New players - pick a knight if you aren't a boxer

The qualifier you're missing there is "melee" DPS. It's perfectly reasonable for all 3 tanks to do similar overall DPS, distinguished by a few flavor differences e.g. Paladins win vs undead, SK's with spell-type ADPS, Warriors with melee ADPS.

Personally I am ok with warriors out dps'ing me as a paladin if they do DPS and they aren't terrible. Still loling that warriors think they should out dps SK though. e
EITHER way all the tanks DPS ATM is terrible and could use a boost anyway.

Because we forego spell books and have by far the least non-tanking utility?

That is ridiculously asinine. You choose a specialty class and want to take away from SKs what is theirs by design, the entire reason for being an SK. Talk about stepping all over another class...

In a raid a warrior has more utility and value added than an SK... fact. Field guardian Imp charge Gut punch vs Tvyl's

I don't have a single doubt that this overtuned def prof change for knight has not been tested properly.
This change is not fine at all for class balance. The % of knight def prof needs to be cut in half, 15 %.
So that allows them to tank raid adds, eating RT, and having a shot at raid bosses without stepping on warriors toes.

If your toes are getting stepped on it's probably because you're a bad warrior, and no one is telling you outright?
Sorry if the knight buff means you can't be a lazy/bad raider anymore and still expect a slot in the TO.

I don't have any problem skill wise, thanks. I can understand though that bad knights like you needed a boost like this to be able to play your class properly.

How did you come up with the 15% value for knight DP?
Please share your work so we can look at it and discuss it rationally.


This is my problem with your stance. After years of it being a roughly 5% bonus to base mitigation, the 35% was needed and fair for warriors to have in your opinion. Now that they took it away after seeing the consequences of giving it out in the first place, you still feel that warriors should maintain a 15% - 20% advantage. Again, please stop waving your hands around and pulling numbers out of the air that makes you feel good about it and actually show something that supports your OPINION that knights are fine with a 15% - 20% disadvantage in base mitigation.

Well it's a personal number I admit, I think it should be 20 % max, so 15 % def prof stacking with Knight Sedulity 5%, or remove knight sedulity and make it 20 %.
Any number above, like 25 or 30 %. I feel the % mitigated would be too close to warrior.
Knights needed a boost in tanking Raid Adds, and eating RT. I feel 20 % will be appropriate to fill this job, while still allowing you to get a solid chance at raid bosses.

48 pages and counting, with pure, pure emotion and constant nerf calls the mother's milk of this thread. It's time for a new meme!

We've reached at least Orange threat level people. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Your facts are wrong.

Facts: The day before we got stances, we had 15% innate mitigation. Then the 15% innate was nerfed to 5%, and we got a 25% DP and 10% DW in exchange. Then 6 months later, they upped DP and DW to 30% and 15%. We also had our FS (old LS) nerfed from 60% to 50% due to stances (unintentional.)

Stances were a vastly superior upgrade for knights than they were for wars. Do I even need to mention the clearly unintentional Mantle/Armor+DP stacking most knights conveniently ignore?

If you want to go back to the old school days when warriors had the 5% no-AA innate only, you're going back to the days when knights had 0 mitigation discs (Holy/Unholy Guardians), and most of that time they didn't have 2 absorb/vie discs either.

I remember when self-healing meant "Root the mob, back up and click Deepwater Helm for 2 minutes"

The good old days. Killing in Paineel, fear kiting in OT, waiting on clerics mana to regen. Oh how I miss time to actually type a sentence to each other. Almost makes me want to r eminence in Roshen's thread.

I remember when warrior aggro was a taunt key and what your chosen weapon effects would proc for you.

See what I did there?

I think you'll find Warriors would be VERY receptive to a role-appropriate agro scheme based around raw melee combat rather than a dozen silly agro buttons, which only exist because the devs couldn't/wouldn't deliver the former.

I'd also be entirely fine with a shift toward physical combat abilities that don't report "Warrior begins to cast a spell" in the logs.

I'm not particularly fond of weapon proc or bard-like group buffs defining our utility either tbh. Shove, grapple, guard, check/slam, push, wrestle, suppress, sweeping attacks, charge, etc... all sound more like the kind of stuff I'd expect to see in melee combat.

Instead, we're seeing what it looks like when melee things are forced into a spell system: Magical mini-me Warrior clones that appear briefly out of nowhere, only to get quickly swatted by the enemy. Not-even-half-baked regen system based on being nearly exhausted forever, combat skills awarded through arcane artifacts rather than training and practice, etc.

In a more practical sense, I'd like it if I didn't have to leap 80 feet in the air and land with my enemy behind me just to get an 18 second damage bonus twice a minute.

Regardless, I think you get the point. Don't go all BB on us with vague, infinitely circular "back in the day" references, sir!

OMG I THOUGHT YOU GUYS DIDN'T HAVE A SPELLBOOK

I don't think you got mine. Some things change with the times. Others don't.

Well...when you wrote 10x more detail in a post edit after I had replied, and wasn't really all that clear from the start....

Also Raven - I don't know you, but I'm sure you're a jerk .