Individuality please.

[Aull]

<p>I have been viewing these forums for years now and notice that as time has progressed along that five of the fighter classes are becoming more and more alike. Zerkers getting heals and wards? Basically a cruzerker if you will. Come on. Isn't the wards and heals something that should unique to crusaders?</p><p>What about monks and bruisers. I have preached for some time how the two brawlers are so close in all they do that there really is no need for two of them. At least players are able to tell a zerker from a guardian and a paladin from an sk.</p><p>I know this is a personal problem but if bringing most of the fighter classes to being equals then why have six of them. Some should be strong in certain areas but weak in others. There should never be this all fighters can equally tank, survive, and dps the same.  </p><p>Guardians are the only fighter that has been allowed to remain true to the nature of the class.</p><p>Thoughts please.</p>

[Landiin]

Personalty I wish they would merge the fighter subclass down to the class level. Brawler, Crusader, Warrior. Make the deference come out in AA choice if you wanna be AOE/ST or a combo.

[Soul_Dreamer]

Each archtype breaks down into 4 rather than 3 better IMO, some of them you could really do with keeping for Roleplay/Individuality purposes. Mages - Sorcerer, Enchanter, Conjuror, Necromancer. Priests - Shaman, Druid, Templar, Inquisitor. Scouts - Bard, Rogue, Assassin, Ranger. Fighters - Warrior, Brawler, Shadowknight, Paladin. AA's would then split them out into their current roles, more take the AOE/DPS aa's as a warrior and you end up pretty much where the Zerker is now, take the defensive AA's and you end up where the Guardian is. These would be in the class development section to gain abilities, the other AA windows would need working though. This is all hypothetical though really, they won't/can't do it, it will annoy too many people. As for the OP's statement, it's all well and good but it needs to apply to all classes, Guardians are primarily in the state they are in now because they are the only tank which has stayed in it's traditional role while others have been given abilities that take them out of theirs.

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Each archtype breaks down into 4 rather than 3 better IMO, some of them you could really do with keeping for Roleplay/Individuality purposes. ank which has stayed in it's traditional role while others have been given abilities that take them out of theirs.</blockquote><p>I was referring to fighters not every class if this was directed to me. There are only 4 archetypes; Mage, Priest, Fighter and Scouts then it goes to classes; sorcerers, Conjure, Showman, Cleric, Druid, Brawler, Warrior and Crusader then onto the subclasses we have now.</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Each archtype breaks down into 4 rather than 3 better IMO, some of them you could really do with keeping for Roleplay/Individuality purposes. Mages - Sorcerer, Enchanter, Conjuror, Necromancer. Priests - Shaman, Druid, Templar, Inquisitor. Scouts - Bard, Rogue, Assassin, Ranger. Fighters - Warrior, Brawler, Shadowknight, Paladin. AA's would then split them out into their current roles, more take the AOE/DPS aa's as a warrior and you end up pretty much where the Zerker is now, take the defensive AA's and you end up where the Guardian is. These would be in the class development section to gain abilities, the other AA windows would need working though. This is all hypothetical though really, they won't/can't do it, it will annoy too many people. As for the OP's statement, it's all well and good but it needs to apply to all classes, <span style="color: #00ff00; font-size: small;"><strong>Guardians are primarily in the state they are in now because they are the only tank which has stayed in it's traditional role while others have been given abilities that take them out of theirs.</strong></span></blockquote><p>Exactly. I think the true vision has been lost for what each fighter was intented to be.</p><p>As for fighters it just seems that the thought for the arch-type is basically having all six fighters consolidated into one mold. Sure it allows all six to function as tanks but any individuality is lost in the process.</p><p>I just hate the thought of feeling great about a chosen fighter only to find out that this chosen class really isn't any thing different/ special than the others.</p>

[Jeal]

<p>i'm curious.. what was our previous role?.. not to be able to tank anything at all?..</p><p>where guardians reigned supreme for 4 xpacs straight?...</p><p>guardians need/needed a bit of help, but our classes (crusaders/brawlers) have needed a LOT for a MUCH longer time... this point of view irritates me... its very negative.</p><p>point being.. negative views on what other classes can do < positive views on what your class COULD do</p>

[Aull]

<p>I am not trying to be negative but I am confused as to why give this game six fighters if all will be pushed to be the same.</p><p>Look at healers. Templars are viewed by most to have the best heals and abilities to keep someone alive. Temps are the raid mt healer and have been for a long time. Players have learned to live with this. Other healers like the inquis who can heal well but not as good as a temp. On the flip side inquisitors can buff the dps of their group mate more so than what a temp can do.</p><p>Each fighters should have some individuality. One should be the toughest. One should be known for aoe damage. One should be known for having a combo of defense, offense, and utility. Ect....</p><p>I think that if the game keeps pushing in the direction that it is heading that it will not be long before many players that enjoy challenges  will gradually leave. </p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i'm curious.. what was our previous role?.. not to be able to tank anything at all?..</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, cause thats exactly how it was....</p><p>Its not like I didn't have a paladin OT that filled in for me on MT for those 4 xpacs either.  One that was perfectly capable of tanking the exact same thing for 4 xpacs that my guard did.  Yeah, it was nothing like that...</p>

[Blu]

<p>ST vs AE aggro as a differentiator between tanks is IDIOTIC. It simply means that ST tanks get the shaft. When an expansion is AE-heavy (as in the last 2), few will make/play/want ST tanks. But in an ST situation, AE tanks do just fine too.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I am not trying to be negative but I am confused as to why give this game six fighters if all will be pushed to be the same.</p><p>Look at healers. Templars are viewed by most to have the best heals and abilities to keep someone alive. Temps are the raid mt healer and have been for a long time. Players have learned to live with this. Other healers like the inquis who can heal well but not as good as a temp. On the flip side inquisitors can buff the dps of their group mate more so than what a temp can do.</p><p>Each fighters should have some individuality. One should be the toughest. One should be known for aoe damage. One should be known for having a combo of defense, offense, and utility. Ect....</p><p>I think that if the game keeps pushing in the direction that it is heading that it will not be long before many players that enjoy challenges  will gradually leave. </p></blockquote><p>All healers are roughly balanced at healing, at least in terms of how it actually plays out in the current content.  Yeah, Templars can keep a single target (tank) alive very well, but Inquisitors have an easier time keeping groups alive in many situations, due to our second group cure and the quicker recast on our group heal.</p><p>If they were to balance tanks like healers, all tanks would have similar survivability and similar aggro, though they <em>may</em> specialize in different things (multi-targets vs. single target would probably be the only real relevant one? ...though many hate that concept). </p><p>The main defining characterists would then be DPS and utility.  Berserkers would have high DPS and/or offensive utility, while Guardians would have low DPS and defensive utility.</p><p><strong>EDIT:</strong> Could also define the classes with things like control effect immunities and breaks, ect.  Defilers have a break, and unless I'm forgetting something, Mystics don't really? Crusaders and Brawlers might get a CC break but Warriors wouldn't...stuff like that.  Would take some restraint on the part of the devs not to just give everything to everyone, but that sorta thing does work to a limited degree to keep the healer classes from being exactly a like.</p>

[Aull]

<p>I remember way back when the zerker was fairly the only so called aoe fighter at the time. All the others where basically st. Then as time goes along crusaders through aa's and new abilities take away what was once special to the zerker. Making more aoe content does make it hard for all the guards, monks, and bruisers out there.</p><p>As I have stated before I do not like that my zerker has been given a ward if I want it and heals. Its almost if not better in some situations than what my sk has.</p><p>I think where all the confusion started was when other fighters wanted to be tanking mobs as a guard. Instead of rolling an alt guard toon for this so called superior tankability complaints of how underpowered sk's, zerkers, monks, paladins, and bruisers swept throught the forums like a plague. </p><p>In due time crusaders got this survivability needed while not taking any loss in damage or utility. Zerkers came in as good as well.  </p><p>If any fighter actually believes that they are entitled to have the survival that was once so unique to guards then they should loose in the damage and in any good utility they have as the trade off. That goes for all. Zerkers, monks, sk's, paladins, and bruisers.</p>

