Since we’re coming up for review now, I thought it a good idea to plea the case one final time to have two very significant paladin issues revisited: defensive skill buffing and ranged buffing. (Let me grab my harp.)
Defensive skill buffing:
From my player perspective, the best general defensive skill in the game is evasion. That’s (ostensibly?) why every other guild has one and why you could fill an Olympic size pool with the tears that would ensue were one to remove survival tert guilds’ evasion buff in favor of a shield or, worse, parry buff (assuming they couldn’t buff those already).
Many guilds can buff evasion and at least one other primary defensive skill: parry or shield. Those that can only buff evasion learn it at a secondary or primary rate and can either go invisible or heal themselves, both offering their own strong defensive benefits. Further, by Paladin standards, all other guilds have a bevy of debilitation spells and abilities that allow them to more than compensate for any residual defensive deficiencies. We have two: immobilize or stun on the same diminishing returns timer and shatter, which is not replaceable and lasts over a minute at cap.
One can argue that plate should compensate for paladins’ defensive skill deficiencies, setting aside spells and abilities which GREATLY reduce the effectiveness of armor (e.g. CoZ, eliminate) or ignore shield and parry (e.g. DFA, backstab). In my experience, however, the even matches in which one dude takes no damage and the other takes mitigated damage mostly end in the former winning. Mages don’t need DFA to hit my paladin. On the other hand, I often have trouble hitting mages even when they don’t play cat and mouse due to their defensive skill buffs and generally strong debilitation suite.
Making a thematic case for paladins having an evasion buff would be difficult even if it is the best primary defensive skill available. It just doesn’t make intuitive sense for a person wearing the heaviest armor available and carrying a literal wall on her arm to be able to dodge like a cat. Armifer’s plan for allowing Paladins to block the unblockable and parry the… Unparriable… Un-parry-able… Never mind. It sounds really cool and will go a long way toward solving some of the problem. However, a parry buff is still fitting for the supposed premier defensive guild and aligns well thematically. I don’t think anyone would argue against that. (Note for example: The problem people have with barbs' defense is immunizers like Volcano and pseudoBMR (and formerly Tenacity), not the fact that they have the capacity to buff all 3 defensive skills.)
Please consider returning our parry buff in some form, spell or ability. There's theme and precedent. We had one pre-3.0 and into 3.0.
Ranged buffing:
Dragonrealms is a ranged-oriented game. I know because even I as a Paladin was largely a ranged, run and gun, PvP fighter when we had our ranged buff pre-3.0 (50%) and in 3.0 (100%). Moreover, other guilds that don’t have a ranged option in their primary skill set can buff a ranged weapon. Even those that do have a ranged option in their primary skill set have debilitation spells a plenty just in case.
In PvE, other guilds can kill numbers before I get to melee on one creature. In PvP, I have a gimmicky, 1-shot-every-minute-and-a-half ranged attack using shatter. My primary ranged weapon is otherwise unusable at-level due to opponents’ buffs and my lack of a ranged buff.
Engagement time is obviously an issue that compounds the problem, and I understand it’s a tricky subject. Nevertheless, it’s a big problem if I’m wasting half of my undiminished debilitation spell just trying to get to melee on my target. That’s assuming I’m not facing something like a stun-hider accessory. That’s also assuming I’m not facing Rangers’ HB web, which further delays engagement, allowing the ranger’s EM to reform before I can even get to pole range. That’s also assuming I’m not facing a MM with WD and RF. That’s also assuming I’m not facing Halo pushbacks. Etc.
Being a melee fighter in a ranged fighter’s world is an exercise in frustration. An engagement ability like wolverine form and khri shadowstep would help. More debilitation options would help. Still, they’re no substitute for a ranged buff and its relatively tiny opportunity cost.
Thematically, Paladins should be stronger at melee and I’m not advocating against that. I want guilds to try and take away my melee strength to beat me. I just want to be competitive at range when they’re successful in taking away melee using existing system mechanics, tricks and trinkets.
Please consider giving us a thematically appropriate ranged buff. In the past, I believe that was thrown weapons and crossbows.
2DUMBARSE
ISHARON
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/27/2017 09:02 PM CST
>>2dumbarse: Making a thematic case for paladins having an evasion buff would be difficult even if it is the best primary defensive skill available. It just doesn’t make intuitive sense for a person wearing the heaviest armor available and carrying a literal wall on her arm to be able to dodge like a cat.
I would not find it thematically inappropriate to see Paladins, the most defense-oriented guild, being able to buff all three defenses. (We can currently only buff shield.) We already learn evasion at a tertiary rate; not being able to buff the game's primary defense is, as Armifer put it, cruel.
One could also certainly make an argument for Paladins' being able to move almost supernaturally well in plate. To me, that's a large part of what makes Paladins fun.
However, given how many guilds get access to 2-3 defensive buffs whether it's thematically appropriate or not, I'm not all that concerned about how much sense it makes for Paladins to have an evasion buff as long as evasion remains the primary defense in the game. I would love to see a global review of all three defenses, but that's probably beyond the scope of this project. In the meantime, an evasion buff would be a welcome Band-Aid.
>>2dumbarse: Being a melee fighter in a ranged fighter’s world is an exercise in frustration. An engagement ability like wolverine form and khri shadowstep would help. More debilitation options would help. Still, they’re no substitute for a ranged buff and its relatively tiny opportunity cost.
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that fun to be a melee fighter in a game where retreating is instant, but advancing to melee takes 5-10 seconds. The advance/retreat mechanics are in desperate need of a review, but in the meantime, better access to an engagement-management ability and a ranged weapon buff would be good Band-Aids.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Paladin new player guide: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Paladin_new_player_guide
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
I would not find it thematically inappropriate to see Paladins, the most defense-oriented guild, being able to buff all three defenses. (We can currently only buff shield.) We already learn evasion at a tertiary rate; not being able to buff the game's primary defense is, as Armifer put it, cruel.
One could also certainly make an argument for Paladins' being able to move almost supernaturally well in plate. To me, that's a large part of what makes Paladins fun.
However, given how many guilds get access to 2-3 defensive buffs whether it's thematically appropriate or not, I'm not all that concerned about how much sense it makes for Paladins to have an evasion buff as long as evasion remains the primary defense in the game. I would love to see a global review of all three defenses, but that's probably beyond the scope of this project. In the meantime, an evasion buff would be a welcome Band-Aid.
