Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Dart,
Is it possible for a consideration to be made in first strike that things which give consent also reduce or eliminate the penalty? Such as spouse attacked, gwethsmashed, etc..? If recently being stole from is possible I should hope other consent giving actions would (and should) as well.
Thanks for the updates!
>> If recently being stole from is possible I should hope other consent giving actions would (and should) as well.
Consent is a policy thing. It isn't (and shouldn't) be mixed up with mechanics that have a basis in lore. Just because you have OOC consent on someone does not mean it is morally okay for your character to go smite them.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
Consent is a policy thing. It isn't (and shouldn't) be mixed up with mechanics that have a basis in lore. Just because you have OOC consent on someone does not mean it is morally okay for your character to go smite them.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
<< Consent is a policy thing. It isn't (and shouldn't) be mixed up with mechanics that have a basis in lore. Just because you have OOC consent on someone does not mean it is morally okay for your character to go smite them. >>
Most of the reasons one would have policy consent would translate pretty well into why a Paladin would not lose soul for first strike. Exceptions could easily be made where applicable. Point is, stealing is not the only time first strike should not apply and consent policy is a decent starting point of other reasons, yes consent is OOC but the reasons for consent are directly tied to IC situations.
Most of the reasons one would have policy consent would translate pretty well into why a Paladin would not lose soul for first strike. Exceptions could easily be made where applicable. Point is, stealing is not the only time first strike should not apply and consent policy is a decent starting point of other reasons, yes consent is OOC but the reasons for consent are directly tied to IC situations.
One of the hallmarks of a Paladin is a willingness to take the high road in a conflict, from my perspective; the messaging you get when you murder someone reflects that.
Stealing is a special case, but that doesn't mean everything should be.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
Stealing is a special case, but that doesn't mean everything should be.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
<< Stealing is a special case, but that doesn't mean everything should be. >>
I do not think anyone suggested everything should be. Unfortunately via mechanics it is impossible to figure every situation, so comprimises need to be made on both sides of the coin. Would you suggest a Paladin is taking the high road by allowing their spouse to be killed and not being allowed to retaliate? Thats absurd. Honestly due to mechanics not being able to detect "honor" in every situation I think first strike should be done away with entirely, its not like its a deterent to players and IC it adds up to very little (regaining the soul of a first strike and a kill does not take much time). As it is it amounts to an annoying mechanic that attempts to force Paladins to fill a certain role, but it fails on both sides, many honorable situations exist where a paladin should be able to strike first and many exist where they shouldnt which are not addressed, which is the point of my post. Not going to get into a debate with you of all people though, I am sure Dart and others understand the point.
I do not think anyone suggested everything should be. Unfortunately via mechanics it is impossible to figure every situation, so comprimises need to be made on both sides of the coin. Would you suggest a Paladin is taking the high road by allowing their spouse to be killed and not being allowed to retaliate? Thats absurd. Honestly due to mechanics not being able to detect "honor" in every situation I think first strike should be done away with entirely, its not like its a deterent to players and IC it adds up to very little (regaining the soul of a first strike and a kill does not take much time). As it is it amounts to an annoying mechanic that attempts to force Paladins to fill a certain role, but it fails on both sides, many honorable situations exist where a paladin should be able to strike first and many exist where they shouldnt which are not addressed, which is the point of my post. Not going to get into a debate with you of all people though, I am sure Dart and others understand the point.
>> Would you suggest a Paladin is taking the high road by allowing their spouse to be killed and not being allowed to retaliate? Thats absurd.
I would be surprised if the system could track that reliably.
But really, that doesn't cover all situations. As you say, mechanics are a limiting factor here. What if your spouse started it? Hell, what if you started it?
Frankly, though, it is not difficult or outlandish to assert that yes, regardless of what they say your mom does on street corners, being the first to resort to physical violence is still dishonorable. You might disagree with that, and that's fine; sounds like the soul hit is being made more reasonable anyway, so you can go murder people to your heart's content.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
I would be surprised if the system could track that reliably.
But really, that doesn't cover all situations. As you say, mechanics are a limiting factor here. What if your spouse started it? Hell, what if you started it?
Frankly, though, it is not difficult or outlandish to assert that yes, regardless of what they say your mom does on street corners, being the first to resort to physical violence is still dishonorable. You might disagree with that, and that's fine; sounds like the soul hit is being made more reasonable anyway, so you can go murder people to your heart's content.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
They had previously mentioned an unwarranted halt would cause a first strike penalty. This is not new info.
::start whine::
Second, I'm having a horrible time with my internet in my new place and I'm dying to try out these spells.
::end whine::
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
::start whine::
Second, I'm having a horrible time with my internet in my new place and I'm dying to try out these spells.
::end whine::
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
This still leaves unresolved some of my biggest issues with soul hits.