[Jeal]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i'm curious.. what was our previous role?.. not to be able to tank anything at all?..</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, cause thats exactly how it was....</p><p>Its not like I didn't have a paladin OT that filled in for me on MT for those 4 xpacs either.  One that was perfectly capable of tanking the exact same thing for 4 xpacs that my guard did.  Yeah, it was nothing like that...</p></blockquote><p>while doing half your dps and taking twice the damage... i remember sir don't try to sugarcoat it</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i'm curious.. what was our previous role?.. not to be able to tank anything at all?..</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, cause thats exactly how it was....</p><p>Its not like I didn't have a paladin OT that filled in for me on MT for those 4 xpacs either.  One that was perfectly capable of tanking the exact same thing for 4 xpacs that my guard did.  Yeah, it was nothing like that...</p></blockquote><p>while doing half your dps and taking twice the damage... i remember sir don't try to sugarcoat it</p></blockquote><p>If by half you mean he took 10-20% more damage and did 20-30% less dps, then, sure.</p><p>However, it didn't prevent him from being a viable OT/MT or group tank from launch till now.</p><p>"not to be able to tank anything at all" is a rediculous claim.</p>

[Aull]

<p>The issue with all fighters having similar survival would be which ever fighter has the highest dps will be the one of choice. Utility would be next in line.</p><p>That again is why I support the "if a fighter has high dps then their survival should not be close to a fighter who has low dps and high survival".</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue with all fighters having similar survival would be which ever fighter has the highest dps will be the one of choice. Utility would be next in line.</p><p>That again is why I support the "if a fighter has high dps then their survival should not be close to a fighter who has low dps and high survival".</p></blockquote><p>If a tank can't do the job they are made for (which is to TANK mobs) then there isn't a spot for them.  All tanks NEED to be able to perform their main job everything else can be used to keep them unique.</p>

[Aull]

<p>I rest my case. I just don't have the ability to explain it.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If a tank can't do the job they are made for (which is to TANK mobs) then there isn't a spot for them.  All tanks NEED to be able to perform their main job everything else can be used to keep them unique.</p></blockquote><p>This is pretty much the philosophy for healers since LU13, right? I don't see why it wouldn't work if it applied to tanks.  You don't only take Furies, Inquisitors, and Mystics on raids just because they bring more DPS than their counterparts.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I rest my case. I just don't have the ability to explain it.</p></blockquote><p>If the uniqueness is that a guard can tank single target mobs easier then everyone else that is fine, and if SK's can tank AE target mobs easier then everyone else hey that is fine too.  The PROBLEM is you have a class like SK that tanks single target the best, has the best utility and tanks AE the best.</p><p>Quite simply it is enough individuality that crusaders casts spells, that warriors get better when they get hit and that brawlers use their fists that if they actually balanced tank classes half the things people come here and QQ about would be gone.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue with all fighters having similar survival would be which ever fighter has the highest dps will be the one of choice. Utility would be next in line.</p><p>That again is why I support the "if a fighter has high dps then their survival should not be close to a fighter who has low dps and high survival".</p></blockquote><p>If a tank can't do the job they are made for (which is to TANK mobs) then there isn't a spot for them. All tanks NEED to be able to perform their main job everything else can be used to keep them unique.</p></blockquote><p>Being able too is one thing......being able too with little to no difference is another.</p><p>Simply said the survivability of the 4 plate tanks are so similar now that noone can tell the difference while the DPS/THreat output of the 4 plates differ significantly. </p><p>Also survivability is a term everyone throws around.....most are just looking at persona window numbers and not realizing that survivability means a lot more.......truth be told Guards DO NOT have higher survivability than Crusaders....ask any healer and they will tell you that all things being equal a group with Crusader MT is far far easier to heal and keep up that with Guard.</p><p>The fighter archetype is broken because only half the equation is being used for balance....i.e DPS/aggro.......the other (survivability) is mute because its virtually equal for everyone and everyone has more than enough for anything the game has to offer.</p><p>Buff Guard survivability and make mobs hit way harder so that survivability matters or nerf crusader/zerker survivability so they are a pita to heal and keep up while they melt mobs down.  I dont care which but those are the only two ways to really fix fighter balance.   Anything else is just fluff to make us think they are working on fighter balance. Buffing Guard DPS so they are as close to Crusaders DPS as Crusader Surviveability is to Guard's is not the answer because it just creates an entire archetype that is OP and unhealthy for the game.</p><p>Oh and back to the original topic of the thread.........I agree merge the fighters or delete half of them because as things stand today there is no point in haveing 6 fighters when most of them are best redundent or obsolete relics.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>They could always merge bruisers with monks and bring in be@stlrds as the brawler counterparts.</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>They could always merge bruisers with monks and bring in be@stlrds as the brawler counterparts.</p></blockquote><p>Since bruisers and monks are almost identical I wouldn't mind them merging these two. It is senseless to have two subclasses yet both are basically clones. Defeats the entire purpose.</p><p>While having a <a href="mailto:be@stlord">be@stlord</a> in this game would be so cool it would still create problems with the fighter arch-type. Simply put this game does not need six fighters. The four plate tanks is all this game ever needed.</p><p>If anything the brawlers should be removed from the fighter arch-type and have a new disiple arch-type. From there make it to where there is a noticable distinction between what is monk and what is bruiser.</p>

[Damager]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue with all fighters having similar survival would be which ever fighter has the highest dps will be the one of choice. Utility would be next in line.</p><p>That again is why I support the "if a fighter has high dps then their survival should not be close to a fighter who has low dps and high survival".</p></blockquote><p>If a tank can't do the job they are made for (which is to TANK mobs) then there isn't a spot for them. All tanks NEED to be able to perform their main job everything else can be used to keep them unique.</p></blockquote><p>Being able too is one thing......being able too with little to no difference is another.</p><p>Simply said the survivability of the 4 plate tanks are so similar now that noone can tell the difference while the DPS/THreat output of the 4 plates differ significantly. </p><p>Also survivability is a term everyone throws around.....most are just looking at persona window numbers and not realizing that survivability means a lot more.......truth be told Guards DO NOT have higher survivability than Crusaders....ask any healer and they will tell you that all things being equal a group with Crusader MT is far far easier to heal and keep up that with Guard.</p><p>The fighter archetype is broken because only half the equation is being used for balance....i.e DPS/aggro.......the other (survivability) is mute because its virtually equal for everyone and everyone has more than enough for anything the game has to offer.</p><p>Buff Guard survivability and make mobs hit way harder so that survivability matters or nerf crusader/zerker survivability so they are a pita to heal and keep up while they melt mobs down.  I dont care which but those are the only two ways to really fix fighter balance.   Anything else is just fluff to make us think they are working on fighter balance. Buffing Guard DPS so they are as close to Crusaders DPS as Crusader Surviveability is to Guard's is not the answer because it just creates an entire archetype that is OP and unhealthy for the game.</p><p>Oh and back to the original topic of the thread.........I agree merge the fighters or delete half of them because as things stand today there is no point in haveing 6 fighters when most of them are best redundent or obsolete relics.</p></blockquote><p>It is annoying to see people discuss tanks and only include plates! If you want to discuss survivability/dps of each include the brawlers they are fighter class as well.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is annoying to see people discuss tanks and only include plates! If you want to discuss survivability/dps of each include the brawlers they are fighter class as well.</p></blockquote><p>Yea they are fighters not tanks... Oh boy here we go again <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[alabama]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If anything the brawlers should be removed from the fighter arch-type and have a new disiple arch-type. From there make it to where there is a noticable distinction between what is monk and what is bruiser.</p></blockquote><p>this.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>alabama wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If anything the brawlers should be removed from the fighter arch-type and have a new disiple arch-type. From there make it to where there is a noticable distinction between what is monk and what is bruiser.</p></blockquote><p>this.</p></blockquote><p>Hells no.  Brawlers are tanks.  We always have been, we always will be.  I find it pretty ridiculous that you're advocating removing the two tanks that have a fairly unique method of tanking in a thread asking for more individuality.</p><p>Brawlers tank differently than plates.  This is a <em>good thing</em>.  They just need to make sure we stay both good at our job and unique.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>alabama wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If anything the brawlers should be removed from the fighter arch-type and have a new disiple arch-type. From there make it to where there is a noticable distinction between what is monk and what is bruiser.</p></blockquote><p>this.</p></blockquote><p>Hells no.  Brawlers are tanks.  We always have been, we always will be.  I find it pretty ridiculous that you're advocating removing the two tanks that have a fairly unique method of tanking in a thread asking for more individuality.</p><p>Brawlers tank differently than plates.  This is a <em>good thing</em>.  They just need to make sure we stay both good at our job and unique.</p></blockquote><p>No they are NOT tank they are fighters. You have not always been tanks and never really have been considered a real tank. Yes some of you have been able to tank raid mobs but umm so have scouts but that don't make them a tank. Face it the population as a whole will never consider the brawler class a tank. You know why? because your NOT a tank!!!!</p><p>Moving the two brawler subclasses to their own archetype would be the best thing to ever happen for the two subclasses.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p>lol. As was just stated accurately elsewhere, the biggest problem brawlers have is community perception. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" /></p>

