So after all these years, people still don't seem to understand how 1640 works. It just doesn't quite make sense to them that they should immediately run out and hunt again.
So I was thinking- what could help get that across to people?
What if 1640, as a part of a lore benefit or something, provided an AS/CS boost for the 10 minute duration? I feel like that would suddenly make things click for people.
I know the argument is going to be that the spell is balanced as-is, but if 75% of the player population is refusing Paladin raises then something's wrong.
SVEN2010
VANKRASN39
Re: 1640 Idea
03/26/2018 11:52 PM CDT
>but if 75% of the player population is refusing Paladin raises then something's wrong.
75% of the population is wrong! take those pally raises, they are awesome.
GARGADON
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 03:18 AM CDT
>>So after all these years, people still don't seem to understand how 1640 works. It just doesn't quite make sense to them that they should immediately run out and hunt again. --SVEN2010
This hasn't been my experience. I don't really think this is the root issue. The bigger problem is that most would rather wait for a cleric in almost all situations. It's the difference between delaying or frontloading the side effects of death. Sure the target could hunt and then in their downtime after hunting sort everything out while absorbing. That said, the initial idea was that the Paladin would have superior field raising than a cleric, supporting that front-line style archetype. While the cleric would fog, hold, fog, {tend|heal} and raise in the safety of a sanctuary, the Paladin would do it in the heat of battle. There's a lot of issues with the spell in its current form to fulfill that promise.
To name a few:
(1) 1620 and 1640 have anti-synergy. 1620 removes the target from the hunting area and ports them back to town. Maybe make the paladin port with the player if enough lore, channeled, evoked, known 130, whatever. Still, removing the target from the field defeats the field raising aspect. I get that a Paladin won't have Divine Word for 20 more Paladin ranks, but once that is attained, there is a disincentive to field raise with 1620 known.
(2) A Cleric resurrection is almost always superior and preferred. Chrisms are easy to make and replace. Although, if you die without any experience in the bucket, this is obviously less attractive.
(3) A rank 3 wound on any limb, head, or eyes makes Divine Word a non-starter.
(4) Healing wounds in the field incurs significant RT, that is even if you have the tincture to pour into a deader.
(5) The 15 hard RT seems unnecessary for field raises, especially in capped areas where that could mean potential death. The Paladin is almost always better off using 1620, running or porting back to the body, then using 1640. Why in the blazes incur the risk of a field raise to the target or paladin if it can be completely eliminated by using 1620? I mean. Come. On.
(6) There are so many clerics around these days, or pocket clerics, that in my entire time playing only once has a paladin been present and a cleric nowhere to be seen and I accepted the 1640 raise. Very frequently players whisper if you want to be raised by their alt cleric.
(7) There isn't much reward for raising.
(8) For some, raising isn't part of the Paladin RP. I don't care one way or the other, but it would be nice to offer Paladins of this view an alternative. Personally, I don't want to spend the MTPs on 24 SMC ranks because there isn't enough incentive in the Paladin base or otherwise for me to spend those MTPs on SMC.
(9) Wound stacking is real. Even if you can ignore rank 2 and below, another rank 2 in that spot creates a rank 3 and then retreat or disaster.
TL:DR lack of incentive, unnecessary risk to field raise, rank 3 wounds or stacking. The wound issue is really my biggest gripe.
Some ideas to make it better:
(1) (Reward) Paladin also receives some fraction of the experience the player gets while hunting within the 10 minute window. This isn't shared but duplicated experience. If player gets 800, Paladin also receives 50% + X% SL:B or whatever.
(2) (Field) Reduce the RT to make field raising more attractive. Mana Share, SL:S, Spell ranks, whatever. I'd prefer to see the spell instant with no RT, otherwise, I would just 1620 + 1640 to remove risk entirely.
(3) (Wounds) Rank 3 wounds and rank 2=>3 wound-stacking is an issue. Maybe some unlock of SMS, lore, spell ranks, allows one charge of the Divine Favor to reduce all wounds and scars by 1-2 ranks based on level, probably blessing lore. Ye Olde Lay On Hands, as it were.
(4) (Alternative) One charge triggers the Divine Vengeance ability in the current room and all immediately adjacent rooms. Maybe 2 charges triggers the environment-wide ability. I'd really like to see this happen. Divine Vengeance is so dope, but it seems to very rarely tigger when I die. Weapon Fire and being crawler-Geppetto'd don't trigger DV, those being the bulk of my recent deaths. I absolutely loathe weapon fire. Rank 7+ critical from 113 outcome, 13 margin and with crit padding and enhanced CON? Garbage.