1) There should be no murder penalty in situations of self-defense. If someone attacks me in town, and I have no alternative but to kill them in order to defend myself, there should be no soul hit. There should also be no murder charge.
2) Melting your soul when challenged. Yeah, challenge removes the first strike penalty. It should remove ALL soul penalties. You shouldn't accidentally tank your soul to the point of melting your soulstone from attacking someone in a challenge who you had forgotten you were protecting 5 hours earlier. Just as the combat changes are going to address the defensive penalty for moves such as tackle persisting for days after you do the action, so should this be addressed. I'm sure I'm not the only paladin who has protect active by default on their spouse, it's kind of harsh to penalize me for forgetting about it when I want to spar.
3) Group sparring/tournies. Challenge system needs to be updating to allow for group versus group challenges, so that paladins aren't basically screwed over after one round if they enter a tourney.
1) There should be no murder penalty in situations of self-defense. If someone attacks me in town, and I have no alternative but to kill them in order to defend myself, there should be no soul hit. There should also be no murder charge.
2) Melting your soul when challenged. Yeah, challenge removes the first strike penalty. It should remove ALL soul penalties. You shouldn't accidentally tank your soul to the point of melting your soulstone from attacking someone in a challenge who you had forgotten you were protecting 5 hours earlier. Just as the combat changes are going to address the defensive penalty for moves such as tackle persisting for days after you do the action, so should this be addressed. I'm sure I'm not the only paladin who has protect active by default on their spouse, it's kind of harsh to penalize me for forgetting about it when I want to spar.
3) Group sparring/tournies. Challenge system needs to be updating to allow for group versus group challenges, so that paladins aren't basically screwed over after one round if they enter a tourney.
>>1) There should be no murder penalty in situations of self-defense. If someone attacks me in town, and I have no alternative but to kill them in order to defend myself, there should be no soul hit. There should also be no murder charge.
I'd say that there are non violent ways to stop them but if you're going to get a soul hit for halting might as well go all the way.
I'd say that there are non violent ways to stop them but if you're going to get a soul hit for halting might as well go all the way.
>>1) There should be no murder penalty in situations of self-defense. If someone attacks me in town, and I have no alternative but to kill them in order to defend myself, there should be no soul hit. There should also be no murder charge.
>I'd say that there are non violent ways to stop them but if you're going to get a soul hit for halting might as well go all the way.
If someone is attacking you, halting them does nothing but slow them down a few seconds unless you follow it up with violence.
>I'd say that there are non violent ways to stop them but if you're going to get a soul hit for halting might as well go all the way.
If someone is attacking you, halting them does nothing but slow them down a few seconds unless you follow it up with violence.
Not to mention:
1. Double soul hits (i.e. I halt someone then kill them). We also get an enhanced soul hit because of attacking a helpless person.
2. First Strike applying even though someone advances you or otherwise takes aggresive action by other means short of an actual strike of some fashion.
3. That the "offensive spell catagory" is a response to a consent issue (i.e. when do I have consent on someone else for disablers). The first strike penalty is tied to offensive spells. So, if you halt someone they have consent b/c it is an offensive spell (no issue here) but the soul hit is tagged to the "offensive spell". In short, my impression is that we get hosed because of a consent issue. I could be mistaken, but that is my take on the change.
4. Halt causes no damage.
These arguments were made when the issue was first raised on making halt offensive, and therefore subject to a soul hit for first strike. I assume the arguments did not carry the day concerning the paladin guild in light of the announcement. Once again, we could all be mistake on whether or not halt will cause a soul hit. The language makes it seem so in the announcement.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
1. Double soul hits (i.e. I halt someone then kill them). We also get an enhanced soul hit because of attacking a helpless person.
2. First Strike applying even though someone advances you or otherwise takes aggresive action by other means short of an actual strike of some fashion.
3. That the "offensive spell catagory" is a response to a consent issue (i.e. when do I have consent on someone else for disablers). The first strike penalty is tied to offensive spells. So, if you halt someone they have consent b/c it is an offensive spell (no issue here) but the soul hit is tagged to the "offensive spell". In short, my impression is that we get hosed because of a consent issue. I could be mistaken, but that is my take on the change.
4. Halt causes no damage.
These arguments were made when the issue was first raised on making halt offensive, and therefore subject to a soul hit for first strike. I assume the arguments did not carry the day concerning the paladin guild in light of the announcement. Once again, we could all be mistake on whether or not halt will cause a soul hit. The language makes it seem so in the announcement.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>>If someone is attacking you, halting them does nothing but slow them down a few seconds unless you follow it up with violence.
Gives you plenty of time to cast BoT, of course you could probably just cast BoT in the first place. That was the answer given before when the issue of self defense came up.