>>2dumbarse: Being a melee fighter in a ranged fighter’s world is an exercise in frustration. An engagement ability like wolverine form and khri shadowstep would help. More debilitation options would help. Still, they’re no substitute for a ranged buff and its relatively tiny opportunity cost.
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that fun to be a melee fighter in a game where retreating is instant, but advancing to melee takes 5-10 seconds. The advance/retreat mechanics are in desperate need of a review, but in the meantime, better access to an engagement-management ability and a ranged weapon buff would be good Band-Aids.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Paladin new player guide: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Paladin_new_player_guide
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
2DUMBARSE
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 07:48 AM CST
>I would not find it thematically inappropriate to see Paladins, the most defense-oriented guild, being able to buff all three defenses. (We can currently only buff shield.) We already learn evasion at a tertiary rate; not being able to buff the game's primary defense is, as Armifer put it, cruel.
>One could also certainly make an argument for Paladins' being able to move almost supernaturally well in plate. To me, that's a large part of what makes Paladins fun.
>However, given how many guilds get access to 2-3 defensive buffs whether it's thematically appropriate or not, I'm not all that concerned about how much sense it makes for Paladins to have an evasion buff as long as evasion remains the primary defense in the game. I would love to see a global review of all three defenses, but that's probably beyond the scope of this project. In the meantime, an evasion buff would be a welcome Band-Aid.
It would be self-defeating for me to argue against this. Plus, I agree on practicality and can go either way on theme. To account for bias, many non-paladins I've spoken with in the past on the issue agree with you. Some would go as far as to state it would make more sense if Paladins could buff all three primary defense skills than certain other guilds.
Frankly, after years of arguing here for an evasion and parry buff alongside you, Isharon, and other paladins, I'm conceding on evasion on the basis that there's evidence to suggest GMs don't want to dole out another evasion buff even if the buck stops with one guild, ours, and I'm trusting Armifer to make good on making evasion, paraphrasing, "less necessary for paladins."
>You hit the nail on the head. It's not that fun to be a melee fighter in a game where retreating is instant, but advancing to melee takes 5-10 seconds. The advance/retreat mechanics are in desperate need of a review, but in the meantime, better access to an engagement-management ability and a ranged weapon buff would be good Band-Aids.
To be honest, the ranged issue is crueler to me than no evasion buff. If anyone disagrees, encourage him or her to watch a ranged fighter who's experienced at PvP exploit paladins' ranged weakness. Even if the paladin takes no damage, it's amazing how successful some can be at kiting paladins around, like pitiful divine warriors. The only way around it sometimes is a well-timed disabler + shatter-throw macro usable every minute and a half for 1 shot, 2 if lucky, and a little wishing that the second variable of equation lands before auto-hide/auto-invis/stun-hide.
>One could also certainly make an argument for Paladins' being able to move almost supernaturally well in plate. To me, that's a large part of what makes Paladins fun.
>However, given how many guilds get access to 2-3 defensive buffs whether it's thematically appropriate or not, I'm not all that concerned about how much sense it makes for Paladins to have an evasion buff as long as evasion remains the primary defense in the game. I would love to see a global review of all three defenses, but that's probably beyond the scope of this project. In the meantime, an evasion buff would be a welcome Band-Aid.
It would be self-defeating for me to argue against this. Plus, I agree on practicality and can go either way on theme. To account for bias, many non-paladins I've spoken with in the past on the issue agree with you. Some would go as far as to state it would make more sense if Paladins could buff all three primary defense skills than certain other guilds.
Frankly, after years of arguing here for an evasion and parry buff alongside you, Isharon, and other paladins, I'm conceding on evasion on the basis that there's evidence to suggest GMs don't want to dole out another evasion buff even if the buck stops with one guild, ours, and I'm trusting Armifer to make good on making evasion, paraphrasing, "less necessary for paladins."
>You hit the nail on the head. It's not that fun to be a melee fighter in a game where retreating is instant, but advancing to melee takes 5-10 seconds. The advance/retreat mechanics are in desperate need of a review, but in the meantime, better access to an engagement-management ability and a ranged weapon buff would be good Band-Aids.
To be honest, the ranged issue is crueler to me than no evasion buff. If anyone disagrees, encourage him or her to watch a ranged fighter who's experienced at PvP exploit paladins' ranged weakness. Even if the paladin takes no damage, it's amazing how successful some can be at kiting paladins around, like pitiful divine warriors. The only way around it sometimes is a well-timed disabler + shatter-throw macro usable every minute and a half for 1 shot, 2 if lucky, and a little wishing that the second variable of equation lands before auto-hide/auto-invis/stun-hide.
SHIFT3
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 10:38 AM CST
> Frankly, after years of arguing here for an evasion and parry buff alongside you, Isharon, and other paladins, I'm conceding on evasion on the basis that there's evidence to suggest GMs don't want to dole out another evasion buff even if the buck stops with one guild, ours, and I'm trusting Armifer to make good on making evasion, paraphrasing, "less necessary for paladins."
Personal bias here, but I like this direction. I think it's better for everyone if there is some differentiation between guilds, and paladins not dodging seems like a great way to do that. They are the rocks. The stalwart wall of righteousness. They don't run when others run. They don't hide when others hide. They stand there and push back with all of the holy might they have.
There are four things I really want for paladins right now.
1. Parry buffs that both give you +parry and let you parry all kinds of spells (DFA to regular TM).
2. A thorns like ability that weaponize the armor skillset and uses armor ranks to dish out damage. Maybe as a "burning radiance" that is a cyclic spell to damage everything at melee (+ depending on power). Maybe a more mundane set of spikes on your armor that has a chance to damage an attacker. Just make it strong, consistent, and make someone think twice about attacking the paladin rather than treating them like a punching bag because they can't really attack back.
3. A reason to use large shields. I don't care if it pigeon holes them or is something they have to grow into, but paladins shouldn't be wearing small bucklers because it's more (or just as) effective as a massive wall shield thanks to hindrance. Same for medium shields and guilds that support this.