Sidenote: I'd love to see some implementation of IMPRINT for Paladins, maybe SAFEGUARD. It would basically replace 1608, or, at the very least, replace it for a single ally. Maybe more allies with skill, levels, whatever. It would be automatic for those of the deity, reasonably high within the same pantheon. 1608 is a good idea but is dramatically lacking. I mean, copy and paste the Vvrael Destroyer code. Ezpz. So, whereas the cleric is the shepherd of the flock, the paladin is the sheepdog that guards them? I dunno, it's late.
This hasn't been my experience. I don't really think this is the root issue. The bigger problem is that most would rather wait for a cleric in almost all situations. It's the difference between delaying or frontloading the side effects of death. Sure the target could hunt and then in their downtime after hunting sort everything out while absorbing. That said, the initial idea was that the Paladin would have superior field raising than a cleric, supporting that front-line style archetype. While the cleric would fog, hold, fog, {tend|heal} and raise in the safety of a sanctuary, the Paladin would do it in the heat of battle. There's a lot of issues with the spell in its current form to fulfill that promise.
To name a few:
(1) 1620 and 1640 have anti-synergy. 1620 removes the target from the hunting area and ports them back to town. Maybe make the paladin port with the player if enough lore, channeled, evoked, known 130, whatever. Still, removing the target from the field defeats the field raising aspect. I get that a Paladin won't have Divine Word for 20 more Paladin ranks, but once that is attained, there is a disincentive to field raise with 1620 known.
(2) A Cleric resurrection is almost always superior and preferred. Chrisms are easy to make and replace. Although, if you die without any experience in the bucket, this is obviously less attractive.
(3) A rank 3 wound on any limb, head, or eyes makes Divine Word a non-starter.
(4) Healing wounds in the field incurs significant RT, that is even if you have the tincture to pour into a deader.
(5) The 15 hard RT seems unnecessary for field raises, especially in capped areas where that could mean potential death. The Paladin is almost always better off using 1620, running or porting back to the body, then using 1640. Why in the blazes incur the risk of a field raise to the target or paladin if it can be completely eliminated by using 1620? I mean. Come. On.
(6) There are so many clerics around these days, or pocket clerics, that in my entire time playing only once has a paladin been present and a cleric nowhere to be seen and I accepted the 1640 raise. Very frequently players whisper if you want to be raised by their alt cleric.
(7) There isn't much reward for raising.
(8) For some, raising isn't part of the Paladin RP. I don't care one way or the other, but it would be nice to offer Paladins of this view an alternative. Personally, I don't want to spend the MTPs on 24 SMC ranks because there isn't enough incentive in the Paladin base or otherwise for me to spend those MTPs on SMC.
(9) Wound stacking is real. Even if you can ignore rank 2 and below, another rank 2 in that spot creates a rank 3 and then retreat or disaster.
TL:DR lack of incentive, unnecessary risk to field raise, rank 3 wounds or stacking. The wound issue is really my biggest gripe.
Some ideas to make it better:
(1) (Reward) Paladin also receives some fraction of the experience the player gets while hunting within the 10 minute window. This isn't shared but duplicated experience. If player gets 800, Paladin also receives 50% + X% SL:B or whatever.
(2) (Field) Reduce the RT to make field raising more attractive. Mana Share, SL:S, Spell ranks, whatever. I'd prefer to see the spell instant with no RT, otherwise, I would just 1620 + 1640 to remove risk entirely.
(3) (Wounds) Rank 3 wounds and rank 2=>3 wound-stacking is an issue. Maybe some unlock of SMS, lore, spell ranks, allows one charge of the Divine Favor to reduce all wounds and scars by 1-2 ranks based on level, probably blessing lore. Ye Olde Lay On Hands, as it were.
(4) (Alternative) One charge triggers the Divine Vengeance ability in the current room and all immediately adjacent rooms. Maybe 2 charges triggers the environment-wide ability. I'd really like to see this happen. Divine Vengeance is so dope, but it seems to very rarely tigger when I die. Weapon Fire and being crawler-Geppetto'd don't trigger DV, those being the bulk of my recent deaths. I absolutely loathe weapon fire. Rank 7+ critical from 113 outcome, 13 margin and with crit padding and enhanced CON? Garbage.
Sidenote: I'd love to see some implementation of IMPRINT for Paladins, maybe SAFEGUARD. It would basically replace 1608, or, at the very least, replace it for a single ally. Maybe more allies with skill, levels, whatever. It would be automatic for those of the deity, reasonably high within the same pantheon. 1608 is a good idea but is dramatically lacking. I mean, copy and paste the Vvrael Destroyer code. Ezpz. So, whereas the cleric is the shepherd of the flock, the paladin is the sheepdog that guards them? I dunno, it's late.
