So here is my concept of a Paladin in DR.

Paladins just like Clerics use magic, they aren't magic masters, they are maneuver specialists, able to keep solid and balanced in the thick of things even in heavy cumbersome armor.

To me I'd like more of a armor doesn't make my defenses better (because that's already been pushed as far as the system allows), what I'd like is dangerous situations to be more proofed by a Paladins abilities.

I think part of that means that the old maximum combat enemies needs to GO AWAY. In addition the rear as well as to a lesser extent flanking needs to have more bonuses needs to have not just TEETH but FANGS.

Generally combatants should be able to maneuver out of combat, or into different positions. It gets harder and more difficult with more opponents.

It should SUCK massively if your facing 4 opponents or more. This old stand by of oh I need to fight 4 to train needs to be, alright I can try but it's not going to work out. And this has to JUST BE, like facing four goblins when you have 1000 ranks should still have the possibility of having issues, even though your NOT training skills. By issues I mean they are getting enough hits, especially the goblins that are attacking from rare that they you'll over time be pin cushioned to death.

Paladins can survive a bit longer, and have more abilities within that setup. Perhaps even combat feats (they have more of, where other guilds get a glimpse at tertiary armor and a bit between at secondary).

Alright, so back to the Paladins.

Paladins have soulstones, and something that holds the soulstone. This is part of who they are and it should be a continuation and building block. Perhaps the foundation.

Its been brought up to have Holy Shield. I like this Concept the Sword and Shield of the gods (perhaps other weapons). However I don't think it should just be able to be swapped like a simple action. I think they need to be part of the persona of that Paladin. A trusted Blade or Lance, perhaps even a Blunt instrument of the gods.

I'm not sure exactly what a Holy Shield would do, perhaps going with the flow of my above combat purposal. It might knock an opponent from the rear position. Somehow closing it off. Perhaps it can give a blinding light that somehow occupies an opponent. Perhaps it just acts as a stunning agent. Perhaps there is a chance that an opponent (especially if undead, Necromantic, or cursed) that the blow will rebound or the energy of the blow will rebound back at the attacker.

I'm just throwing things at a dart board, and hoping things stick here.

---
"I think anything that forces you to do something no sane adventurer would do just in order to train is ridiculous."
DR-SOCHARIS

---
"Phelim, what have I wrought?"
GM NaOHHI
---
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Vic

I wasn't going to weigh in, simply because I've said my piece long and often, however.

Making things HARDER for other guilds to find a spot to add a thing to Paladins is a Poor Idea at best. I will never be in favor of punishing others to prop myself up, it seems like a bad direction.

>>3. Using holy weapons no longer uses charges on the weapon. Instead, it drains your soul pool. The ritual to restore a holy weapon instead now gives you generic soul pool. You can gradually store up lots of soulstones for an emergency situation later and then use your pool/stones to get that big burst.

This one in particular struck me. Forcing people, especially in light of F2Ps very low item limits, to gather material items to offset one of our highest level "most powerful" abilities really bothers me. Does Holy Weapon need a bit of an update to modern? Sure, drawing from the soul per swing would likely push the few folks who actually carry the thing to add it to the vast array of dust gathering weapons out there.

Our soul system, lets be generous, is a dated concept. It needs a drastic overhaul before adding anything to it, especially something like above.


I would far rather see things added for Paladins via expansions of the SMITE system, or Paladin Maneuvers, rather than vast system changes to create a niche for us. Shield based abilities, Missile-melee shield charges, knock downs, and so forth to ADD to folks would be a better direction I'd think.

Samsaren

>>I doubt the game will ever be designed to run optimally with sub 100 items on your character.

Most of my characters do just fine hovering in the less then 50 range, only bundles push them over. The fact that many are pack rats (myself included) is NOT required.

>>Holyweaponstuff

Don't add costs/penalties just for 'flavor'.

>>I think Smite should require their holy weapon.

Great plan, so a ~20th ability is now unusable till 50+ following a long quest.

I get it, sometimes it helps to spitball ideas, and you never know what suggestion will trigger a strike of brilliance in one of our awesome coders. That said, suggesting drawbacks, costs, or penalties tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Samsaren

> Most of my characters do just fine hovering in the less then 50 range, only bundles push them over. The fact that many are pack rats (myself included) is NOT required.

If you're at sub 50 then why do you care about one to two more? Bundles can be tied with the appraisal change. Crafting is the exception.

