lot of problems when in defensive.</p><p>As I said, I am not DPS specced, I am specced to do the job of tanking.  I rarely have a problem with aggro, and have often been told by PUG members that I hold aggro better than any SK they have grouped with.  Some have expressed concern when they see a SK tank, but after a few pulls the comments about how well I hold aggro start coming in.</p><p>In order to accomplish this (per some of the suggestions given in this forum) I have almost completely sacrificed agility.  It isn't even a concern when comparing armor for upgrade purposes.  The pieces I have that have it, I am wearing for other reasons.  As a result, I get hit.... a lot.... repeatedly.  Without the extra mit from defensive stance that starts to hurt badly very quickly.  This is a prime reason to get something onto our defensive stance that improves avoidance.  The most obvious thing in line with the other def stances is parry or block.</p><p>However, all that aside, if you don't use the stance, I am certainly not one to tell you to do so.  I have had to make sacrifices in my spec to ensure that I compensate for the hits I take in defenisve.  I need a lot more INT out of my gear, and I need more +slashing to ensure I don't lose as much from the penalties of defensive.  It would be nice if our defensive stance provided a little bit more benefit than it does currently, in line with the other fighter's defensives.</p><p>I did a check last night.  that WIS pump on my T8 defensive stance added approximately 2% to my save mitigations (other than disease).  Since all mobs kick you in the head, and only some mobs cast spells I think it should be changed in favor of a more all around useful stat.  Lets make it useful (and in line with other fighters) for those that are using it, and make those that are not think about possibly using it again.  I don't want it to be so amazing it is the only choice (and I don't believe I am asking for that), but I would like it to be comparable to the other fighter's.</p>

[Shoutatchickens]

This brings up a good point. The whole point of the stances (in my mind) are so you can switch between them depending on the situation. I think our posts have shown that currently you have to make sacrifices and use only one of the stances to get any benefiet. (i.e. If one is of great use to you, the other wil be compeltely opposite).I think if SKs could get reasonable stances and perhaps a raid wide buff like some suggest, it would greatly help outline where we belong and increase our usefulness. We shouldn't have to sacrifice our healing ability (tied to INT) to go into "defensive", I don't see how that makes sence.

[Razlath]

<cite>Shoutatchickens wrote:</cite><blockquote>This brings up a good point. The whole point of the stances (in my mind) are so you can switch between them depending on the situation. I think our posts have shown that currently you have to make sacrifices and use only one of the stances to get any benefiet. (i.e. If one is of great use to you, the other wil be compeltely opposite).I think if SKs could get reasonable stances and perhaps a raid wide buff like some suggest, it would greatly help outline where we belong and increase our usefulness. We shouldn't have to sacrifice our healing ability (tied to INT) to go into "defensive", I don't see how that makes sence.</blockquote><p>I actually concur, but it would be difficult to justify this against the other classes.  Not impossible (just look at the brawlers def), but more difficult.  If there was a way to re-work the def stance without overpowering it I would be all for it.  But always it has to be looked at from the perspective of comparison to the other classes.  Even the brawlers get what they get because their mitigation is so low to start with.</p><p>We have lifetaps that proc off being hit from other buffs.  I am not sure they should be duplicated in our defensive stance as well.  Those focuses are being delivered elsewhere independent of the stance you choose.  When I look at the defensive stances on their own (based on the premise that our core competencies are covered by other buffs) I see a need for extra avoidance.  I think this is further defined by a forced choice between one of the three physical stats (STR/AGI/STA) and INT.  In my opinion the most balanced and fair way to grant this is to provide a +parry or +block in the same amount as the warriors enjoy in place of the WIS pump which is relatively useless to us.</p><p>I want to say that once again I am impressed by the maturity of the people who post here (not only in this post but in this forum).  For the most part ideas are discussed with intelligence and with a general desire to make a fair and balanced class out of us.  I know many of us feel disenfranchised, but this is what Gnobrin asked us for, and we are doing our best to provide it.  Keep up the good work guys, if nothing else they can not claim we have not followed instructions by providing specific examples of things we would like changed, and that we have not provided solutions.  Maybe these have all been provided before, but I believe that if we meet the requests of the devs they can't help but consider the suggestions we make.  Life moves quickly for all of us, if we can get enough sticky notes on the desks of the decision makers maybe one will catch their eye eventually.  ;}</p>

[jagermonsta]

<cite>Dartak@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>As I said, I am not DPS specced, I am specced to do the job of tanking.  I rarely have a problem with aggro, and have often been told by PUG members that I hold aggro better than any SK they have grouped with.  Some have expressed concern when they see a SK tank, but after a few pulls the comments about how well I hold aggro start coming in.</p></blockquote>The problem people have is not tanking T8 instances it's tanking end game T8 raid content.As for instances it is not all that difficult to hold aggro. Most of the time your group will have a class that can transfer hate to you. It's when that class is not a part of your group and say a Monk with their epic is. You can say what you like but you need to admit that most of the time, that monk is going to be pulling aggro from you.