[NamaeZero]

<p>Brawlers need a role, period.It's like who ever designed them wasn't sure if they should be scouts or not, and gave them 75% of the abilities of each. Gradually, as time has gone on, their DPS advantage has worn away to nothing by upgrades that try to emphasize tanky-ness, but work poorly for Brawlers.</p><p>Brawlers don't do even close to the DPS of a pure DPS class, so that's not the class for them unless they get some massive improvements that direction. They are listed and itemized as tanks, but they don't perform that function as well as 'plate tanks,' at least in the sense that their aggro generation is much lower than every other fighter except one. In pure damage absorption/mitigation/avoidance, I would say that Brawlers and Plate tanks are very even given the recent equipment buffs brawlers have gotten. As it stands now, there is nothing else Brawlers could be, except for tanks... and there lies the conundrum.</p><p>Why have a tank that's defined as being "like other tanks, only not as effective at the role?" It's a strange way to add individuality in an MMO, that's for sure.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>alabama wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If anything the brawlers should be removed from the fighter arch-type and have a new disiple arch-type. From there make it to where there is a noticable distinction between what is monk and what is bruiser.</p></blockquote><p>this.</p></blockquote><p>Hells no.  Brawlers are tanks.  We always have been, we always will be.  I find it pretty ridiculous that you're advocating removing the two tanks that have a fairly unique method of tanking in a thread asking for more individuality.</p><p>Brawlers tank differently than plates.  This is a <em>good thing</em>.  They just need to make sure we stay both good at our job and unique.</p></blockquote><p>No they are NOT tank they are fighters. You have not always been tanks and never really have been considered a real tank. Yes some of you have been able to tank raid mobs but umm so have scouts but that don't make them a tank. Face it the population as a whole will never consider the brawler class a tank. You know why? because your NOT a tank!!!!</p><p>Moving the two brawler subclasses to their own archetype would be the best thing to ever happen for the two subclasses.</p></blockquote><p>Actually Brawlers can cap mitigation, have a lot higher avoidance, all sorts of abilities to soak damage and snap mobs.  The direction it is going Brawlers will be more tanks than other plate tanks.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>lol. As was just stated accurately elsewhere, the biggest problem brawlers have is community perception. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Jeez, I didn't realize it was this big of a problem!</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually Brawlers can cap mitigation, have a lot higher avoidance, all sorts of abilities to soak damage and snap mobs.  The direction it is going Brawlers will be more tanks than other plate tanks.</p></blockquote><p>Do you even have the remotest clue what the mit cap is?  And if so please show me a brawler capping it with better avoidance since most mit items don't really do a good job buffing avoidance.  After that show me that same brawler attempting to hold agro with 10k dps.</p><p>Fact is it is easier for a plate tank to reach brawler avoidance then it is for a leather tank to reach plate mit.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is annoying to see people discuss tanks and only include plates! If you want to discuss survivability/dps of each include the brawlers they are fighter class as well.</p></blockquote><p>Be careful damager, if we start talking about brawlers, we're going to have to discuss that your ability to buff mitigation is beyond reasonable for the class design...</p><p>Granted, thats itemization breaking class design, but its very pertanent that you can in effect take less incoming damage than any plate class tanking many of the same mobs.</p><p>They're out of balance as well, but since the community as a whole hasn't realized that, they aren't discussed nearly as much.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is annoying to see people discuss tanks and only include plates! If you want to discuss survivability/dps of each include the brawlers they are fighter class as well.</p></blockquote><p>Be careful damager, if we start talking about brawlers, we're going to have to discuss that your ability to buff mitigation is beyond reasonable for the class design...</p><p>Granted, thats itemization breaking class design, but its very pertanent that you can in effect take less incoming damage than any plate class tanking many of the same mobs.</p><p>They're out of balance as well, but since the community as a whole hasn't realized that, they aren't discussed nearly as much.</p></blockquote><p>It is funny watching you plate tanks try and make this claim over and over again.  I mean seriously where is your proof?  I am still waiting for this magically capped brawler MT to appear funny though when you go down the list of guilds there isn't one.  Sorry Atan but the tinfoil hat you and Bruener are sharing must be leaking harmful materials into your brains causing severe hallucinations, because if brawlers were such awesome tanks they wouldn't be dead last by a mile as choice for tank as an archetype.  It is still the case that a defensively geared brawler tanks about as well as an offensively geared plate tank.  Nothing has really changed from last expansion, we still only avoid 5-10% more and we still get hit harder while producing less agro then plates.</p>

[Aull]

