|
Did you read my whole post? You rephrase part of what I said(better phrased then me I admit).
However my question goes unanswered.
point two is you cant have a difference( does not mean super power gap) between 5 and 20 and leave 20/20/20 equal to 20 by playing with the mechanics of how powers interact. Whatyou need to do is adjust the mechanics of the base stats(hp,bab, etc) and have those rules change at lvl 20.( use max hp for example)
All I am trying to say is changing the power stacking mechanics is not going to achieve your goal(and will have negative effects on balance).
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did you read my whole post? You rephrase part of what I said(better phrased then me I admit).
However my question goes unanswered.
point two is you cant have a difference( does not mean super power gap) between 5 and 20 and leave 20/20/20 equal to 20 by playing with the mechanics of how powers interact. Whatyou need to do is adjust the mechanics of the base stats(hp,bab, etc) and have those rules change at lvl 20.( use max hp for example)
All I am trying to say is changing the power stacking mechanics is not going to achieve your goal(and will have negative effects on balance).
I am completely lost on what you are attempting to say at this point. All of your examples are toggling in your last post
Example, A 20wiz/20ftr vs a 20 ftr, the wiz can cast a spell at rng so the ftr retaliates with his bow. The wiz has to worry about whether the spell works or not because of the armor while the fighter is limited by how many tgts he can hit. When meelee is reached the ftr will atk with sword and wiz can use either sword or spell, the sword is definate dmg on hit where as the spell is a gamble for slightly higher dmg or a different effect requires to hit AND to pass spell fail check. because the hp and bab was capped the wiz/ftr and the ftr have similer hp and bab.
Toggling I see no problem with, you can make use of one ability in that time, the effective power level is the same whether he is using the wizards attack OR the fighters attack, that is a fair reasonable equal power option. Your DPS matches whichever one you chose at that time, you are more versatile but not more powerful, which is the goal.
Now when you are talking things like sneak attack with maximized shocking grasp.. now you are talking about doing the damage of a wizard AND a rogue in one attack, that is drastically more damage in the same time then either one can do, so you are effectively doubling damage/second. Now we aren't talking versatility, we are talking raw power.
HP Itself to me I think will have to be a combination of armor and a skill of it's own, There is no "base level" or anything to work with, so logically HP should just be it's own skill with it's own cap, that possibly will be enhanced by the type of armor worn. In a non level based system HP does not go up based on just random skills you take.
For simplicity I think we should probably stop using the term level at all. The game is a skill system, so maybe for logic we should use cappstoned for a full class, and just time for other parts.
Say someone who is a max level fighter, and half way to max wizard, would be capped fighter, 1.25 years wiz. may be a bit more annoying to say, but at least it makes more sense considering levels aren't actually going to exist.
Base attack bonus, I have no idea if that one will exist or how that will work, logically I highly doubt base attack will exist at all. but rather certain abilities with certain classes will have higher hit chances then others.
I think far too much confusion is going on with trying to transpose the Pathfinder rules system, on a game that more or less has no intention of following the leveling system or exact types of level ups, only mostly imitate the end result of some abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, DLH is trying to address your proposed solution to the power curve problem. You'll recall saying earlier that in order to ensure that a 20/20/20/20 was not radically more powerful than a 20, it would be necessary to ensure that the abilities from each class did not stack. DLH is trying to point out that if the abilities don't stack at 20/20/20/20, then they probably won't stack at 5/5/5/5 either, and that will seriously hamper the true multi-class character.
For simplicity I think we should probably stop using the term level at all.
Very true! It's extremely misleading because of the past use of the term in other settings, and brings with it a whole host of assumptions that are not likely to be true in PFO. But I'm not sure it really solves the problem to use time as a proxy for level, either. The reality is that there will be players who choose to maximize certain abilities as quickly as possible, while others will meander through the game picking up fun stuff here and there. That will leave the door open for a player who has been playing for 10 years to still be less powerful than someone who's only been playing for 6 months (probably hyperbole, but it makes the point).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I understand it, higher archetype levels won't be about greater strength, just more options in combat. So a 5/5/5/5 will have more options in combat than a level 5, so he will be a little bit more useful. Likewise, a 20/20/20 won't do any more damage than a 20, but he will have 3 times as many abilities, and so have more varied options in combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Arbalester, I'm not sure it's that simple. I think DLH is on to something here, if I understand him correctly.