ALLENM20
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 07:28 AM CDT
I agree with all the points made by Gargadon. 1640 needs some revision.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
SVEN2010
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 08:01 AM CDT
The problem with a lot of your points is that 1640 is, by design, supposed to be inferior to a cleric raise. The battle raise concept was actually a really clever way to avoid a direct comparison between the two. But pointing out that cleric raises are superior isn't going to get us anywhere. The single biggest limiting factor is that our raises CAN'T be superior.
Some additional thoughts-
I agree that the rank 3 issue causes significant problems in a lot of cases. I really wish we could train to overcome this issue. I would argue that a level 40 spell in a professional circle should ideally be stronger than a related society power.
You say your experience isn't that people don't understand how 1640 works, but honestly that puts you in a TINY minority based on other feedback on the boards.
1640 would also benefit from some in-game messaging explaining the effects to the recipient.
Some additional thoughts-
I agree that the rank 3 issue causes significant problems in a lot of cases. I really wish we could train to overcome this issue. I would argue that a level 40 spell in a professional circle should ideally be stronger than a related society power.
You say your experience isn't that people don't understand how 1640 works, but honestly that puts you in a TINY minority based on other feedback on the boards.
1640 would also benefit from some in-game messaging explaining the effects to the recipient.
DOUG
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 09:27 AM CDT
>>Some ideas to make it better:
I'd add that a chrism raise benefit could be granted. If we want it to be more exclusive, make a chrism created by a cleric that is of the same deity as the paladin. Want to blow the covers off? Make a special item / spell that permits the paladin to create their own chrism effect.
And quick point - a semi profession spell at over 2x the base profession spell in terms of cost and with none of the benefits. . . needs adjusting. Maybe not much, but surely some.
Doug
I'd add that a chrism raise benefit could be granted. If we want it to be more exclusive, make a chrism created by a cleric that is of the same deity as the paladin. Want to blow the covers off? Make a special item / spell that permits the paladin to create their own chrism effect.
And quick point - a semi profession spell at over 2x the base profession spell in terms of cost and with none of the benefits. . . needs adjusting. Maybe not much, but surely some.
Doug
ALLENM20
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 11:45 AM CDT
Maybe sufficient training in blessing lore could allow a person that is raised in a hunting area to be raised with wounds healed. 40 ranks heals all rank 1 wounds and 80 ranks heals all rank 2 wounds.
Religion lore could extend the duration of the raise effect beyond 10 minutes perhaps so folks have a bit more time to hunt and make it to town. It also reduces the spirit drain on the paladin when they unlink.
Summoning lore trains down the RT, removes the stun, and stands the resurrected person up. It also speeds up recovery of the resurrected person once they unlink.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
Religion lore could extend the duration of the raise effect beyond 10 minutes perhaps so folks have a bit more time to hunt and make it to town. It also reduces the spirit drain on the paladin when they unlink.
Summoning lore trains down the RT, removes the stun, and stands the resurrected person up. It also speeds up recovery of the resurrected person once they unlink.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
FUDGEHJ
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 12:52 PM CDT
Another suggestion, perhaps? Keep 1640 raise as is (it does have its admittedly very niche uses, in invasions and such) but allow an EVOKE version of the spell that does something a bit different.
Maybe 'empowers' you if you died recently (have a recent death), giving you INCREASED stats for a couple minutes? Just...something that can be useful outside of the 'raising' paradigm but that is still related to it.
Pls no to the making it only become useful/good when you have 80+ lores (for semis, I mean). If I get a spell at 40, I dont wanna have to wait 60 levels before it actually becomes pretty useful.
Berbels shrilly exclaims, "Ise takings hims tos secretses lairses!"
Berbels grabs you and drags you east.
Maybe 'empowers' you if you died recently (have a recent death), giving you INCREASED stats for a couple minutes? Just...something that can be useful outside of the 'raising' paradigm but that is still related to it.
Pls no to the making it only become useful/good when you have 80+ lores (for semis, I mean). If I get a spell at 40, I dont wanna have to wait 60 levels before it actually becomes pretty useful.
Berbels shrilly exclaims, "Ise takings hims tos secretses lairses!"
Berbels grabs you and drags you east.
GARGADON
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 01:40 PM CDT
>>The problem with a lot of your points is that 1640 is, by design, supposed to be inferior to a cleric raise. --SVEN2010
I know this argument has been made before, but I simply do not agree with the premise. Especially not with all the variables involved.