<p>I can't speak for everyone here but from what I remember in Dof and Kos brawlers had higher dps than any plate tank could have. I know that was then and this is now but I think that this is where so many players have the perception that brawlers are not tanks and at the time were more dps focused. The only brawlers that were good tanks were the ones that were in guilds that raided and they got gear to give them the survival to do so. Again dps wise bruisers and monks smoked all plate fighters axxes both average casual player or raid player alike.</p><p>Also back then the average casual player on a brawler was no where capable of having the survival of an average casual plate fighter. There was this trade off with brawlers higher dps/lower survival and plates lower dps/higher survival. As time goes along some of the plate fighters offense and defense increased while brawlers didn't receive great help in either catagory.</p><p>Tso comes along and we seen most brawlers become the laughing stock of the fighter arch-type. Zerkers and crusaders especially sk's blistering brawlers zw dps due to the heavy aoe content while being a greater survivors as well.</p><p>Now we have sf and brawlers are actually seeing survival and defensives worth having. Most brawler dps is still beat out by zerkers and crusaders but again brawlers trying to have high zw's is difficult in such heavy aoe content.</p><p>I do think that the first two years of this game left an imprint in many players minds as to what each fighter basically were and it is still there for many today.</p><p>One other issue that I would like to throw out there is how many raid guilds from raid beginnings to todays game have their raid force focused around a single brawler as the mt for all raids??</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is funny watching you plate tanks try and make this claim over and over again.  I mean seriously where is your proof?  I am still waiting for this magically capped brawler MT to appear funny though when you go down the list of guilds there isn't one.  Sorry Atan but the tinfoil hat you and Bruener are sharing must be leaking harmful materials into your brains causing severe hallucinations, because if brawlers were such awesome tanks they wouldn't be dead last by a mile as choice for tank as an archetype.  It is still the case that a defensively geared brawler tanks about as well as an offensively geared plate tank.  Nothing has really changed from last expansion, we still only avoid 5-10% more and we still get hit harder while producing less agro then plates.</p></blockquote><p>In my experience a defensively geared brawler tanks about as well as a defensively geared plate tank these days. But it really does depend on the player. A poorly played brawler is significantly harder to heal than a poorly played plate tank, so people are (still) gun-shy about letting them tank. All of the +% Mitigation pieces help considerably. One sacrifices other things along the way if maximizing mit, which is good. That's why I still think the 6 Fighters are better balanced overall than they ever have been. Not that there aren't issues. Guardians are in need of some slight adjustments and will soon be getting some, and Crusaders are in need of different adjustments but won't be getting any. </p><p>I'm not sure any Fighters will find life any more satisfactory once we've made them all "equal but different" tbh. If all fighters held hate fine and were equal in terms of survivability, and 3 did 20K DPS and the other 3 did 21K, no one would want members of the "bad" 3 to tank for their groups. That's not that far off from where we are now. </p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is funny watching you plate tanks try and make this claim over and over again.  I mean seriously where is your proof?</p></blockquote><p>I raid with damager.</p><p>We have 3 plate tanks and him in guild that are relatively geared the same.</p><p>We have compaired incoming damage reports on several mobs and he is taking less incoming damage tanking the same mobs.</p><p>Damager can correct me if I'm wrong, as he's actually done more of the compairing than me.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is funny watching you plate tanks try and make this claim over and over again.  I mean seriously where is your proof?</p></blockquote><p>I raid with damager.</p><p>We have 3 plate tanks and him in guild that are relatively geared the same.</p><p>We have compaired incoming damage reports on several mobs and he is taking less incoming damage tanking the same mobs.</p><p>Damager can correct me if I'm wrong, as he's actually done more of the compairing than me.</p></blockquote><p>Taken on it's own that doesn't in any way sound "beyond reasonable" or "breaking class design" or "out of balance". Are we to assume your issue is that in taking less damage than the plate tanks by some unspecified amount he is also having no aggro issues and substantially out-DPSing all of said plate tanks at the same time? </p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is funny watching you plate tanks try and make this claim over and over again.  I mean seriously where is your proof?</p></blockquote><p>I raid with damager.</p><p>We have 3 plate tanks and him in guild that are relatively geared the same.</p><p>We have compaired incoming damage reports on several mobs and he is taking less incoming damage tanking the same mobs.</p><p>Damager can correct me if I'm wrong, as he's actually done more of the compairing than me.</p></blockquote><p>So you raid with Damager who doesn't even really have great gear and certainly doesn't even come remotely close to capping mit.  He is what the 4th tank in line to tank something right?  Thanks for proving my point, but even moreso incoming damage is insignificant to judging a tanks ability to tank, getting hit 5-10% less is 5-10% less reactives and procs, 5-10% less heals etc etc etc something conveniently ignored by the plate tank nonsense agenda.  Do you take into account how much more your plate heal or absorb or the fact an SK can flat out die 3 times and so on.  Basically you are full of it.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Taken on it's own that doesn't in any way sound "beyond reasonable" or "breaking class design" or "out of balance". Are we to assume your issue is that in taking less damage than the plate tanks by some unspecified amount he is also having no aggro issues and substantially out-DPSing all of said plate tanks at the same time? </p></blockquote><p>Given the same tank groups he's having no issue holding hate.  He is not able to dps as much as the crusader while MTing though.</p><p>But, I find a brawler able to get up to nearly the same effective mitigation as plate beyond the classes intended design, yes.  Particularly when you compair the vast differences on avoidance reporting. </p><p>As a plate tank, if I got benefit for how far over effective point and cap I can get mit, then it might be a bit different.  In essence, while brawlers aren't at the exact point on the mitigation curve, they're so close (once they have the gear) the differentiation is nearly undistinguishable.</p><p>I'm interested what will come out of fanfaire on class mechanics, as I just can't see how the status quot is a desireable system.  We're all merging into the same balance points.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>alabama wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If anything the brawlers should be removed from the fighter arch-type and have a new disiple arch-type. From there make it to where there is a noticable distinction between what is monk and what is bruiser.</p></blockquote><p>this.</p></blockquote><p>Hells no.  Brawlers are tanks.  We always have been, we always will be.  I find it pretty ridiculous that you're advocating removing the two tanks that have a fairly unique method of tanking in a thread asking for more individuality.</p><p>Brawlers tank differently than plates.  This is a <em>good thing</em>.  They just need to make sure we stay both good at our job and unique.</p></blockquote><p>No they are NOT tank they are fighters. You have not always been tanks and never really have been considered a real tank. Yes some of you have been able to tank raid mobs but umm so have scouts but that don't make them a tank. Face it the population as a whole will never consider the brawler class a tank. You know why? because your NOT a tank!!!!</p><p>Moving the two brawler subclasses to their own archetype would be the best thing to ever happen for the two subclasses.</p></blockquote><p>Actually Brawlers can cap mitigation, have a lot higher avoidance, all sorts of abilities to soak damage and snap mobs.  The direction it is going Brawlers will be more tanks than other plate tanks.</p></blockquote><p>Yes I am quite aware they can get close but cap /shrug maybe so. The main issue people will never accept them as tanks and IMO they shouldn't. The class would be better of having their own archetype so they can be what ever. Six fighters is to many 4 real tank types is hard enough for them to tank balance much less six. SO if they had their own archetype they would have a better chance a getting a defined role in the over all scope of the game and not be stuck in limbo like they have since launch.  </p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>We have compaired incoming damage reports on several mobs and he is taking less incoming damage tanking the same mobs.</p></blockquote><p>So you raid with Damager who doesn't even really have great gear and certainly doesn't even come remotely close to capping mit.  He is what the 4th tank in line to tank something right? </p></blockquote><p>He'd be 2nd in line, by example he was MTing last night on RT.  If I really cared, I could pull up logs from lastnight as we pulled once with a plate tank and bumped him up on the next pull.  The difference in incoming damage was observable.  However, I don't really care to argue that point with you, as your clearly entrenched and there is no value in the debate.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>We have compaired incoming damage reports on several mobs and he is taking less incoming damage tanking the same mobs.</p></blockquote><p>So you raid with Damager who doesn't even really have great gear and certainly doesn't even come remotely close to capping mit.  He is what the 4th tank in line to tank something right? </p></blockquote><p>He'd be 2nd in line, by example he was MTing last night on RT.  If I really cared, I could pull up logs from lastnight as we pulled once with a plate tank and bumped him up on the next pull.  The difference in incoming damage was observable.  However, I don't really care to argue that point with you, as your clearly entrenched and there is no value in the debate.</p></blockquote><p>Saying he'd be 2nd in line when clearly he's 4th means what exactly? 2nd in line if 2 tanks are missing?</p>

[Rasttan]

<p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p><p>On the flipside we DPS worse, in fact when im not tanking and go full offensive I put up huge numbers and still lose zonewides to plate tanks sometimes and they tanked the entire zone. If I tank an entire zone and the plate goes offensive, they will simply anhilate me on the ZW by 50% or more my dps.</p><p>They beat us in dps tanking while we are offensive, they tank better offensive with full benifits of uncontested, they generate more hate tanking, and they dps better offenisve if we are defensive by a HUGE margin. Thats the facts I see it nightly while raiding.</p><p>I understand Guards dont fit this mold, thats why they have been mostly abandoned, I have an 80 guard I shelved because of this expansion. But the other 3 tanks clearly have huge advantages theres no hiding it to anyone with half a brain cell in there head to say otherwise you must be tripping on hardcore drugs or dumb as hellll.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Saying he'd be 2nd in line when clearly he's 4th means what exactly? 2nd in line if 2 tanks are missing?</p></blockquote><p>As I said, your entrenched and not listening. </p><p>I'm perfectly happy with him MTing every non-hm encounter in SF, as the logs have proven he takes less damage than our other tanks on these mobs, and has solid aggro doing so.  That changes for HM pulls, but everything else, he's parsing the easiest to heal given the 4 we have that are all relatively geared the same.</p><p>Again, he's welcome to correct me if he thinks he takes more damage than the others, or if there are particular mobs that are more challenging from a survivability standpoint.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p><p>On the flipside we DPS worse, in fact when im not tanking and go full offensive I put up huge numbers and still lose zonewides to plate tanks sometimes and they tanked the entire zone. If I tank an entire zone and the plate goes offensive, they will simply anhilate me on the ZW by 50% or more my dps.</p><p>They beat us in dps tanking while we are offensive, they tank better offensive with full benifits of uncontested, they generate more hate tanking, and they dps better offenisve if we are defensive by a HUGE margin. Thats the facts I see it nightly while raiding.</p><p>I understand Guards dont fit this mold, thats why they have been mostly abandoned, I have an 80 guard I shelved because of this expansion. But the other 3 tanks clearly have huge advantages theres no hiding it to anyone with half a brain cell in there head to say otherwise you must be tripping on hardcore drugs or dumb as hellll.</p></blockquote><p>Good post, but whoever told you 14750 is the mit cap is incorrect it is actually higher then that.  14750 is what someone figured the mit cap would be if we were 98 tanking a level 98 mob, but what they didn't calculate is that the 14750 would have to come in level 98 gear and at 98 our level 90 gear would actually be worth way less.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p></blockquote><p>All I'm saying is, parse the difference in 13k MT group mit and your avoidance vs your paly at 14.7k mit and his avoidance and compair them on easymode pulls.</p><p>I think you may find net damage, you're taking less.  I'm sure your crusader's TPS output blows you out of the water though.</p><p>The effective difference of the mit that far into the curve is less than the difference in net avoidance, at least on the mobs I'm parsing.</p>