[Razlath]

<cite>Ranadin@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dartak@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>As I said, I am not DPS specced, I am specced to do the job of tanking.  I rarely have a problem with aggro, and have often been told by PUG members that I hold aggro better than any SK they have grouped with.  Some have expressed concern when they see a SK tank, but after a few pulls the comments about how well I hold aggro start coming in.</p></blockquote>The problem people have is not grouping in T8 instances it's tanking end game T8 raid content.  </blockquote><p>Yeah, my comments were in regards to tanking group content in offensive stance.  The comments made by others were that they do have problems tanking T8 instances in defensive stance due to aggro issues.  I was noting that I do not have this problem (in fact I have experienced the opposite) in part I believe due to the way I have specced my character.  I assume no one has tried to tank T8 raid content in offensive stance.  Or at least if they have, it probably hasn't been very successful.  ;}</p><p>While my suggestion would help raiding SKs as well, I didn't include it in the raiding thread because it is something that could benefit all of us.  Even soloers might benefit from a more appropriate defensive stance for taking out nameds or something.  I did notice though that the people in the raid thread came to some of the same conclusions as I did which I find encouraging.</p><p>I personally have not tried to tank T8 raid content as of yet (which is why I try not to make comments on our abilities in that arena).  I am still working on building the raiding arm of our guild.  I don't want to turn this into a what we need for raids thread as we already have one of those managed very well by Darkc.  I would like to focus specifically on the imbalances in our defensive stance and what we would like to see happen to make it more in line with the other fighters and useful for all playstyles.</p>

[DMIstar]

As a Class thats supposed to Use thier DPS gains, To add to the short comeings of a DoT based aggro system.. The Defensive stance is no help... They have us tradeing a base defense Deflect/Parry etc... To WIS, to infalte our Resists up... This inevidably is only Good for AoE encounters where as the base would defense stat go's towards straight Melee of the mob.... INT loss is just daunting to us, Plus the Melee Decreases doesn't help ;P So the def stance nerfs our DPS/aggro control for an an upkeep piece and wis... I dont think it would matter as much if we had Gear to progress us along.. AKA STR/STA/INT pieces with deflect, parry, Block.. Like how guards/zerkers have it.  But unfortunetly we don't have that ;/...

[Shoutatchickens]

Also, remember the point of a defensive stance should be increased survivability at the cost of DPS. Currently, exiting our offensive stance not only kills our damage, it kills our heals as well as drops our power pool quite significantly. In return we get minor buff of mitigation and armor usage and a lot of wisdom that really has little effect. I don't tihnk any of us are suggesting there is an easy fix. Our power pool and healing abilities are tied to the same stat that gives us our damage, so this definately raises some issues with how to solve this problem.  

[Terron]

Since all defense stances give the same 15% mit bonus, if you do not consider the extra WIS important, you could try using your lowest version of the stance to get the mit bonus with the lowest penalties.+block would only work if you were using a shield, but would be much more powerful against orange and red mobs than +parry since block is uncontested avoidance. Of course you should be using a shield in defensive mode.

[DMIstar]

The whole thing is a headache.. Cause aye its right .. the Loss of INT Kills our Lifetaps, our Agro and any other spell gain we have... It boils down to stat attributes to much.

[Razlath]

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since all defense stances give the same 15% mit bonus, if you do not consider the extra WIS important, you could try using your lowest version of the stance to get the mit bonus with the lowest penalties.+block would only work if you were using a shield, but would be much more powerful against orange and red mobs than +parry since block is uncontested avoidance. Of course you should be using a shield in defensive mode.</blockquote><p>So are you saying that the extra WIS is useful, or only that the extra wis does not adequately set off the penalties to offensive skills?  Don't forget we also get an agression pump in there which help with taunt resists.</p><p>I ask because I don't see the WIS as incredibly useful and it seems like no one else does either.  Now admittedly it beats getting nothing, but a bonus to a true defensive stat would be much more useful IMO.  If there is a different opinion around the WIS add, I would like to hear it.  Is +2% at 80 Ad1 worth the loss of avoidance a +parry or +block would give?</p><p>The shield only deal with block was a concern I commented on when I first suggested it.  I agree with you though that if you are going to go through the trouble to stand in defensive you are probably using a shield anyway.  If it is slightly more effective per point than parry, then I say that is only appropriate to help balance out the stat choices we must make.</p>