4. A reason to wear only heavy plate or maybe brigadine for dark paladins using stealth. Make it a passive ability at 50th or 100th, and any time they learn HP/brig, it gives a trickle of experience in the other armors as well. Frankly, this is something every guild should have so that their dominance in a certain area can grow all the time. It's a way to keep those precious TDPs flowing without requiring the player to do something that makes absolutely no sense (see clown suits). It would help balancing and player experience (the gameplay, not the actual flow of bits).
All of this goes towards making them more of a combat oriented guild that can stand alone, rather than just being the meat shield for the empath healing your main.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 10:47 AM CST
>>It's a way to keep those precious TDPs flowing without requiring the player to do something that makes absolutely no sense (see clown suits).
Given that "train everything just for the sake of TDPs" is a still sticking point for GMs (as far as I'm aware), and if there was a good opportunity to discourage that behavior that wouldn't have a chunk of players become apoplectic (see the 3.0 proposal to do just this), I'm not sure "give ranks passively just for the sake of TDPs" is a good idea.
I'd personally rather see some kind of armor mastery skill, and have that make it so you're not completely bumbling around if you start using a newer armor type, but even then I'm not sure if it's really necessary.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Given that "train everything just for the sake of TDPs" is a still sticking point for GMs (as far as I'm aware), and if there was a good opportunity to discourage that behavior that wouldn't have a chunk of players become apoplectic (see the 3.0 proposal to do just this), I'm not sure "give ranks passively just for the sake of TDPs" is a good idea.
I'd personally rather see some kind of armor mastery skill, and have that make it so you're not completely bumbling around if you start using a newer armor type, but even then I'm not sure if it's really necessary.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DR-ARMIFER
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 10:51 AM CST
>>1. Parry buffs that both give you +parry and let you parry all kinds of spells (DFA to regular TM).
Not sure if TM Parry would be a spell or a Glyph. I am leaning towards that kind of package, though, because it'd fit neatly in the cost structure of spells.
>>2. A thorns like ability that weaponize the armor skillset and uses armor ranks to dish out damage.
Yup. It's going to be later down the road but it's one of the things I want to do as an active armor ability.
>>3. A reason to use large shields. I don't care if it pigeon holes them or is something they have to grow into, but paladins shouldn't be wearing small bucklers because it's more (or just as) effective as a massive wall shield thanks to hindrance. Same for medium shields and guilds that support this.
I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense? What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
>>4. A reason to wear only heavy plate or maybe brigadine for dark paladins using stealth.
I'd like to go the opposite direction, really. Through active armor abilities I'd like to encourage Paladins to wear various full suits based on their current needs and desires.
I mean, HP will very likely remain the default go-to for Paladins, but if I can wing it I'd like to introduce reasons for Paladins to train and use all those armor skills outside of clownsuits and TDPs.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
Not sure if TM Parry would be a spell or a Glyph. I am leaning towards that kind of package, though, because it'd fit neatly in the cost structure of spells.
>>2. A thorns like ability that weaponize the armor skillset and uses armor ranks to dish out damage.
Yup. It's going to be later down the road but it's one of the things I want to do as an active armor ability.
>>3. A reason to use large shields. I don't care if it pigeon holes them or is something they have to grow into, but paladins shouldn't be wearing small bucklers because it's more (or just as) effective as a massive wall shield thanks to hindrance. Same for medium shields and guilds that support this.
I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense? What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
>>4. A reason to wear only heavy plate or maybe brigadine for dark paladins using stealth.
I'd like to go the opposite direction, really. Through active armor abilities I'd like to encourage Paladins to wear various full suits based on their current needs and desires.
I mean, HP will very likely remain the default go-to for Paladins, but if I can wing it I'd like to introduce reasons for Paladins to train and use all those armor skills outside of clownsuits and TDPs.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
TEVESHSZAT
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 11:11 AM CST
>>I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense? What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
Similarly I'll admit that, short of knowing:
1) I should use a shield
2) Small shields are the least hindering, which is good for evasion
3) The first number shows the least amount of protection it can afford, and the second number shows the most it can afford
I don't really process what makes higher shield protection better shield protection, short of the idea that higher numbers must mean better.
In comparison, I have a good-enough understanding of protection and absorption for armor, where protection gives a flat amount of damage reduction (and armor skill helps make this more awesome) and absorption gives a percentage amount of damage reduction (and this isn't skill-based), but shields have always been a bit more vague. Maybe a combat-y GM could weigh in to help "pitch" what the stats are meant to do, so players can weigh in on how to make those things more appealing (vs just wanting to evade all day every day).
It would be neat if a Paladin using a large shield was on similar footing to a Ranger who is doing all sorts of evasive flips and dodges, and as others have said it doesn't seem to be the case.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Similarly I'll admit that, short of knowing:
1) I should use a shield
2) Small shields are the least hindering, which is good for evasion
3) The first number shows the least amount of protection it can afford, and the second number shows the most it can afford
I don't really process what makes higher shield protection better shield protection, short of the idea that higher numbers must mean better.
In comparison, I have a good-enough understanding of protection and absorption for armor, where protection gives a flat amount of damage reduction (and armor skill helps make this more awesome) and absorption gives a percentage amount of damage reduction (and this isn't skill-based), but shields have always been a bit more vague. Maybe a combat-y GM could weigh in to help "pitch" what the stats are meant to do, so players can weigh in on how to make those things more appealing (vs just wanting to evade all day every day).
It would be neat if a Paladin using a large shield was on similar footing to a Ranger who is doing all sorts of evasive flips and dodges, and as others have said it doesn't seem to be the case.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
2DUMBARSE
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 11:37 AM CST
>I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense?
I haven't tested personally, but I think Lennon did some testing with Rekon a while back within the 3.x combat generation and found that even though large shield hindrance on a paladin is far lower than other guilds, smaller shields (can't remember if medium or small) still outperformed them in melee and missile defense. The interesting thing about that test is large shields are supposed to be great at ranged defense, less good at melee; medium are supposed to be good at both, not the best; small shields are supposed to be poorer than the other options against range but the best at melee defense.
In any event, I think most paladins, present company included, still wear large shields because theme > pragmatism on this topic.
>What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
Reducing the arm-worn penalty via ability or spell would be cool.