[Rasttan]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p></blockquote><p>All I'm saying is, parse the difference in 13k MT group mit and your avoidance vs your paly at 14.7k mit and his avoidance and compair them on easymode pulls.</p><p>I think you may find net damage, you're taking less.  I'm sure your crusader's TPS output blows you out of the water though.</p><p>The effective difference of the mit that far into the curve is less than the difference in net avoidance, at least on the mobs I'm parsing.</p></blockquote><p>Im sure My defensive numbers would be better, because he wouldnt bother going defensive he doesnt need to. And he would parse 30-70k dps while tanking those easy modes I've seen it, and he has posted them on flames.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p></blockquote><p>All I'm saying is, parse the difference in 13k MT group mit and your avoidance vs your paly at 14.7k mit and his avoidance and compair them on easymode pulls.</p><p>I think you may find net damage, you're taking less.  I'm sure your crusader's TPS output blows you out of the water though.</p><p>The effective difference of the mit that far into the curve is less than the difference in net avoidance, at least on the mobs I'm parsing.</p></blockquote><p>At the same time the paly will heal how much?  The 5-10% more avoid is easily offset by a palys heals in fact even moreso since a heal is controllable and avoidance is rng.</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p><p>On the flipside we DPS worse, in fact when im not tanking and go full offensive I put up huge numbers and still lose zonewides to plate tanks sometimes and they tanked the entire zone. If I tank an entire zone and the plate goes offensive, they will simply anhilate me on the ZW by 50% or more my dps.</p><p>They beat us in dps tanking while we are offensive, they tank better offensive with full benifits of uncontested, they generate more hate tanking, and they dps better offenisve if we are defensive by a HUGE margin. Thats the facts I see it nightly while raiding.</p><p>I understand Guards dont fit this mold, thats why they have been mostly abandoned, I have an 80 guard I shelved because of this expansion. But the other 3 tanks clearly have huge advantages theres no hiding it to anyone with half a brain cell in there head to say otherwise you must be tripping on hardcore drugs or dumb as hellll.</p></blockquote><p>Truth.</p>

[Prestissimo]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>At the same time the paly will heal how much?  The 5-10% more avoid is easily offset by a palys heals in fact even moreso since a heal is controllable and avoidance is rng.</p></blockquote><p>Heals are casted and they do get interupted a ton not to mention casting them does take power.</p><p>Not saying you're wrong, just saying that you need to keep in mind that they do need to physically be cast which takes some time and thus lowers dps which in return means less hate which means it's not going to be done unless it's absolutely needed. In most cases really it is not needed if your healers are worth their salt and even if it is needed, paladin heals are mostly meant for topping off player health pools and are very far from ideal or effective or reliable in helping keep the paladin themself alive which means stonewall and divine aura or heritic's destruction (for added heal potency/bonus) a far more likely candidate for addressing inc damage and once those are down then the paladins heals would likely be used as a last ditch effort.</p><p>The other point is not to call into question the stregnth of Touch of Life since it was the majority of the reason any paladin even got their mythical (since the rest pretty much blows) but rather to point out that despite having heals, not that many times will they get used. The so-called advantage of "having heals that can be cast" is really a garbage arguement for most intensive purposes.</p><p>It's really a moot point both ways, however it should be noted that a huge percentage of the paladin's heal parse is due to their mythical's Touch of Life (which is effectively one of if not the sole purpose of the paladin mythical; to address their historically inferior defensive capacity compared to warriors) and a very large portion of the rest of a paladin's heal parse is probably made up by procs/equipment.</p><p>___________________________</p><p>The final and most important point in my post is to note that despite brawlers reaching the same effective level of defense as plate tanks can, it's purely due to the fact that the gear at those tiers is so beyond rediculous that it's beyond capping many individuals at nearly everything. Others have said this, but I wanted to expand upon it a bit.</p><p>Theres so much more than enough stats and bonuses on gear to cap individuals out, that some fighters can go offensive and still be at the effective caps. There should never be so much of any stat that you're the same defensive resiliance in defensive gear as you are in offensive gear and there should absolutely never be enough defense on offensive based gear that you can cap out defensive stats period.</p><p>TBH, caps are not something that should be so easily obtainable that just any fighter can hit them. That is the result of a gear balancing issue, and it is furthered by pre-existing class issues. Assuming equivilant gear <strong>quality</strong> across the board, if you're in offensive you should be more offensive than any tank class in defensive can possibly achieve, and if you're in defensive you should be more defensive than any tank class in offensive can possibly achieve period. Beyond that, it should be tipped in the scales of which class is inherrently supposed to be more dps oriented versus which class is inherrently more defensively oriented.</p><p>I'm not sure if the answer is removing defensive attributes from offensive plate or adding defensive to offensive non-plate gear, or something else, but one way or another the only way to move towards better balance is to acknowledge that it's not JUST class abilities thats causing the problems that exist in fighter balance. Considering how many variables there really is in the scenario I doubt there really is a solution at this point in things other than some classes being overall unbalanced or some being overall very unbalanced. Until there are very clear lines drawn between offensive spec/stance/tanking and defensive spec/stance/tanking, it's going to remain a jumbled unbalanced mess that is determined solely by which class can achieve the caps on defensive ratings while still putting out more dps.</p><p>I'd like to see a choice; chose to be offensive and suffer defensively for it regardless of how good your gear is, or chose defensive and suffer offensively for it regardless of how good your gear is. Without choice, there is little thought or challenge, and without those, it's effectively a lot less fun of a game because there is no risk, just more orange large numbers.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Saying he'd be 2nd in line when clearly he's 4th means what exactly? 2nd in line if 2 tanks are missing?</p></blockquote><p>As I said, your entrenched and not listening. </p><p>I'm perfectly happy with him MTing every non-hm encounter in SF, as the logs have proven he takes less damage than our other tanks on these mobs, and has solid aggro doing so.  That changes for HM pulls, but everything else, he's parsing the easiest to heal given the 4 we have that are all relatively geared the same.</p><p>Again, he's welcome to correct me if he thinks he takes more damage than the others, or if there are particular mobs that are more challenging from a survivability standpoint.</p></blockquote><p>You are exactly correct Atan, except for the point about HM mobs...it works just the same for them.  What Blanka fails to recognize is even when not completely capping mit the difference is only 2-3% mitigation....hardly noticeable.  Meanwhile the difference in avoidance is much greater.  He likes to pretend the difference is only 10% actual avoidance...but that is not true.  Just uncontested avoidance alone a Brawler can reach 10% more avoidance and than being immune to strike-thru is a whole different ball game.</p><p>The only way that a Plate tank can even get close to 10% less avoidance than a Brawler is it they reverse tank roles and the Brawler gives them their avoidance buff while in defensive.</p><p>So to recap, mitigation is definitely within 2-3%, avoidance difference is greater than 10%, and than lets talk about damage reduction.  Bruisers get what 5% with mythical buff and 5% from AAs?  So 10% damage reduction as well?</p><p>Hopefully the mechanics change that devs are talking about is the mitigation curve and putting things back in place.  Brawler difference on mitigation curve should be at least 10% as avoidance is.  Everybody has too high of mitigation right now and we still have like 1.5 years left staying at level 90.</p>

