Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>>It's basically this: Lore primes don't have anything in their primary skillset to aid in combat, so they'll always be outclassed in one way or another. There's really no situation where we have the upper hand (again, assuming characters who have been trained around the same amount).
Coming to this a bit late, but really, come on issus.
Lol, why should lore primary, in any way shape or form, have a primary offensive ability? Lore by nature isnt a combat skill, youre going to suffer a bit because of it.
Every guild has downsides like that, and as the GMs have so recently stated thats exactly the way the want it. Begging for an offensive ability added to a skillset just so you have a primary learning damage dealer is a little ridiculous in my opinion.
Eladrin
While I don't agree with giving a skill to create an overpowering aspect to a group.
I'd like to chime in that some of the greatest warriors were epic tacticians, I've thought on it for a little while, and really I can't think of any historic warrior, general, or even fictional character that didn't use tactics.
From Conan the Barbarian, to the infamy of Adolf Hitler, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. They all used tactics to bring themselves their glory and fame.
I hope that tactics and perhaps other lore skills contribute to the future combat picture, in a not overpowering way, but are just as important single skill vs. single skill, as armor, or weapon, or defense (evasion, shield, parry).
At least that's my perspective.
_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.
I'd like to chime in that some of the greatest warriors were epic tacticians, I've thought on it for a little while, and really I can't think of any historic warrior, general, or even fictional character that didn't use tactics.
From Conan the Barbarian, to the infamy of Adolf Hitler, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. They all used tactics to bring themselves their glory and fame.
I hope that tactics and perhaps other lore skills contribute to the future combat picture, in a not overpowering way, but are just as important single skill vs. single skill, as armor, or weapon, or defense (evasion, shield, parry).
At least that's my perspective.
_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.
I'd like to remind you guys that there is going to be a lore-based combat skill called tactics. For those of you who have forgotten.
The exact nature behind it(and whether or not it will just be one skill) is up in the air.
_______________________
As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.
-John Milton
The exact nature behind it(and whether or not it will just be one skill) is up in the air.
_______________________
As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.
-John Milton
A thread on the moon mage boards revealed that there will be a stat respec with a full tdp refund.
https://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=20&category=24&topic=3&message=19910
This includes getting refunded for purchased spell slots with other learned spells going away. This concerns me just a little.
The one thing I did purchase a spell slot to get was STRA. It was suggested that STRA is going away.
Is this true? If so, then I'm concerned about the trainability of TM for bards at all levels at the time of release of Magic 3.0.
Breath of Storms is listed as basic targeted. So I guess that will replace BOLT. Do you have any idea what breath of storms will do and will it be available right away?
Pyre is advanced cyclic TM. This is nice but I like having non-cyclic TM spells for hunting. The TM part of this enchante has been historically weak. Will that get a boost?
Chorus of madmen is TM, not cyclic. Will this fill the role learning wise for STRA?
I'm just a tad nervous about whether TM will be trainable for bards without STRA.
Do we have enough TM enchantes/spells?
~Faih
Three things that make a bard:
Playing of the lute
Knowledge of ancient lore
Poetic power.
- adapted from the Triads
https://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=20&category=24&topic=3&message=19910
This includes getting refunded for purchased spell slots with other learned spells going away. This concerns me just a little.
The one thing I did purchase a spell slot to get was STRA. It was suggested that STRA is going away.
Is this true? If so, then I'm concerned about the trainability of TM for bards at all levels at the time of release of Magic 3.0.
Breath of Storms is listed as basic targeted. So I guess that will replace BOLT. Do you have any idea what breath of storms will do and will it be available right away?
Pyre is advanced cyclic TM. This is nice but I like having non-cyclic TM spells for hunting. The TM part of this enchante has been historically weak. Will that get a boost?
Chorus of madmen is TM, not cyclic. Will this fill the role learning wise for STRA?
I'm just a tad nervous about whether TM will be trainable for bards without STRA.
