Re: Halt v. Stun Foe on 09/09/2009 02:14 PM CDT
Links-arrows 1
Reply Reply
>Halt v. Stun Foe

It has been my (limited) experience that most paladins weight their stats toward SvS not WvW, to which it comes as no surprise that most prefer Stun Foe. However, immobile is a more penalizing state than stunned, off balance, or prone. So all things equal (as in assume you can be equally successful with Half or Stun Foe) you're better off immobilizing your target for PvP. For PvE immobile gives an exp penalty (I think) whereas stun/prone/off balance does not, therefor Stun Foe is a better choice.

I think all that's right at least.

~Hunter Hanryu
http://drplat.com/CombatEquipmentCompendium.xls
Tolle says, "Yup yup, 'bout time. What the heck took you so long?"
Reply Reply
Re: Halt v. Stun Foe on 09/09/2009 03:53 PM CDT
Links-arrows 2
Reply Reply
> It has been my (limited) experience that most paladins weight their stats toward SvS not WvW, to which it comes as no surprise that most prefer Stun Foe. However, immobile is a more penalizing state than stunned, off balance, or prone. So all things equal (as in assume you can be equally successful with Half or Stun Foe) you're better off immobilizing your target for PvP.


This would be accurate. It is also true of PvE, at least as far as enhancing your ability to win the fight is concerned. Immobilizing is superior to stunning in terms of penalizing the defensive abilities of the enemy. I would also point out that there are far more ways to break free of a stun than there are to break free of an immobilize.

As was pointed out by the person I quoted, it is very likely many people are perceiving Stun Foe as being better because their stats are set up more for stamina vs stamina rather than will vs will.


- GM Dartenian


If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
Reply Reply