Monks given Detaunts no other fighters get?

[Tekadeo]

<p>I love my Monk and all, but I love the rest of my Tank stable too.</p><p>Why was my Monk the only one given detaunts in Reckless Stance?  Did bruisers get this too?  It's the only tank I don't have at 92, so I really don't know.</p><p>Hidden Openings is a 3 position detaunt, and Sneering Assault is a 1 position dehate.  Plus they have the AA choice to get another dehate.  What's up with that?</p><p>Fair is fair, and apologies to all true DPS classes, but really all fighters could use a dehate skill in Reckless stance.  Sneering is on a huge recast tho...</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>All fighters have sneering.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All fighters have sneering.</p></blockquote><p>Wow.  Amazing.  In the likely scenario that you aren't too gud at reading, I did say I have five fighters at 92 and am 100% aware of this.  Clearly you are aware that your monk's version of Sneering is a -1 positional dehate, whilst none of the other fighters I have (save bruiser) get that.  It is merely a 0 positional (as it should be, I would guess) for everyone else.</p><p>Seems like it should be all the way one way or the other.</p>

[The_Cheeseman]

<p>I noticed this too, and assumed it was just a bug. Either way, it isn't terribly important, since monks already get a positional hate decrease on a miniscule timer (Evade) and a -threat proc (Mongoose Stance, which is affected by Recklessness) so dropping aggro is trivial for us anyway if you feel it's necessary.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I noticed this too, and assumed it was just a bug. Either way, it isn't terribly important, since monks already get a positional hate decrease on a miniscule timer (Evade) and a -threat proc (Mongoose Stance, which is affected by Recklessness) so dropping aggro is trivial for us anyway if you feel it's necessary.</p></blockquote><p>This is all well and good, but no other fighter gets this.  And we could really use de-hates too when using Recklessness.</p><p>Make it happen.</p>

[The_Cheeseman]

<p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is all well and good, but no other fighter gets this.  And we could really use de-hates too when using Recklessness.</p><p>Make it happen.</p></blockquote><p>You know, at one time I would have disagreed with this on the basis of class balance (as I did in the <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=517899" target="_blank">Passive Stance thread</a>) but Recklessness has basically made class balance irrelevant at this point... So what the heck, why not?</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is all well and good, but no other fighter gets this.  And we could really use de-hates too when using Recklessness.</p><p>Make it happen.</p></blockquote><p>You know, at one time I would have disagreed with this on the basis of class balance (as I did in the <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=517899" target="_blank">Passive Stance thread</a>) but Recklessness has basically made class balance irrelevant at this point... So what the heck, why not?</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">All DPS classes get at least one positional dehate, usually on a one minute or less recast.  Fighters in Reckless Stance are for all intents and purposes a DPS class.  No reason we shouldn't have one.  But that's not the issue.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">The issue os why is one fighter given positional dehates in Reckless and no others are?</span></p>

[Silzin]

<p>I think that in ZRecless all snaps for all tanks should be dehate's with the threat changed 1-1 to damage.  this would provide Recless a nether penitalty that it needs and make it usable by all as a dps stance. </p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think that in ZRecless all snaps for all tanks should be dehate's with the threat changed 1-1 to damage.  this would provide Recless a nether penitalty that it needs and make it usable by all as a dps stance. </p></blockquote><p>I don't think that is in the developers vision, we should still be able to snap a mob and temporarily hold agro with a temp running if a tank dies.</p>

[Yimway]

