Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I'm reading a lot of posts about Stun Foe, is that a permanent spell now? I read the announcement and all, the wording of it made me think Stun Foe was just a place holder spell untill Smite Foe was re-released in its TM incarnation. Was I misreading it? A lot of the debate going on, say Halt vs StunFoe, is kinda negated if it's just a temporary spell right?
DRPrime - Celeres Turrance
Smite Foe has become Stun Foe. Forever and ever.
HOWEVER There will be a "new" spell called Smite Foe (that will likely use all the old messages) coming out at some point in the future that will be a TM spell that likely requires Footman's Strike (or whatever the new 1st tier TM spell will be called).
If you had Smite Foe, you now have Stun Foe and will need to spend a new slot on Smite Foe when it comes back out.
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."
HOWEVER There will be a "new" spell called Smite Foe (that will likely use all the old messages) coming out at some point in the future that will be a TM spell that likely requires Footman's Strike (or whatever the new 1st tier TM spell will be called).
If you had Smite Foe, you now have Stun Foe and will need to spend a new slot on Smite Foe when it comes back out.
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."
The minimum duration of Halt is slightly longer than Stun Foe.
The maximum duration of Halt is slightly shorter than Stun Foe.
Other than that, they're functionally similar and provide a method by which you may opt for whatever you're trained better as. Most Paladins are trained more for Spell vs Stamina contests and this is reflected in your opinion of the two spells.
Also: There was apparently a glitch in the matrix that prevented the beneficial updates to Halt's difficulty and prep from going through. Halt should now really really have a much lower min prep and be easier to pump mana into, this may make it somewhat more desirable.
Also I'm putting this all into TF now as of this post.
-Z
The maximum duration of Halt is slightly shorter than Stun Foe.
Other than that, they're functionally similar and provide a method by which you may opt for whatever you're trained better as. Most Paladins are trained more for Spell vs Stamina contests and this is reflected in your opinion of the two spells.
Also: There was apparently a glitch in the matrix that prevented the beneficial updates to Halt's difficulty and prep from going through. Halt should now really really have a much lower min prep and be easier to pump mana into, this may make it somewhat more desirable.
Also I'm putting this all into TF now as of this post.
-Z
Regarding stun vs. immobile... Stun tends to make me lose my prepped spell faster. Stun has a chance of the target tipping over. Immobile may have a higher base penalty than stunned, but in practice, I have had far more luck breaking a stalemate by getting a stun in than by immobilizing them. If I'm doing nothing but whiffing, halt usually doesn't make much difference, compared to stunned and prone.
I LOVE if you hit full prep during a stun you lose the spell. It's so wonderful with like oh... whole displacement. ::glares::
/coughderailover
Anyhow, it's kinda like Hypno vs MB I imagine, though with the added spice of not both being WvW (So maybe more like MB vs Dazzle but I rarely use Dazzle...)
Been forever since I played my paladin - but halt can ONLY immobilize right? There's no lesser state? Because both moon mage spells that can cause immobilization (SeT and Hypno) if you can pull the immob off it's brief and you have to DESTROY them in the contest (like seriously, they have to be trivial to you) otherwise you'll get a lesser effect - calm, commandable, balance hit, stun depending on spell. If hypno only had an immobilize effect I'd never use it either - the only reason I use it over MB is because it's INCREDIBLY easy to snap off rapid fire and basically never fails to just put everything into the room into a commandable state so I can put them all kneeling (to kill) or flee (to clear out a room) at once.
Anyhow - before this gets too long winded, I don't mean to just recommend you rip off a MM spell, but I think the current complaints about halt would be DRAMATICALLY reduced if it had a lesser state before immobilized that was basically a calm state. Consider it a single target BoT effect - there's already president for Paladins having this sort of thing.
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."
/coughderailover
Anyhow, it's kinda like Hypno vs MB I imagine, though with the added spice of not both being WvW (So maybe more like MB vs Dazzle but I rarely use Dazzle...)
