Now, I may be alone here, but personally, I think our defense reqs could use a tweak. Barring bit-based experience, with all three combat defenses lumped into one category, the next best thing we could do is increase the shield req and reduce, or preferably abolish, the parry req- We have to have MORE parry than we have to have shield. Or second armor- Who sees a slight conflict here? A secondary pool skill being bigger than a primary pool skill? If you agree, or disagree, please post your reasons! I'd like to hear about this..
MCBRYDEJ1
TAGHZ
Re: Defense Reqs
03/22/2008 03:55 PM CDT
Dragonrealm's is all about Offensive power. Face it were not defensive minded guild. If we were we would have:
Armor Primary
Survival secondary
weapon Secondary
lore Tertiary
magic Teriary
The best defense in DR is Evasion and hiding.
We don't have any of these in our primary or secondary skill sets. So we are not even close to being a defensive guild.
The advantage of being Armor primary is small and not large enough for the only Armor Primary skill set guild.
Personally I think we should be required to have more ranks of parry, mo, evasion, shield, and other armor per circle then other guilds.
...
If you are having trouble training parry then you are relying on your shield to much.
...
With a Paladins mastery in the use of armor we should have a bonus in the ability to stay balanced in combat.
I would love for paladins to have a bonus to maintaining balance and balance recovery. A Paladin should be very difficult to get off balance.
I would also like to see moving into a parry position and evasion position as a 2 second maneuver then the current 3 second.
Crusader Taghz
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
AMADIS
THOMASWIZ
Re: Defense Reqs
03/22/2008 05:58 PM CDT
>>I would also like to see moving into a parry position and evasion position as a 2 second maneuver then the current 3 second.
And a Block position that's only a 2 second RT that's paladin only ability. ::crosses his fingers::
Block would be most useful while protecting someone. Especially if protects were finally expanded to help against ranged and certain TM spells.
Player of Adakin Sothir of Prime
Killr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
And a Block position that's only a 2 second RT that's paladin only ability. ::crosses his fingers::
Block would be most useful while protecting someone. Especially if protects were finally expanded to help against ranged and certain TM spells.
Player of Adakin Sothir of Prime
Killr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
AIRDRY
Re: Defense Reqs
03/22/2008 08:42 PM CDT
I say up the Multi req at least 1 if not 2 per circle from the start
NEELD
Re: Defense Reqs
03/22/2008 09:29 PM CDT
I echo exactly what Taghz said.
Madigan
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Arthur Ashe
Madigan
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Arthur Ashe
VMILLER4
Re: Defense Reqs
03/23/2008 12:05 PM CDT
I agree about our reqs!
Needing shield and parry is like needing is like needing heavy plate and leather. Why would I ever want to parry?
a.) Parry as a defense is unreliable: balance of weapon, balance of fighter, and god knows what else seriously hinder parry.
b.) shield is better. Even with a small shield, shield is better than parry. Parry and shield arent compliments or suppliments of each other other. If one is working, the other can not.
c.) we learn shield at a primary rate
Don't get me wrong, my parry is several circles above reqs. Though I NEVER use it. I train it occassionally but its worthless. Blocking ranged at melee with parry? What a waste of an ability! (why would you have parry set to anything but 0 unless youre training for reqs)
I would LOVE to see paladins redone as masters of defense.. swap lore with survivals.. add a evasion/perception req, reduce parry reqs due to redundancy issues (if shield complimented parry it would make sense, but since we are armor prime it ugh.. doesnt?)
Then again im sure there are paladins who have more parry than shield and would scream having to backtrain shield ranks but.. just my thoughts
Needing shield and parry is like needing is like needing heavy plate and leather. Why would I ever want to parry?
a.) Parry as a defense is unreliable: balance of weapon, balance of fighter, and god knows what else seriously hinder parry.
b.) shield is better. Even with a small shield, shield is better than parry. Parry and shield arent compliments or suppliments of each other other. If one is working, the other can not.
c.) we learn shield at a primary rate
Don't get me wrong, my parry is several circles above reqs. Though I NEVER use it. I train it occassionally but its worthless. Blocking ranged at melee with parry? What a waste of an ability! (why would you have parry set to anything but 0 unless youre training for reqs)
I would LOVE to see paladins redone as masters of defense.. swap lore with survivals.. add a evasion/perception req, reduce parry reqs due to redundancy issues (if shield complimented parry it would make sense, but since we are armor prime it ugh.. doesnt?)
Then again im sure there are paladins who have more parry than shield and would scream having to backtrain shield ranks but.. just my thoughts
KOUGEN
Re: Defense Reqs
03/23/2008 02:19 PM CDT
I don't see what the purpose of asking for a higher req in MO is. If you think it's low, train it more than required.
