Most Brawlers have caught up to plate tanks in Mitigation.

So why do they need strikethrough immunity?

Strikethrough Immunity was put in because brawlers had 40-45% Mitigation at the time and relied on avoidance, while plate tanks had 60-68%.

Now that brawlers also have 60-68% Mitigation in DOV, its no longer needed, infact it makes them super-powerful in most cases. (Heroics, PvP, Raiding, Ect.)

It should be removed and rebalanced with something such as "Reduces the damage taken by strikethrough attacks by 10%." And it should be added to all avoidance buffs for all tank classes.

Not true but thanks for trying.

While not true, the disparity between the mitigation values no longer justify the signifcance of the difference in incoming damage granted by 100% strikethru immunity. Reduction of the 100% value seems practicle in leveling the incoming damage profile between brawlers and everyone else.
I wont hold my breath or anything though.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I call BS on this, we have been over it so many times yet you guys haven't shown one ounce of proof to back up your claims.

I'm surprised the fact that pretty much every guild that matters runs a brawler tank cause its easier to maintain them isn't enough proof for you.
If I felt there was any doubt in my claim, I'd post data, but I really don't care enough to beat you about the head with reality.

I play both monk MT atm and have a hm/em geared zerk and guard aswell. Like you said atan the mit is not the same but the diff is so small. So no its not BS. The funny thing is that my zerk with maxed out block on AA and a hm shield gets around 37% block. My monk has 53% ish with block gear on. Not to talk about the rest of the uncontested avoidance. Then count in strike tough and it gets even lower. Plate tanks need more damage reduction tools if striketough is to stick. I dont agree with talon since the mit is not the same... but its not so much diff really.

Don't put down those sticks guys, I thought I just saw it twitch.

I suppose I could just screen shot our Monks mit compared to mine in raid. The other night both in defensive stance, me actually sporting 2 healers him only 1 because it is cake for 1 to keep him up on some encounters to lower healers there was a mitigation difference of like 300.
Start adding in damage reduction capabilities and its pathetic.
Meanwhile without having Brawler avoidance on myself for a Tallon kill I had actual avoidance of 52%. Bruiser was sporting actual avoidance of 68% while Monk was around 75% (Monk had Bruiser's avoidance).
How much HPS would a Crusader have to heal themselves to make up the difference of being hit 16% more by these HM Drunder mobs?
EDIT: BTW if you want to see some real crazy avoidance numbers get the Monk MT'ing with Brawler avoidance on them and in a group with a Warden + Templar.

Bruener wrote:

We've done this and add a guard in the group for even more mit / stoneskin for the monk.

All I know for a FACT is that every MOB Ive tanked Ive seen a Pally and Guard in same guild Tank just as easily. This is up to second named in HM Sullons. To believe strikethrough immune is holding either of these two classes from MTing to this point is in fact denial.
Why anyone would be asking for any tank to be nerfed is just rediculous IMHO. Justify the need on your plate tank the same as brawlers justified the need to get strikethrough immune in the first place and you might be on to something (Brawlers justified a mechanic that specifically effected the class). Personally I dont think you can so the next obvious course is just getting brawlers nerfed to regain your MT spots /shrug
IMHO I think theres some other reasons why brawlers are MTing more. One being from every guard that Ive talked to that swapped just likes the brawlers all around game play better. I cant argue that there fun outside of raid and if they can MT as well we have a winner! Biggest complaint from ex guards is brawlers dont hold AoE as well.

Damager wrote:

Here is the simple gist of it. Brawlers get hit way less often. They take same size hits when they do get hit. They have more saves that are up more often to deal with one-shots. And they have more snap capability both AE and ST.
Meanwhile every tank with current mechanics and current need of hate buffers/transfers due to the disparity in current DPS tiers hold agro about the same. If you don't have the buffs/transfers you don't hold the hate. If you do, you do hold it.
People aren't just making this stuff up. Yeah, other tanks CAN tank. It is just more difficult. There is no way you are going to be able to convince that all these people and guilds have made a big switch to using Brawlers for progression just because their fun outside of raid.