Revisiting the power:weight ratio for shield offense and improving shield attacks would be HUGE for me and others who've suggested this. I would love to use shields more in offense and could see shields offering the same cost/benefit as weapons in terms of power, weight, RT (i.e. small shield ~ small blunt, medium shield ~ large blunt, large ~2HB). In the interim, since that sounds like a tall order, a sort of shield offensive stat buff, based on weight, would be welcomed. It could be a feature baked into the Divine Armor spell that functions similarly to Rutilor's Edge (weapons), perhaps.
To give you an idea of how bad shield stats are for attacks, here's my 520 stone (I think the heaviest available) rare shield's stats:
You are certain that it could do:
no (0/26) puncture damage
no (0/26) slice damage
very heavy (10/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
You are certain that the shield is poorly (3/14) balanced and is fairly (5/14) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
And here's a common Crossing store-bought flail that's relatively light (65 stones) for a 2HB:
You are certain that it could do:
low (3/26) puncture damage
somewhat moderate (6/26) slice damage
very great (12/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
The footman's flail is well designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the flail is inadequately (4/14) balanced and is soundly (8/14) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
>I'd like to go the opposite direction, really. Through active armor abilities I'd like to encourage Paladins to wear various full suits based on their current needs and desires.
>I mean, HP will very likely remain the default go-to for Paladins, but if I can wing it I'd like to introduce reasons for Paladins to train and use all those armor skills outside of clownsuits and TDPs.
I would love this.
I haven't tested personally, but I think Lennon did some testing with Rekon a while back within the 3.x combat generation and found that even though large shield hindrance on a paladin is far lower than other guilds, smaller shields (can't remember if medium or small) still outperformed them in melee and missile defense. The interesting thing about that test is large shields are supposed to be great at ranged defense, less good at melee; medium are supposed to be good at both, not the best; small shields are supposed to be poorer than the other options against range but the best at melee defense.
In any event, I think most paladins, present company included, still wear large shields because theme > pragmatism on this topic.
>What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
Reducing the arm-worn penalty via ability or spell would be cool.
Revisiting the power:weight ratio for shield offense and improving shield attacks would be HUGE for me and others who've suggested this. I would love to use shields more in offense and could see shields offering the same cost/benefit as weapons in terms of power, weight, RT (i.e. small shield ~ small blunt, medium shield ~ large blunt, large ~2HB). In the interim, since that sounds like a tall order, a sort of shield offensive stat buff, based on weight, would be welcomed. It could be a feature baked into the Divine Armor spell that functions similarly to Rutilor's Edge (weapons), perhaps.
To give you an idea of how bad shield stats are for attacks, here's my 520 stone (I think the heaviest available) rare shield's stats:
You are certain that it could do:
no (0/26) puncture damage
no (0/26) slice damage
very heavy (10/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
You are certain that the shield is poorly (3/14) balanced and is fairly (5/14) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
And here's a common Crossing store-bought flail that's relatively light (65 stones) for a 2HB:
You are certain that it could do:
low (3/26) puncture damage
somewhat moderate (6/26) slice damage
very great (12/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
The footman's flail is well designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the flail is inadequately (4/14) balanced and is soundly (8/14) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
>I'd like to go the opposite direction, really. Through active armor abilities I'd like to encourage Paladins to wear various full suits based on their current needs and desires.
>I mean, HP will very likely remain the default go-to for Paladins, but if I can wing it I'd like to introduce reasons for Paladins to train and use all those armor skills outside of clownsuits and TDPs.
I would love this.
2DUMBARSE
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 11:43 AM CST
Bear in mind, I'm fully aware shields can never replace pure weapons, and that won't happen because weapons will always be superior for gaining balance and position and offer more attack maneuvers, flavor. I'm just interested in using shield (slam) for ancillary attacks, not a primary attacks.
ASHAMAN1
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 12:31 PM CST
Hey Warby, there's a bigger one now..
You are certain that it imposes extreme (12/15) maneuvering hindrance.
This shield is large in size.
Your experience with shields allows a better appraisal of the protection capabilities.
You are certain that the shield offers high (14/26) to unbelievable (25/26) protection.
You are certain that it could do:
no (0/27) puncture damage
no (0/27) slice damage
very severe (14/27) impact damage
no (0/27) fire damage
no (0/27) cold damage
no (0/27) electric damage
You are certain that the shield is decently (6/17) balanced and is reasonably (7/17) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
You are certain that the phalanx shield is extremely resistant to damage (15/18), and is practically in mint condition (90-97%).
The phalanx shield is made with metal.
It appears that the phalanx shield can be worn on the left arm.
You are certain that the phalanx shield weighs exactly 550 stones.
The phalanx shield looks to be custom-made.
You are certain that the phalanx shield is worth exactly 3896640 Dokoras.
The phalanx shield looks to bear your familiar marks of registration.
Roundtime: 8 seconds.
On the subject of small vs large, I did a similar test to Lennon and found the difference to be basically non-existent. It could have been a question of total hinderance based on armor suits making an impact, but I've found I do better, especially against bows, with my big honkin' wall. That said, even if the edge went to the little ones, I'm gonna use my cool altered one, because well, it's cooler.
Armifer - One thing that might be worth looking into is revisiting the effect of arm wearing shields. At this point, it's become a given that players are going to be wearing the silly things regardless, and 3.x combat, especially vs any kind of ranged attack REQUIRES we have a shield anyways. Heck, you can't even really use a Bow without HAVING to have an arm shield. In light of such, removing the 25% penalty to top end protection across the board might not be a bad idea. That extra top end back on the really big boy shields should be enough to incentivize Paladins to use them over teacup saucers.
If the issue crops up about balancing two handed weapons with those arm shields, I'd rather see an increase to the penalty to both two handers and shield use while using them concurrently. Modern game, LE/LB just don't make sense except as TDP farms. The damage jump going from even the best LE weapons to 2 handed is incredible, and blunts, not having the sterak axe suffer worse.
Samsaren
You are certain that it imposes extreme (12/15) maneuvering hindrance.
This shield is large in size.
Your experience with shields allows a better appraisal of the protection capabilities.
You are certain that the shield offers high (14/26) to unbelievable (25/26) protection.
