Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Madigan, I believe we clearly stated there is one soul hit. And it's much less. You don't get a soul hit each time for Halting somebody, then Stunning them, then Halting them, then attacking them. If you attack somebody who's already stunned by somebody else, AND it's your first time, you take a bigger penalty that is still considerably less than the penalty you already would have taken.
You're coming out considerably ahead here (especially if you're honestly worried about real PvP), unless for some reason you like running around Halting a bunch of people without doing anything afterward. If you do like doing this, you're going to end up behind. If this means you want a spell that isn't effective as a combat disabler but still is effective at stopping somebody from attacking you (such as a single target calm) so you have something to cast that isn't soul-hit worthy, there's room to pursue that option.
I think part of the problem is you aren't really paying attention and you want to view things through the lens of 'it sucks for Paladins because everything always sucks for Paladins'. This is not going to be healthy. It also creates a pervasive 'why bother even attempting to help Paladins because they'll just hate everything' attitude among staff members, which is one of those obnoxiously pernicious things because it has the potential to create self-perpetuating cycles.
There is a 'first strike' code that applies to everyone (not just Paladins). The main difference is that it ties in a Soul Hit when paladins do it, but everyone is subject to it and among other things it helps GMs determine who swung first against who. Paladins would get a soul hit if they cast Mental Blast or Petrifying Vision or Phelim's Sanction or anything, simply because that's how the system works.
There's no regression here, there's the problem that Halt was flagged as basically an 'unoffensive' spell and so defensive barriers and stuff didn't work against it. Now that that's gone it falls under the same code everything else does.
There's no desire to 'oh we give Paladins a bonus so we have to penalize them now'. There was a 'hey fixing this in Halt is going to make things kind of suck so maybe we kind of ought to revisit how nasty soul hits are'.
-Z
Wasn't part of the intention of Halt, in effect, a way for a Paladin to step into a conflict and say "hey, buddy, knock it off" without actually having to cave a skull in? (Of course with consent this means the attack could then go after the paladin and someone ends up with a caved in skull ANYHOW...)
I mean, I haven't played a paladin in years, and I agree that code violations give soul hits, but I also think it might be better game design if there were only a few soul hits for MAJOR violations that left a string as opposed to many minor hits that you're suppose to just eat if you didn't really earn them.
Of course then you get into mechanical problems (like good old tears...).
At least it seems to be if I was constantly getting minor soul hits I'd be more inclined to think "To heck with the code" and "this is really irritating" then if getting a soul hit meant I was in deep trouble and had done something REALLY bad.
It's the same way bonuses/penalties work psychologically. If you tell players a spell gives them +100 ranks, but if you aren't standing on your head when you cast it you'll get a 25% penalty people will cry about how that's an absurd requirement. If you give them the same spell and it gives +75 ranks but if you stand on your head when you cast it you get a 33% bonus to power they'll go out of their way to stand on their head when they cast it since they're getting a bonus.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
I mean, I haven't played a paladin in years, and I agree that code violations give soul hits, but I also think it might be better game design if there were only a few soul hits for MAJOR violations that left a string as opposed to many minor hits that you're suppose to just eat if you didn't really earn them.
Of course then you get into mechanical problems (like good old tears...).
At least it seems to be if I was constantly getting minor soul hits I'd be more inclined to think "To heck with the code" and "this is really irritating" then if getting a soul hit meant I was in deep trouble and had done something REALLY bad.
It's the same way bonuses/penalties work psychologically. If you tell players a spell gives them +100 ranks, but if you aren't standing on your head when you cast it you'll get a 25% penalty people will cry about how that's an absurd requirement. If you give them the same spell and it gives +75 ranks but if you stand on your head when you cast it you get a 33% bonus to power they'll go out of their way to stand on their head when they cast it since they're getting a bonus.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
>Wasn't part of the intention of Halt, in effect, a way for a Paladin to step into a conflict and say "hey, buddy, knock it off" without actually having to cave a skull in? (Of course with consent this means the attack could then go after the paladin and someone ends up with a caved in skull ANYHOW...)<
This is true, and if enough people still want and desire a spell like this: I would be happy to make a calming spell that was not a first strike thing so that Paladins could continue to fulfill this function.