[Tiberuis]

<p>/agree</p><p>The +WIS component of our Defensive Stance is practically worthless against ROK content.  This concept is long outdated.</p><p>Replacing this useless component with a +Block modifier is just common sense for a plate tank design.  This would actually help our ability to <i>tank.</i></p><p>Just another clear example of how we not balanced with the other plate tank classes.</p><p>I find it interesting that we have not seen much "trolling" in these SK Forus threads by the other plate tank classes, refuting our claims of imbalance, like you typically see in all of the other classes forums.</p><p>Talking to a lot of folks in the game about the state of the SK class recently, I believe this is because most of the other classes know how clearly gimped we are vs. the other plate tank classes.</p><p>Most classes genuinely feel sorry for us.  It's embarrassing.</p>

[Razlath]

<p>In response to the comments about lost DPS between offensive and defensive.  Don't forget though that the loss of DPS from offensive to defensive is something all fighters face.  The berserkes lose a frontal cone proc, the guardians lose quite a bit of STR (this hits their power pool at full value rather than our INT partial value), Brusiers lose a nice single target proc, monks lose a haste mod, and paladins lose both STR and INT.</p><p>We can't very well ask to not lose DPS for going defensive.  And we can't really make the argument that we are losing power because only two other classes even got the bonus in the first place.  All classes lose offensive abilities to go to defensive stance.  The discrepency comes in what is gained for that loss between the ShadowKnight and others.</p>

[Karlen]

<span class="postbody">>>>I ask because I don't see the WIS as incredibly useful and it seems like no one else does either.  <<<<Paladins get a certain amount of power from WIS (less than they do from STR).</span>

[Razlath]

<cite>Karlen@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span class="postbody">>>>I ask because I don't see the WIS as incredibly useful and it seems like no one else does either.  <<<<Paladins get a certain amount of power from WIS (less than they do from STR).</span></blockquote>I don't propose to change the defensive stance for paladins.  If they like their WIS pump, then I see no reason to change it.  I would like to see it changed for ShadowKnights.  If the change is accepted and announced and the pallies like it too, that is fine by me.  The SK and pally class function completely differently, and unfortunately they have been treated as the same for far too long.  A change on one does not necessarily have to affect the other.

[Karlen]

<span class="postbody">>>>The SK and pally class function completely differently, and unfortunately they have been treated as the same for far too long.  A change on one does not necessarily have to affect the other.<<<As long as that is recognized, then change the SK one as much as you like.  The OP referred to Brawler, Warrior and Crusader stances.</span>

[Shoutatchickens]

I think something that would be nice on SK defensive stance is a +heal amount, or keep the +INT and take something like a 50% or greater hit in spell damage while keeping the heal amount.This stems from a conversation with a friend how an AA choice for reducing the recast of harm touch (with the life tap) by sacrificing the damage would be great.

[Razlath]

<cite>Karlen@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span class="postbody">>>>The SK and pally class function completely differently, and unfortunately they have been treated as the same for far too long.  A change on one does not necessarily have to affect the other.<<<As long as that is recognized, then change the SK one as much as you like.  The OP referred to Brawler, Warrior and Crusader stances.</span></blockquote><p>Apologies.  In the original summary I noted each class by their subtype for the sake of not repeating things over and over.  Currently the defensive stances are the same for each class of the subtypes.  </p><p>After that I have tried to be sure to say We in reference to the changes indicating the ShadowKnights.  Thank you for helping to clear it up though, I really did not intend to imply a forced change on the paladins.</p>

[Razlath]

<cite>Shoutatchickens wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think something that would be nice on SK defensive stance is a +heal amount, or keep the +INT and take something like a 50% or greater hit in spell damage while keeping the heal amount.This stems from a conversation with a friend how an AA choice for reducing the recast of harm touch (with the life tap) by sacrificing the damage would be great. </blockquote>Would +heal help us on life taps?  I was under the impression they were just returns from spell damage and thus a pump to spell damage would pump them as well.  Am I incorrect in that understanding?  Basically for the same reason +heal crit doesn't help us much at all.

