Paragon skills vs. Dervish skills

It's hard to take you seriously when -20 AL is such a sticking point. It's so completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of PvE to a midliner with 106 armor, especially when your class is usually boosting the entire party's armor in some way or another. It's a far lesser cost than not having your IAS ready to go at start of combat, or worse in the elite's case, having 25% vs 33% attack rate. Leave it for people with some understanding of the game to discuss how paragons might be usefully improved. Your false assumptions are the problem.
You say that -20 armor is no big deal for a midliner, but that is because you are narrow minded. Let's imagine that I want to use Soldier's Fury or Aggressive Refrain on my paragon, and I want to use a scythe, or daggers, or a sword or axe or hammer. With normal armor levels that would be viable, but with -20 armor the paragon is running into melee with 60AL, or 76AL if he has a shield and a one handed weapon and attribute points to use it. The warrior will have 100-116AL, and the dervish 80+ depending on mysticism. (not counting insignias)
So what you have done with your assumption is remove some kinds of play from being viable options. For those with short memories, sword-wielding paragons with Soldier's Fury were used in HA for a while. This is no longer seen because of the rampant nerfing. Rangers have been doing this for a long time with Rampage As One... this is not really an option for paragons though because of the crippled IAS.

No other profession has to deal with -20 armor to get faster attack speed, it is not balanced to punish paragons in this way. And the double damage IAS skills that warriors have need to go as well, otherwise dervishes will make them obsolete.

Paragons need to stay nerfed. They synergize to well with each other to be buffed. They have already been through a skill overhaul because they were so unstoppable.

Honestly, do I need to make some comparisons in favor of the Paragon? The list would be just as long. all professions tend to synergize well with one another... consider the way necromancer teams steamroll pve, or the way ritualist teams do the same. Should we nerf those because they work well together? To put it bluntly... your logic sucks.

Paragons need to stay nerfed. They synergize to well with each other to be buffed. They have already been through a skill overhaul because they were so unstoppable.

Honestly, do I need to make some comparisons in favor of the Paragon? The list would be just as long. So basically Paragons should be limited to 1 build (imba) so they stay balanced, while other profs can have more builds? Then you don't even need to play the Paragon since you only can play 1 build in the whole game...
Not saying that Paragons CAN'T play other builds, but let's be realistic, why should you go something else when you know other professions can do it better and Imbagon is better?

That's just unfair.

Not saying that Paragons CAN'T play other builds, but let's be realistic, why should you go something else when you know other professions can do it better and Imbagon is better? Because playing the same 8 skills gets tiring after a while, even if your standard of fun is measured by a build's successfulness.

Let's take an example:
I've done all campaigns in NM. Then I decide to do everything (missions, VQ etc.) in HM. Then I'm forced to play imbagon, becuase you need it otherwise you're not that effective. If you want to do P/R with a pet in HM you're not doing your para 'JOB'. If you bring a melee weapon you deal less damage than other profs would.

So you're forced to play imba in HM otherwise the Paragon would be the weaker version of other profs.

Because playing the same 8 skills gets tiring after a while, even if your standard of fun is measured by a build's successfulness. Exactly, so you're 'forced' to play another build becuase of the boredom. But at the same time other builds are less effective, thus making you go back to the imba.

Let's take an example:
I've done all campaigns in NM. Then I decide to do everything (missions, VQ etc.) in HM. Then I'm forced to play imbagon, becuase you need it otherwise you're not that effective. If you want to do P/R with a pet in HM you're not doing your para 'job'. If you bring a melee weapon you deal less damage than other profs would.

So you're forced to play imba in HM otherwise the Paragon would be the weaker version of other profs.

Exactly, so you're 'forced' to play another build becuase of the boredom. But at the same time other builds are less effective, thus making you go back to the imba.

Let's take an example:
I've done all campaigns in NM. Then I decide to do everything (missions, VQ etc.) in HM. Then I'm forced to play imbagon, becuase you need it otherwise you're not that effective. If you want to do P/R with a pet in HM you're not doing your para 'job'. If you bring a melee weapon you deal less damage than other profs would.

So you're forced to play imba in HM otherwise the Paragon would be the weaker version of other profs. I have never felt forced to Imbagon for anything I've ever done, elite areas or otherwise, what does your post even mean?

Let's take an example:
I've done all campaigns in NM. Then I decide to do everything (missions, VQ etc.) in HM. Then I'm forced to play imbagon, becuase you need it otherwise you're not that effective. If you want to do P/R with a pet in HM you're not doing your para 'job'. If you bring a melee weapon you deal less damage than other profs would. The point of my original post was directed more at the community that feels they're obligated to run the most effective build at all times, because nowadays "fun" and "effectiveness" are apparently interchangeable. The tone of your post suggests you PUG a lot; "need", "forced", "Save Yourselves!" is hardly a necessity for clearing Hard Mode content. Players had their Vanquisher and Guardian titles well before the introduction of PvE skills. I know I was chaining Defensive Anthems with Morgahn originally, and boy before they changed Angelic Bond was that skill ever awesome in Eternal Grove. With half the party's bar at your disposal there's no reason why you can't build against the particular challenge ahead. Honestly when I look at some of the builds used to speed clear they look like a random mish mash of skills and yet they're brutally effective at getting the job done. While I hate the concept entirely that essence of analyst goes to show you can make something work in the right area with enough tweaks.

it still boils down to a paragon is MEANT to be a midliner NOT a warrior/derv replacement

THAT is the reasoning behind the AR

BUT since you are being stubborn about it---
80 + 16 = 96
subtract the 20 = 76 (with shield still in hand)
but remember to add the bonus from centurions for your shouts = 86
Only thinking of the 2 main areas hit which are chest and waist/pants
i dont know anyone that puts +AR to all pieces

and seriously, 20 AR in my opinion isnt that much of a difference, my ranger survives melee builds just fine and thats only 70 AR

your AR doesn't really seem to fall below that which the paragon is supposed to have anyway cuz it is a MID-LINER

if the AR is really that much of an issue, then play W/P or D/P instead of the other way around So you are saying that a ranged attacker should have less armor than a melee attacker. If a paragon (AL80 + 16 from shield) throws spears, he should get -20 armor because spears are oh-so-powerful and they deliver ranged damage. (OMG!) So you say we should give him 60-76 armor to make things fair. However if the warrior picks up the same spear and loads up a convenient IAS (flail for example) he can be dishing out the same spear damage or more with 116AL. If the warrior has 116AL while throwing spears that's okay, but when the paragon does it he must be punished and receive an armor penalty? What about Ranger spearchuckers? Or spear wielding Assassins? Or spear-throwing Spirit's Strength ritualists? Other characters can become ranged attackers and fulfill the same ranged-damage role as the paragon, almost always doing more damage as well, and they do not have to suffer this armor penalty. This was created purely as a method of punishing paragons based on perceived PvP imbalance... and what they have done is imbalance things further. Here's where your "FRONT-LINER" / "MID-LINER" logic fails completely... any profession can pick up a "FRONT-LINER" or "MID-LINER" weapon and use it and this is even more true in Guild Wars 2 where a character's role and skills are determined by the weapon he wields.