enhansives 07/14/2013 12:05 PM CDT

If you could choose two enhansives for your stats and lores what would they be?

~ Valyrka ~
Ta'Illistim
Elves
Dark Elves
Forest Gnomes
Half Elves
Weddings
Reply
Re: enhansives 07/14/2013 04:02 PM CDT


The two things I know my monk would benefit from now but that I'd also need at cap to hit certain thresholds would be ability and transformation lore.


Agility adds to UAF for the brawlers out there yet it would also potentially lower RT for all the melee weapon users. The bit of dodge DS is just icing.

Transformation lore has a few minor benefits that add up to make it desirable despite it feeling god awful expensive in terms of TP costs. Immediate benefits would be probably 1-2 UAF via 1209, a slight increase to the disarm chance of 1214, and potentially making iron skin act as 1 higher ASG. At cap (most likely a bit post cap) a monk would need that 4? ranks of transformation lore via enhancive to be protected as if they were wearing MBP when using Iron Skin.

Dodge skill/bonus would also be fitting for a monk.

Lochiven
Reply
Re: enhansives 07/14/2013 09:56 PM CDT
"If you could choose two enhansives for your stats and lores what would they be?

~ Valyrka ~
Ta'Illistim
Elves
Dark Elves
Forest Gnomes
Half Elves
Weddings"

Transformation
Strength
Reply
Re: enhansives 07/15/2013 03:18 PM CDT


Transformation Lore (this one is easy to choose)

Agility (this one is hard to choose)


For attributes my other choices would be (in order): Strength (encumbrance/stamina/UAF), Aura (spirit/td), Wisdom (mana/td). I would be happy with any of those on my monk.

Monks sort of need bonuses to all of their stats which is why I so love Perfect Self.

As for skills, I think TWC/MOC/Dodge enhancives would all be interesting even though you didn't ask fer'em. :)
Reply
Re: enhansives 08/06/2013 08:22 PM CDT
Two for stats = WIS then AUR in that exact order (TD TD TD)

Two for skills = Transformation lore and cman in that exact order.

Player of Oritori Martinae, sometimes masquerading as - Anonymous
Reply