Immobilize as it stands provides a seriously significant defensive penalty on top of the whole can't attack thing which is why it needs to be an offensive action. Spells which don't debilitate the target would be candidates for 'not first strikes' (both ways, again, since the code we use doesn't really discriminate)
-Z
This is true, and if enough people still want and desire a spell like this: I would be happy to make a calming spell that was not a first strike thing so that Paladins could continue to fulfill this function.
Immobilize as it stands provides a seriously significant defensive penalty on top of the whole can't attack thing which is why it needs to be an offensive action. Spells which don't debilitate the target would be candidates for 'not first strikes' (both ways, again, since the code we use doesn't really discriminate)
-Z
Well this goes back to my "back Halt more like calm" where it's fairly easy to get calm, and very hard to immobilize (or even just remove immobilize if it's like calms... ie: Nearly impossible to get to unless you crush the target, and shorter duration then the lower level effects so you're fairly disappointed when you DO get it outside of "I don't see that much")
Would also fix the complaint of halt having too short a duration now.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
Would also fix the complaint of halt having too short a duration now.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
>>Mozzik's Post>>
What you said is basically the reason I thought halt was nerfed in the first place. It was way too long a duration for a guaranteed immobilize for a magic tertiary guild.
I think a GM said somewhere in here that the new current lowest success is 8 seconds immobilized, while Soul Sickness at the bottom end is 10 seconds of RT.
Not sure what halt currently is at the high end, but I got Sick up to 40+ seconds of RT while kneeling, and it would reset the counter back to 44 at least 3 times which I believe is the diminishing return while in effect. Mind you this was done with 99 in all stats on the test server, which isn't really attainable in prime anytime soon.
What you said is basically the reason I thought halt was nerfed in the first place. It was way too long a duration for a guaranteed immobilize for a magic tertiary guild.
I think a GM said somewhere in here that the new current lowest success is 8 seconds immobilized, while Soul Sickness at the bottom end is 10 seconds of RT.
Not sure what halt currently is at the high end, but I got Sick up to 40+ seconds of RT while kneeling, and it would reset the counter back to 44 at least 3 times which I believe is the diminishing return while in effect. Mind you this was done with 99 in all stats on the test server, which isn't really attainable in prime anytime soon.
<< Maybe if paladins had some kind of riposte ability that was reactive like hand of justice was (when it would tear off your hand), only for combat, that would be cool.
THIS! is a great idea.
This would be perfect for paladins. It can be used to initiate a standoff and avoid physical conflict in many cases without the fear of being obliterated by a first strike that you know with some certainty is being prepared against you.
A paladin expecting trouble can cast/activate/trace this Riposte ability, and for a short duration be able to deflect the first initial strike made against him. The deflected attack would count as a first strike against the Paladin.
Any offensive attack performed while this Riposte is active will automatically cancel the Riposte on the paladin.
This can be used to warn someone that you do not want to fight, but if they bring trouble (ie attack you) then you will defend yourself with force. Right now, this kind of statement is hollow, because the first one to land an attack has a huge advantage (and Paladin's get a soul strike for initiating an attack).
THIS! is a great idea.
This would be perfect for paladins. It can be used to initiate a standoff and avoid physical conflict in many cases without the fear of being obliterated by a first strike that you know with some certainty is being prepared against you.
A paladin expecting trouble can cast/activate/trace this Riposte ability, and for a short duration be able to deflect the first initial strike made against him. The deflected attack would count as a first strike against the Paladin.
Any offensive attack performed while this Riposte is active will automatically cancel the Riposte on the paladin.
This can be used to warn someone that you do not want to fight, but if they bring trouble (ie attack you) then you will defend yourself with force. Right now, this kind of statement is hollow, because the first one to land an attack has a huge advantage (and Paladin's get a soul strike for initiating an attack).
Well yes, what I'm talking about wouldn't be immobolization.
Things that cause immobolization are brief. Frequently when you're immobilizing something, a lesser state like a stun or a calm would work just as well. Those last longer. Therefor immobolization is frequently not the desired result.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
Things that cause immobolization are brief. Frequently when you're immobilizing something, a lesser state like a stun or a calm would work just as well. Those last longer. Therefor immobolization is frequently not the desired result.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
>Protect Riposte Scumbag
(Something about going into a defensive stance but being ready to react in a split second due to carefully watching every movement of scumbag).