I'm not sure of the specifics, because I haven't actually played tabletop in a while, but my understanding is that there are certain stacking bonuses that are available. Let's pretend they are: A spell that makes it easier for an enemy to be hit in combat (Faerie Fire?), a Fighter's Sword Proficiency Bonus, and a Ranger's Favored Enemy Bonus. A single character that had access to all three bonuses should be able to stack up a lot of bonus To Hit. I think that's what DLH is saying should be in PFO as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, DLH is trying to address your proposed solution to the power curve problem. You'll recall saying earlier that in order to ensure that a 20/20/20/20 was not radically more powerful than a 20, it would be necessary to ensure that the abilities from each class did not stack. DLH is trying to point out that if the abilities don't stack at 20/20/20/20, then they probably won't stack at 5/5/5/5 either, and that will seriously hamper the true multi-class character.
Yeah I do understand that, but still fail to see a way for it to work. Even in ideas that I think are bad, usually someone has something to make them workable. If DLH has an idea for it he still hasn't phrased it in a way that I can understand. Now there is one other possibility, if damage itself were not particularly based on the abilities. If abilities were more designed for setting up shots, CC etc... and actual damage numbers were more based on the weapons themselves, perhaps AOEs deal a set 1/3rd of base damage etc... Having many weak ways to stun/slow/trip/track/distract would be comperable power to having a few strong ways to slow/trip/track/distract.
A solid way to make abilities more versatile rather than more direct power increase, would be to seperate archtype abilities from being direct boosts to damage altogether, and make it easier to allow tradeoffs, pro's/cons etc...
With no levels, fireball etc... do not go up in damage by "level" anyway, so perhaps there is more logic to them, if say instead of getting higher damaging spells, you get spells with more mixed benefits/disadvantages, if friendly fire is enabled, then spell size is critical, if your team may pre-plan to use the right elemental resistance, then your spells matching your teams resistances is an advantage. Area of the spell is a mixed advantage as you can hit more enemies, but also put more risk of hitting allies. etc..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm generaly of the opinion that if you want to have abilities stack in a manner to the way DLH is suggesting AND you want the guys that have been playing 2.5 years to be somewhat competitive with the guys that have been playing 6 years then you pretty much have to hard cap adventuring levels (that's my preference BTW but not the way the designers have indicated they are looking to go)...or at the very list hardcap the number of levels a character can have "equiped" at any one time. Example you may "know" 20 levels of Fighter and 20 Levels of Wizard...so you could have 15 Fighter & 5 Wizard equiped or 18 Wizard & 2 Fighter but no more then 20 total....and if you want to change your setup, you go back to town or wherever and respec yourself. That COULD work and allow stacking.
However, if you want the player to have access to ALL their abilities at any given time and don't want to have any hard limits on advancement....then you are pretty much going to have to have some mechanism for preventing abilities from stacking.
I agree with Onishi, I just don't see in practical terms how you could get those goals to be compatible otherwise.
...seperate archtype abilities from being direct boosts to damage altogether...
Exactly.
I don't believe there will be anything problematic whatsoever about endlessly improving your character.
Take "hit" as a specific example. Ultimately, it will probably be easy to reach the hit cap. Stacking hit bonuses may seem powerful in the short term, but it should be balanced against whatever options you didn't take. In the long term, stacking hit bonuses will probably be counterproductive, as doing so will put you over the cap (thus wasting the bonus).
Crit, haste, parry, dodge and other similar stats (that can be hard or soft capped) will probably be in the same boat. You could even put AC in this category (if desireable) and kill two birds with one stone.
That leaves only straight damage bonuses as potentially problematic. Those are easily balanced by a global cooldown (for active abilities) or simply making them unstackable (for passive bonuses).
|
|
For onishi, let me clarify base stats as I think would be used here(of course I am running with the assumtion they are starting with pf and modifying for mmo yet keeping true where possible)
When you make a character you would have the six ability scores that would be improved with points. These ability scores would affect other stats, like hp(from con), ac(from dex), bab(str or dex), ini(dex, in an mmo would be a tie breaker of who went first if needed), cmb(str bab), cmd (bab, dex, str, size, +10), and size. these are difficult to enhance.