You are certain that it could do:
no (0/27) puncture damage
no (0/27) slice damage
very severe (14/27) impact damage
no (0/27) fire damage
no (0/27) cold damage
no (0/27) electric damage
You are certain that the shield is decently (6/17) balanced and is reasonably (7/17) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
You are certain that the phalanx shield is extremely resistant to damage (15/18), and is practically in mint condition (90-97%).
The phalanx shield is made with metal.
It appears that the phalanx shield can be worn on the left arm.
You are certain that the phalanx shield weighs exactly 550 stones.
The phalanx shield looks to be custom-made.
You are certain that the phalanx shield is worth exactly 3896640 Dokoras.
The phalanx shield looks to bear your familiar marks of registration.
Roundtime: 8 seconds.
On the subject of small vs large, I did a similar test to Lennon and found the difference to be basically non-existent. It could have been a question of total hinderance based on armor suits making an impact, but I've found I do better, especially against bows, with my big honkin' wall. That said, even if the edge went to the little ones, I'm gonna use my cool altered one, because well, it's cooler.
Armifer - One thing that might be worth looking into is revisiting the effect of arm wearing shields. At this point, it's become a given that players are going to be wearing the silly things regardless, and 3.x combat, especially vs any kind of ranged attack REQUIRES we have a shield anyways. Heck, you can't even really use a Bow without HAVING to have an arm shield. In light of such, removing the 25% penalty to top end protection across the board might not be a bad idea. That extra top end back on the really big boy shields should be enough to incentivize Paladins to use them over teacup saucers.
If the issue crops up about balancing two handed weapons with those arm shields, I'd rather see an increase to the penalty to both two handers and shield use while using them concurrently. Modern game, LE/LB just don't make sense except as TDP farms. The damage jump going from even the best LE weapons to 2 handed is incredible, and blunts, not having the sterak axe suffer worse.
Samsaren
SHIFT3
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 12:44 PM CST
> and if there was a good opportunity to discourage that behavior that wouldn't have a chunk of players become apoplectic (see the 3.0 proposal to do just this),
I'm not sure that's possible. You have two ends of the spectrum on this.
1. The haves, who want the status quo to remain the same. They benefit from 2 decades of script refinement for optimal gain, and staying at the top is important to some players (not a disparaging remark, only pointing out motivations). Those players may be high-value players to the corporation which is something that has to be considered. Businesses will be businesses.
2. The RP'rs / have-not-ers. Anything to help bridge the gap or make logical sense is something they'd agree with, even (or especially) if it meant removing the need for complex scripts.
I think everyone fits somewhere along that line, some more to one end than the other for personal reasons or opinions.
> I'm not sure "give ranks passively just for the sake of TDPs" is a good idea.
That's basically what armor is today. Maybe a "mindset shift" where you could redirect some % of your learning into other disciplines at a penalty. I just thought of a complicated but versatile way to do this, so I posted that over in the general folders. I'm not even sure if this is possible as suggested, but maybe something like that could be considered.
> I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense?
It basically reduces to that. You want a low hindrance shield because a % loss on all (some?) defenses is more impactful than a static +3 gain at the medium tier, and it only grows from there.
> What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
I made a post about this in the barbarian folders. Basically, the ability to work down hindrance to minimum levels on larger shields. If a large shield is as hindering as a small shield, then you'd obviously choose the biggest one your guild can wear for the added protection. I think it's fine to "grow into" large shields, starting small and improving, but the game actually goes backwards. It rewards you for starting large and then quickly reducing the size.
> I mean, HP will very likely remain the default go-to for Paladins, but if I can wing it I'd like to introduce reasons for Paladins to train and use all those armor skills outside of clownsuits and TDPs.
Ambitious. I'd love for armor to have a reason to exist other than TDPs, so good luck! :)
> Bear in mind, I'm fully aware shields can never replace pure weapons, and that won't happen because weapons will always be superior for gaining balance and position and offer more attack maneuvers, flavor. I'm just interested in using shield (slam) for ancillary attacks, not a primary attacks.
I still want a captain america ability, maybe as a cyclic, AOE TM. You throw your shield and magically pull it back to you.
BADGOPHER
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 01:09 PM CST
>What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
A ranged shield toss. I know, there's the spell, but a primary skill set attack with shield, where larger shields deal more damage, would be pretty interesting. Probably broken, but that's not my problem. Most other guilds have a way to weaponize their primary skill set, either directly through magic/weapons, or indirectly through stealth+weapon/magic (I'm thinking backstab, snipe, and spell snipe).
And Paladins seem to need a closer/engager type tool.
A ranged shield toss. I know, there's the spell, but a primary skill set attack with shield, where larger shields deal more damage, would be pretty interesting. Probably broken, but that's not my problem. Most other guilds have a way to weaponize their primary skill set, either directly through magic/weapons, or indirectly through stealth+weapon/magic (I'm thinking backstab, snipe, and spell snipe).
And Paladins seem to need a closer/engager type tool.
2DUMBARSE
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 02:05 PM CST
>You are certain that it could do:
> no (0/27) puncture damage
> no (0/27) slice damage
> very severe (14/27) impact damage
> no (0/27) fire damage
> no (0/27) cold damage
> no (0/27) electric damage
>You are certain that the shield is decently (6/17) balanced and is reasonably (7/17) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
That is one sexy shield.
Just to throw out more comparison items. These are the sorts of weapons a paladin my circle (176) would use:
You are certain that it could do:
very great (12/26) puncture damage
very great (12/26) slice damage
somewhat moderate (6/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
The awgravet ava is inadequately designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the ava is inadequately (4/14) balanced and is well (9/14) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
...
You are certain that the awgravet ava weighs exactly 75 stones.
An etched steel kaskara hilted with witchclaw is a two-handed edged melee-ranged weapon.
An etched steel kaskara hilted with witchclaw trains the two-handed edged skill.
You are certain that it could do:
poor (2/26) puncture damage
very mighty (18/26) slice damage
very severe (14/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
The steel kaskara is reasonably designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the kaskara is inadequately (4/14) balanced and is extremely well suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
...
You are certain that the steel kaskara weighs exactly 75 stones.
I don't expect my shield to compete point for point on stats, but even my little 35 stone javelin has nearly twice as many points of damage and way more suitedness/balance than my 520 stone shield, and still more damage points than Sam's 550 stone shield (God, I want that thing now).