> Don't add costs/penalties just for 'flavor'.

It's a fuel to power new ability. That's not a penalty.

> Great plan, so a ~20th ability is now unusable till 50+ following a long quest.

Or move the quest to 20th and give smite at 50th. We, people who are not empowered to make any changes mind you, are simply day dreaming about possible futures. There's really no point in arguing about the technical mechanics.

> It would give low-levels a chance to take down high level critters, or, when a PVP situation a high level character (I've seen a few HLC rampages against low levels, it'd be nice to have at least the possibility of fighting back with numbers).

It could make for some interesting events. Assuming you could find an area with a poor enough spawn, you could get a group of 15-20 low level characters and go hunt some "monsters" out in the game.

Since we're just throwing stuff at the wall, a few more ideas for paladins that may be low-hanging fruit:

1. (And I expect a lot of criticism here, but it's about support not self-buffing) Let paladins do the resurrection quest. Make it at a higher level, and with more of a penalty for level disparity than clerics have to represent them doing it better, but let paladins gain that ability. Require the glyph of bonding rather than the bonding spell. Let holy warrior act as a PFE for that portion of the quest. Increase the favors your target has to have to be successful.

2. More spells. An armor buff. An anti-DFA buff. A spell reflect buff - full suite for TM, . A suite of weapon reflect buffs. The idea being that their defense turns into an offense. Or just make that what the paladin skill primarily is. Copy the pathway code, and make some small tweaks. Five separate favor pools rather than one.
> Align [god] - You're now working on pool #x/5. It drains the counter god's pool as you fill it. All pools natural drift to 0 (like soul state), (+) this god's pool makes a (-) in another god's pool. Boost soul state gives a buff to your aligned god.
> Pray [god] - Summon Admittance for the god you're aligned to
> Focus Rutilor - Focus AOE (new). Reflects now have the ability to someones cause you to chain the reflect all mobs engaged
> Focus Chadatru - Focus quick for your deflect ability. Reduced CD between reflects.
> Focus Botolf - Focus power for your physical weapon deflection. More likely to succeed with greater %.
> Focus Urrem'tier - Focus power for your spell deflection. More likely to succeed with greater %.
> Focus Eylhaar - Focus defense for spells. Take less damage.
> Focus Aldauth - Focus damage for your deflect ability. +Damage for reflect.
> Smite - Already equivalent to barrage, more or less, but you can use your guild ability to buff the damage.
> Alignments. Rutilor <> Boltolf. Chadatru <> Urrem'tier. Elyhaar <> Alduath. Where <> is an oppositional relationship
Deflect is available to anyone. They type the verb [deflect] [spell, missile, melee] and don't attack. WM/Cleric/Bard: Melee + spell. Necro, empath, moonmage: Spell only. Trader, ranger, barbarian, thief: Missile + Melee. Paladin: All three. Contests armor skill + paladin guild skill against power of incoming attack. It returns x% of the attack to the attacker and converts the remainder to a hit that's mitigated by armor ranks. Skills that buff armor buff this ability. Trains paladin guild skill. Spell adds a primary magic/intel component to the equation. Missile adds a shield/reflect component. There are a few guild abilities here and there to buff deflection. WMs for TM, Clerics for general Spells, Moon Mages for debilitation. Thieves get a huge buff with a certain khri. Barbarians get a buff to damage. Etc... Spell might require a magical feat to unlock.

3. Adding onto the soulstone battery, let paladins use it to convert spirit health into soul power. That opens the way for a glyph/spell to renew spirit health/increase spirit regen/spirit shields/make use out of other guild's spirit regen abilities (i.e.: vigil)/etc....

4. Give paladins an ultimate of sorts. Activate a holy warrior/avatar ability. Very draining. Very long CD. Turns them into a sort of unbeatable God (at level) for a very brief period.

>My understanding is that GMs find it VERY difficult to balance critters because EVERYONE seems to need to have 4 critters in combat against them at all times (no matter how fast they kill them), so that they can have 22 (or whatever it is) skills in a constant state of numbers going up.

The problem is that variations of that have been attempted and people complained strongly about it. Recently-ish, I think with 3.1, I know it was a point of contention when people were forced to hunt at level to train. Even after combat difficulty was downtweaked in an attempt to pacify the masses, people still complained and then the multi penalty was reduced for 4.

It's not just buffing paladins by nerfing everyone else, it's reliving that situation which would just force us to come back full circle to where we are now. I don't want any development to be wasted, particularly and selfishly that for this guild.