These can be improved only with training(rarely a magic item might help)in a "class lvl" which when training is complete and badge aquired would then provide an increase to the appropriate score/stat, however what I was suggesting earlier would be to limit these increases to the top 20 applicable badges(which would effect the stats but not the usable powers)
The following stats work like base stats but or only achieved with traning or inherent special ability, nothing else; Caster lvl(for power of spells), spell ressistance( they did state a change to resistances instead of saves though), languages(see post script), ability save dcs(though these would be increased from abilities, they are unlocked by gaining abilities)
Then we have skills which are only trained, normally skills would just add to your d20 roll for a higher score but it sounds like the ranks achieved in each will unlock badges instead(so do I learn spells by lvling know:arcana?). So I wont elaborate further unless requested
feats,powers,abilities, they seem to be unlocked with skills and badges but they will need to look at prerequisites most likely, such as other abilities and/or total lvl. these abilities are directly affected by the base stats, which determine how much dmg, duration, rng, etc.
also each ability/item/power/etc bonus has a type, only the highest bonus of each type stacks(thus a +4armor/+4 shield/+3armor results in +8) with the exception of deflection/dodge/insight/inherent/morale?
I therefore could have have a 20wiz/15ftr and I would get 15ftr hp badges(+ big) and 5 wiz hp badges(+ sml) totalling 20 badges increases to hp(even though I would have 35 badges). Thus my hp is still in line with any other 20+ character. the other base stats can be limited the same way, thus I will never have a caster lvl higher then 20, etc. however I would see each of these calculated individually so I dont have to worry about "equiping" badges. Thus my above char would have cstr lvl 20(from wiz since ftr doesnt add to cstr lvl) and 15 ftr hp and 5 wiz hp.
thus the powers are limited to what "lvl" 20 chars can produce(in the book many spells have max limits well above lvl 20)
basically the abiliies power is determined by base stats which have hard limits thus preventing endlessly increasing in power yet without "equiping" or needing to limit stacking.
After reading the last few pages, I found the thread is like a M&M (the first party based RPG popped out in my head is Might & Magic so I'll just reference the genre as M&M to represent the whole party based RPG) VS Elder Scroll thread.
In M&M, party members are limited, and it's in the best interest for characters in the party to rely on each other (you can still beat the game solo, being self-sufficient while lacking in some areas your character is unfamiliar with.); in ES, your character has nearly little to no restrictions in gaining skills to max, and can perform everything he has at any moment.
From what I read about EVE, if I understand it correctly, Eve seems to have ships that you "equip" with which handicap the learned skills, so versatility at once is not possible, therefore it is closer to the M&M style of playing than ES during combat, while more ES than M&M outside of combat?
For infinite character advancement vs partying, there used to be some online mmorpg that can endless boost your characters' levels. One I particularly remembered had the power boost through reincarnations that allow stacking stats & selective feats/magics.
When the mmorpg was launched, everyone tries to find others to team up with to beat the difficult foes/bosses. Full party players (4) with max level against the final boss at the first island was still difficult. After several years, any (high reincarnation counts) characters can one shot the same final boss, and players group much less with each other than before, unless there are raids between factions, or when contents that have higher difficulties are released.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For onishi, let me clarify base stats as I think would be used here(of course I am running with the assumtion they are starting with pf and modifying for mmo yet keeping true where possible)
Right there, your assumption is drastically different from the developers implications. Almost every implication from the developers etc... has implied while they want to keep the flavor/lore of the pathfinder universe. Mechanics/rules/leveling etc... is very far from a goal to keep true.
basically the abiliies power is determined by base stats which have hard limits thus preventing endlessly increasing in power yet without "equiping" or needing to limit stacking.
In all of that long rant, you have yet to explain anything as to why stacking with abilities will not be out of hand, you've explained decently on HP etc..., but you still have done nothing to explain how a 6 years in capstoned rogue + wizard using whatever the strongest touch or ranged touch spell, stacked with the maximum sneak attack dice from rogue. Would not be drastically more powerful then either of them 2.5 years in?
Your focus in that argument is entirely on BAB, HP, and Stats, all of which are things that I am pretty sure have to be irrelevant of archetype. At least IMO archetype itself should not be so linear that there is only 1 proper order for skills to be earned in, and some skills should take longer than others. So how would you define when HP badges come in? If the HP badges are their own separate part of the arch-type to train, why attach them to the archetype at all. They have already confirmed there will be skills that aren't connected to archetype, the crafting/harvesting skills, and quite possibly any skills that imitate feats or be useful on multiple arch-types.