Been forever since I played my paladin - but halt can ONLY immobilize right? There's no lesser state? Because both moon mage spells that can cause immobilization (SeT and Hypno) if you can pull the immob off it's brief and you have to DESTROY them in the contest (like seriously, they have to be trivial to you) otherwise you'll get a lesser effect - calm, commandable, balance hit, stun depending on spell. If hypno only had an immobilize effect I'd never use it either - the only reason I use it over MB is because it's INCREDIBLY easy to snap off rapid fire and basically never fails to just put everything into the room into a commandable state so I can put them all kneeling (to kill) or flee (to clear out a room) at once.
Anyhow - before this gets too long winded, I don't mean to just recommend you rip off a MM spell, but I think the current complaints about halt would be DRAMATICALLY reduced if it had a lesser state before immobilized that was basically a calm state. Consider it a single target BoT effect - there's already president for Paladins having this sort of thing.
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 agree that Halt shouldn't provide a soul hit when cast by itself.
If someone uses a stun or immobilize spell on you, it counts as first strike for them. Therefore it is only reasonable that if you use a stun or immobilize spell on them first, it should also count as first strike for you.
In any case, the reduction in penalties across the board is part and parcel to this whole first trike gig. We reduced the penalty (in part) because we were extending it to balance out the fact that these types of spells being used against the paladins count as first strike, so they should count as first strike when used by the paladin as well. The penalties were a bit high in the first place, mind you, but the fact that debuffs/holds/etc were now falling under first strike was also taken into consideration.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
If someone uses a stun or immobilize spell on you, it counts as first strike for them. Therefore it is only reasonable that if you use a stun or immobilize spell on them first, it should also count as first strike for you.
In any case, the reduction in penalties across the board is part and parcel to this whole first trike gig. We reduced the penalty (in part) because we were extending it to balance out the fact that these types of spells being used against the paladins count as first strike, so they should count as first strike when used by the paladin as well. The penalties were a bit high in the first place, mind you, but the fact that debuffs/holds/etc were now falling under first strike was also taken into consideration.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
<<If someone uses a stun or immobilize spell on you, it counts as first strike for them. Therefore it is only reasonable that if you use a stun or immobilize spell on them first, it should also count as first strike for you.
What in the heck are you even talking about? No one has a first strike penalty except the paladin guild. What I think you are trying to discuss is CONSENT. If you are going to start making soul hits based on CONSENT then do it all the way, which would be anything that grants the paladin guild consent is not subject to a first strike penalty (i.e. open profile, advance, aim, target and so forth).
I do not believe that is the right way to approach first strike b/c I do not think the concepts (one OOC and one IG) should be intermingled. However, you can't just apply the concept in a manner that only hurts the guild without also applying the concept uniformly were there is also a benefit to the guild.
If I am correct that you are talking about consent, you are using an OOC mechanic to gimp the guild. If you are going to use that OOC mechanic to gimp the guild, then at least uniformly apply the concept.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
What in the heck are you even talking about? No one has a first strike penalty except the paladin guild. What I think you are trying to discuss is CONSENT. If you are going to start making soul hits based on CONSENT then do it all the way, which would be anything that grants the paladin guild consent is not subject to a first strike penalty (i.e. open profile, advance, aim, target and so forth).
I do not believe that is the right way to approach first strike b/c I do not think the concepts (one OOC and one IG) should be intermingled. However, you can't just apply the concept in a manner that only hurts the guild without also applying the concept uniformly were there is also a benefit to the guild.
If I am correct that you are talking about consent, you are using an OOC mechanic to gimp the guild. If you are going to use that OOC mechanic to gimp the guild, then at least uniformly apply the concept.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>>If someone uses a stun or immobilize spell on you, it counts as first strike for them. Therefore it is only reasonable that if you use a stun or immobilize spell on them first, it should also count as first strike for you.
You left off the rest of my quote dart. I understand what you're saying but if you're trying to use Halt to avoid a conflict, well you can't without getting a soul hit. That's why I suggested providing a bigger soul hit for halting then attacking rather than just halting.
You left off the rest of my quote dart. I understand what you're saying but if you're trying to use Halt to avoid a conflict, well you can't without getting a soul hit. That's why I suggested providing a bigger soul hit for halting then attacking rather than just halting.