[Rasttan]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Saying he'd be 2nd in line when clearly he's 4th means what exactly? 2nd in line if 2 tanks are missing?</p></blockquote><p>As I said, your entrenched and not listening. </p><p>I'm perfectly happy with him MTing every non-hm encounter in SF, as the logs have proven he takes less damage than our other tanks on these mobs, and has solid aggro doing so.  That changes for HM pulls, but everything else, he's parsing the easiest to heal given the 4 we have that are all relatively geared the same.</p><p>Again, he's welcome to correct me if he thinks he takes more damage than the others, or if there are particular mobs that are more challenging from a survivability standpoint.</p></blockquote><p>You are exactly correct Atan, except for the point about HM mobs...it works just the same for them.  What Blanka fails to recognize is even when not completely capping mit the difference is only 2-3% mitigation....hardly noticeable.  Meanwhile the difference in avoidance is much greater.  He likes to pretend the difference is only 10% actual avoidance...but that is not true.  Just uncontested avoidance alone a Brawler can reach 10% more avoidance and than being immune to strike-thru is a whole different ball game.</p><p>The only way that a Plate tank can even get close to 10% less avoidance than a Brawler is it they reverse tank roles and the Brawler gives them their avoidance buff while in defensive.</p><p>So to recap, mitigation is definitely within 2-3%, avoidance difference is greater than 10%, and than lets talk about damage reduction.  Bruisers get what 5% with mythical buff and 5% from AAs?  So 10% damage reduction as well?</p><p>Hopefully the mechanics change that devs are talking about is the mitigation curve and putting things back in place.  Brawler difference on mitigation curve should be at least 10% as avoidance is.  Everybody has too high of mitigation right now and we still have like 1.5 years left staying at level 90.</p></blockquote><p>And you fail to mention how far Plates can push there mit above and beyong a brawlers to help offset a mobs level against the target. In offensive ive seen close to 15k those same tanks defensive sit 17-18k if they so desire. That far over cap makes a huge difference as much as 5-8k on max melee hits which is 25% of a buffed tanks HP. Hardmode mobs are lvl 98 plate tanks take alot less damage per hit if they go full defensive like a brawler has no choice but to do.</p><p>Its a hell of alot better for plates than 2-3% you must not have hardmode parses to look at or your bending the truth quite a bit and it doesnt bother you to do so.</p><p>Combining our last 3 Klak fights over 35 minutes of combat with me and the pally dual tanking the mob his max melee slash hit on him 12,843 mine was 15,768, his average hit from klak was 7931 mine was 9610 you simply dont know please at least present the truth and know your facts or do not post.</p><p>His max hit was 2925 lower than mine or 22.7% his average hit was 1679 lower than mine or 21.2% so please drop the 2-3% stuff you simply dont know or havent tested it now you have numbers so you wont miss quote yourself anymore.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Saying he'd be 2nd in line when clearly he's 4th means what exactly? 2nd in line if 2 tanks are missing?</p></blockquote><p>As I said, your entrenched and not listening. </p><p>I'm perfectly happy with him MTing every non-hm encounter in SF, as the logs have proven he takes less damage than our other tanks on these mobs, and has solid aggro doing so.  That changes for HM pulls, but everything else, he's parsing the easiest to heal given the 4 we have that are all relatively geared the same.</p><p>Again, he's welcome to correct me if he thinks he takes more damage than the others, or if there are particular mobs that are more challenging from a survivability standpoint.</p></blockquote><p>You are exactly correct Atan, except for the point about HM mobs...it works just the same for them.  What Blanka fails to recognize is even when not completely capping mit the difference is only 2-3% mitigation....hardly noticeable.  Meanwhile the difference in avoidance is much greater.  He likes to pretend the difference is only 10% actual avoidance...but that is not true.  Just uncontested avoidance alone a Brawler can reach 10% more avoidance and than being immune to strike-thru is a whole different ball game.</p><p>The only way that a Plate tank can even get close to 10% less avoidance than a Brawler is it they reverse tank roles and the Brawler gives them their avoidance buff while in defensive.</p><p>So to recap, mitigation is definitely within 2-3%, avoidance difference is greater than 10%, and than lets talk about damage reduction.  Bruisers get what 5% with mythical buff and 5% from AAs?  So 10% damage reduction as well?</p><p>Hopefully the mechanics change that devs are talking about is the mitigation curve and putting things back in place.  Brawler difference on mitigation curve should be at least 10% as avoidance is.  Everybody has too high of mitigation right now and we still have like 1.5 years left staying at level 90.</p></blockquote><p>And you fail to mention how far Plates can push there mit above and beyong a brawlers to help offset a mobs level against the target. In offensive ive seen close to 15k those same tanks defensive sit 17-18k if they so desire. That far over cap makes a huge difference as much as 5-8k on max melee hits which is 25% of a buffed tanks HP. Hardmode mobs are lvl 98 plate tanks take alot less damage per hit if they go full defensive like a brawler has no choice but to do.</p><p>Its a hell of alot better for plates than 2-3% you must not have hardmode parses to look at or your bending the truth quite a bit and it doesnt bother you to do so.</p><p>Combining our last 3 Klak fights over 35 minutes of combat with me and the pally dual tanking the mob his max melee slash hit on him 12,843 mine was 15,768, his average hit from klak was 7931 mine was 9610 you simply dont know please at least present the truth and know your facts or do not post.</p><p>His max hit was 2925 lower than mine or 22.7% his average hit was 1679 lower than mine or 21.2% so please drop the 2-3% stuff you simply dont know or havent tested it now you have numbers so you wont miss quote yourself anymore.</p></blockquote><p>He fails to mention alot of things in pushing his BS.</p>