When the scumbag attacks you it does two things:
1) It provides a LARGE defensive bonus vs the first shot
2) It INSTANTLY retaliates if the attack is valid (you have a sword out they have to be in range of it etc). The mechanics should be in place to have this attack unaffected by any penalties from their attack actually landing (ala pulse spells where a stun from the first doesn't actually make the rest more accurate IIRC).
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
(Something about going into a defensive stance but being ready to react in a split second due to carefully watching every movement of scumbag).
When the scumbag attacks you it does two things:
1) It provides a LARGE defensive bonus vs the first shot
2) It INSTANTLY retaliates if the attack is valid (you have a sword out they have to be in range of it etc). The mechanics should be in place to have this attack unaffected by any penalties from their attack actually landing (ala pulse spells where a stun from the first doesn't actually make the rest more accurate IIRC).
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
>I think a GM said somewhere in here that the new current lowest success is 8 seconds immobilized, while Soul Sickness at the bottom end is 10 seconds of RT.
False, unless the duration changed again after the initial announcement. I tested it and landed a halt. Got 3 seconds RT, and 1 second after the rt was over got the message about them being able to move again.
False, unless the duration changed again after the initial announcement. I tested it and landed a halt. Got 3 seconds RT, and 1 second after the rt was over got the message about them being able to move again.
<<-Z
Some comments in summary fashion:
1. I read your statement on no multi-penalties but thought they applied in a different way. I should have held off on that comment until I tested.
2. <<I think part of the problem is you aren't really paying attention and you want to view things through the lens of 'it sucks for Paladins because everything always sucks for Paladins'.
I never really complanied much until about 18 months ago. Over that period of time, the above statement that "always sucks for Paladins" is unfortunately true, from the large (lethal magic change) to the small (change to HoJ). I really want something positive.
3. <<It also creates a pervasive 'why bother even attempting to help Paladins because they'll just hate everything' attitude among staff members, which is one of those obnoxiously pernicious things because it has the potential to create self-perpetuating cycles.
If you did help in some fashion, I think you would find this guild to be very good natured, never complain and laid back. Right now we have 18 months of nerfs and no meaningful improvement.
4. <<There's no regression here, there's the problem that Halt was flagged as basically an 'unoffensive' spell and so defensive barriers and stuff didn't work against it. Now that that's gone it falls under the same code everything else does.
And, finally the crux of the change. Someone wanted halt to be stopped by barrier spells.
5. <<There was a 'hey fixing this in Halt is going to make things kind of suck so maybe we kind of ought to revisit how nasty soul hits are'.
Yes, it does suck. Especially when the purpose had nothing to do with the paladin guild (see #4 above).
6. <<If this means you want a spell that isn't effective as a combat disabler but still is effective at stopping somebody from attacking you (such as a single target calm) so you have something to cast that isn't soul-hit worthy, there's room to pursue that option.
We have ohhh...3-5 years worth of suggestions in the guild folder. Those are the things we want. I do not want a watered-down version of a spell that worked just fine but was changed to accomodate barrier spells for another guild.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Some comments in summary fashion:
1. I read your statement on no multi-penalties but thought they applied in a different way. I should have held off on that comment until I tested.
2. <<I think part of the problem is you aren't really paying attention and you want to view things through the lens of 'it sucks for Paladins because everything always sucks for Paladins'.
I never really complanied much until about 18 months ago. Over that period of time, the above statement that "always sucks for Paladins" is unfortunately true, from the large (lethal magic change) to the small (change to HoJ). I really want something positive.
3. <<It also creates a pervasive 'why bother even attempting to help Paladins because they'll just hate everything' attitude among staff members, which is one of those obnoxiously pernicious things because it has the potential to create self-perpetuating cycles.
If you did help in some fashion, I think you would find this guild to be very good natured, never complain and laid back. Right now we have 18 months of nerfs and no meaningful improvement.
4. <<There's no regression here, there's the problem that Halt was flagged as basically an 'unoffensive' spell and so defensive barriers and stuff didn't work against it. Now that that's gone it falls under the same code everything else does.
And, finally the crux of the change. Someone wanted halt to be stopped by barrier spells.
5. <<There was a 'hey fixing this in Halt is going to make things kind of suck so maybe we kind of ought to revisit how nasty soul hits are'.
Yes, it does suck. Especially when the purpose had nothing to do with the paladin guild (see #4 above).