In games based on skills, there is not supposed to be a clear set line describing your power in a clearly finite number, there is no quantity of hit dice, and I honestly can't see a reason why stats should be related to arch-type at all.
|
|
If they are just keeping lore and feel with nothing else then why archtypes at all? The only reason to stick with archtypes is to remain within throwing distance of the original pf game, do you truly think that characters in setting think of each other by archtypes?
while mechanics might change that doesnt mean they wont reflect the original. ddo uses different mechanics in many places but it still played like dnd, I could easily compare the pnp and the mmo despite differing mechanics.
as far as a 20wiz/20rog vs a 20rog or wiz, the 20/20 might get a big hit in front IF they are not seen sneaking up and they are not any better at that then any 20 rog or 20 wiz. After first strike attempt then rog wiz can use any atk one at a time. cast a spell or strike with dagger. the spell might enhance the daggers next atk like truestrike but the time must still be taken to cast it and your opp gets an opening to atk when you cast. how is 1.5 dmg for a single strike only, drastically overpowered?(and maybe Im just tired but snk atk is the only thing I can think of right now the gives big dmg improve which rog have anyway)
and base stats are seperate from archtype but still affected by archtype, the idea is all powers/abilities are based on the base stats so to have a good enough snk to snk atk with your wizrog you have to split between the two while the striaght wiz will boost just his spellcasting, thus casting more powerfull spells then you which compensates for your ability to snk. both of which are based on base stats that have limits.
you can be super onething or you can be good everything.
go ahead take a 20wiz/20rog against a straight wiz, the straight wiz will cast better then you.
if there is no set line defineing power then what is your argument standing on? you dont want me to be overpowered but yet you dont think we can compare our power?
You cannot balance two characters without a clear cut idea of how to compare them( this ties into my question that you did not answer;What is the power of a character compared to?)
also you worry about multiclassing but then disrupt the idea of classes to begin with, further I might take time to combine rog and wiz but you might instead take metamagic and cross those abilities in the same way that Im crossing mine.
This is not a "only multiclass can combine abilities" situation. You can improve your focused abilities with feats and such while my feats are spent mixing my classes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are just keeping lore and feel with nothing else then why archtypes at all? The only reason to stick with archtypes is to remain within throwing distance of the original pf game, do you truly think that characters in setting think of each other by archtypes?
while mechanics might change that doesnt mean they wont reflect the original. ddo uses different mechanics in many places but it still played like dnd, I could easily compare the pnp and the mmo despite differing mechanics.
DDO is a game that's very specific goals are to emulate the P&P games rules as closely as possible, hence why it is a level based game in which you earn feats every 4 levels, skill points etc... the advancedment system is roughly 85% based on the P&P game, it also had no reason to worry about ballance of low/high levels due to everything being instanced, thus for all your character cared, even at level 5, you never had any conflict with, nor were you working towards the same goals of anyone over level 8. It also could afford for PVP to be ludicriously unballanced considering as far as anyone who played it was concerned, there was no PVP in the game. The P&P game is also unballanced for PVP, as a result attempting to mimic it's rules for PVP is a terrible idea.
Also take note, they are called archtypes and not classes for a reason. If they called them classes people would expect them to work exactly like classes, They didn't because that isn't an expectation they want people to have. archtypes are branches of skills that generally match the flavor of classes, that does not in and of itself make an archtype = a class
as far as a 20wiz/20rog vs a 20rog or wiz, the 20/20 might get a big hit in front IF they are not seen sneaking up and they are not any better at that then any 20 rog or 20 wiz. After first strike attempt then rog wiz can use any atk one at a time. cast a spell or strike with dagger. the spell might enhance the daggers next atk like truestrike but the time must still be taken to cast it and your opp gets an opening to atk when you cast. how is 1.5 dmg for a single strike only, drastically overpowered?(and maybe Im just tired but snk atk is the only thing I can think of right now the gives big dmg improve which rog have anyway)
The sneak attack was just one example, and you do also have to note, mechanically sneak attack will not likely match the P&P game closely, as a real time it will more likely be facing direction or something of that nature. In an MMO flanking, supprise rounds etc... are generally far more complicated, while facing direction etc... is far more simple than in turn based combat, and even if sneak attack isn't repeatable, you can subsitute just about any other mix of abilities, favored enemy + smite evil + barbarian rage etc...
and base stats are seperate from archtype but still affected by archtype, the idea is all powers/abilities are based on the base stats so to have a good enough snk to snk atk with your wizrog you have to split between the two while the striaght wiz will boost just his spellcasting, thus casting more powerfull spells then you which compensates for your ability to snk. both of which are based on base stats that have limits.
you can be super onething or you can be good everything.
go ahead take a 20wiz/20rog against a straight wiz, the straight wiz will cast better then you.