[Damager]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my guild our pally reaches the mit cap of over 14750 in offensive gear. I come no where near that with every piece of +mit gear out there in full defensive gear. Now granted I can tank hardmode mobs, but to do so I give up craploads and I mean craploads of dps. My Crit bonus drops over 50, Ability mod drops 1000, my potency by 30.</p><p>Brawlers can only hit 12-13k mit with perfect gear and sacrificing tons of dps and hate generation, we also have to go defensive which kills our hitrates. We dont get uncontested avoidance at all while offensive, the tables are not equal to claim they are is simply not true. We sacrifice alot to tank more than any other class by a long ways.</p></blockquote><p>All I'm saying is, parse the difference in 13k MT group mit and your avoidance vs your paly at 14.7k mit and his avoidance and compair them on easymode pulls.</p><p>I think you may find net damage, you're taking less.  I'm sure your crusader's TPS output blows you out of the water though.</p><p>The effective difference of the mit that far into the curve is less than the difference in net avoidance, at least on the mobs I'm parsing.</p></blockquote><p>[Removed for Content], I opened a can of worms, sorry Atan. </p><p>We do run with 4 equally geared tanks in raid almost always, so yes we can tell which is best at what on a level playing field (same buffs, healers, etc.) And yes I do MT with pally and SK as my OTs. Atan also has a healer he runs on raids sometimes so your kinda arguing with a healer on who is easier to heal as well LOL!</p><p>I did MT Theer after the SK wiped and the next pull he became my OT, I never felt threatened enough to pop my death prevent if thats any concilation? </p><p>The overall damage from certain mobs like Parah for example are lower on my monk then the plate tanks of same gear, I have parses of me versus Pally, SK, and Guard hell you can see the difference just watching our health bar, its very noticeable. Parah plays in my favor though with the mez and ports and aggro jumping I can rotate temps very easily. Now the last named in the X2 that hits like a truck will put a hurtin on a brawler compared to a plate that is very noticable in the opposite direction not saying I cant tank him just saying plate is way better for that encounter. </p><p>However, as rasstan stated its all in the gear selection I take a HUGE beating on DPS when I MT (Atan sees that also apparently LOL). Why in the hell is every piece of T1/T2 tank gear just +crit chance for monk, seriously if you put on all the tank gear for monk you would have 170 crit with like 20 crit bonus 20 potency and 50 DA LOL!</p><p>Anyways I have two bags of gear and I gear specifically for the mob at hand this is how I get away with tanking them IMHO compared to a plate who can wear one certain set of gear and tank and dps just fine thoughout the zone. Basically, I use the gear to make my brawler what I want for a situation, tanking with my bags open swapping pieces between pulls on the fly. And yes Blanka there are pieces of legendary I will use to bump a stat that is lacking while making up for it in other places so to inspect me I may look like  avg Joe monk but I fluctuate over 3k HP between full tank and full dps. </p><p>         </p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>[Removed for Content], I opened a can of worms, sorry Atan. </p><p>We do run with 4 equally geared tanks in raid almost always, so yes we can tell which is best at what on a level playing field (same buffs, healers, etc.) And yes I do MT with pally and SK as my OTs. Atan also has a healer he runs on raids sometimes so your kinda arguing with a healer on who is easier to heal as well LOL!</p><p>I did MT Theer after the SK wiped and the next pull he became my OT, I never felt threatened enough to pop my death prevent if thats any concilation? </p><p>The overall damage from certain mobs like Parah for example are lower on my monk then the plate tanks of same gear, I have parses of me versus Pally, SK, and Guard hell you can see the difference just watching our health bar, its very noticeable. Parah plays in my favor though with the mez and ports and aggro jumping I can rotate temps very easily. <strong>Now the last named in the X2 that hits like a truck will put a hurtin on a brawler compared to a plate that is very noticable in the opposite direction</strong> not saying I cant tank him just saying plate is way better for that encounter. </p><p><strong>However, as rasstan stated its all in the gear selection I take a HUGE beating on DPS when I MT</strong> (Atan sees that also apparently LOL). Why in the hell is every piece of T1/T2 tank gear just +crit chance for monk, seriously if you put on all the tank gear for monk you would have 170 crit with like 20 crit bonus 20 potency and 50 DA LOL!</p><p><strong>Anyways I have two bags of gear and I gear specifically for the mob at hand this is how I get away with tanking them IMHO compared to a plate who can wear one certain set of gear and tank and dps just fine thoughout the zone. <span style="font-weight: normal;">Basically, I use the gear to make my brawler what I want for a situation, tanking with my bags open swapping pieces between pulls on the fly. </span></strong>And yes Blanka there are pieces of legendary I will use to bump a stat that is lacking while making up for it in other places so to inspect me I may look like  avg Joe monk but I fluctuate over 3k HP between full tank and full dps. </p></blockquote><p>Giving up some DPS in order to tank. Far out. Sounds like reasonable balance. Unfortunately "reasonable balance" is defined differently by different people, particularly when it comes to leather fighters. So don't be too shocked by the impending vehement cries for nerfs. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Oh wait ... they're already here.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>[Removed for Content], I opened a can of worms, sorry Atan. </p><p>We do run with 4 equally geared tanks in raid almost always, so yes we can tell which is best at what on a level playing field (same buffs, healers, etc.) And yes I do MT with pally and SK as my OTs. Atan also has a healer he runs on raids sometimes so your kinda arguing with a healer on who is easier to heal as well LOL!</p><p>I did MT Theer after the SK wiped and the next pull he became my OT, I never felt threatened enough to pop my death prevent if thats any concilation? </p><p>The overall damage from certain mobs like Parah for example are lower on my monk then the plate tanks of same gear, I have parses of me versus Pally, SK, and Guard hell you can see the difference just watching our health bar, its very noticeable. Parah plays in my favor though with the mez and ports and aggro jumping I can rotate temps very easily. <strong>Now the last named in the X2 that hits like a truck will put a hurtin on a brawler compared to a plate that is very noticable in the opposite direction</strong> not saying I cant tank him just saying plate is way better for that encounter. </p><p><strong>However, as rasstan stated its all in the gear selection I take a HUGE beating on DPS when I MT</strong> (Atan sees that also apparently LOL). Why in the hell is every piece of T1/T2 tank gear just +crit chance for monk, seriously if you put on all the tank gear for monk you would have 170 crit with like 20 crit bonus 20 potency and 50 DA LOL!</p><p><strong>Anyways I have two bags of gear and I gear specifically for the mob at hand this is how I get away with tanking them IMHO compared to a plate who can wear one certain set of gear and tank and dps just fine thoughout the zone. <span style="font-weight: normal;">Basically, I use the gear to make my brawler what I want for a situation, tanking with my bags open swapping pieces between pulls on the fly. </span></strong>And yes Blanka there are pieces of legendary I will use to bump a stat that is lacking while making up for it in other places so to inspect me I may look like  avg Joe monk but I fluctuate over 3k HP between full tank and full dps. </p></blockquote><p>Giving up some DPS in order to tank. Far out. Sounds like reasonable balance. Unfortunately "reasonable balance" is defined differently by different people, particularly when it comes to leather fighters. So don't be too shocked by the impending vehement cries for nerfs. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Oh wait ... they're already here.</p></blockquote><p>Except brawlers are the only class who have to give up DPS to tank.</p>

[Damager]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>[Removed for Content], I opened a can of worms, sorry Atan. </p><p>We do run with 4 equally geared tanks in raid almost always, so yes we can tell which is best at what on a level playing field (same buffs, healers, etc.) And yes I do MT with pally and SK as my OTs. Atan also has a healer he runs on raids sometimes so your kinda arguing with a healer on who is easier to heal as well LOL!</p><p>I did MT Theer after the SK wiped and the next pull he became my OT, I never felt threatened enough to pop my death prevent if thats any concilation? </p><p>The overall damage from certain mobs like Parah for example are lower on my monk then the plate tanks of same gear, I have parses of me versus Pally, SK, and Guard hell you can see the difference just watching our health bar, its very noticeable. Parah plays in my favor though with the mez and ports and aggro jumping I can rotate temps very easily. <strong>Now the last named in the X2 that hits like a truck will put a hurtin on a brawler compared to a plate that is very noticable in the opposite direction</strong> not saying I cant tank him just saying plate is way better for that encounter. </p><p><strong>However, as rasstan stated its all in the gear selection I take a HUGE beating on DPS when I MT</strong> (Atan sees that also apparently LOL). Why in the hell is every piece of T1/T2 tank gear just +crit chance for monk, seriously if you put on all the tank gear for monk you would have 170 crit with like 20 crit bonus 20 potency and 50 DA LOL!</p><p><strong>Anyways I have two bags of gear and I gear specifically for the mob at hand this is how I get away with tanking them IMHO compared to a plate who can wear one certain set of gear and tank and dps just fine thoughout the zone. <span style="font-weight: normal;">Basically, I use the gear to make my brawler what I want for a situation, tanking with my bags open swapping pieces between pulls on the fly. </span></strong>And yes Blanka there are pieces of legendary I will use to bump a stat that is lacking while making up for it in other places so to inspect me I may look like  avg Joe monk but I fluctuate over 3k HP between full tank and full dps. </p></blockquote><p>Giving up some DPS in order to tank. Far out. Sounds like reasonable balance. Unfortunately "reasonable balance" is defined differently by different people, particularly when it comes to leather fighters. So don't be too shocked by the impending vehement cries for nerfs. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Oh wait ... they're already here.</p></blockquote><p>Except brawlers are the only class who have to give up DPS to tank.</p></blockquote><p>LOL! Some DPS? Try more like half a Pallies DPS! How is that balanced? And how do you think a monk builds aggro? we arent runnin some over powered amends.  </p><p>Anyone who has played a brawler will tell you our DPS is our aggro generator, seiously our main taunt is a proc on 50% of our hits do you have any idea how sucky that is when in defense? lower hit rates, less dps and  haste that makes no sense at all?  The individuality of a brawler is we avoid tank and build aggro from DPS so we should be the highest dps that makes sense and is what seperates us and a uniques tank. Giving the highest dps and best hate transfer in game to a plate is just rediculous. Not to mention how squishy we are in offense, is it balance a plate has twice the survivability in offense with the same dps as a leather with half the survivability? comon be real. leather tank in offense should NOT be competing with a plate tank in defense on dps.</p>

[Aull]

