The me comparison was aimed at the simple similarity that in both games, no defence means you become vulnerable and maintaining that defence is core to the gameplay. I don't care about any opinions on quality of the games, the ideas of how defences are handled are the same. While it's less pronounced, aggression should be divided based on strengths and weaknesses.
I don't particularly care about the balance of tactical mode. If you think physical shreds the game, that's more to do with encounter design than anything. You're not being counter played, that's it. Dos didnt do it any better, infact it was worse for it. The system exists to pushback on the dumping attacks and preying strategy. In theory, you don't get dumped on in the first few rounds and have a chance to fight.
The entire game doesn't need to be changed because hard mode can be gamed and endgame leaves you strong. If you end up wearing a mix of armours, thennot only are you admitting that you need both and mixed damage is a real threat, but you have less of an armour than someone who specialised.
I don't know how you think that physical is better at aoe when magic can easily and routinely dump large damage puddles everywhere that also inflict status effects. The simple act of making someone wet lowers resistance and that's not something armour protects you from.. granted, magic damage is lower on an individual target, but there's more instances to apply it.