6. <<If this means you want a spell that isn't effective as a combat disabler but still is effective at stopping somebody from attacking you (such as a single target calm) so you have something to cast that isn't soul-hit worthy, there's room to pursue that option.
We have ohhh...3-5 years worth of suggestions in the guild folder. Those are the things we want. I do not want a watered-down version of a spell that worked just fine but was changed to accomodate barrier spells for another guild.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Ok guys lets step off the whine pedal...We got some good answer's about the first strike.
Hopefully this is how I understand it.
If someone does the following it counts as first strike.
1) steal
2) aim
3) engage
4) attack
5) cast at
6) any thing else?
I think before this change it was just
1) attacked
If this is correct then I am all down and happy with the change's.
__
My ultimate dream of paladin soul system is:
1) Each spell and abilitiy should have a light and dark effect
2) The darker or lighter shade of the soul away from the middle the stronger the bonus.
However, I think the Light soul Paladin should have more self buffing and leadership abilities. While a Dark soul Paladin should fewer but more aggresive abilities.
Thanks Dart and Z.
Crusader Taghz
DFA = DISC + AGIL + TM > Evasion + Reflex
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
Hopefully this is how I understand it.
If someone does the following it counts as first strike.
1) steal
2) aim
3) engage
4) attack
5) cast at
6) any thing else?
I think before this change it was just
1) attacked
If this is correct then I am all down and happy with the change's.
__
My ultimate dream of paladin soul system is:
1) Each spell and abilitiy should have a light and dark effect
2) The darker or lighter shade of the soul away from the middle the stronger the bonus.
However, I think the Light soul Paladin should have more self buffing and leadership abilities. While a Dark soul Paladin should fewer but more aggresive abilities.
Thanks Dart and Z.
Crusader Taghz
DFA = DISC + AGIL + TM > Evasion + Reflex
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
And responding to my own post... some kind of soul ability that calms a target and doesn't count as first strike so it doesn't damage soul? Perhaps a timer to prevent abuse... shorter the better your soul is. And some function for Taghz's idea of a dark state too.
- George, Player of Foresee
- George, Player of Foresee
Of course disabling spells are going to contest barrier mechanics. That's the point of barrier mechanics.
Let's have 'hypothetical time'.
There's a Paladin Defensive spell that's completely ignored by a, oh let's say War Mage spell.
Am I reading, Madigan, that you would like us to say 'Oh isn't that adorable that the War Mage spell totally bypasses all the Paladin barriers' and not do anything about it? Or would you prefer that your defensive spell work as it was supposed to and the offensive spell on the other side also follow the rules as it's supposed to?
>We have ohhh...3-5 years worth of suggestions in the guild folder. Those are the things we want. I do not want a watered-down version of a spell that worked just fine but was changed to accomodate barrier spells for another guild.<
This is why having a conversation with you is excruciatingly difficult. You say you want something to defuse a confrontation without penalty as a complaint about Halt giving a soul hit, then when I offer it (not as a replacement, as a new thing) you say you don't want something to defuse a confrontation. So you're complaining about something else entirely.
>I like Taghz's suggestions. One of my own now. Can bad soul sates not completely destroy soulstones? If there HAS to be a penalty of having bad soul and checking it via the stone, perhaps just have it make the stone inactive for a few hours or something.<
I'll look into the possibility of this.
>If someone does the following it counts as first strike.
>1) steal
>2) aim
>3) engage
>4) attack
>5) cast at
>6) any thing else?
Aim and Engage do not count yet.
Question: Would people want them to? This is knowing that your own aim or engage would impact you, but if anyone aimed / targeted / advanced you could retaliate immediately without penalty.
-Z
Let's have 'hypothetical time'.
There's a Paladin Defensive spell that's completely ignored by a, oh let's say War Mage spell.
Am I reading, Madigan, that you would like us to say 'Oh isn't that adorable that the War Mage spell totally bypasses all the Paladin barriers' and not do anything about it? Or would you prefer that your defensive spell work as it was supposed to and the offensive spell on the other side also follow the rules as it's supposed to?