<p>Lots of good points here. I do agree that brawlers as far as survivability in defensive stance is concerned is by far much much better than ever before.</p><p>Where the issue lies as pointed out many times before is that both brawlers sacrifice offense in order to stay alive better.  Zerkers and crusaders can still use their offensive stance on most mobs that a brawlers needs to use defensive stance on.</p><p>Since brawlers have a much easier time going splat while using offensive stance they should in turn have stronger dps than a plate fighter in offensive. </p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lots of good points here. I do agree that brawlers as far as survivability in defensive stance is concerned is by far much much better than ever before.</p><p>Where the issue lies as pointed out many times before is that both brawlers sacrifice offense in order to stay alive better.  Zerkers and crusaders can still use their offensive stance on most mobs that a brawlers needs to use defensive stance on.</p><p>Since brawlers have a much easier time going splat while using offensive stance they should in turn have stronger dps than a plate fighter in offensive. </p></blockquote><p>TBH, I could care less about having the most DPS, the problem is being unable to hold single target agro over plate tanks, I don't think just more dps would fix that.  DPS wise I think all tanks should be relatively even, but when I see my SK doing like 50k+ ZW in labs up to Ark while tanking and I have to be basically in cloth tanking mode to get close to 50k something is completely unbalanced.</p>

[Damager]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lots of good points here. I do agree that brawlers as far as survivability in defensive stance is concerned is by far much much better than ever before.</p><p>Where the issue lies as pointed out many times before is that both brawlers sacrifice offense in order to stay alive better.  Zerkers and crusaders can still use their offensive stance on most mobs that a brawlers needs to use defensive stance on.</p><p>Since brawlers have a much easier time going splat while using offensive stance they should in turn have stronger dps than a plate fighter in offensive. </p></blockquote><p>TBH, I could care less about having the most DPS, the problem is being unable to hold single target agro over plate tanks, I don't think just more dps would fix that.  DPS wise I think all tanks should be relatively even, but when I see my SK doing like 50k+ ZW in labs up to Ark while tanking and I have to be basically in cloth tanking mode to get close to 50k something is completely unbalanced.</p></blockquote><p>See we are talkin individuality which is why I love the brawler, we are not a cookie cutter tank. </p><p>IMHO plate should be slower building aggro from taunts and mitigating their hits, brawler should avoid getting hit and build aggro from their dps. Its a simple concept and the mechanics are already there.</p><p>Giving a plate top dps is the equivelant of giving brawlers top mitigation. Your giving our individuality away.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Giving up some DPS in order to tank. Far out. Sounds like reasonable balance. Unfortunately "reasonable balance" is defined differently by different people, particularly when it comes to leather fighters. So don't be too shocked by the impending vehement cries for nerfs. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Oh wait ... they're already here.</p></blockquote><p>Except brawlers are the only class who have to give up DPS to tank.</p></blockquote><p>LOL! Some DPS? Try more like half a Pallies DPS! How is that balanced? And how do you think a monk builds aggro? we arent runnin some over powered amends.  </p><p>Anyone who has played a brawler will tell you our DPS is our aggro generator, seiously our main taunt is a proc on 50% of our hits do you have any idea how sucky that is when in defense? lower hit rates, less dps and  haste that makes no sense at all?  The individuality of a brawler is we avoid tank and build aggro from DPS so we should be the highest dps that makes sense and is what seperates us and a uniques tank.<strong> Giving the highest dps and best hate transfer in game to a plate is just rediculous.</strong> Not to mention how squishy we are in offense, is it balance a plate has twice the survivability in offense with the same dps as a leather with half the survivability? comon be real. leather tank in offense should NOT be competing with a plate tank in defense on dps.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not disagreeing. To clarify, I meant that Brawler's having to do that was balanced design. IOW, yeah, they can put out DPS .... OR they can tank. Some of the plate tanks ... notsomuch. I think the uncontested avoidance going away with the offensive stance is well thought-out. They probably should have made the same true for plate tanks, but then that really only would have hurt Warriors, some of whom are already hurting.</p><p>These other plate tanks, including your raidmate, above are trying to sell the concept that brawlers are OP, which IMO is among the more ridiculous assertions I've read this week.</p>

[Damager]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Damager wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Giving up some DPS in order to tank. Far out. Sounds like reasonable balance. Unfortunately "reasonable balance" is defined differently by different people, particularly when it comes to leather fighters. So don't be too shocked by the impending vehement cries for nerfs. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Oh wait ... they're already here.</p></blockquote><p>Except brawlers are the only class who have to give up DPS to tank.</p></blockquote><p>LOL! Some DPS? Try more like half a Pallies DPS! How is that balanced? And how do you think a monk builds aggro? we arent runnin some over powered amends.  </p><p>Anyone who has played a brawler will tell you our DPS is our aggro generator, seiously our main taunt is a proc on 50% of our hits do you have any idea how sucky that is when in defense? lower hit rates, less dps and  haste that makes no sense at all?  The individuality of a brawler is we avoid tank and build aggro from DPS so we should be the highest dps that makes sense and is what seperates us and a uniques tank.<strong> Giving the highest dps and best hate transfer in game to a plate is just rediculous.</strong> Not to mention how squishy we are in offense, is it balance a plate has twice the survivability in offense with the same dps as a leather with half the survivability? comon be real. leather tank in offense should NOT be competing with a plate tank in defense on dps.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not disagreeing. To clarify, I meant that Brawler's having to do that was balanced design. IOW, yeah, they can put out DPS .... OR they can tank. Some of the plate tanks ... notsomuch. I think the uncontested avoidance going away with the offensive stance is well thought-out. They probably should have made the same true for plate tanks, but then that really only would have hurt Warriors, some of whom are already hurting.</p><p>These other plate tanks, including your raidmate, above are trying to sell the concept that brawlers are OP, which IMO is among the more ridiculous assertions I've read this week.</p></blockquote><p>Brawlers OP LOL! Brawlers IMHO are the hardest fighters to play unless you only dps (2nd rate) or solo. As Ive stated else where brawlers are IMHO for experienced tanks who want a challenge LOL! NO easy mode!</p>

[Aull]

<p>It is true that brawlers are possibly the most challenging fighter to play when it comes to tanking hard mobs. I think it is cool when stepping back and looking at it but in game group mates want the best aggro and survival and dps for their tank.</p><p>I think for the most part brawlers have the survival part under control but the aggro and dps suffers for the brawlers just to be able to survive. This is why zerkers and crusaders are most generally the more desired tank of choice.</p>

[Felshades]

<blockquote><p>No they are NOT tank they are fighters. You have not always been tanks and never really have been considered a real tank. Yes some of you have been able to tank raid mobs but umm so have scouts but that don't make them a tank. Face it the population as a whole will never consider the brawler class a tank. You know why? because your NOT a tank!!!!</p><p>Moving the two brawler subclasses to their own archetype would be the best thing to ever happen for the two subclasses.</p></blockquote><p>The problem with increasing monk survivability via avoidance is that it may just be too big a pain in the neck to make their avoidance high enough, but not too high, and not make the formula work for other classes.</p><p>Then there is the problem of avoidance being too RNG, and yeah, you get like, say, 90% avoidance, but if you get a lucky streak in the numbers you're gonna be pounded a few times in a row and get squashed.</p><p>Im actually kinda a fan of a brawler AA or passive condition that allows avoidance to reduce damage by a set percentage, so that when they cap avoidance(for example 70% avoidance cap) they recieve something like 35% damage reduction on a successful hit landing.  Might solve the survivability issue.</p><p>Make them slightly weak to magical/elemental/etc damage if you must, that can be mitigated with buffs/wards/resist gear etc, and shouldn't be "too" overbearing.</p><p>I can't speak for threat generation since I havent run with a brawler tank since like 2007.</p><p>My tank is a paladin. I took almost 2 years off from the game and I come back and have to relearn all my toons.  I don't have sentinel's fate yet and my highest characters are 80, only one of which has 145+ aa due to cap going up right before I quit.  My pally is 60, wearing old school lvl 50 mastercrafted and 34 AAs.  That's how long it's been since I played her; the beginning of KoS and shortly after they added AAs.</p><p>I can understand wanting differences but you can't make them something that's gamebreaking.  If you give one higher threat and lower dps, they'll always take the one that keeps aggro off the wizards best.  If one has less physical mit in favor of magical mit, you won't see them used on anything but magic heavy fights.  If TPS is so bad that you need to rely on DPS to make up for it, how about adding additional threat to every single last ability while you're in defensive stance.  And I'm talking more than you currently get. That way they can even out the dps on all fighters and work from there.  I feel there's something wrong when you require your tanks to do high dps... they're tanks, theyre supposed to absorb damage, not dish it out.</p>