That one actually seems more limiting, pretty much crushing for anyone who single classes up to the top. Either A. They do single class up to the capstone with a heavy focus on their main attributes, and now are at a dead stop, since any other class they bother to put points in is going to suck anyway. (say a wizard, who when he reaches the capstone now has a 10 str, 12 dex, 10 wis, 14 con, 22 int, 10 cha... why bother even touching rogue, fighter etc... he won't be able to do much on them.
Or they have to level to the top with a mixed build, but not be allowed to put any skillpoints into the alternate archtype (since that would void their capstone). So essentially he'd be leveling 1-20 with a build like 14 str, 12 dex, 14 con, 14 int, 12 cha 14 wis.
Essentially by not stacking and having less emphasis on attributes, you allow a character to be versatile and have the ability to toggle between archtypes, but using attributes as the primary factor, you pretty much leave a single class focused character as completely dead ended when he reaches the first capstone.
if there is no set line defineing power then what is your argument standing on? you dont want me to be overpowered but yet you dont think we can compare our power?
More or less power of a character is the effective impact he makes in the same amount of time, plus the characters defense, plus support/utility capacity. A character with X HP who deals 100 damage per second, is significantly stronger than one who has the same HP and deals 25 Damage in that same second. Someone who deals 50 damage and stuns the enemy, is significantly weaker than one who deals 100 damage and stuns in the same second.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ultimately at this point we are kind of arguing in circles. I think we are going to need to learn more details about thier specific implimentation to understand where/if it might run into problems.
Note, I see alot of POTENTIAL for problems with the proposed design given the limited amount of information we have about it so far....but I'm certainly willing to accept that they may find a mechansim to avoid those.
I will actualy be quite HAPPY if they do effectively meet thier end goals.
It just strikes me that they've set themselves up with a rather difficult design problem... more difficult then I think alot of folks assume. When you get down to the details of implimentation there is no such thing as a free lunch or a magic bullet...a gain in one area of the design will come at some cost in another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ultimately at this point we are kind of arguing in circles. I think we are going to need to learn more details about thier specific implimentation to understand where/if it might run into problems.
Note, I see alot of POTENTIAL for problems with the proposed design given the limited amount of information we have about it so far....but I'm certainly willing to accept that they may find a mechansim to avoid those.
I will actualy be quite HAPPY if they do effectively meet thier end goals.
It just strikes me that they've set themselves up with a rather difficult design problem... more difficult then I think alot of folks assume. When you get down to the details of implimentation there is no such thing as a free lunch or a magic bullet...a gain in one area of the design will come at some cost in another.
That is a very good point, without a vague idea of what things will be categorized as archtype skills, how much stats/armor etc... effect skills, we really have little idea of the direction the developers are planning to take with it.
If someone has an idea to allow the 2 concepts to be compatible, then we should discuss them, if not then we should wait for a confirmation from the developers if they will either show us a master plan to make the 2 compatible, or make an official anouncement of which idea is more important. We have kind of been just spinning our wheels for a few pages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think for me the ideal trinity is damage, healing, and utility.
Damage and healing I think everyone understands. Utility is any class that is not focused on healing, damage, or tanking prettymuch.
A great example is the lore-master in Lord of the Rings Online. Does it have exceptional damage? Not really, especially if you don't spec for it. Does it have exceptional healing? No, not at all. Is it a tank? No, infact it is one of the squishiest classes.
What does it have? It has AoE debuffs. It has the ability to drain power from your enemies. It has the ability to share power with your friends. It has stuns attached to many of it's attacks and the best single target crowd control ability in the game. It even has an AoE root.
HIGHLY useful class. Yet it doesn't fall into the trinity.