[Shoutatchickens]

You are correct. The heal amounts are a direct proportion to the spell damage. I guess I was just trying to think of ways that it would work. A literal +Heal amount wouldn't do anything to a shadowknight. I am not sure how that would be imlemented though. It's really a tough situation. I shouldn't have been thinking outloud <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Razlath]

<cite>Shoutatchickens wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are correct. The heal amounts are a direct proportion to the spell damage. I guess I was just trying to think of ways that it would work. A literal +Heal amount wouldn't do anything to a shadowknight. I am not sure how that would be imlemented though. It's really a tough situation. I shouldn't have been thinking outloud <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote><p>Don't feel bad.  Just because we don't know how to do it doesn't mean the devs won't see it and go actually we could accomplish that by doing x.  I think suggestions is what we need more than anything.  Let the devs see that the stance is viewed as lacking by a lot of us, and things we think could make it better.</p><p>I will admit I tend to be a lot more conservative in what I ask for.  I look for ways to use existing mechanics easily to make something happen.  That doesn't mean there isn't a better solution out there, or that what I think is easy always is.  ;}  I enjoy reading what others think are possible solutions as well.  None of us can personally make a change to the class, so all we cand do is try to reach some kind of consensus on what we want and hope the devs agree.</p><p>I think the replies here have formed a good portion of that consensus.  To me it reads as, we find the defensive stance largely useless due to the way our class is set up, and if we are going to use it we need a lot more surviveability to make it viable.  If we are going to give up our DPS we should get just as much back as any of the other fighters do.  As to the specifics of how to accomplish that, I think we have quite a few good suggestions in here, from the simple just replace WIS with block, to the more complex but better theme aligned place a regenerating ward / reactive on it, to the somehow make our lifetaps land for more while in def stance.</p><p>I would also note, it is obvious that they can somehow determine the LT side of a spell and base things on it.  Look at our mythical for an example of that.  There is really no reason your suggestion couldn't work in the form of "all health returned from lifetaps is increased by X" or maybe even just straight doubled.  Since healing = hate as well it might help a little in that area as well.  Of course in a group with a healer it might not help that much, not sure on that account.</p>

[Mogzilla]

<p>I agree the + wis on the SK def stance is almost worthless and we would be better served with something else.</p><p>I /feedback this everytime I log on my Sk alt.</p>

[Soefje]

I agree that the defensive stance needs to change.  It should be something that helps when MT.  I would like to see the +WIS removed and +defense and +5% to lifetaps added.  You can make this arguement by saying that SK have few hit points and are supposed to stay up with lifetaps.  With the increase in mit and defense and the decrease in dps our lifetaps would suffer, adding the amount back then allows us to "stay up" during tough fights.

[Razlath]

<cite><a href="mailto:Kraace@Everfrost" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Kraace@Everfrost</a> wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree that the defensive stance needs to change.  It should be something that helps when MT.  I would like to see the +WIS removed and +defense and +5% to lifetaps added.  You can make this arguement by saying that SK have few hit points and are supposed to stay up with lifetaps.  With the increase in mit and defense and the decrease in dps our lifetaps would suffer, adding the amount back then allows us to "stay up" during tough fights.</blockquote><p>I am really liking the idea of a + to lifetaps.  I am not sure if I like percentage based or a direct add better, or what percentage / add it should be.  I do think it would need to be enough to compensate for the lack of avoidance we are left with when focusing on the "required" stats for our class however.</p>

[DMIstar]

<i>"In response to the comments about lost DPS between offensive and defensive. Don't forget though that the loss of DPS from offensive to defensive is something all fighters face."</i>What what i said is, we hold aggro a bit different from Guards/zerkers.. Our DPS is supposedly a factor in why our DoT tuants are made and are so low... But its null. We are litterly giveing up one type of defense for another... <i></i>Our Taunts go downOur Lifetaps Go Downany debuffs we have that are spell based go down.. Our Procs as well.. <i></i>Literally what a stance we have here ;/<i></i>

[Margen]

<cite>Dartak@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>In response to the comments about lost DPS between offensive and defensive.  Don't forget though that the loss of DPS from offensive to defensive is something all fighters face.  The berserkes lose a frontal cone proc, the guardians lose quite a bit of STR (this hits their power pool at full value rather than our INT partial value), Brusiers lose a nice single target proc, monks lose a haste mod, and paladins lose both STR and INT.</p><p>We can't very well ask to not lose DPS for going defensive.  And we can't really make the argument that we are losing power because only two other classes even got the bonus in the first place.  All classes lose offensive abilities to go to defensive stance.  The discrepency comes in what is gained for that loss between the ShadowKnight and others.</p></blockquote><p>The problem with your argument is that specially with Guardians and Pallys, they have A LOT more agro control vs what we have even in defensive.  Plus the Guardians get a group buff that offsets some of the minuses that defensive causes on hit rates.</p><p>Beserkers are a valid argument due to the fact they are also a dps tank, but they seem to have an easier time then most SK on agro while in defensive.  Plus they have better avoidance and short term tanking buffs.</p><p>If we have to have a huge loss in DPS while in defensive then their should be some form of agro modifier tied into defensive.  Personaly I would like to see the dps loss cut down some vs this, but it is a problem and its not going away.</p>