05-27-2007, 09:58 PM
Quote:Warriors should have the edge on most encounters, but all encounters should be tankable by a druid or a paladin, period. Otherwise they are not viable alternatives to warriors, which the devs claimed they should be.
There's absolutely no reason why the MT spot should always be taken by just one class. No other class in the game gets special treatment on that front, so why on earth should warriors?
Right now, druids are at least viable alternatives on most encounters (though not all; Nightbane sucks). Paladins however need a buff.
I agree with paladins needing a buff. That said, the devs have a problem if they design an encounter to be reasonably doable by a feral druid or protection paladin. Namely, if a feral druid can do it, a protection warrior might make it too easy. They seem to have the problem of making it hard for a protection spec warrior and a feral druid. If it is hard for a protection spec warrior, then a feral druid would probably require some serious healing mojo. Though by getting rid of crushing blows, they can force themselves to start designing encounters in such a way that it could be difficult for both. Right now, that's the main advantage warriors have; the ability to stop crushing blows. Get rid of that, and for purely physical fights, a druid is king. (Unless block starts stopping serious damage...). Hell, you could do a trio of bosses, one who hits hard as hell on physical, one who is undead/weak to paladin abilities, and one who uses physical + spell damage. Voila, each class is needed.
That, or simply merge the protection + retribution tree for a paladin, and merge the prot + fury tree for a warrior, giving them both the versatility of a druid. The idea of a tanking "spec" is actually one of the main drivers of all these issues...maybe the druid designer got it right with the druids by combing the DPS/tank tree into one?