> no (0/27) puncture damage
> no (0/27) slice damage
> very severe (14/27) impact damage
> no (0/27) fire damage
> no (0/27) cold damage
> no (0/27) electric damage
>You are certain that the shield is decently (6/17) balanced and is reasonably (7/17) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
That is one sexy shield.
Just to throw out more comparison items. These are the sorts of weapons a paladin my circle (176) would use:
You are certain that it could do:
very great (12/26) puncture damage
very great (12/26) slice damage
somewhat moderate (6/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
The awgravet ava is inadequately designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the ava is inadequately (4/14) balanced and is well (9/14) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
...
You are certain that the awgravet ava weighs exactly 75 stones.
An etched steel kaskara hilted with witchclaw is a two-handed edged melee-ranged weapon.
An etched steel kaskara hilted with witchclaw trains the two-handed edged skill.
You are certain that it could do:
poor (2/26) puncture damage
very mighty (18/26) slice damage
very severe (14/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
The steel kaskara is reasonably designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the kaskara is inadequately (4/14) balanced and is extremely well suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
...
You are certain that the steel kaskara weighs exactly 75 stones.
I don't expect my shield to compete point for point on stats, but even my little 35 stone javelin has nearly twice as many points of damage and way more suitedness/balance than my 520 stone shield, and still more damage points than Sam's 550 stone shield (God, I want that thing now).
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 04:52 PM CST
I think it's also trickier to test defensive things than offensive things. I can monitor DPS or Kills/unit of time fairly easily, but assessing how a given defense is shaking out is trickier. Beyond using the same routine for the same period of time and comparing wounds, which is... not great.
ISHARON
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/28/2017 09:14 PM CST
>>DR-Armifer: Not sure if TM Parry would be a spell or a Glyph. I am leaning towards that kind of package, though, because it'd fit neatly in the cost structure of spells.
It would be really cool (though perhaps difficult to balance) if there were some glyph that used conviction ranks, warding ranks, shield ranks, and shield protection to attempt to deflect targeted spells back at the caster.
>>DR-Armifer: I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense?
One test I heard of involved an extreme comparison of the small diamond-hide shield (1 hindrance and 2/13 protection) versus the triple-reinforced vardite pavise shield (12 hindrance and 8/23 protection).
I have asked on several occasions whether it is intended that 96% of a vardite pavise shield (8/23 protection) doesn't perform as well as 100% of a small diamond-hide shield (2/13 protection). While Kodius did confirm that "small shields are better at melee, and large shields are better at missile," no GM has answered that specific question.
I also wondered if the differences experienced between those two shields could be generalized to other less extreme examples of small and large shields.
Lennon claims it can: http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/Combat%20-%20Weapons%20and%20Armor/Shields/view/1582
>>Lennonjon: Regardless of the small shields used (lumium and damite ceremonials, diamond-hide small) vs. large shields (damite tower and pavise shield) we would get hit less using the small shields. When hit using a small shield, they would be a bit harder of a hit, but overall the damage done received over time was higher using a large shield at melee.
Medium shields are currently useless, because their stats really aren't that much better than small shields. (The top small shield is 3/14 protection with 1 hindrance. The top medium shield is 7/15 protection with 6 hindrance.) Even if I want to downsize to avoid the bow penalty, I am better off just using a small shield.
Additionally, players tend to interpret the game mechanics as optimizing extreme choices (minimal hindrance or maximum protection) rather than intermediate values.
>>DR-Armifer: What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
I wear my altered large shield for RP reasons, even if it turns out to be less than optimal. However, here are some changes that would end the debate about whether it's worth it for Paladins to wear large shields:
• Adjust the way offensive stats scale with shield weight/protection. (They currently scale very poorly, with even the heaviest wall shields being easily outperformed by store-bought blunt weapons.) The lackluster impact damage coupled with the unbalancing nature of a shield slam makes it little more than a desperation move when you have no other at-level sources of impact damage. (I would love to see development of offensive shield maneuvers.)
• Additional hindrance reduction (so that there is less of a perception that the added protection is outweighed by the added hindrance. Ideally, the size of this reduction should be based on armor skillset placement and shield ranks.
• A skillset- and rank-based reduction to the 20% defensive penalty to arm-wearing a shield. (Leave the offensive penalty for two-handed weapons as is, which currently depends on weapon skillset placement, I believe.)
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Paladin new player guide: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Paladin_new_player_guide
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
It would be really cool (though perhaps difficult to balance) if there were some glyph that used conviction ranks, warding ranks, shield ranks, and shield protection to attempt to deflect targeted spells back at the caster.
>>DR-Armifer: I must admit I'm largely ignorant of the state of shields, other than knowing it's small shields 4 lyfe. AFAIK it's the increased hinderance not being worth the added defense?
One test I heard of involved an extreme comparison of the small diamond-hide shield (1 hindrance and 2/13 protection) versus the triple-reinforced vardite pavise shield (12 hindrance and 8/23 protection).
I have asked on several occasions whether it is intended that 96% of a vardite pavise shield (8/23 protection) doesn't perform as well as 100% of a small diamond-hide shield (2/13 protection). While Kodius did confirm that "small shields are better at melee, and large shields are better at missile," no GM has answered that specific question.
I also wondered if the differences experienced between those two shields could be generalized to other less extreme examples of small and large shields.
Lennon claims it can: http://forums.play.net/forums/DragonRealms/Combat%20-%20Weapons%20and%20Armor/Shields/view/1582
>>Lennonjon: Regardless of the small shields used (lumium and damite ceremonials, diamond-hide small) vs. large shields (damite tower and pavise shield) we would get hit less using the small shields. When hit using a small shield, they would be a bit harder of a hit, but overall the damage done received over time was higher using a large shield at melee.
Medium shields are currently useless, because their stats really aren't that much better than small shields. (The top small shield is 3/14 protection with 1 hindrance. The top medium shield is 7/15 protection with 6 hindrance.) Even if I want to downsize to avoid the bow penalty, I am better off just using a small shield.
Additionally, players tend to interpret the game mechanics as optimizing extreme choices (minimal hindrance or maximum protection) rather than intermediate values.