<p>Dehates and all would be one thing.</p><p>But as I see it, one of the primary issues I have is hatemod.  I need to change AA and gear if I'm going to use reckless and not have agro all the time.</p><p>Then again, as posted elsewhere, I'm having little issue surviving MTing raids in reckless, so the whole thing is silly.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Dehates and all would be one thing.</p><p>But as I see it, one of the primary issues I have is hatemod.  I need to change AA and gear if I'm going to use reckless and not have agro all the time.</p><p>Then again, as posted elsewhere, I'm having little issue surviving MTing raids in reckless, so the whole thing is silly.</p></blockquote><p>They need to take away your ability to block while in the stance and it will be ok.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Dehates and all would be one thing.</p><p>But as I see it, one of the primary issues I have is hatemod.  I need to change AA and gear if I'm going to use reckless and not have agro all the time.</p><p>Then again, as posted elsewhere, I'm having little issue surviving MTing raids in reckless, so the whole thing is silly.</p></blockquote><p>WTB -5 hate positional proc on incoming hit.  Fixed.</p><p>No one should be tanking in this stance, even if their gear says they can.  It's not what it's intended for and makes every person complaining about Reckless right.  And it's the devs' fault for not fixing it to discourage any person from actually tanking with it.</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p>I couldn't care less about getting de-aggros.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I couldn't care less about getting de-aggros.</p></blockquote><p>Thanks for the input...?</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p>Sorry I disagreed with you. Carry on.</p>

[Cyrdemac]

<p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Dehates and all would be one thing.</p><p>But as I see it, one of the primary issues I have is hatemod.  I need to change AA and gear if I'm going to use reckless and not have agro all the time.</p><p>Then again, as posted elsewhere, I'm having little issue surviving MTing raids in reckless, so the whole thing is silly.</p></blockquote><p>WTB -5 hate positional proc on incoming hit.  Fixed.</p><p>No one should be tanking in this stance, even if their gear says they can.  It's not what it's intended for and makes every person complaining about Reckless right.  And it's the devs' fault for not fixing it to discourage any person from actually tanking with it.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is, the Devs WANTED tanks to be able to tank in this stance, if they choose so. So that's where your arguments go wrong.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Dehates and all would be one thing.</p><p>But as I see it, one of the primary issues I have is hatemod.  I need to change AA and gear if I'm going to use reckless and not have agro all the time.</p><p>Then again, as posted elsewhere, I'm having little issue surviving MTing raids in reckless, so the whole thing is silly.</p></blockquote><p>WTB -5 hate positional proc on incoming hit.  Fixed.</p><p>No one should be tanking in this stance, even if their gear says they can.  It's not what it's intended for and makes every person complaining about Reckless right.  And it's the devs' fault for not fixing it to discourage any person from actually tanking with it.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is, the Devs WANTED tanks to be able to tank in this stance, if they choose so. So that's where your arguments go wrong.</p></blockquote><p>Love to see your proof of this, because from every standpoint it is incorrect.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p>Matter of fact, ill go ahead and disprove your ignorance with dev quote to the opposite:</p><p><span ><p>Greetings everyone, Xelgad here! I'd like to explain some of the changes to our fighter archetype that you will be seeing on the Test Server soon.</p><p>The biggest addition is that all fighters will be gaining a new combat stance called "Recklessness" that is a high risk, extremely offensive stance that greatly increases outgoing and incoming damage. For brawlers, Recklessness will replace Black Widow Stance and Bruising. <span style="color: #ff0000;">Recklessness will increase the versatility of fighter classes by allowing them to contribute meaningful damage output <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>when not tanking</strong></em></span>.</span></p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=519492" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=519492</a></p><p>Eat it.</p></span></p>

[Cyrdemac]