>>What in the heck are you even talking about? No one has a first strike penalty except the paladin guild.
He didn't say anything about penalties there. I understand what he's saying, I just don't think that Halt should provide one unless you're going to use it in an aggressive manner.
A few months ago to a year ago Halt was suggested to be used to avoid conflict and a soul hit. Now it provides a soul hit. It just seems inconsistent.
He didn't say anything about penalties there. I understand what he's saying, I just don't think that Halt should provide one unless you're going to use it in an aggressive manner.
A few months ago to a year ago Halt was suggested to be used to avoid conflict and a soul hit. Now it provides a soul hit. It just seems inconsistent.
<<He didn't say anything about penalties there. I understand what he's saying, I just don't think that Halt should provide one unless you're going to use it in an aggressive manner.
Who are you and what is the name of your paladin?
Here is the post by Dart:
<<If someone uses a stun or immobilize spell on you, it counts as first strike for them. Therefore it is only reasonable that if you use a stun or immobilize spell on them first, it should also count as first strike for you.
The concept of first strike is a pure paladin concept, it simply does not apply to any other guild. I suspect Dart is talking about consent, an OOC concept. If you are going to tie a soul hit to a consent issue, then you should also NOT apply a soul hit to a consent issue. The uniform application of this theory would mean that we would have no soul hit for things such as an open profile, advancing, targetting...and so forth.
I do not believe that is a good policy, but if we are adopting a bad policy it should be uniform.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Who are you and what is the name of your paladin?
Here is the post by Dart:
<<If someone uses a stun or immobilize spell on you, it counts as first strike for them. Therefore it is only reasonable that if you use a stun or immobilize spell on them first, it should also count as first strike for you.
The concept of first strike is a pure paladin concept, it simply does not apply to any other guild. I suspect Dart is talking about consent, an OOC concept. If you are going to tie a soul hit to a consent issue, then you should also NOT apply a soul hit to a consent issue. The uniform application of this theory would mean that we would have no soul hit for things such as an open profile, advancing, targetting...and so forth.
I do not believe that is a good policy, but if we are adopting a bad policy it should be uniform.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>>I suspect Dart is talking about consent, an OOC concept.
I suspect he's referring to the fact that any stun attack on you removes any first strike penalties from any attacks you may commit in response.
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
I suspect he's referring to the fact that any stun attack on you removes any first strike penalties from any attacks you may commit in response.
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
<<I suspect he's referring to the fact that any stun attack on you removes any first strike penalties from any attacks you may commit in response.
Good point, and I didn't view it that. Thanks for the post.
So, we lose the ability to disable without a soul hit in return for gaining the ability to strike back without a soul hit for a disable.
Prior to this increase in first strike penalties, we could return fire for any offensive spell without a penalty. There were some spells that did not fall into this catagory, must most did.
That is even worse, we gain basically nothing and expand the first strike penalties on halt. Net loss in my book.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Good point, and I didn't view it that. Thanks for the post.
So, we lose the ability to disable without a soul hit in return for gaining the ability to strike back without a soul hit for a disable.
Prior to this increase in first strike penalties, we could return fire for any offensive spell without a penalty. There were some spells that did not fall into this catagory, must most did.
That is even worse, we gain basically nothing and expand the first strike penalties on halt. Net loss in my book.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>>Prior to this increase in first strike penalties, we could return fire for any offensive spell without a penalty. There were some spells that did not fall into this catagory, must most did.
Prior to this update, if someone attacked you, you could retaliate. However, attacking first via blade or damaging spell meant you take a decent sized penalty to doing so.
After this update, the first part remains the same. In addition, combat disablers will also grant you the coverage of having been "attacked" if cast against you. Additionally, the penalty for being pre-emptive in your conflict has been reduced as has the penalty for killing someone. The penalty for a pre-emptive attack AND killing said person is higher than the two seperately, but as Dartenian stated, it is still less than the two were before. Halt became less effective on the flip side, and yes it now counts as a pre-emptive or first strike attack if you should use it in that capacity.