>Since we're just throwing stuff at the wall, a few more ideas for paladins that may be low-hanging fruit:

Not a criticism of the suggestions, but the goal of GMs, as I understand it, is to give paladins an identity unique from clerics and a lot of the suggestions, while not bad, make paladins more cleric-like.

Sincerely, I'll be happy with anything more than the idea of progress. That could be a theme; that could be a spell; that could be a revision of smite as a starting point; it could be whatever, really.

Look, I'll be frank. At some point it becomes difficult to rationalize, no matter the individual, why your guild receives less attention than other projects. That doesn't apply only to paladins, but I've chosen to speak for this as my guild. You start to ask why magic primary guilds, which are supposedly less ability dependent, have had their abilities converted over to 3.0 and even received new ones while you're waiting for your turn. Or, why it is that there's less attention paid to abilities than magic? Magic was unified under the umbrella of 3.0. Assuming abilities were, too, why does magic get the lion's share of the focus including major iterations? Why do some guilds get kinda sorta advocates and some don't? It's improbable that doesn't skew development.

In 2.0, pretty much everyone was in the same dilapidated boat. That's not the case anymore. Some guilds have had their boats rebuilt and are getting them polished to a spit-shine.

>1. (And I expect a lot of criticism here, but it's about support not self-buffing) Let paladins do the resurrection quest. Make it at a higher level, and with more of a penalty for level disparity than clerics have to represent them doing it better, but let paladins gain that ability. Require the glyph of bonding rather than the bonding spell. Let holy warrior act as a PFE for that portion of the quest. Increase the favors your target has to have to be successful.

My initial reaction was 'nooo', but then I went 'eh, why not?' and I realized that the GMs have stated they want to push Paladins further away from clerics. So this isn't likely just for that reason.

>So a living version of MF? I like it. Maybe an ability to enables all paladin spells and abilities at once for 5 minutes every day or with a hefty and pulsing vit/health/fatigue/spirit drain.

I don't think Paladins need more durability. They should be darn near invincible as-is. And that's part of the Paladin problem, they're boring. Impossible to die on in PvE, but no active damage abilities either.

Plus flat abilities like X duration Y period aren't useful in DR because it's such a long game. Abilities like that work in other games because each encounter is a few seconds, and boss fights are a few minutes. Those abilities are tuned for boss fights (whether it's a heal/tank/dps button), and DR simply doesn't work like that.

>they're boring. Impossible to die on in PvE.
This is a 'problem' just about everyone faces regardless if they are a Paladin or any other guild.

It's part of why I brought about that whole bit about multi-opponents and rare and flank attacks.

Personally I'd like part of 'maneuvering' to allow opponents to flank others, even if the other opponent counters and can bring themselves back to face to face or better yet swing themselves to your flank while they are forward facing you.

I know that some people don't think it's going to happen, however I believe that that the 'loud ones' are more of a vocal minority. I know there are people, some of which are GMs that have mentioned the toxic state that exists because of a certain subset of players. I believe we need to get behind the game changing for the better, and while I can't guarantee, I do think that Paladins could be a far cooler guild, and that the game being more inclusive would foster better interaction.

Further the game needs to be better for multiplayer interaction, and I think this would be part of that stream. So many areas are hit. Armor becomes a thing, more because it allows maneuvering to happen. Along with it GMs can work on critters BETTER. Combat becomes less scrolly. Invasions hopefully still have plenty of critters, but invasion makers don't need to go so heavy on the critter generator accelerator. And then maybe this makes the game at least during invasions less lagging.

---
"I think anything that forces you to do something no sane adventurer would do just in order to train is ridiculous."
DR-SOCHARIS

---
"Phelim, what have I wrought?"
GM NaOHHI
---
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Vic

> Why does having more offensive power have to come with a cost? Especially their defense?

> > Impossible to die on in PvE.

Because otherwise it would be game breaking or too weak to matter.

>> Impossible to die on in PvE.

This is a complete over-exaggeration and...

>>Because otherwise it would be game breaking or too weak to matter.

There is a middle ground. Plenty of other guilds have found it.


You don't fix PvE combat by nerfing player abilities. You fix it by changing critter AI/skills. This also has nothing to do with what Paladins need. The guild should get the same love and attention some of the other guilds have, not some watered down version because of what some people think of PvE.

> No. All paladin abilities are passive.