>We have ohhh...3-5 years worth of suggestions in the guild folder. Those are the things we want. I do not want a watered-down version of a spell that worked just fine but was changed to accomodate barrier spells for another guild.<
This is why having a conversation with you is excruciatingly difficult. You say you want something to defuse a confrontation without penalty as a complaint about Halt giving a soul hit, then when I offer it (not as a replacement, as a new thing) you say you don't want something to defuse a confrontation. So you're complaining about something else entirely.
>I like Taghz's suggestions. One of my own now. Can bad soul sates not completely destroy soulstones? If there HAS to be a penalty of having bad soul and checking it via the stone, perhaps just have it make the stone inactive for a few hours or something.<
I'll look into the possibility of this.
>If someone does the following it counts as first strike.
>1) steal
>2) aim
>3) engage
>4) attack
>5) cast at
>6) any thing else?
Aim and Engage do not count yet.
Question: Would people want them to? This is knowing that your own aim or engage would impact you, but if anyone aimed / targeted / advanced you could retaliate immediately without penalty.
-Z
<<Question: Would people want them to? This is knowing that your own aim or engage would impact you, but if anyone aimed / targeted / advanced you could retaliate immediately without penalty.>>
Yes.
Thanks Z.
Crusader Taghz
DFA = DISC + AGIL + TM > Evasion + Reflex
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
Yes.
Thanks Z.
Crusader Taghz
DFA = DISC + AGIL + TM > Evasion + Reflex
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
>>Question: Would people want them to? This is knowing that your own aim or engage would impact you, but if anyone aimed / targeted / advanced you could retaliate immediately without penalty.<<
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, make them count as first strike. I think we can agree on as long as the soul hit doesn't get any worse than it is currently with your changes.
I think this has been asked but never answered. If another guild uses the halt spell via scroll, does their soul have to be "good enough" to use the spell and have the same checks and balances as a paladin?
~Silus
Smite first, ask questions later.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, make them count as first strike. I think we can agree on as long as the soul hit doesn't get any worse than it is currently with your changes.
I think this has been asked but never answered. If another guild uses the halt spell via scroll, does their soul have to be "good enough" to use the spell and have the same checks and balances as a paladin?
~Silus
Smite first, ask questions later.
>I think this has been asked but never answered. If another guild uses the halt spell via scroll, does their soul have to be "good enough" to use the spell and have the same checks and balances as a paladin? <
At the moment there is no soul requirement to cast Halt, for anyone (Paladin or not).
-Z
At the moment there is no soul requirement to cast Halt, for anyone (Paladin or not).
-Z
>>At the moment there is no soul requirement to cast Halt, for anyone (Paladin or not).
How is it justified that a character that belongs to a guild that has a spell in it's spellbook take a soul hit and a penalty on their abilities and whatnot to cast it but other guilds can cast it free of any backlash? Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
How is it justified that a character that belongs to a guild that has a spell in it's spellbook take a soul hit and a penalty on their abilities and whatnot to cast it but other guilds can cast it free of any backlash? Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
>>How is it justified that a character that belongs to a guild that has a spell in it's spellbook take a soul hit and a penalty on their abilities and whatnot to cast it but other guilds can cast it free of any backlash? Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?
Halt is being treated as any other immobilizer would be when cast by a paladin such that it's use in a first strike will generate a soul hit. It isn't something singled out for the halt spell specifically. Just as a paladin would take a that same soul hit if the first strike were delivered by a sword stroke, arrow hit or even a sling stone being flung. It's the action, not the tool that is determinative here.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
Halt is being treated as any other immobilizer would be when cast by a paladin such that it's use in a first strike will generate a soul hit. It isn't something singled out for the halt spell specifically. Just as a paladin would take a that same soul hit if the first strike were delivered by a sword stroke, arrow hit or even a sling stone being flung. It's the action, not the tool that is determinative here.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
<<Question: Would people want them to? This is knowing that your own aim or engage would impact you, but if anyone aimed / targeted / advanced you could retaliate immediately without penalty.>>
>>Yes.
>>Thanks Z.
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
>>Yes.
>>Thanks Z.
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
>>All first tier spells can be cast with no soul. I believe Halt is still a first tier spell.
A way to add a few more the list via quests would be awesome. Not just circle/skill reqs.
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
A way to add a few more the list via quests would be awesome. Not just circle/skill reqs.