>>DR-Armifer: What kind of changes would make heavier shields desirable?
I wear my altered large shield for RP reasons, even if it turns out to be less than optimal. However, here are some changes that would end the debate about whether it's worth it for Paladins to wear large shields:
• Adjust the way offensive stats scale with shield weight/protection. (They currently scale very poorly, with even the heaviest wall shields being easily outperformed by store-bought blunt weapons.) The lackluster impact damage coupled with the unbalancing nature of a shield slam makes it little more than a desperation move when you have no other at-level sources of impact damage. (I would love to see development of offensive shield maneuvers.)
• Additional hindrance reduction (so that there is less of a perception that the added protection is outweighed by the added hindrance. Ideally, the size of this reduction should be based on armor skillset placement and shield ranks.
• A skillset- and rank-based reduction to the 20% defensive penalty to arm-wearing a shield. (Leave the offensive penalty for two-handed weapons as is, which currently depends on weapon skillset placement, I believe.)
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Paladin new player guide: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Paladin_new_player_guide
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
JACOBSJ27
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/29/2017 12:32 AM CST
I'm not experienced in PvP or DFA at all, but just an idea I had from reading all of this that would be a bonus to heavier shields: Small shields are ignored like they are now, Medium Shields have a significant penalty and Large Shields work normally. Would that make it worth it in PvP at least?
ASHAMAN1
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/29/2017 06:13 AM CST
Something worth note, the mechanic for adding damage stats to shields is..dated. It hasn't been updated in light of the new weapon templates and whatnot that came with new crafting/combat. There's likely some healthy room for improvement just looking into that.
Samsaren
Samsaren
2DUMBARSE
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/29/2017 07:32 AM CST
>Something worth note, the mechanic for adding damage stats to shields is..dated. It hasn't been updated in light of the new weapon templates and whatnot that came with new crafting/combat. There's likely some healthy room for improvement just looking into that.
These guys above put it best, but I just wanted to add one small thing, too. If/when shield damage stats are revisited, I'm assuming it may only improve shields from some future point forward because going retroactive would probably be a mammoth task. For that reason, I would still very much be interested in a RUE-like spell for shields to prevent recently-obtained rare, altered, quested-for from becoming very bad by comparison. I don't care if it's a metaspell for DA, an independent spell or a glyph/armor ability. I'm sure most would spend slots on it.
These guys above put it best, but I just wanted to add one small thing, too. If/when shield damage stats are revisited, I'm assuming it may only improve shields from some future point forward because going retroactive would probably be a mammoth task. For that reason, I would still very much be interested in a RUE-like spell for shields to prevent recently-obtained rare, altered, quested-for from becoming very bad by comparison. I don't care if it's a metaspell for DA, an independent spell or a glyph/armor ability. I'm sure most would spend slots on it.
JACOBSJ27
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/30/2017 09:58 AM CST
Prefacing with the fact that I don't PVP and only understand DFA from reading about it:
What if shield size affected how DFA worked? Something like small shields worked as is, medium shields worked but were penalized, and large shields were unaffected by DFA. Would that make the ability to wear a large one worthwhile in PvP?
What if shield size affected how DFA worked? Something like small shields worked as is, medium shields worked but were penalized, and large shields were unaffected by DFA. Would that make the ability to wear a large one worthwhile in PvP?
JACOBSJ27
Re: A Case for Buffs
12/30/2017 10:00 AM CST
Just realized my last post did go through, ignore the duplicate.
SARAGOS
Re: A Case for Buffs
01/02/2018 02:27 AM CST
Came here to say basically what Warb said, so count me as seconding that one. I'd also like to add that the Paladin buff suite seems kind of excessive just for the number of spells required to cast everything, especially as a magic tert. Being able to easily keep those spells all up while also training debil and TM is a LONG way off when starting out, greatly outpacing the number of spell slots you have. If nothing else, I'd like to see the 1-slot buffs eliminated. Make HES a metaspell for Courage, make DIG a metaspell for MO, or vice versa.
Re: Engagement and Ranged Buffs
So, I agree with the problem that Warb states wholeheartedly. However, echoing Isharon, adding a ranged buff to the Paladin suite would seem to go against theme and further homogenization of the guilds.
I propose one of two solutions. These can either both be implemented, or just the second one if that's the only one that's practical.
1) Fix the engagement system. Kodius, ages ago, suggested a system where doing more actions in combat makes you more sticky. So it would be easy to retreat from someone who just advanced on you but you've done nothing to, hard to retreat from someone who you've been attacking. Implement this, and add some points where Paladins particularly shine, through abilities, or by granting them a bonus if their skillset alone is insufficient. I would imagine retreating from someone would primarily be a contest of Tactics (retreater) vs Defending (person being retreated from).
2)Adapt Crusader's Challenge or have an ability based on Conviction that can simply be put on, and allows instant advancing, makes retreat difficult or impossible (or possibly rubber-bands them back to the Paladin), and possibly even stack the Thorns ability on top of this. Impose a serious debuff on the caught player if they attempt to attack something other than the Paladin while caught. I'd like to see the skill test here be based on Conviction (retreating or shoves via tactics), and be fairly well stacked against the retreater so that only a truly lopsided matchup makes it easy to get out.
As a balance, there should be some ways of getting out. I'd recommend granting a bonus to retreating if the character is not visible to the Paladin, and allow magical methods of forcing distance to still work (Halo, Shockwave, Whole Displacement and others), but possibly apply a debuff for breaking through the barrier towards making any kind of attack against the Paladin (including stat contests for debilitation) for a period of time. The idea would be to provide a disincentive towards run-and-gun, while allowing the spells to still provide an escape route.
- Saragos
Re: Engagement and Ranged Buffs
So, I agree with the problem that Warb states wholeheartedly. However, echoing Isharon, adding a ranged buff to the Paladin suite would seem to go against theme and further homogenization of the guilds.
I propose one of two solutions. These can either both be implemented, or just the second one if that's the only one that's practical.
1) Fix the engagement system. Kodius, ages ago, suggested a system where doing more actions in combat makes you more sticky. So it would be easy to retreat from someone who just advanced on you but you've done nothing to, hard to retreat from someone who you've been attacking. Implement this, and add some points where Paladins particularly shine, through abilities, or by granting them a bonus if their skillset alone is insufficient. I would imagine retreating from someone would primarily be a contest of Tactics (retreater) vs Defending (person being retreated from).