That's not really true though, and you do grow to the point of PvE situations being 100% safe with the right setup, crafted armor, and scripts. Unless you're over hunting, which is what makes it fine. There's an exp incentive to over hunt. You learn faster. I think this should be more pronounced, but it is what it is.

Regarding survivability, I'd say clerics have the most "passive" buffs via powerful OM buffs and strong debuffing cyclics. Survival primes can hide and stay hidden in almost any situation, especially with the simple wooden wristcuff. Thieves and Barbarians and bards are also able to maintain several cyclic style abilities that can be "always on" more or less. A paladin's true power only comes when they have all of their buffs. That's SR, DA, HS, Courage, and AA at a minimum for peak efficiency. They'll be hitting like a wet noodle (at level) without also putting up RUE and RW. Then you have the anti-spell (niche) and stat buffs. Can they be immortal without them? Sure, but everyone can be.

I would love to see paladins expanded, and I'm sure the GMs have some great ideas (if they ever happen). That's not a dig to the GMs. They work hard, and that work is appreciated. It's just a matter of fact that the game development is slower than the players want, frankly like most MMOs/MUDs.

After bouncing this around for a while, here's my wishlist right now:

* Resurrection quest, or at the least some utility that other people want (Maybe glyph to give 100% scroll bonding on death). It seems everyone is always begging for a cleric on the gweth. Let them start begging for a cleric or a paladin, so the clerics don't have to leave their hunting spots. Clerics are currently magical paladins with all that they buff via their primary skillset. They even get the holy shield spell that should have gone to paladins. Why can't paladins dabble a little into their ability pool.

* Turn defense into an offense, or a way to make armor ranks / defenses useful.

* More self utility. Ideas: 1) Single target (self cast, affects you + pulses to your teacher/class) version of Faenella's grace (repurpose VI and give SR the reflex buff natively). 2) Forging buff. 3) ...?

* Expanded ability system. I see abilities as the spells for guilds that don't focus on magic. It's the classic model. If you're going to give a class fewer spells (magic tert) then they need more abilities to level the playing field. Instead, it seems like the magic primes get lots of abilities too. It makes them objectively a more versatile class at level. Honestly, is there any reason for someone to say, "I wish I was a paladin rather than a cleric because..."? Maybe "I want less to do" or "Role Play" (both valid), but I think it needs to be more than that.

You do realize that Rangers and Barbarians are actually *better off* in terms of Defenses then Paladins, right?

Samsaren

>You do realize that Rangers and Barbarians are actually *better off* in terms of Defenses then Paladins, right?

There's this, too. Avoidance trumps mitigation every time, which is why Paladins have made a big deal about DFA despite its limitations.

>Under-hunting and running away as soon you have any wounds doesn't qualify as it's impossible to die.

That's what 99% of the game does, so this is a silly argument.

>People using language like that in connection to under-developed guilds wanting more development isn't good for anyone.

Let's revisit my 'horrible for the game' language.

I said, roughly, Paladins are durable enough already and don't need more passive and boring abilities. They need more offense and interesting abilities. I never said or implied Paladins didn't need 'more'. I just don't think they need more durability. They have enough.

> You do realize that Rangers and Barbarians are actually *better off* in terms of Defenses then Paladins, right?

PvP, sure. PvE, Paladins win. Hands down.

* Even without counting multiple armors, Paladins are ahead by base ranks.

* Paladins are ahead in terms of raw ranks, but barbarians have more buffing potential (excluding cleric spells)

* Paladins are about equal in terms of buffing potential with a Barbarian, but....

* Paladins are ahead by a clear margin if they incorporate cleric scrolls (+evasion (MAPP), -damage (MPP/Ghost Shroud))

* Paladins have more ways to reduce incoming damage (DA, AA, Cleric spells)

* Paladins can sustain more buffs than Barbarians (due to inner fire limitations)

* Paladins are vastly ahead of barbarians (35%) in terms of multiple opponents, the only true danger in PvE, due to the defending bonus. This is even true counting parry's melee efficiency.

* Rangers and Barbarians have stealth/perception, which are key abilities in PvP.

* Barbarians have on-demand burst that Paladin don't have.

* Paladins can effectively use tactics.

---

Setting primary skills at 1.0, secondary skills learn at a rate of 75%-80% assuming always mindlocked (averaging at .775). Tertiary skills will learn at a rate of 57-60% (averaging at .585).

So if you have all skills in a constant state of mindlock, at you'd see something like this. Max buff potential in parens.