Another example is the domination mesemer from Guild Wars. It doesn't do much direct damage at all but what it does do is implement rules on you. "Each time you attack, you take X damage", "Each time you cast a spell, you take X damage." these abilities can utterly destroy you if you aren't paying attention or force you to play by the domination mesemer's rules (Thus why I believe that skill is called domination) if you are paying attention.
I would really like to see tanks entirely removed and replaced with a wide array of utility classes. Or at least see the trinity expanded to four roles unlike TOR which neatly packaged each spec for every class into a single trinity role.
I also wouldn't mind seeing it like some games do where you are either full DPS or half DPS/half something else to reduce dependency on characters with dedicated roles.
Thread summary, in case people (old or new) want to start discussing it again. (Although it's an interesting read if you're bored).
1) My initial suggestion and reasoning: Don't follow the trinity roles model because they are static and don't feel like Pathfinder RPG (one goal of the MMO is to capture the feeling of the RPG). Instead, make roles dynamic so that no encounter or player is reliant on a dedicated tank or healer, and that each player's role changes as fights progress. This could be accomplished by expanding on the amount and types of utility any player could bring to the group. Many RPG spells were discussed and how they could be used to fill non-traditional roles (ie: false life as healing, barkskin as tanking, etc.). (Since starting the thread, I've become aware this resembles GW2 design.)
2) Ryan pointed out the problem with the trinity is that the tank is overpowered, both in terms of threat and defenses.
We're going to focus design effort on the Hate mechanic and on other ways that PvE content interacts with players with an eye towards avoiding a feedback loop that would trap us in the Trinity.3) Nerfing the tank would require lower armor and lower gear inflation, less powerful encounters (because boss power is ramped up along the same line as tank power), less powerful healing (?), and no taunt (or at least no pairing taunt with ramped up defenses).
Don't give the Tank defenses far beyond that used by other classes, and don't present challenges that require those defenses.
4) Dynamic encounter design to break from scripted fights. Alternative mechanics for mobs targetting players other than normal Hate (ie: mob hates casters, mob hates big weapons, mob action has a cost, etc.) Dynamic Hate, where sophisticated mobs might change their mechanic during a fight. Better mob AI in general.
5) Pros and cons of specialization vs. generalization of abilities. Importance of player freedom to do either, which a skill based system gives. Specialization is more efficient but has narrow applicability. Generalization is less efficient but more adaptable.
6) Encounters that encourage specialization encourage the trinity. Encounters that encourage generalization (by being non-scripted and chaotic) encourage well-rounded builds that are more survivable and feel more like Pathfinder RPG. They would also potentially be more relevant in PvP. They would also help with the tank problem (generalist tank is self-nerfed).
7) Potential viability of groups comprised of the same class vs. groups containing multiple classes. Desire for same class groups to be viable (although obviously less versitile). Desire to eliminate the need for a specific class.
8) Discussed possible ramifications of multi-classing. Increased versatility vs. increased power. To what extent abilities might be gear dependent, stat dependent, and UI dependent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are lots of different ways to split up roles besides the Trinity. One of the problems that many MMO's face is there is very little differentation between the types of challenges, the types of opponents and the types of combat situations that are presented to players as well as the variety of things that need be done in combat in order to be successfull.
I'll suggest one PvP based MMO...-snip-
I'm not familiar with PF rules, but assume there's similarities to other RP systems eg WH FB or DnD eg. And this is what strikes me, GrumpyMel, already mentions this: The variety in in RP system of what is effective or completely ineffective is much wider variety, even that eg is a classic one: A physical sword should be useless against ethereal entity. If you have chance of encountering more variety then set specialisms are limited to maximise in small set of situations is good counter-balance to a few dominant strategies/builds/group roles?
Also, I think the aggro mechanic of mobs ideally could be variable ie "hates magic-user" for example and therefore imo "taunt" makes combat too scripted & not variable. Also means a tank is just a role which should be able to out position mobs or control their position to make them less effective - not a role that soaks up ridiculous damage. In fact taking damage should be part health/armour loss but also combat efficiency loss & no mega heals to reverse this in an instant especially in PvP which = bar sliding up/down. Ie x1 button to reverse what possibly took a player a various amount of skilful interaction to achieve a winning state is nonsense.
TL;DR: If you vary aggro, vary challenges posed, keep sustaining damage at reasonable levels then negate need for epic heals = part way to burrowing out of HT conundrum.