Defender vs Guardian

[falchen]

You could already get 3-4 engagements going without it though, even asuming it's a worthwile spec Defender is not needed to pull it off, imo. 

[Njall]

 

am thinking that the biggest problem with defender is its name.  defender is not a great defensive ability.  that don't make it a bad ability.  the fact that enemy ai has improved/changed to the degree that engaged and enemies will take the disengagement hit to get at your squishies actual increases our dps fighter lethality.  have a dps tank or off-tank forgo a shield  and instead give him a big and vicious 2-handed weapon. is likely better for an off-tank to hold the flanks, but you can build a tank that survives not 'cause o' deflection, but 'cause o' enormous endurance/health and regenerative qualities.  use defender and engagement not as a defensive quality to hold enemies in place, but to punish those that predictably do not. 

 

the fact that defender were such a no-brainer were not a good thing.  bad balance.  defender is no longer a no-brainer, but the name is misleading. defender is a fighter ability that gots situational, but genuine, offensive usefulness.  rename it "punisher" and less folks would be confused.  heck, rename and change icon, but leave everything else the same and we bet folks would get more use from the ability.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Defender by any name would be a bad ability. +2 engagement for -5 deflection is just a terrible return on investment.

 

Now if they combined the new prone attack on disengagement with Defender or Wary Defender then you'd have something interesting that'd open up new possibilities.

 

I disagree. +2 engagement for -5 deflection would just be a bad return on investment. Now, +2 engagement for -5 deflection and being locked out of any other useful modal is actually terrible

Edited February 26, 2016 by Njall