Learning Rates	100 ranks	250 ranks	500 ranks	750 ranks	1000 ranks
Primary	100 (120)	250 (300)	500 (600)	750 (900)	1000 (1200)
Secondary	77(97)	193 (232)	387 (465)	581 (697)	775 (930)
Tertiary	58 (78)	139 (167)	292 (351)	418 (502)	558 (669)

Rank by Rank (average)	100 ranks	250 ranks	500 ranks	750 ranks	1000 ranks
Paladin	87 (95)	216 (236)	435 (475)	649 (709)	866 (946)
Ranger	81 (89)	204 (222)	409 (445)	614 (668)	820 (891)
Barbarian	81 (97)	204 (237)	409 (476)	614 (714)	820 (953)

---

With self-buffs, in SOI, assuming they're capped, here's what we see for each guild.

Paladin	100 ranks	250 ranks	500 ranks	750 ranks	1000 ranks
Shield (P)	100 (120)	250 (300)	500 (600)	750 (900)	1000 (1200)
Defending (P)	100 (120)	250 (300)	500 (600)	750 (900)	1000 (1200)
Armor (P)	100	250	500	750	1000
Parry (S)	77	193	387	581	775
Evasion (T)	58	139	292	418	558

Bonus: +absorption/protection, AA damage absorbtion, +tactics, +Anti-magic spells, +Shield flexibility (Large shield tailorable to 10% against ranged only mobs), glpyhs (warding)
Defensive Stats: +reflex (15%), Strength (15%), Stam (20%), Disc (20%)
Surprises: No parry bonus; No -offensive bonus; no +armor skill bonus; no evasion bonus without borrowing MAPP from clerics.

Ranger	100 ranks	250 ranks	500 ranks	750 ranks	1000 ranks
Shield (S)	77	193	387	581	775
Defending (S)	77	193	387	581	775
Armor (S)	77(97)	193 (232)	387 (465)	581 (697)	775 (930)
Parry (S)	77	193	387	581	775
Evasion (P)	100 (120)	250 (300)	500 (600)	750 (900)	1000 (1200)

Ranger bonus: +tactics, +all stats, +Stealth/invis/-stealth hinderance (the God skill of DR for PvE), -defensive/offensive factor (ST), -stats, (offensive, st), +Antimagic
Defensive Stats: +Agility (20%), +Reflex (20%), +Stam (15%), +Strength (20%)
Surprises: No parry or shield buffs.

Barbarian	100 ranks	250 ranks	500 ranks	750 ranks	1000 ranks
Shield (S)	77(97)	193 (232)	387 (465)	581 (697)	775 (930)
Defending (S)	77	193	387	581	775
Armor (S)	77(97)	193 (232)	387 (465)	581 (697)	775 (930)
Parry (P)	100 (120)	250 (300)	500 (600)	750 (900)	1000 (1200)
Evasion (S)	77(97)	193 (232)	387 (465)	581 (697)	775 (930)

Bonus: +almost everything. Anti-magic, debilitators, etc... Magic ranks count for more.
Defensive Stats: +20% Reflex, Stam, Strength. +15% agility.
Surprises: No defending buff outside of parry's dominance, no discipline buff.

---

This changes slightly based on logout drain. Casually hardcore players will find that tertiary numbers are closer to their primary number than hardcore players. True casuals will be all over the board.

>People using language like that in connection to under-developed guilds wanting more development isn't good for anyone.

>>Let's revisit my 'horrible for the game' language.

>>I said, roughly, Paladins are durable enough already and don't need more passive and boring abilities. They need more offense and interesting abilities. I never said or implied Paladins didn't need 'more'. I just don't think they need more durability. They have enough.

That comment was aimed at the people who were suggesting nerfs/penalties for new development, not you. You did make the comment that they used to justify their reasoning, though.

As for the other stuff I'm done arguing with you about since we apparently have differing opinions on what 'impossible' means.

> The only think I read from Sam's post is that rangers and barbs, by virtue of their skill set placement, have more raw and effective defensive skill ranks and that's a fact.

Right, and my post was explaining why I don't think that's true. If the numbers derived from elanthipedia are correct, tertiary rates drain slower than secondary rates which drain slower than primary rates. If you're in constant combat, with mindlocks 24/7 then a paladin will have more base ranks in the 5 defensive skills (armor, defending, parry, shield, and evasion) than a ranger. Individual playstyles can change this, but paladins have the most potential.