However, parry is certainly lacking for a Paladin. Never mind that you're pulp if you think outside the ME-HE-2HE cookie cutter box in addition to other reasons already mentioned.
I could see an argument for swapping the MO and Parry req all things considered, and keep the same absolute number within the skillset.
~ Sage Kougen Aensworth, Star Shaper of the Compact
Ruea says, "I swear, I'm forsaking Damaris and building an altar to you."
"I am Captain America (and so can you!)"
However, parry is certainly lacking for a Paladin. Never mind that you're pulp if you think outside the ME-HE-2HE cookie cutter box in addition to other reasons already mentioned.
I could see an argument for swapping the MO and Parry req all things considered, and keep the same absolute number within the skillset.
~ Sage Kougen Aensworth, Star Shaper of the Compact
Ruea says, "I swear, I'm forsaking Damaris and building an altar to you."
"I am Captain America (and so can you!)"
AIRDRY
Re: Defense Reqs
03/23/2008 05:35 PM CDT
Kougen, please stick to your own guilds needs and keep outta here.
Enter holy warrior spell.
Parry should NEVER be neglected by a paladin, ever. The addition stance points for parry with shield and evasion at 100 is awesome. I also parry ranged weapons with HoW spell up and 100 shield/evasion.
It's easy to train and free tdps. Arguing parry is worthless for paladins is like saying TrimSpa is worthless or Oprah or Rosie.
Now I train multi at about 3.5+ per circle which is a number that is always increasing. Upping our multi req would help steer youngsters into training more armors and weapons due to longer periods of hunting. I'm all for this
Enter holy warrior spell.
Parry should NEVER be neglected by a paladin, ever. The addition stance points for parry with shield and evasion at 100 is awesome. I also parry ranged weapons with HoW spell up and 100 shield/evasion.
It's easy to train and free tdps. Arguing parry is worthless for paladins is like saying TrimSpa is worthless or Oprah or Rosie.
Now I train multi at about 3.5+ per circle which is a number that is always increasing. Upping our multi req would help steer youngsters into training more armors and weapons due to longer periods of hunting. I'm all for this
KOUGEN
Re: Defense Reqs
03/23/2008 07:44 PM CDT
>Kougen, please stick to your own guilds needs and keep outta here.
Please get over yourself. My secondary is a Paladin of not-inconsequential circle I've had for many years. My Moon Mage relies on evasion/parry and my Paladin trains heavily in favor of shield, so I actually have a pretty good grasp of this discussion from both sides, thanks.
I didn't say parry was worthless, I said it was lacking*@. The difference is pretty profound when backtraining weapons I can put up HoW and go 100/100 evasion/parry and get nibbled down slowly; or I can drop HoW, switch to shield, add three critters and not get touched. That's not even getting into blocking ranged or training blunts. That's not a primary/secondary learning speed issue, parry is a liability even when backtraining weapons that are around 75% of it.
* For Paladins
@ Compared to shield
Please get over yourself. My secondary is a Paladin of not-inconsequential circle I've had for many years. My Moon Mage relies on evasion/parry and my Paladin trains heavily in favor of shield, so I actually have a pretty good grasp of this discussion from both sides, thanks.
I didn't say parry was worthless, I said it was lacking*@. The difference is pretty profound when backtraining weapons I can put up HoW and go 100/100 evasion/parry and get nibbled down slowly; or I can drop HoW, switch to shield, add three critters and not get touched. That's not even getting into blocking ranged or training blunts. That's not a primary/secondary learning speed issue, parry is a liability even when backtraining weapons that are around 75% of it.
* For Paladins
@ Compared to shield
JMF90
Re: Defense Reqs
03/24/2008 03:26 AM CDT
>I didn't say parry was worthless, I said it was lacking...
Agreed.
Agreed.
SINGLETON1
Re: Defense Reqs
03/24/2008 10:30 AM CDT
Parry is very easy to train along with shield, What I do to train both effectivly is, set evasion to 100, the rest into shield, stance shield save, then set all to parry with evasion at 100, stance parry save...then just stance parry, or stance shield when the other locks.
Wanderer Larze
---
Movies count because they are based on real life which imitates art which then gets spoofed by bad art which then is imitated by real life and gave us the state of Florida. - GODKIN
Wanderer Larze
---
Movies count because they are based on real life which imitates art which then gets spoofed by bad art which then is imitated by real life and gave us the state of Florida. - GODKIN
BEEJAY19
Re: Defense Reqs
03/24/2008 10:59 AM CDT
Having shield at primary is fantastic, and much better than having parry at primary IMHO. I agree however that as a supposedly "defensive" guild, it sucks to have hiding and evasion as terts.