<p>Since I talked to Xelgad himself on test_copy, I asked him naturally about Recklessness. I have no clearance to post the screenshot of the chat, but his words were "we do want tanks to be able to pull aggro if they choose so and to hold it with *insert def tools for your class*.</p><p>It all came along a discussion about the hate positional remover from several spells and CAs, wich doesn't include Holy Ground from Paladin. That's why I asked and got this surprising answer. Although he said "holding for a bit", they never took away the possibility to tank and they never wanted to.</p><p>Now, you can ask him yourself or ask his permission to post the screenshot or take a cold shower or whatever. Until then,</p><p>Eat this :p</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Since I talked to Xelgad himself on test_copy, I asked him naturally about Recklessness. I have no clearance to post the screenshot of the chat, but his words were "we do want tanks to be able to pull aggro if they choose so and to hold it with *insert def tools for your class*.</p><p>It all came along a discussion about the hate positional remover from several spells and CAs, wich doesn't include Holy Ground from Paladin. That's why I asked and got this surprising answer. Although he said "holding for a bit", they never took away the possibility to tank and they never wanted to.</p><p>Now, you can ask him yourself or ask his permission to post the screenshot or take a cold shower or whatever. Until then,</p><p>Eat this :p</p></blockquote><p>I'll eat nothing.  When a dev announces to the entire community (like the statement Xelgad himself posted that I linked) that your statement is true, then I'll believe it to be a fact.  Until then, a Fighter in Reckless emergency-tanking a mob is no different than a Dirge emergency tanking.  Sure you have more tools to do so, but you simply are not MEANT to tank.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Since I talked to Xelgad himself on test_copy, I asked him naturally about Recklessness. I have no clearance to post the screenshot of the chat, but his words were "we do want tanks to be able to pull aggro if they choose so and to hold it with *insert def tools for your class*.</p><p>It all came along a discussion about the hate positional remover from several spells and CAs, wich doesn't include Holy Ground from Paladin. That's why I asked and got this surprising answer. Although he said "holding for a bit", they never took away the possibility to tank and they never wanted to.</p><p>Now, you can ask him yourself or ask his permission to post the screenshot or take a cold shower or whatever. Until then,</p><p>Eat this :p</p></blockquote><p>I can confirm Xelgad also said something of the same to me, it is expected that tanks can snap then tank while saves are up but not that they should be able to constantly tank in recklessness.  Which makes perfect sense, the problem of course is plate tanks are tanking in this stance because they can block with it up.</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p>Tanks should not have block in reckless.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Tanks should not have block in reckless.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, no one should have unconstested avoidance in reckless.</p><p>But we should also probably have no hatemod, and probably should get something other than just potency, or the buff should be tailored to different classes/archtypes.</p><p>But I wont hold my breath on that one.</p>

[SOE-MOD-02]

<p>Please stay on track with the topic at hand.  Thank you!</p><p>Monks given Detaunts no other fighters get?</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p>For once itd be nice to get some kind of response whether the issue at hand is intended or not.</p><p>Are all fighter -supposed- to get detaunts, or are Monks given special treatment?</p><p>We only go off topic because no devs care to answer the first question...</p>

[Xelgad]