> Paladins can't buff any more defensive skills (shield/evasion/parry) than those guys.

Defending needs to be in that list. Multiple opponents are what makes PvE dangerous. Anyone can survive in a new hunting area 1v1, but 2v1 or 3v1 can be too much.

> Of course, that's avoidance, not mitigation.

Here's how it breaks down. Asterisks mean it's out of SOI. I'm including spell scrolls (in parens) in the same domain (cleric for paladin, empath for ranger) because it's a key differentiator between paladins & rangers and barbarians. I'm not counting debuffs if they can't be applied in an AOE manner.

total

skill buffs

evasion

defending

parry

shield

armor ranks

reflex

agility

stamina

disc

strength

physical damage reduction

Magical damage reduction

Paladin

14

4

MaPP

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

2x

3x + (MF)

Ranger

11

2

x

x

x

x

x

(tranquility)

x

(MF,IC)

(LW,IC)

Barbarian

10

4

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

As you can see, paladins can take less damage than anyone else. They have an edge in raw skills / time invested, they have an edge in raw skill buffs, and they have an edge in damage reduction after the fact.

> It's difficult to discuss how stats enter the equation because we simply don't have enough info as players.

Agreed, but I think it must be a nightmare to balance this as GMs even with that information. Stats can change radically. A Ranger with equal defenses will have more stats than a paladin with those same defenses. This is because they've spent more time on non-combat skills. They had to in order to circle.

> All I can tell you is an evasion buff, in my experience, is FAR more effective in improving avoidance than a reflex buff.

Agreed. The point is that (for these guilds) evasion + reflex (in SOI) >= evasion + reflex (out of SOI) > evasion. The level also matters. If my character has 10 reflex then 2 reflex may be enough to jump up the critter ladder alone. If my character has 50 reflex then 2 reflex is nice, but not that big of a jump.

> The tables, honestly, are making complicated something that's very simple, and they're misleading.

That's just it. The picture is relevant. Barbarians have no option of borrowing from the thieves or traders, so what you see is what you get. They don't even get AP spells. Paladins and rangers do. They can stay within their domain and cast spells so long as they don't die without a res, which is directly tied to the point we're discussing.

> You're cherry picking different stats and skills and scrolls and putting into a table where you assign them all the same weight.

That's fair, but the skill that we should be prioritizing is MO/Defending. That's the skill that ties into multiple mobs at once. One on one is never a danger, for anyone, with the right skills. It's being attacked by 2-3 that introduces risk, which is directly mitigated by defense. I don't think we're disagreeing here, but that does mean paladins have the advantage.

> I have absolutely no trouble dancing with 4 creatures on my warrior mage when I move ladders.

I believe this. It goes back to the earlier point someone made that everyone is being basically immortal "at level" (read: at the low-end of the learning range).

> (e.g. barbs dodge better with all their buffs, paladins are better damage sponges with their buffs, etc.).

This is where we're probably disagreeing. Rank for Rank, paladins have the advantage. Let's take out armor from the equation and assume everyone is at the lowest possible hinderance by wearing only one type of armor. Our four mitigation skills are defending, parry, shield, and evasion. Barbarians and Rangers have the benefit of these being secondary or above, but that's still not enough.

Fully buffed, with equal time in combat at 1000 ranks:
* Barbarians average 920 skills between the four.
* Rangers average 881.
* Paladins average 933.

And that's not even talking about the godsend that defending is:
* Rangers and Barbarians will see penalties to their primary defenses because defending is lower: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Post:Umm..._-_11/26/2012_-_21:35
* At 1000 ranks, paladins have 20 bonus stance points. 4 more than barbarians or rangers. That's a flat 4% mitigation increase applied to any one defense, likely parry.

And that's before mitigation and stat buffs sets in.

---

I'm not saying they're weak. I'm only saying that paladins are the supreme defensive guild. I'd agree that rangers, paladins, clerics, bards, warrior mages, and maybe thieves are all very good, but Paladins are easily the best.

I wish using a Holy Weapon slowly made them (the HW, the paladin or both) more powerful rather than using up charges on the HW. If the HW wasn't used let it slowly drift down to a neutral power state over time. At any point on the drift or at neutral; usage would re-energize the HW. At higher levels of activation strikes would increase your soul pool and state and/or unlock passive auras for the paladin/paladin's group. The only time you'd need to recharge a HW would be if your soul-state dropped to level 'X'.

---

Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html