But, I think that's only part of the problem. While shield is awesome, it doesn't seem to mean all that much at times. Basically, 400 evasion and 300 shield will defend much better than 400 shield and 300 evasion.
Take the above into account, then add in situational issues.
1. Perception tert. Although Paladins may have a good perception booster, the contest is still tert perception vs. primary survivals (hide, stalk, backstab). Thieves in particular have so many ways to bonus their stealths that it pretty much makes it a losing contest for Paladins. It's not hard for a Thief to win the primary backstab vs. tert perception contest, which reduces an already tert evasion significantly. I've asked tons of Thieves and a big chunk of them say Paladins are the easiest guild to backstab. And this is supposedly a "defensive" guild?
1. Shield defends against capped bows and arrows. I personally think that capped arrows are too powerful, and that the power of firing a bow should rely moreso on the shooter's strength. This'll prevent gnomes with 8 strength from shooting as hard as togs with 80 strength. It'll also probably make armor mean more on the defensive end.
2. Shield defends against TM. Currently, DFA spells ignore shield so it makes a Paladin rely solely on their tert evasion. DFA should be eliminated IMHO since I can't imagine a drawback big enough to compensate for being able to completely ignore 100's and even 1000's of ranks of shield.
Add them all together. Capped arrows, evasion + hide tert, + Shield-ignoring TM, + backstab prone, and you have a guild that isn't nearly the strongest defensively. Not to mention with the changes to SF Paladins will be the weakest combat guild offensively.
So, I don't think upping defense reqs will help much at all, though it does make me shake my head when I see Paladins with 300 HP and only 180 shield. Skillsets won't ever change, so I think in order for Paladins to have a chance at even being one of the top defensive guilds, then not only does capped arrows, shield-ignoring TM, and backstab needs to be addressed/tweaked, but Paladins really do need some sort of unique, guild-defining ability/system that separates them entirely from other guilds defensively.
Vinjince
"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."
- Sima Yi
But, I think that's only part of the problem. While shield is awesome, it doesn't seem to mean all that much at times. Basically, 400 evasion and 300 shield will defend much better than 400 shield and 300 evasion.
Take the above into account, then add in situational issues.
1. Perception tert. Although Paladins may have a good perception booster, the contest is still tert perception vs. primary survivals (hide, stalk, backstab). Thieves in particular have so many ways to bonus their stealths that it pretty much makes it a losing contest for Paladins. It's not hard for a Thief to win the primary backstab vs. tert perception contest, which reduces an already tert evasion significantly. I've asked tons of Thieves and a big chunk of them say Paladins are the easiest guild to backstab. And this is supposedly a "defensive" guild?
1. Shield defends against capped bows and arrows. I personally think that capped arrows are too powerful, and that the power of firing a bow should rely moreso on the shooter's strength. This'll prevent gnomes with 8 strength from shooting as hard as togs with 80 strength. It'll also probably make armor mean more on the defensive end.
2. Shield defends against TM. Currently, DFA spells ignore shield so it makes a Paladin rely solely on their tert evasion. DFA should be eliminated IMHO since I can't imagine a drawback big enough to compensate for being able to completely ignore 100's and even 1000's of ranks of shield.
Add them all together. Capped arrows, evasion + hide tert, + Shield-ignoring TM, + backstab prone, and you have a guild that isn't nearly the strongest defensively. Not to mention with the changes to SF Paladins will be the weakest combat guild offensively.
So, I don't think upping defense reqs will help much at all, though it does make me shake my head when I see Paladins with 300 HP and only 180 shield. Skillsets won't ever change, so I think in order for Paladins to have a chance at even being one of the top defensive guilds, then not only does capped arrows, shield-ignoring TM, and backstab needs to be addressed/tweaked, but Paladins really do need some sort of unique, guild-defining ability/system that separates them entirely from other guilds defensively.
Vinjince
"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."
- Sima Yi
NEELD
Re: Defense Reqs
03/24/2008 11:44 AM CDT
<<So, I don't think upping defense reqs will help much at all, though it does make me shake my head when I see Paladins with 300 HP and only 180 shield. Skillsets won't ever change, so I think in order for Paladins to have a chance at even being one of the top defensive guilds, then not only does capped arrows, shield-ignoring TM, and backstab needs to be addressed/tweaked, but Paladins really do need some sort of unique, guild-defining ability/system that separates them entirely from other guilds defensively.>>
Preach it brother Vin. Shame that it is probably going to take other guilds pointing it out to get some recognition.
Madigan
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Arthur Ashe
Preach it brother Vin. Shame that it is probably going to take other guilds pointing it out to get some recognition.