Gives you plenty of time to cast BoT, of course you could probably just cast BoT in the first place. That was the answer given before when the issue of self defense came up.
>>since Stun Foe does a better job at this point.
I min-prepped SF, harnessed 5, and immediately cast. So not snap cast, but a 3 second prep.
You gesture at a grizzled red leucro.
The mana you were holding contributes to the spell.
A brilliant stream of pure white light jumps from you to a grizzled red leucro, warping into a spiraling force that slams into it!
The red leucro is blasted back, reeling from the blow!
As the light silently explodes, you could swear you hear a voice whisper the word "Justice".
Roundtime: 3 seconds
!R>
The red leucro closes to pole weapon range on you!
!R> fire
You think you have your best shot possible now.
!>
< Moving with powerful grace, you fire an ironwood quadrello at a grizzled red leucro. A grizzled red leucro attempts to evade, failing miserably. The quadrello lands an apocalyptic strike (23/23) (So that's what it felt like when Grazhir shattered!) that rips through muscle and organs, cutting the foe cleanly in half.
The ironwood quadrello lodges itself savagely into the red leucro!
A grizzled red leucro collapses to the ground, yelping like a lost puppy calling for its mother until finally it ceases all movement.
[You're solidly balanced]
[Roundtime 1 sec.]
That was a one-hit shot with my LX..
Light Crossbow: 199 96% (31/34) +1.24
Yeah, Stun Foe is pretty awesome. If halt gives a soul hit, then no thanks. Stun foe will do just fine.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
I min-prepped SF, harnessed 5, and immediately cast. So not snap cast, but a 3 second prep.
You gesture at a grizzled red leucro.
The mana you were holding contributes to the spell.
A brilliant stream of pure white light jumps from you to a grizzled red leucro, warping into a spiraling force that slams into it!
The red leucro is blasted back, reeling from the blow!
As the light silently explodes, you could swear you hear a voice whisper the word "Justice".
Roundtime: 3 seconds
!R>
The red leucro closes to pole weapon range on you!
!R> fire
You think you have your best shot possible now.
!>
< Moving with powerful grace, you fire an ironwood quadrello at a grizzled red leucro. A grizzled red leucro attempts to evade, failing miserably. The quadrello lands an apocalyptic strike (23/23) (So that's what it felt like when Grazhir shattered!) that rips through muscle and organs, cutting the foe cleanly in half.
The ironwood quadrello lodges itself savagely into the red leucro!
A grizzled red leucro collapses to the ground, yelping like a lost puppy calling for its mother until finally it ceases all movement.
[You're solidly balanced]
[Roundtime 1 sec.]
That was a one-hit shot with my LX..
Light Crossbow: 199 96% (31/34) +1.24
Yeah, Stun Foe is pretty awesome. If halt gives a soul hit, then no thanks. Stun foe will do just fine.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
>>If someone is attacking you, halting them does nothing but slow them down a few seconds unless you follow it up with violence.
>Gives you plenty of time to cast BoT, of course you could probably just cast BoT in the first place. That was the answer given before when the issue of self defense came up.
If I am 50th circle, my attacker is 50th circle, and some random 100th circle empath is in the room quietly scripting in the corner, I cannot, in fact, cast BoT, even though I may be able to affect everyone who is actually involved in the conflict just fine. Maybe if we could cast banner at an individual... Of course, from the way it sounds like non-violent disablers will cause soul hits in the future, a targetted banner would probably give a penalty anyway... Yeah, it's easy to say on paper that we have non-violent ways to defend ourselves, or to protect innocents, but in actual practice, it doesn't always work out that way.
>Gives you plenty of time to cast BoT, of course you could probably just cast BoT in the first place. That was the answer given before when the issue of self defense came up.
If I am 50th circle, my attacker is 50th circle, and some random 100th circle empath is in the room quietly scripting in the corner, I cannot, in fact, cast BoT, even though I may be able to affect everyone who is actually involved in the conflict just fine. Maybe if we could cast banner at an individual... Of course, from the way it sounds like non-violent disablers will cause soul hits in the future, a targetted banner would probably give a penalty anyway... Yeah, it's easy to say on paper that we have non-violent ways to defend ourselves, or to protect innocents, but in actual practice, it doesn't always work out that way.
>>Why would halt have a soul hit and not stun foe? I'm not following your logic.
HI READING COMPREHENSION. I was responding to Glemm saying that stun foe did a better job than halt.
So if I'm going to take a soul hit regardless, I'll choose the better one. I.e Stun Foe. Gj.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
HI READING COMPREHENSION. I was responding to Glemm saying that stun foe did a better job than halt.
So if I'm going to take a soul hit regardless, I'll choose the better one. I.e Stun Foe. Gj.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
>>Yeah, Stun Foe is pretty awesome. If halt gives a soul hit, then no thanks. Stun foe will do just fine.