Do we have enough TM enchantes/spells?
~Faih
Three things that make a bard:
Playing of the lute
Knowledge of ancient lore
Poetic power.
- adapted from the Triads
> It was suggested that STRA is going away.
I haven't seen anything to this effect. This really has nothing to do with TDPS. It's been stated several times that everyone is receiving a spell wipe, which means you will need to track down another STRA scroll and relearn the spell, but that doesn't mean STRA is going away.
Also, as you noted, BoS will be a single target TM spell. Why shouldn't this fill the role of STRA?
> Chorus of madmen is TM, not cyclic.
Chorus of Madmen will be cyclic TM/Debilitation. It will be losing its damage cap.
> The TM part of this enchante has been historically weak. Will that get a boost?
It's been stated that yes, it will be brought up to the standard effectiveness of TM spells.
> Do we have enough TM enchantes/spells?
I guess that depends on how many we need? Currently we have a single target (BoS), a multi-target cyclic with fatigue/naphtha riders (Pyre) and a multi-target cyclic with heavy debuff riders (Madmen). We don't have a multi-target non-cyclic or a single-target cyclic, but I don't see why those would be necessary (and our AoEs being cyclic is part of our theme).
We also don't have a multi-striker, which might be a more meaningful lack, but I'm not sure. This will probably depend on whether you tend to hunt things on the edge of your abilities.
I haven't seen anything to this effect. This really has nothing to do with TDPS. It's been stated several times that everyone is receiving a spell wipe, which means you will need to track down another STRA scroll and relearn the spell, but that doesn't mean STRA is going away.
Also, as you noted, BoS will be a single target TM spell. Why shouldn't this fill the role of STRA?
> Chorus of madmen is TM, not cyclic.
Chorus of Madmen will be cyclic TM/Debilitation. It will be losing its damage cap.
> The TM part of this enchante has been historically weak. Will that get a boost?
It's been stated that yes, it will be brought up to the standard effectiveness of TM spells.
> Do we have enough TM enchantes/spells?
I guess that depends on how many we need? Currently we have a single target (BoS), a multi-target cyclic with fatigue/naphtha riders (Pyre) and a multi-target cyclic with heavy debuff riders (Madmen). We don't have a multi-target non-cyclic or a single-target cyclic, but I don't see why those would be necessary (and our AoEs being cyclic is part of our theme).
We also don't have a multi-striker, which might be a more meaningful lack, but I'm not sure. This will probably depend on whether you tend to hunt things on the edge of your abilities.
Breath of Storms is what you want. All Basic, Advanced, Esoteric etc means is how difficult putting mana into the spell is, and respectively how many unique effects can be crammed into the spell.
The fact that Breath of Storms is Basic means that it is a bare-bones, purely damaging TM spell that will be at the cap for damage that any TM spell for our guild can have.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
The fact that Breath of Storms is Basic means that it is a bare-bones, purely damaging TM spell that will be at the cap for damage that any TM spell for our guild can have.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
<<Is this true? If so, then I'm concerned about the trainability of TM for bards at all levels at the time of release of Magic 3.0.
<<The fact that Breath of Storms is Basic means that it is a bare-bones, purely damaging TM spell that will be at the cap for damage that any TM spell for our guild can have.
This.
-Evran
"RAGE + TEAR + EYE + RESO + HARM + DRUM + MISD + PRIDE + Your choice of Cyclic + AoE stun/knockdown as needed without losing buffs = OMG! I just crapped my pants!" -Evran
<<The fact that Breath of Storms is Basic means that it is a bare-bones, purely damaging TM spell that will be at the cap for damage that any TM spell for our guild can have.
This.
-Evran
"RAGE + TEAR + EYE + RESO + HARM + DRUM + MISD + PRIDE + Your choice of Cyclic + AoE stun/knockdown as needed without losing buffs = OMG! I just crapped my pants!" -Evran