Madigan
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Arthur Ashe
ALDEN
Re: Defense Reqs
03/24/2008 06:19 PM CDT
"2. Shield defends against TM. Currently, DFA spells ignore shield so it makes a Paladin rely solely on their tert evasion. DFA should be eliminated IMHO since I can't imagine a drawback big enough to compensate for being able to completely ignore 100's and even 1000's of ranks of shield."
I think Paladins having a feat which allows them to use a shield to defend against DFA, and another that would allow them to use shield to defend against Back Stab would make absolute sense. These seem like very Paladin worthy counters.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
I think Paladins having a feat which allows them to use a shield to defend against DFA, and another that would allow them to use shield to defend against Back Stab would make absolute sense. These seem like very Paladin worthy counters.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
NEELD
Re: Defense Reqs
03/24/2008 07:11 PM CDT
You know, I am not so hung up on shield being the end all, be all to defend against everything. I am more concerned with the central concept of every lethal action checking against 2 of the 3 defenses (insert perception joke here).
It seems to me that the inability of any guild to have a "checkmate" spell/ability/thingie furthers everyone's interest. It is my opinion that the a "Two Defense Rule" would serve that purpose very well. If you think about it, if you always use 2 of the 3 defenses most every guild will always have one of the checked defenses in its primary or secondary skillset.
The possibility of a guild only using a tert skillset for defense against a primary skillset lethal action is greatly diminished. Which (IMO) makes for a fairer contest.
Madigan
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Arthur Ashe
It seems to me that the inability of any guild to have a "checkmate" spell/ability/thingie furthers everyone's interest. It is my opinion that the a "Two Defense Rule" would serve that purpose very well. If you think about it, if you always use 2 of the 3 defenses most every guild will always have one of the checked defenses in its primary or secondary skillset.
The possibility of a guild only using a tert skillset for defense against a primary skillset lethal action is greatly diminished. Which (IMO) makes for a fairer contest.
Madigan
True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Arthur Ashe
TELGER
NKRISS
Re: Defense Reqs
03/25/2008 07:15 AM CDT
A thought that I had just come to me and didn't feel like making a new thread on, but for making shield a bit more useful how about adding another type of shield. Traditionally a tower shield provides more than just an armor bonus, how about making a large shield that provides more than just effective ranks? Perhaps the ability to prop yourself behind or under a shield and take a huge melee defensive hit but get a huge ranged defense bonus. Maybe the ability to use shield and bull rush someone from pole, crashing into them shield first and knocking them prone or stunned or both.
Anyhoo...
-Teeklin
Anyhoo...
-Teeklin
WHITEC76
Re: Defense Reqs
03/25/2008 09:08 AM CDT
I'd agree with an increase to secondary and tertiary armour req's.
Hiding is the best defense in DR, evasion secondary, IMHO. 1000 stones worth of tempered steel is moot compared to a handful of hiding and sniping ranks I guess...
Parry is an excellent defense in certain situations, shield in others. I train both as equally as possible.
Bows should be strength based, true. Crossbows should not.
As a shield suggestion, how about a shield that "grows" with the user? Improvements could include balance bonuses per circle group (+1 per 10 for example) hinderance reductions, etc. Available as a quest at 30th circle perhaps (qv: holy weapon.)
Cheers - Tristtan
Hiding is the best defense in DR, evasion secondary, IMHO. 1000 stones worth of tempered steel is moot compared to a handful of hiding and sniping ranks I guess...
Parry is an excellent defense in certain situations, shield in others. I train both as equally as possible.
Bows should be strength based, true. Crossbows should not.
As a shield suggestion, how about a shield that "grows" with the user? Improvements could include balance bonuses per circle group (+1 per 10 for example) hinderance reductions, etc. Available as a quest at 30th circle perhaps (qv: holy weapon.)
Cheers - Tristtan
MCT15
Re: Defense Reqs
03/25/2008 11:49 AM CDT
<As a shield suggestion, how about a shield that "grows" with the user? Improvements could include balance bonuses per circle group (+1 per 10 for example) hinderance reductions, etc. Available as a quest at 30th circle perhaps (qv: holy weapon.)
Great idea. Maybe the stats of the shield would get better with more skill, kinda like how the mirror blades worked off of ME skill.
Filfar
Great idea. Maybe the stats of the shield would get better with more skill, kinda like how the mirror blades worked off of ME skill.
Filfar
VMILLER4
Re: Defense Reqs
03/25/2008 01:58 PM CDT
bump.
Now we wont have to listen to clerics cry about stealing spells and such. it isnt a spell. its a holy shield :D
Now we wont have to listen to clerics cry about stealing spells and such. it isnt a spell. its a holy shield :D
