>Question: You have similar questions on this spell already out there from other posters. Will this do anything different than the current form of BoT? I am fine with the old version, but the explanation is worded in a way that leads me to believe that it may function differently.

This was already answered. It will be functionally the same, he just worded it oddly.
>Ok, so this is just a matter of my shorthand not explaining correctly. BoT will be pretty much the same as it is now.

>By cyclic, do you mean this bad boy will pulse?

That's what cyclic means. It will pulse every so often pulling from cambrinth, held mana, and attunement (I think in that order, and efficiency is the same, I think. I might have cambrinth and held swapped).

>Comment: I would rather keep the old version with the distance limitation based on the melee weapon.

I'm not sure what the old distance limitations are, but new AoE's will all have multiple cast options to keep PCs safe. I can't remember if there will be multiple options for hitting just critters, though.

>Question: Can we get a buff to "Defense" (I think that is the name of the new armor skill) with this up?

Personally, I'd rather have a Defense skill buff in it's own spell. It would be useful even when you don't want to attract ever critter in the area.

>You may consider a "Battery Spell" that was proposed by Redarch after...ohh, SimuCon 2008 or so. In short, the problem is that paladins take a really, really long time to power up. The idea of a Battery Spell would allow (provided sufficient skill) to cast one spell that would quickly put up a few defined spells (i.e. courage, HoW, AS and RW) in return for shorter durations on the suite of spells cast with the one shot.

This sounds like a permanent moonblade with lots of nodes. I really hope something to this effect ends up in enchanting for everybody.

>I am uncertain whether the Evasion boost and the potential stacking of DA and HoWv3.0 will offset the loss of 60 stance points.

It probably won't. 60 stance points is a pretty awesome boost. I think this is probably one instance of something getting nerfed because it's too awesome.

Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer

>IIRC you'll need the Raw Channeling magic technique for it to come directly from your attunement.

Quite right. Totally forgot about that.

Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer

FYI: SMH's existing range depends on the weapon you have in your hand. A pole-ranged weapon will work from pole and so forth.

Madigan

>>2. Paladins have a tough time with mana.
>I disagree with this.

Having trained both a cleric and a paladin to ~30, it is my opinion that holy mana was balanced with cleric hax in mind. Maybe it gets better but sub 250 PP/Harness, holy mana without POM and devotion boost is god awful.

~Hunter Hanryu
Pun always intended.

No, only Melee and Pole depending on the weapon you are holding.

Madigan

> Shatter: Question: Self cast...cast on foe...how does this bad boy work?

> Self cast, and it amplifies your damage.

That sounds like augmentation, not debilitation.

>>That sounds like augmentation, not debilitation.

Teach me to post from my tablet without looking at my notes. Sorry about that, it is actually cast on a target and it amplifies all damage incoming to that person/critter.

I looked at all my other answers and they are correct. sorry about the misinformation guys.

--Absinal

<<--Absinal

Thanks a ton for responding.

Some responses:

CrC - I view the primary purpose of this spell as drawing creatures to the paladin. As a result, I tried to suggest a buff that would work in combat. Wisdom doesn't really seem like it is very meaningful in combat and when you want the wisdom buff, I can see the "taunting" aspect to be annoying outside of pure hunting. I am a bit indifferent as to the buff as long as it works and is useful in combat. Thus, my suggestion of defense over wisdom. Actually a long list of things might make more sense (i.e. Tactics, Defense, Charisma (for a lead boost), reflex). In short, wisdom seems a bit weird but there are a whole range of other things that might work more in harmony with the core use of "taunting".

SMH - Copy a paladin and cast the current version a bit against a barbarian, moonmage or a necro. It works very well and is very powerful. I suspect the power is attributable to the current limitations (i.e. range). Now, if we can keep the exact same spell and make it work as a pure AOE...that would be the bee's knees. However, I would rather have the old spell and power than a simple AOE TM spell that really just ends up being a magic training spell or the only people we can hit with it pose no threat to the paladin anyway.

HOW - Hey, I get it..60 points is big stuff. I think though I would like to "wait and see" just how big an advantage it is before we just chop it. Also...I rather thought the entire point of the paladin guild was to be really, really darn hard to kill. It would seem this fits the bill and frankly, this one spell could really define the guild and put us on the map after Combat 3.0. If the boat has sailed, I will drop the discussion. If it has not, I would like an opportunity to compare this "ubber paladin future ability" with some other guilds "ubber abilities" that I think will more than outweigh 60 stance points.

Additional comments and questions:

1. Mind taking a look at the Clarity question? Does this give us passive spot?

2. Thanks a ton for putting the "battery spell" on the list. I always thought that was a good idea by Redarch.

I can not thank you enough for taking the time to read and respond.




Madigan

>>If it has not, I would like an opportunity to compare this "ubber paladin future ability" with some other guilds "ubber abilities" that I think will more than outweigh 60 stance points.

