No, that is not how tank works. Tanks can steal the taunt from each other at will, X number of times in a row, back and forth, until eventually the target becomes taunt immune.The reality is, if you command your tank companion to attack first, I don't believe you can steal aggro until their taunt expires (if I understand how it works).
Actually, and this is the irony, tanks have been complaining about templar or rather not using the class in high-end content. At the more difficult levels of the game, those where you truly need a tank (player - not companion), what players look for is mainly group utility. ZOS' changes don't address that at all. At best, what they do, is address templar tank from a role-playing perspective. That's not entirely wrong. I love taunting with a gap closer sometimes. My main issue is that this is already possiblle (with Tormentor) and that having the control of wearing that set, or not, is better than permanently having taunt married to both morphs of the gap closer. I'd be OK, I think, if they only put it on Toppling Charge, but left Explosive Charge alone. The AOE interrupt from the latter is quite unique and situationally useful. You IMO want DDs to be able to run that without a taunt.I don't understand why ZOS is suddenly focused on TANKS all of a sudden. I don't know how many class skills they've changed over the past year and claimed it was to specifically help "tanks"... yet I've not see any threads where tanks were complaining.
This is one of those "who in Oblivion asked for this?" changes.
I can guarantee you that adding a taunt to their gap closer will not make someone go, "oh, I want to tank on a Templar now". Addressing the lack of a health-scaled heal would go much farther than making this change that nobody asked for.
valenwood_vegan wrote: »Yeah it's such a weird change. Who asked for this?
At least just add the taunt to one morph... isn't that the point of having morphs?
For the people who are going from a tormentor setup to this, this of course frees up a lot of resources.
For the people who are going from a tormentor setup to this, this of course frees up a lot of resources.
People didn't use Tormentor because it turned gap closers into taunts.
People used Tormentor because it turned AoE gap closers (Explosive Charge and Lotus Fan) into AoE taunts.
Removing the ability to AoE taunt using Tormentor basically killed that set.
If someone at ZOS thought, "our stats show people using Tormentor, so adding a taunt to a gap closer is a great idea", then they didn't understand why people used Tormentor.
(To be clear, I am not advocating for an AoE taunt. I'm just saying that if this change was inspired by the use of Tormentor with Explosive Charge, then they missed the point of why those two things were originally paired.)
For people who liked taunting with gap closers
For people who liked taunting with gap closers
Ummm......
My point is that I would wager that "people who liked taunting with gap closers" either don't exist or are vanishingly few in number. Which is why the old behavior of the Tormentor set is relevant, because I suspect that the only reason people actively chose to use that set (what I mean by "actively chose" is that I'm excluding people who wear it because they're new to the game and they just put on whatever they picked up from a beginner dungeon--and yes, I've once encountered someone who was stealing taunt from me and subsequently dying because they were new and that's what they happened to have and didn't realize what they were doing) was because of its AoE taunt and NOT because people think that taunts on gap closers is a fantabulous idea.
The more important thing, though, is "people who don't want taunt on a gap closer" most likely significantly outnumber "people who liked taunting with gap closers".
A niche option, but technically a buff by adding an entire focus script worth of power, if it is more clear in these terms.
For people who liked taunting with gap closers
Ummm......
My point is that I would wager that "people who liked taunting with gap closers" either don't exist or are vanishingly few in number. Which is why the old behavior of the Tormentor set is relevant, because I suspect that the only reason people actively chose to use that set (what I mean by "actively chose" is that I'm excluding people who wear it because they're new to the game and they just put on whatever they picked up from a beginner dungeon--and yes, I've once encountered someone who was stealing taunt from me and subsequently dying because they were new and that's what they happened to have and didn't realize what they were doing) was because of its AoE taunt and NOT because people think that taunts on gap closers is a fantabulous idea.
The more important thing, though, is "people who don't want taunt on a gap closer" most likely significantly outnumber "people who liked taunting with gap closers".
You are absolutely overvaluing the weight of that one sentence in my statement, without actually engaging with the content. I don't know how much more I can acknowledge that this is a benefit to an outlier setup. A niche option, but technically a buff by adding an entire focus script worth of power, if it is more clear in these terms. You are not helping me understand something here.
Seems like recognizing the potential benefit made me the official representative for this change. reading comprehension is 0/10 in this thread.
Wandering_Immigrant wrote: »And even if they did, or sourced breach from somewhere else, that's still additional bar space taken up which completely negates what you say is the benefit.Seems like recognizing the potential benefit made me the official representative for this change. reading comprehension is 0/10 in this thread.
Wandering_Immigrant wrote: »And even if they did, or sourced breach from somewhere else, that's still additional bar space taken up which completely negates what you say is the benefit.Seems like recognizing the potential benefit made me the official representative for this change. reading comprehension is 0/10 in this thread.
This is the part where you are wrong because you are only thinking inside the box. But I really have no appetite to discuss this anymore, because nobody here seems able to take an argument at face value and instead confuses it with the idea that I somehow favor this change.
Wandering_Immigrant wrote: »Wandering_Immigrant wrote: »And even if they did, or sourced breach from somewhere else, that's still additional bar space taken up which completely negates what you say is the benefit.Seems like recognizing the potential benefit made me the official representative for this change. reading comprehension is 0/10 in this thread.
This is the part where you are wrong because you are only thinking inside the box. But I really have no appetite to discuss this anymore, because nobody here seems able to take an argument at face value and instead confuses it with the idea that I somehow favor this change.
Outside the box how like having someone else in group responsible for breach? That's fine if you're composing your own groups, and if you have a group of players in your circle who are ok with that type of free thinking then that's great and good for you I love outside the box thinkers. This change still doesn't synergize with Templar tanks or improve it in any way though. And most of us don't have the luxury of a group like that anyway, we just want our Templar tanks that we love to be accepted by the wider player base so that we can use them instead of being asked to change class. Instead we get an update that's going to turn Templar into the meme tank making it even harder for us to be accepted.
All tanks usually stay still, because that (also) helps the DDs do damage with their ground AOEs.Wandering_Immigrant wrote: »A gap closer taunt especially makes little sense on Templar in particular since they excel most when standing in their sacred ground.