Bruener wrote:

Incorrect sir. I am not trying to convince anyone of anythin I stated the fact that both Pallies and Guards have Tanked the same content with no issues as I have. Whether brawlers do it easier however is an oppinion. I stated what I was told from guards that have swapped and their oppinion.
The "Simple Gist" you are deifining is lets make stuff harder for everyone (Based on your one sided oppinion), not easier which IMHO is not well thought out at all especially when you take into concideration the progression the people complaining has actually encountered. Common sense would be for a class that feels inferior to state what and why they feel that way with their class spcific problem to bring them up to par, saying because xyz has abc so they are OP is completely unproductive as they do not directly relate in comparison.
On a side note, I have watched a Pally MT HM content with only 3 groups and 4 healers while I was OT, Ii will be close to impossible to convince me of such a drastic over power of brawlers from my personal experience. From some Raid healers Oppinions it is also easier to keep a Pally up than a brawler on HM Finnrdag /shrug

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I mean no disrespect.
There has to be doubt in your claim otherwise as raid leader you would not have had a Guard as MT and a Monk as OT otherwise you would be admiting to holding back a whole raid out of spite.

Having both a monk and guard in basically the same gear, I can say the incoming damage profile is much easier on the monk.
There are few places / fights that I think the guard is a tad easier to run with, but in general the overall reduction of damage from auto attacks on the monk makes it significantly easier to survive.
And yes, I'll agree aoe is a tad easier on guard than monk.
But all us plate MT's didn't swap to brawlers cause it made instancing more fun, it made raid progression easier.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Correct the Guard is significantly better equiped for anything other than physical damage, depending on the mob it sways as to which is easier to heal. This is called balance.
I keep up with Monks on the server, That is what their oppinion was after swapping to Monk as their main for some time, When all said and done their Oppinion became there is some things easier on the Guard and other Things easier on the Monk, all said they just enjoyed the class better once they got use to it.
I can say nothing so far in your progression would be impacted either way by a monk or guard or Pally MT.

Damager wrote:

Ok, when you were comparing a Monk to a Guard there can be some give. When you threw the Paladin into the mix it just throws your opinion out the window. The Paladin not only is going to get hit more often but they also do not have the one shot prevention capability nor do they have the snap agro management.
Tanking comes down to 3 things right now. 1. Damage Taken Over Time 2. One Shot Prevention 3. Snap agro. (Notice DPS is not included on there because SOE made sure they made Fighter DPS irrelevant with DoV and also simple agro generation since every tank can easily generate enough agro to hold singles and AoE mobs off a raid with the set up that is required in raiding). So it simply comes down to those 3 items. Right now there are 3 tanks that are better in all 3 of those categories than the other 3 tanks. Brawlers specifically lead every single one of those categories.
As a SK in a raid it takes having a Templar + Warden + Brawler avoidance to get even close to the same sustainable damage taken + one shot prevention capability. Brawlers get all that built into their character along with superior snaps and can basically do it better with offensive healers than Plate tanks can with a stacked defensive group.
The mitigation gap is tiny and is more than made up for by DR on Brawlers. Meanwhile the gap in avoidance is tremendous partly due to +block chance being on a better curve for Brawlers and partly because of strike through. If they are going to make it so that Leather tanks take the same size physical hits than they should make it so that Plate tanks have the same avoidance. Than they can adjust some abilities on Crusaders + Zerkers for a little bit better one shot prevention.

Damager wrote:

I see it differently.
The monk excells at surviving unpredictable damage.
The guard excells at negating predictable damage.
Unpredictable things are naturally much, much harder to deal with so we prefer to run the MT that minimizes that risk. And I think when you consider a guard OT in the same group can leverage that predictable damage negation as well and let the monk MT most of the time, its clear to me which is the best choice.

It's hard to take Brawlers seriously when they argue that their survivability is balanced because I already understand that it's possible to play a Brawler so that they don't survive much/any better than other fighters. Just simply rolling a Brawler doesn't make you an unkillable, infinite snap juggernaut. However, I also understand that some people are able to attain that status by gearing/spec'ing/playing a certain way. As far as I'm aware, Berserkers/Crusaders cannot become unkillable, infinite snap juggernauts no matter how they're geared/spec'd/played.

Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:

If brawlers are unkillable then raid content in this game would be cleared, clearly its not or even close to happening so all you are doing is talking the same garbage you always do.

BChizzle wrote:

You bring up a good point there! Now that you mention it, they don't technically have infinite snaps either. Perhaps I got a bit carried away.