>Why would halt have a soul hit and not stun foe? I'm not following your logic.
Stun Foe does give a soul hit. But it's a whole level of awesome above halt. I believe what he's saying is "if they are both going to give a hit, might as well use the one that actually does something."
I concur wholeheartedly. Playing around last night, I landed a 30-mana halt, lasted for 4 seconds, and I had 3 seconds RT. Turned around and tried SF at about the same mana, 5 second rt and near 15 second stun which caused the target to fall over. I assume most of that is that my stats are weighted towards SvS more than WvW, but either way, it works better for me. If they both were to give a soul hit, why would I ever choose Halt over SF?
>Why would halt have a soul hit and not stun foe? I'm not following your logic.
Stun Foe does give a soul hit. But it's a whole level of awesome above halt. I believe what he's saying is "if they are both going to give a hit, might as well use the one that actually does something."
I concur wholeheartedly. Playing around last night, I landed a 30-mana halt, lasted for 4 seconds, and I had 3 seconds RT. Turned around and tried SF at about the same mana, 5 second rt and near 15 second stun which caused the target to fall over. I assume most of that is that my stats are weighted towards SvS more than WvW, but either way, it works better for me. If they both were to give a soul hit, why would I ever choose Halt over SF?
<<If someone is attacking you, halting them does nothing but slow them down a few seconds unless you follow it up with violence. >>
if you outclass them enough to get off a halt, you could follow up a halt with BOT.
The undead hordes would like to take this moment to remind you that they are quite happy to eat your brains so that you may test new depart.Please consider it.Hugs and kisses, Team Necro.
if you outclass them enough to get off a halt, you could follow up a halt with BOT.
The undead hordes would like to take this moment to remind you that they are quite happy to eat your brains so that you may test new depart.Please consider it.Hugs and kisses, Team Necro.
>>Just curious, are you guys casting DiG before Halt? >>
Wouldn't Marshal Order's discipline boost also help as well?
>>No DiG before halt here, I don't see the point in needing a higher tier spell in effect to make a lower tier spell useful.>>
Maybe if you did the spell wouldn't be as useless to you? Your spellbook has two spells at your disposal to boost the spells effectiveness (MO/DiG) but you're choosing to ignore them because they're higher tier. That's your fault. Not the spells.
However, if for some reason using both has no effect on the overall success on the spell, then it's the spells fault. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say this won't be the case.
Wouldn't Marshal Order's discipline boost also help as well?
>>No DiG before halt here, I don't see the point in needing a higher tier spell in effect to make a lower tier spell useful.>>
Maybe if you did the spell wouldn't be as useless to you? Your spellbook has two spells at your disposal to boost the spells effectiveness (MO/DiG) but you're choosing to ignore them because they're higher tier. That's your fault. Not the spells.
However, if for some reason using both has no effect on the overall success on the spell, then it's the spells fault. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say this won't be the case.
You're right. A spell that was helpful which is now unhelpful because of a (potential) soul hit and a duration tweak sucks... not because of the tweak, but because I refuse to cast two other spells to make a beginner spell work as advertised.
I see the logic here and it's mind-blowing.
Stun Foe all the way. btw, whenever you guys want to release Stun Horde, that would be great too.
-Mr. Glemm
I see the logic here and it's mind-blowing.
Stun Foe all the way. btw, whenever you guys want to release Stun Horde, that would be great too.
-Mr. Glemm
> If they steal from you first, or they have already struck you?
There is actually two other "warranted" halts.
(1) During a challenge...
(2) If someone first strikes someone you are guarding.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
There is actually two other "warranted" halts.
(1) During a challenge...
(2) If someone first strikes someone you are guarding.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
>>I think that anything that causes a soul hit, should automatically be better than anything from comparable guilds.
This. But even more then this, spells just shouldn't burn soul for things like halt, stun foe, etc. That's just silly. What does it add to make that a standard cost of the spell when you aren't using them to violate the paladin code of honor or whatnot.
>>Also on a different topic. I vote for an automatic TM increase to our PM level to compensate for the lack of TM training spells in the past.
Good luck with that.
PS: See Energy Bolt, Strange Arrow and about 12312309 posts by empaths and rangers (mostly) in the last two years.
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."
This. But even more then this, spells just shouldn't burn soul for things like halt, stun foe, etc. That's just silly. What does it add to make that a standard cost of the spell when you aren't using them to violate the paladin code of honor or whatnot.
>>Also on a different topic. I vote for an automatic TM increase to our PM level to compensate for the lack of TM training spells in the past.
Good luck with that.
PS: See Energy Bolt, Strange Arrow and about 12312309 posts by empaths and rangers (mostly) in the last two years.
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."