<p>This is a bug which I cannot seem to reproduce. Please post or PM me your gear/adornments, exact advancement/character development spec along with what buffs you currently have active when seeing this situation. Also, please PM me your character name and server. Preferably all of the above.</p><p>Anyone else who is seeing the same issue with the threat positions can also contact me directly.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is a bug which I cannot seem to reproduce. Please post or PM me your gear/adornments, exact advancement/character development spec along with what buffs you currently have active when seeing this situation. Also, please PM me your character name and server. Preferably all of the above.</p><p>Anyone else who is seeing the same issue with the threat positions can also contact me directly.</p></blockquote><p>PM Sent</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is a bug which I cannot seem to reproduce. Please post or PM me your gear/adornments, exact advancement/character development spec along with what buffs you currently have active when seeing this situation. Also, please PM me your character name and server. Preferably all of the above.</p><p>Anyone else who is seeing the same issue with the threat positions can also contact me directly.</p></blockquote><p>I think it is all monks.  It is just hidden openings and sneering assualt.  Our rescue, peel and provoking stance abilities still give positional snaps.  It is actually very useful even if it is unintended.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is a bug which I cannot seem to reproduce. Please post or PM me your gear/adornments, exact advancement/character development spec along with what buffs you currently have active when seeing this situation. Also, please PM me your character name and server. Preferably all of the above.</p><p>Anyone else who is seeing the same issue with the threat positions can also contact me directly.</p></blockquote><p>I think it is all monks.  It is just hidden openings and sneering assualt.  Our rescue, peel and provoking stance abilities still give positional snaps.  It is actually very useful even if it is unintended.</p></blockquote><p>This.  I don't have a bruiser to test it on, but I heard they were experiencing the same mechanic change on Sneering and Staggering Blow.</p><p>Gotta say it's nice to have a dehate, even if it's on a long recast, in reckless.  Aggro can get crazy, esp when you are adorned with +hate gain, etc for when you are normally tanking.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Dehates and all would be one thing.</p><p>But as I see it, one of the primary issues I have is hatemod.  I need to change AA and gear if I'm going to use reckless and not have agro all the time.</p><p>Then again, as posted elsewhere, I'm having little issue surviving MTing raids in reckless, so the whole thing is silly.</p></blockquote><p>WTB -5 hate positional proc on incoming hit.  Fixed.</p><p>No one should be tanking in this stance, even if their gear says they can.  It's not what it's intended for and makes every person complaining about Reckless right.  And it's the devs' fault for not fixing it to discourage any person from actually tanking with it.</p></blockquote><p>I agree with you.  I love the idea of a reckless stance but, like anything else, it has to be done right.</p><p>Recklessness was intended so that extra fighters beyond those needed for tanking could be useful in a DPS role.  Not so they could do more damage while tanking.  SoE was slipshod by not taking the time to redo it as necessary to get it right (sound familiar?)</p><p>All the snap aggros need to be reworked for their behavior while in reckless.  They should not be hate increasers.  As with other DPS classes a few could be turned into dehates, but some fighter classes have so many snap aggroes that they can't all be turned into dehates or DPS fighters won't have to worry as much about ripping aggro as a regular T1 class.  If SoE can't find anything else for them to do in reckless  they should just do nothing; or at least the positional portion should be removed while in reckless.</p><p>And I think it entirely reasonable that tanking gear be completely incompatible with DPS gear.  If you want to do both you should have two sets of gear.</p><p>If the mob is easy enough and the healer good enough, it is indeed possible to tank with a DPS class.  I do it on a beastlord frequently  in heroic content when a fighter isn't available.  A fighter in reckless should only be able to tank what a DPS melee class could tank with comparable gear and healing.  A DPS tanking does not have access to the tools that a reckless fighter has tanking.  How those tools work in reckless needs to be *fixed*. </p><p>The goal of all of this to make tanking in reckless no better then a DPS class tanking. I.e. something that's only done as a last resort.  You don't see DPS classes tanking for raids.  The same should be with tanking in reckless.  Not something that you would do on purpose.</p>

[Gungo]

<p>Reckless stance is broken and was completely unneeded giving fighters a role they should not have in raids. It has created massive balance issues and was a bone thrown to players who cried about not putting up overpowered parses like they were in TSO. There are alot of complaints about this stance and it all stems from the fact is was never needed and completely OP.</p>

[Shredderr]

<p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I love my Monk and all, but I love the rest of my Tank stable too.</p><p>Why was my Monk the only one given detaunts in Reckless Stance?  Did bruisers get this too?  It's the only tank I don't have at 92, so I really don't know.</p><p>Hidden Openings is a 3 position detaunt, and Sneering Assault is a 1 position dehate.  Plus they have the AA choice to get another dehate.  What's up with that?</p><p>Fair is fair, and apologies to all true DPS classes, but really all fighters could use a dehate skill in Reckless stance.  Sneering is on a huge recast tho...</p></blockquote><p>stupid why does everyone feel like a monk should be capable of doing nothing they can do? Then let us wear plate and hold shields . Let us all go by the title Shadowknight ... give us all 1 click i win buttons. Our taunts do not even work compared to most tanks taunts in a bg/pvp scenario anymore why u crying over this pathetic ability that screams I am not a tank don't look at me puppet !</p>