2)Adapt Crusader's Challenge or have an ability based on Conviction that can simply be put on, and allows instant advancing, makes retreat difficult or impossible (or possibly rubber-bands them back to the Paladin), and possibly even stack the Thorns ability on top of this. Impose a serious debuff on the caught player if they attempt to attack something other than the Paladin while caught. I'd like to see the skill test here be based on Conviction (retreating or shoves via tactics), and be fairly well stacked against the retreater so that only a truly lopsided matchup makes it easy to get out.
As a balance, there should be some ways of getting out. I'd recommend granting a bonus to retreating if the character is not visible to the Paladin, and allow magical methods of forcing distance to still work (Halo, Shockwave, Whole Displacement and others), but possibly apply a debuff for breaking through the barrier towards making any kind of attack against the Paladin (including stat contests for debilitation) for a period of time. The idea would be to provide a disincentive towards run-and-gun, while allowing the spells to still provide an escape route.
- Saragos
2DUMBARSE
Re: A Case for Buffs
01/02/2018 09:59 AM CST
>However, echoing Isharon, adding a ranged buff to the Paladin suite would seem to go against theme and further homogenization of the guilds.
I don't want to speak for Isharon, especially since she does it more eloquently than I, but I don't think she stated this.
Speaking for myself, I think a ranged weapon buff is thematically appropriate. At least, I can't picture anyone shouting at a knight in battle, highly offended, "What aaare you doing? Drop that javelin this instant! A crossbow!? What are you, a savage!?" I can be sold and would agree on a paladin preferring melee. However, I'm betting if someone were losing soldiers and knights to MUs and other ranged attackers safely pelting them from afar, they'd probably come up with a way of not looking so foolish.
Bad jokes aside, in more practical terms I don't think a solution to engagement is imminent. A poor overall solution could potentially drive away low level characters just getting a feel for the game. Even if it were imminent and/or we got some sort of engagement buffer, I would still argue in favor of having a ranged buff because there are a lot of tricks people can use to keep another PC at a distance like...
>... That’s assuming I’m not facing something like a stun-hider accessory. That’s also assuming I’m not facing Rangers’ HB web, which further delays engagement, allowing the ranger’s EM to reform before I can even get to pole range. That’s also assuming I’m not facing a MM with WD and RF. That’s also assuming I’m not facing Halo pushbacks. Etc.
There don't really need to be any counter-balances to engagement abilities. The balances already exist. Ranged weapons can be used at melee to no diminished effect. Shove still works. Debilitations and all other spells/abilities still work and are very effective at making it hard for me to hit someone at melee. Stun-hiders still work, etc. To be clear, I don't want any of that to be nerfed. I just want to be brought up to status quo.
I don't want to speak for Isharon, especially since she does it more eloquently than I, but I don't think she stated this.
Speaking for myself, I think a ranged weapon buff is thematically appropriate. At least, I can't picture anyone shouting at a knight in battle, highly offended, "What aaare you doing? Drop that javelin this instant! A crossbow!? What are you, a savage!?" I can be sold and would agree on a paladin preferring melee. However, I'm betting if someone were losing soldiers and knights to MUs and other ranged attackers safely pelting them from afar, they'd probably come up with a way of not looking so foolish.
Bad jokes aside, in more practical terms I don't think a solution to engagement is imminent. A poor overall solution could potentially drive away low level characters just getting a feel for the game. Even if it were imminent and/or we got some sort of engagement buffer, I would still argue in favor of having a ranged buff because there are a lot of tricks people can use to keep another PC at a distance like...
>... That’s assuming I’m not facing something like a stun-hider accessory. That’s also assuming I’m not facing Rangers’ HB web, which further delays engagement, allowing the ranger’s EM to reform before I can even get to pole range. That’s also assuming I’m not facing a MM with WD and RF. That’s also assuming I’m not facing Halo pushbacks. Etc.
There don't really need to be any counter-balances to engagement abilities. The balances already exist. Ranged weapons can be used at melee to no diminished effect. Shove still works. Debilitations and all other spells/abilities still work and are very effective at making it hard for me to hit someone at melee. Stun-hiders still work, etc. To be clear, I don't want any of that to be nerfed. I just want to be brought up to status quo.
ISHARON
Re: A Case for Buffs
01/02/2018 11:53 PM CST
>>Saragos: However, echoing Isharon, adding a ranged buff to the Paladin suite would seem to go against theme and further homogenization of the guilds.
>>2dumbarse: I don't want to speak for Isharon, especially since she does it more eloquently than I, but I don't think she stated this.
Correct. I had actually stated that until a review of the engagement mechanics can be completed (which is beyond the scope of this project and likely years away if it is planned at all), "better access to an engagement-management ability and a ranged weapon buff would be good Band-Aids" for Paladins.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Paladin new player guide: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Paladin_new_player_guide
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
>>2dumbarse: I don't want to speak for Isharon, especially since she does it more eloquently than I, but I don't think she stated this.
Correct. I had actually stated that until a review of the engagement mechanics can be completed (which is beyond the scope of this project and likely years away if it is planned at all), "better access to an engagement-management ability and a ranged weapon buff would be good Band-Aids" for Paladins.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
Paladin new player guide: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Paladin_new_player_guide
armor and shields: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Armor_and_shield_player_guide
DARKSOLDIER
Re: A Case for Buffs
01/07/2018 02:21 PM CST
In addition to some ways to manage engagement distance, common paladin woes would be helped by some modifications to our cyclics.
* Updating the balance heal in TR to a strong balance boost would be a nice step toward fixing ranged & (more generally) offense. An explicit skill boost would be nice for ranged but +balance would be a great short term measure. Who can maneuver in armor like it's nothing better than paladins?
* Since HOW makes paladins glow or something, this could manifest as a combat penalty. It's harder to land attacks on and to defend against something you can barely look at - so a combat modifier could make sense. Now that traders can buff shield and evasion (I guess they're armor secondary, though Warmages can buff... [everything related to combat]), building in a nice defensive buff to HOW would feel really good - and a secondary offensive boost would be nice too.