If I understand combat 3.0 properly, 60 additional stance points could potentially result in a boost of 300+ ranks of additional defense at higher circles, or more than three times the global cap. The only abilities I can think of that approach this are Barbarian dances at extreme levels of skill, and they are on the chopping block.
*******
Malkien

I seem to remember hearing about different kinds of spells having different cast timers based on what they do, i.e. quick cast, short duration combat buffs, or much longer preparation buff spells to be done before combat. Did this make it into the mix for 3.0 or was that just a tentative idea? If so, can you shed any light on what spells would fit under which category?

-Blood Knight Zeroe Drakoni

<<Overall:

1. You may consider a "Battery Spell" that was proposed by Redarch after...ohh, SimuCon 2008 or so. In short, the problem is that paladins take a really, really long time to power up. The idea of a Battery Spell would allow (provided sufficient skill) to cast one spell that would quickly put up a few defined spells (i.e. courage, HoW, AS and RW) in return for shorter durations on the suite of spells cast with the one shot.

2. Paladins have a tough time with mana. So, I preferred the approach of fewer buffs spells but more power.

3. I am uncertain whether the Evasion boost and the potential stacking of DA and HoWv3.0 will offset the loss of 60 stance points. It may very well be better, and I think some testing in the Test Instance would help fully understand the impact of this significant change if you have access and are willing to try it out.

Madigan>>

I agree with most everything here but in addition HOW extends our learning ability for our third defense right now making training to stay balanced an easier task for us. Loss of HOW reduces that third defense % and will hinder effective training for those that are serious about staying well rounded.

We definately need something to get our basic defenses up quickly. A battery of spells stored and ready for immediate use would really enhance this guild. It would greatly increase enjoyment for those playing a Paladin.

Khohan

On average how long does it take everyone to buff up?

Below is my general Buff

DA	Prep 10 harn 20	5-6 seconds
RW	Prep 10 harn 20	4-5 seconds
AS	Prep 10 harn 20	4-5 seconds
COURAGE	prep 10 harn 20	4-5 seconds
MAF	Prep 10 harn 20	4-5 seconds
SR	prep 10 harn 20	5-6 seconds

total: 26-31 seconds

It is better and quicker to prep low and harness then prep high and wait. This manages your mana better and gives you more to use for other spells.

HOW: Giving us an evasion boost is the best thing possible in the spell change. DR will always be an evasion based combat system. Tertiary for the win.

I use Sphere of Protection and sometimes Ethereal Shield and/or Manifest Force. That's all I have currently :(

---

~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com

>>Is there no real benefit to capping them outside of duration?

Depends on the spell.

Something like current-HoW gives the same +60 stance points if you cast at min or max. AS always shakes off stuns in the same way at min or max. DA gives a bigger shield bonus at higher preps, but not bigger armor bonuses (unless I have that backward). MO, DiG and Courage give bigger stat bonuses at higher preps.

Yeah, I don't really use any of these for hunting except for SR occasionally. I'm too lazy to hunt anywhere I need buffs. I use them for PvP where duration isn't generally that important, but the effects are. That's why I was curious if I could shave time off by not casting some of them so high.

~Katt

---

A gestalt draugen swipes a hooked leonine claw at Silus. The claw lands a solid hit that cuts deeply into his groin!

Question Presented:
1. A spell that allowed for shield to be used against DFA offensive spells.

---

Response:
This one isn't on my list. Can you give me a link that has the information that was originally posted about it?

---

Now, the answer (From Armifer over in the general folders):

>>Do paladins have any protection against DFA attacks? It seems like bypassing shields and evasion tert are pretty rough.

A Paladin spell to grant them shield usage against DFAs has been approved for... quite a while now, actually. Not sure if it's going to make the M3 release, but I'd like to see it.

---

Me:

Outstanding!

Madigan

>>I never really liked the idea of a Paladin spell that lets them use shield to contest DFA attacks, honestly. Just seems like it would be a step in the direction of the turf wars we had between stun vs. anti-stun, which IIRC they are trying to move away from. A spell specifically to take away the DFA aspect of a DFA spell defeats the whole purpose of the DFA contest, and lets Paladins use their strength to cover a major weakness.

Paladins should be able to defend against Dfa with their shields and not a spell. Heck I believe every guild should be allowed to defend against DFA with a shield. Us Paladins do have shield in our primary skill group. It should not be a major weakness for us. Our major weakness is survival tertiary which includes evasion and perception.

Anyways we shouldn't go down this route because it would become GvG and your statement would apply to every combat boost a WM has. But alas Magic 3.0 is moving away from not allowing certain guilds to do certain things.

>>'Paladins should be able to defend against DFA spells with shield' you are saying DFA spells should not exist against them.

Um, no I think that would mean he's saying 'Paladins should be able to defend against DFA spells with a shield.'

---

Where's Madigan?!?!

I'm so noble it hurts.

Why does it need to be a no shield attack? if you are implying a magic primary perk then ok.

However, Paladins should have an armor primary perk of using shield against dfa.

also, it's a spell, so I would wager that the PM of the paladin will be contested as well, so, it's not exactly primary vs primary. Plus, it just makes sense that if I have a shield the size of my garage door, I might be able to slow down some fire rain, provided I had the holy power to stop the, ya no, fire.

Illimin