>>But pointing out that cleric raises are superior isn't going to get us anywhere. --SVEN2010
I think the exact the opposite is true. Comparative evaluation of two similar abilities allows for stronger claims of strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. That's not to say it's not possible to evaluate in isolation, but more difficult. Evaluation should consider all current and possible dimensions: resource cost, training point cost, risk vs reward, cooldown, benefits or hindrances to target or caster, professional flavor alignment, player usage frequencies, etc. I should really construct an analytic rubric for suggestions.
>>The single biggest limiting factor is that our raises CAN'T be superior.
I'm not advocating for the Paladin to have superior overall raising ability compared to the Cleric. I'm advocating for a superior version if and only if strict conditions are met. I think that's fair given ...
>>... a semi profession spell at over 2x the base profession spell in terms of cost and with none of the benefits. . . needs adjusting. Maybe not much, but surely some. --DOUG
100% agree.
>>1640 would also benefit from some in-game messaging explaining the effects to the recipient. --SVEN2010
Definitely.
I know this argument has been made before, but I simply do not agree with the premise. Especially not with all the variables involved.
>>But pointing out that cleric raises are superior isn't going to get us anywhere. --SVEN2010
I think the exact the opposite is true. Comparative evaluation of two similar abilities allows for stronger claims of strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. That's not to say it's not possible to evaluate in isolation, but more difficult. Evaluation should consider all current and possible dimensions: resource cost, training point cost, risk vs reward, cooldown, benefits or hindrances to target or caster, professional flavor alignment, player usage frequencies, etc. I should really construct an analytic rubric for suggestions.
>>The single biggest limiting factor is that our raises CAN'T be superior.
I'm not advocating for the Paladin to have superior overall raising ability compared to the Cleric. I'm advocating for a superior version if and only if strict conditions are met. I think that's fair given ...
>>... a semi profession spell at over 2x the base profession spell in terms of cost and with none of the benefits. . . needs adjusting. Maybe not much, but surely some. --DOUG
100% agree.
>>1640 would also benefit from some in-game messaging explaining the effects to the recipient. --SVEN2010
Definitely.
LEAFIARA
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 02:56 PM CDT
I just want to add that nothing stops the GMs from improving paladin raises and cleric raises simultaneously if anything proposed here would swing things too far in favor of paladins.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
MENOS
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 05:48 PM CDT
Count me in as a vote for coming up with a nice new paladinish spell and just replacing 1640 with it. Let holy warriors holy warrior and clerics cleric.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
SVEN2010
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 06:45 PM CDT
I'd hate to lose 1640. I think it's a great concept and genuinely pretty powerful.
We just need to make some minor changes to make the benefits more obvious, that's all. And while I'm sympathetic with the "I don't agree that this can't be better than Cleric raises", that's just not the line the GMs have historically taken. And it would be problematic, to say the least, to have a semi profession's secondary skill unilaterally beating out the core ability of a pure profession.
Temporarily reducing the severity of all wounds by 1 would be a great lore-based benefit. (Like the rest of the spell's benefits- this would be instantly undone once the 10 minute duration is up).
I'll make a second call to have the spell provide some fairly potent battle enhancements for the 10 minutes- so people will want to jump up and go hunt.
Another QOL enhancement that would be nice would be retaining the spell casts even after the 10 minute duration. Right now EVERYTHING drops- even if they've boosted the duration of their spells. I've had a few folks complain about that.
We just need to make some minor changes to make the benefits more obvious, that's all. And while I'm sympathetic with the "I don't agree that this can't be better than Cleric raises", that's just not the line the GMs have historically taken. And it would be problematic, to say the least, to have a semi profession's secondary skill unilaterally beating out the core ability of a pure profession.
Temporarily reducing the severity of all wounds by 1 would be a great lore-based benefit. (Like the rest of the spell's benefits- this would be instantly undone once the 10 minute duration is up).
I'll make a second call to have the spell provide some fairly potent battle enhancements for the 10 minutes- so people will want to jump up and go hunt.
Another QOL enhancement that would be nice would be retaining the spell casts even after the 10 minute duration. Right now EVERYTHING drops- even if they've boosted the duration of their spells. I've had a few folks complain about that.
ALLENM20
Re: 1640 Idea
03/27/2018 08:08 PM CDT
The spell is already limited because it has a finite number of uses per day.
For 40 spell trainings and limited uses per day I think the spell should offer enough incentive to actually make it a choice between a cleric raise and a paladin raise.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
For 40 spell trainings and limited uses per day I think the spell should offer enough incentive to actually make it a choice between a cleric raise and a paladin raise.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