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
>How is it justified that a character that belongs to a guild that has a spell in it's spellbook take a soul hit and a penalty on their abilities and whatnot to cast it but other guilds can cast it free of any backlash? Doesn't that seem a bit backwards?<
Many guilds have penalties for acting in particular ways that other guilds don't. That's just how it is, for aesthetic flavor or what have you. Empaths can't hit things without penalty, Bards can't murder people without penalty, Paladins can't strike first without penalty, etc etc etc.
Again, it's just a spell, there's no special code in it that says 'give Paladins first strike penalty'. If you would like a first strike penalty levied against yourself when you cast things with Avrii, I'm sure we can work it out :P
-Z
Many guilds have penalties for acting in particular ways that other guilds don't. That's just how it is, for aesthetic flavor or what have you. Empaths can't hit things without penalty, Bards can't murder people without penalty, Paladins can't strike first without penalty, etc etc etc.
Again, it's just a spell, there's no special code in it that says 'give Paladins first strike penalty'. If you would like a first strike penalty levied against yourself when you cast things with Avrii, I'm sure we can work it out :P
-Z
Paladins should get a calm effect spell that doesn't impact soul state. That seems to address the complaints from the "conflict diffusion" camp, assuming the complaint is being represented sincerely.
HOJ should be changed to rip hands off if the thief is caught. If Thieves can do it without so much as a skillcheck Paladins should be able to as well.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
HOJ should be changed to rip hands off if the thief is caught. If Thieves can do it without so much as a skillcheck Paladins should be able to as well.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
My 2 cents....brief, I'm incredibly tired long day at work, but ANYWAYS:
- Yay for the reduction in first strike hits, preliminary testing in Platinum show that this is in fact a substantial decrease from what it was before, and very thankful for it. Thank you.
- Not happy with the soul hit addition to Halt that I'm reading about, we haven't yet been able to confirm that Halt is giving a soul hit in Platinum yet (no messaging) we realize it's comming though. I do understand it's justification though. That being said.
I feel that Halt in its current form right now should be re-evaluated into a single target BoT spell as was suggested in this thread, and still maintain it's no soul hit properties. This is what I invision for the Halt/Stun Foe disabler line of spells.
Tier 1 - Halt, single target BoT spell, calm spell.
Tier 2 - Stun Foe, stunning disabler
Tier 2 - BoT?
Tier 3 - Immobilize Foe, (Whatever you want to call it), an immobilization disabler with a longer immobilizing duration.
Tier 4 - Stun Horde, AE melee/pole range stun disabler
Work together to come up with a better Paladins guild. I doubt the GM's have a "Wheel of misfortune" for the Paladins Guild and sit around cackling as they toss darts at it to see what kinda garbage they can throw our way.
Paladins our obviously in a transition phase, which we've needed for awhile now. It's here, get over it, offer constructive criticism.
If you can't take that, go play something else for awhile until the transition is over with.
~Player of Zaud (Platinum)
- Yay for the reduction in first strike hits, preliminary testing in Platinum show that this is in fact a substantial decrease from what it was before, and very thankful for it. Thank you.
- Not happy with the soul hit addition to Halt that I'm reading about, we haven't yet been able to confirm that Halt is giving a soul hit in Platinum yet (no messaging) we realize it's comming though. I do understand it's justification though. That being said.
I feel that Halt in its current form right now should be re-evaluated into a single target BoT spell as was suggested in this thread, and still maintain it's no soul hit properties. This is what I invision for the Halt/Stun Foe disabler line of spells.
Tier 1 - Halt, single target BoT spell, calm spell.
Tier 2 - Stun Foe, stunning disabler
Tier 2 - BoT?
Tier 3 - Immobilize Foe, (Whatever you want to call it), an immobilization disabler with a longer immobilizing duration.
Tier 4 - Stun Horde, AE melee/pole range stun disabler
Work together to come up with a better Paladins guild. I doubt the GM's have a "Wheel of misfortune" for the Paladins Guild and sit around cackling as they toss darts at it to see what kinda garbage they can throw our way.
Paladins our obviously in a transition phase, which we've needed for awhile now. It's here, get over it, offer constructive criticism.
If you can't take that, go play something else for awhile until the transition is over with.
~Player of Zaud (Platinum)
>>False, unless the duration changed again after the initial announcement. I tested it and landed a halt. Got 3 seconds RT, and 1 second after the rt was over got the message about them being able to move again. >>
See the below statement. Zeyurn said exactly that, it's about 6 pages back. So if anybody provided false information it's him, and not me. So...not my problem, sorry.
