View Single Post
Old 06-26-2012, 12:41 PM   #25
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Honestly it'll be better just to get rid of the stances altogether - they just either didn't do enough or were an unnessercary nerf; Recklessness as it sounds should have been how the offensive stance should have worked in the first place. effectively trading the tank's ability to survive for increased DPS when you were not needed to hold agro.

No!

That was exactly Aerilik's design that got shot down unilaterally last time.

Just cause you choose to do dps should not mean you can't build agro.  Sure you should trade survivability for dps, that makes sense, but when you out-class content there should be no reason no to go into as little survivability as needed and still tank.

This idea of a stance that sets agro to 0 is a bad idea.  Why don't other classes get the same stance?  The answer is it would be game breaking for anyone else to have it, and that is sufficient reason for it not to exist for fighters as well.

I realize we've not seen the stance yet, but the entire thing smacks of exactly what we saw before.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote