The important thing about stances is that evasion is the only one that will reduce the strength of the blow coming in.

If you have your evasion set to 0 and fail to parry or shield block the incoming blow, it will hit you at 100% of its strength. If you have evasion set to 100 and do not completely parry or shield block the incoming blow, it will hit at <100% of its strength since you had evaded some of it.

This is why a 2 defense setting will usually work better than a 3 defense setting. With a 3 defense setting, you're reducing the blow by a little bit from evasion, and then you only have a little bit of shield or parry to try and block the rest. With a 2 defense setting, you're reducing it by a lot with evasion and then have a lot of shield or parry to try to get the rest. And in this case, if it gets through shield/parry, it will likely be a softer hit than if you are in a 3 defense setting, or even a shield/parry 2 defense setting.

Also, both shield AND parry depend on the item you're defending with. Shield is based on its protection and parry is based on the balance of the weapon. Try parrying with a ME sabre and then with a HB Flail or Morning Star.

>Just take it on good faith that attempting to use all three at once is an awful idea. You might possibly be able to train like this however it will be the furthest thing from optimal and probably the most dangerous way to train.

Yep.

That's funny I seem to be able to train all 3 at the same time and at level shield is 5 behind evasion, and evasion is about 6 behind parry. Normally I keep evasion at 100 parry at 75 and shield at 8, unless I'm fighting something that needs more shield. I don't die to much and usually do just fine.

It always amazes me how many people don't trade in their offensive stance points for more defense when they're just standing there dancing anyway... Switching stances is but a macro away. These people are completely wasting their full defensive potential.

---

Aveda's Field Guide
http://dr.aveda.googlepages.com
Hot hot hot scripts, Antique P5 maps, a macro tutorial, skill & stat training advice, and plenty of Bardly goodness.
Reckus 4 is out! Now with vocal support! 9/18/2007

>Actually, I've always been a three-defense hunter and it's worked fine to me to this very day, and I'm not exactly at the low end of the food chain anymore. Given how often I see two-defenses stancers with higher defense skill die in areas where I do fine, I'm inclined to disagree that it will leave you hurting (at least moreso than any other stance at higher levels). What I will say is that it isn't for everyone. Armor type, stats, burden, hindrance, ability to maintain balance, and many other factors all make a difference. I suspect some folks will do better based on the above criteria with only two defenses, while some will do well with three.

Upon reading your post I decided to try it myself. Went up against my normal Elders Armadillos and tried 2 different 3 defense stance set ups

You are currently using 90% of your evasion skill.
You are currently using 50% of your weapon parry skill.
You are currently using 50% of your shield block skill.
You are attacking with 100% of your offensive skill.

You are currently using 50% of your evasion skill.
You are currently using 70% of your weapon parry skill.
You are currently using 70% of your shield block skill.
You are attacking with 100% of your offensive skill.

I was taking hits maybe 1/10 attacks, harmless/grazing exclusively. It is unquestionable that for that maximum effectively in melee defense for your ranks 2 defenses > 3 defense.

However this got me thinking. There are definately situations were all 3 togather could be a good idea, and work well. Specifically in an area where there are both ranged and melee critters and you would like to train parry, like the Shalwars Mazrian was complaining about. If you stanced so you had enough evasion + shield to avoid the ranged attacks, but still more effective ranks in parry you'd be able to block melee attacks with your parry and still not get hit by the ranged. You'd have to be comfortably into their range to sufficiently safe while using 3 instead of 2, but if you're reading this Mazrian you should give it a try. I'd be interested to hear if it was viable for you.

-Tropicalo

>I use 3 stances religiously

It doesn't count when you have 255 defensive stance points to place. To not use 3 defenses you'd need to have 55 doing nothing. This argument pertains to those who have between 180 and 195 points to place as they please.

-Tropicalo

>>It doesn't count when you have 255 defensive stance points to place.

WTH? How is that possible?

__
~Leilond
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/ss1shadow/leilondsootherin.png
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com/bard_planner_v2.xls - Personal Skill-Tracking Bard Spreadsheet

<<If you have your evasion set to 0 and fail to parry or shield block the incoming blow, it will hit you at 100% of its strength. If you have evasion set to 100 and do not completely parry or shield block the incoming blow, it will hit at <100% of its strength since you had evaded some of it.>>

So what are the intervals of protection on "partial" blocks with shield and parry. Is it just 0, 50, and 100%? Are there more levels to this? Are they static or dynamic?

Yeah, this was what I was thinking as well. However, this leaves a very important question in this topic to be answered. And so far, I still hear different things, so I'm not totally convinced it has been: What is the order of defenses attempts?

<<Also, both shield AND parry depend on the item you're defending with. Shield is based on its protection and parry is based on the balance of the weapon. Try parrying with a ME sabre and then with a HB Flail or Morning Star.>>

I'm aware of parry's system. However, I'm still not sure how the shield system works. What does more protection do? Does it increase the range of protection? Does it shift the range of protection? Does it mitigate more of the damage?

---

<<Actually, I've always been a three-defense hunter and it's worked fine to me to this very day, and I'm not exactly at the low end of the food chain anymore.>>

I've been playing around with it a bit. And like Trop, I do seem to notice more "full" success with 2 defense than I do with 3. 3 defense will usually leave me more wounded, with general cuts and bruises. But I can also say that I have never really taken a totally full, death dealing blow doing this either. I assume this only gets better the closer and closer all 3 defenses become to each other. Something Trop may want to pitch in on.

---

<<However this got me thinking. There are definately situations were all 3 togather could be a good idea, and work well. Specifically in an area where there are both ranged and melee critters and you would like to train parry, like the Shalwars Mazrian was complaining about.>>

Some of this was my thinking as well. I figured seeing more and more mixed hunting groups(like hunters/treks), 3 defense is a nice way to be versatile, without totally leaving yourself completely exposed for either. And you can switch back and forth as you see fit.

---

<<It doesn't count when you have 255 defensive stance points to place. To not use 3 defenses you'd need to have 55 doing nothing. This argument pertains to those who have between 180 and 195 points to place as they please.>>

Haha, yeah. I was thinking the same. 3 defense for Paladins with HOW is the only option, unless you're looking to handicap yourself.

For that Paladin, just to get a fair guage on things: How do you stance your combat when/if you go into combat without HOW?


~Van

>So what are the intervals of protection on "partial" blocks with shield and parry. Is it just 0, 50, and 100%? Are there more levels to this? Are they static or dynamic?

Partial shield blocks of bow/xbow/possibly slings do effectively nothing to reduce the attack. I don't recall if a GM actually admitted to this or not, but it has been tested extensively. Partial parry's/blocks of melee or thrown attacks can reduce the attack by as much as 99%(any more and its a full block).

>What is the order of defenses attempts?

Evasion first, then shield and parry, whichever one you have more effective ranks in is checked first.

>I assume this only gets better the closer and closer all 3 defenses become to each other. Something Trop may want to pitch in on.

I tried dancing for long with 3 stances to see how it worked, when I still didn't take more than a grazing hit I tried actually attacking, instead of sitting in dodge position and I started taking light and good hits.

-Tropicalo

<<Evasion first, then shield and parry, whichever one you have more effective ranks in is checked first.>>

So this is dynamic then? Is evasion always first, or does it fall into the check for efficiency as well?


~Van

And when you say effective defense, you mean after ranks and stance points have been factored, right? In determining which of those two works first.


~Van

<<The paladin spell Holy Warrior gives you extra stance points.>>

The Courage and Holy Warrior spells are really outstanding defensive spells.



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