Posted by DR-Zeyurn:
>>8 seconds is the worst success you can get for Halt. If you are getting that, I would readjust your casting routine.>>
Zeyurn, apparently your information is false according to Sloanj11.
Z,
<Immobilize as it stands provides a seriously significant defensive penalty on top of the whole can't attack thing which is why it needs to be an offensive action>>
I disagree based on the fact that HALT in and of it's self does not damage the target. It takes a second and independent action to capitalize upon the created advantage, this is a choice each person has to make. I believe this should hold true for any ability that is non-damaging. The advantage is there but only is realized when that person takes a second action.
An idea to counter the flow of endless debate:
Add a self-cast function to HALT (or make a new ability) that tackles the issue from another side: self-cast HALT makes the paladin temporarily immune to harm from PVP(expand idea to PVE if you like) action (only available to a paladin who has not initiated combat with another player or taken first strike - so in example, the paladin cannot fight someone and then say oooh this is too hard I'm taking the safety card now). The flip side to this would be that you would be able to make an attempt to remove the shield from the paladin in a WvW contest and then should you win, his "shield" falls and he is vulnerable - removing someone's "shield" is considered auto first strike for that person. I figure the first attack could be any attack aimed at the paladin that instead of going to contest for hit/damage, starts a contest for the "shield" which results in a win/fail vs. the shield: win for shield = spell length is not altered and attack is deflected damage = 0, fail for shield = spell duration taken to 0 and damage issued at 100%.
End result is a passive defense that is activated only as needed in order to defend the paladin - and is the reverse of Halt, and removes first strike issue for the paladin. Protect <cover> (name) can safeguard people should the paladin want to get into issues without blasting someone with Halt.
Kick the concept around guys. Is it possible to approach this issue from the defensive angle?
Khohan
<Immobilize as it stands provides a seriously significant defensive penalty on top of the whole can't attack thing which is why it needs to be an offensive action>>
I disagree based on the fact that HALT in and of it's self does not damage the target. It takes a second and independent action to capitalize upon the created advantage, this is a choice each person has to make. I believe this should hold true for any ability that is non-damaging. The advantage is there but only is realized when that person takes a second action.
An idea to counter the flow of endless debate:
Add a self-cast function to HALT (or make a new ability) that tackles the issue from another side: self-cast HALT makes the paladin temporarily immune to harm from PVP(expand idea to PVE if you like) action (only available to a paladin who has not initiated combat with another player or taken first strike - so in example, the paladin cannot fight someone and then say oooh this is too hard I'm taking the safety card now). The flip side to this would be that you would be able to make an attempt to remove the shield from the paladin in a WvW contest and then should you win, his "shield" falls and he is vulnerable - removing someone's "shield" is considered auto first strike for that person. I figure the first attack could be any attack aimed at the paladin that instead of going to contest for hit/damage, starts a contest for the "shield" which results in a win/fail vs. the shield: win for shield = spell length is not altered and attack is deflected damage = 0, fail for shield = spell duration taken to 0 and damage issued at 100%.
End result is a passive defense that is activated only as needed in order to defend the paladin - and is the reverse of Halt, and removes first strike issue for the paladin. Protect <cover> (name) can safeguard people should the paladin want to get into issues without blasting someone with Halt.
Kick the concept around guys. Is it possible to approach this issue from the defensive angle?
Khohan
<<Add a self-cast function to HALT (or make a new ability) that tackles the issue from another side: self-cast HALT makes the paladin temporarily immune to harm from PVP(expand idea to PVE if you like) action (only available to a paladin who has not initiated combat with another player or taken first strike - so in example, the paladin cannot fight someone and then say oooh this is too hard I'm taking the safety card now).>>
An area affect banner of truce doesn't accomplish a majority of what you are asking for?
- Simon
An area affect banner of truce doesn't accomplish a majority of what you are asking for?
- Simon
<<An area affect banner of truce doesn't accomplish a majority of what you are asking for?>>
BOT contests everyone in the room to get the same job done.... Why am I testing my ability against the combined ability of everyone present if the conflict really is only between two people.
Khohan
BOT contests everyone in the room to get the same job done.... Why am I testing my ability against the combined ability of everyone present if the conflict really is only between two people.
Khohan