>>That is even worse, we gain basically nothing and expand the first strike penalties on halt. Net loss in my book.
It is up to each person to decide if it was a net loss or not based on their own style and judgement. However, I would argue the "getting nothing" part is not really valid.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
Prior to this update, if someone attacked you, you could retaliate. However, attacking first via blade or damaging spell meant you take a decent sized penalty to doing so.
After this update, the first part remains the same. In addition, combat disablers will also grant you the coverage of having been "attacked" if cast against you. Additionally, the penalty for being pre-emptive in your conflict has been reduced as has the penalty for killing someone. The penalty for a pre-emptive attack AND killing said person is higher than the two seperately, but as Dartenian stated, it is still less than the two were before. Halt became less effective on the flip side, and yes it now counts as a pre-emptive or first strike attack if you should use it in that capacity.
>>That is even worse, we gain basically nothing and expand the first strike penalties on halt. Net loss in my book.
It is up to each person to decide if it was a net loss or not based on their own style and judgement. However, I would argue the "getting nothing" part is not really valid.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
For me, I'd say it was an overall win, because I tend to just shoot random people who happen to annoy me. I'm not concerned with halting people in order to stop the violence. I like the violence. Like I said previously, I never take the high road. Anyways, one thing I'm not certain on because of everyone has different opinions on it.. maybe a GM can clarify this.
Say I get attacked or disabled or w/e and I stun foe them, no first strike penalty obviously. Now, if I were to follow it up with a smite or aim fire, do I get the soul hit for attacking someone who's stunned? Or does that get cancelled too because they attacked first. And how often do you get a soul hit for attacking someone who's stunned? What if you stun foe and then attack twice, the first one reapplying the stun. Does that give you two soul hits for attacking someone stunned twice?
The answers to this might confirm or change my opinion of the changes.
And seriously, I'm asking a GM to respond since they know the exact answer. Not the opinions of other players, since I've been getting nothing but that and everyone has a different one.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
Say I get attacked or disabled or w/e and I stun foe them, no first strike penalty obviously. Now, if I were to follow it up with a smite or aim fire, do I get the soul hit for attacking someone who's stunned? Or does that get cancelled too because they attacked first. And how often do you get a soul hit for attacking someone who's stunned? What if you stun foe and then attack twice, the first one reapplying the stun. Does that give you two soul hits for attacking someone stunned twice?
The answers to this might confirm or change my opinion of the changes.
And seriously, I'm asking a GM to respond since they know the exact answer. Not the opinions of other players, since I've been getting nothing but that and everyone has a different one.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
I am beginning to think no one gets in real fights playing with paladins. Here are some key points:
1. Nice first step to common sense.
<<In addition, combat disablers will also grant you the coverage of having been "attacked" if cast against you.
I think this is great, and should have been changed long ago. Someone casts something at me, I should be able to retaliate without a soul hit. Common sense. Although I am appreciative of this change, it really is something that should have been around long ago and I am unwilling to accept I (we) have to give something up for this.
Now, you should also change aiming, targetting and advancing then we will have completed the full return to common sense and first strike.
2. To the meat of the matter.
<<Halt became less effective on the flip side, and yes it now counts as a pre-emptive or first strike attack if you should use it in that capacity.
Under the old method, I could halt someone without a soul hit and decide what to do. I can attack them (i.e. attempt to cause harm) and I take a soul hit. On the other hand, I had the opportunity to halt them and do other non-violent actions (talk, leave, Banner...you name it). The old system protected against the underlying core of the first strike philosophy (do no harm to those that intend no harm to you).
Now, I take a soul hit for a non-violent response. Does that make sense to you when the old system worked to fulfill the intent of the first stike soul hit?
3. Many small ones better than one big one?
<<In exchange for lowering the soul hit for first stike, you take the hit at the time a disabler is cast as well. Net gain in mine.
The fundamental question with whether lowering the soul hit outweighs the expansion of this penalty revolves around the key question above. I suggest the answer is not only no, but if you have ever been in a PvP fight playing a paladin the answer is obviously no.
Under the old system, someone aims at me I would either halt them and kill them at melee or kill them with smite foe. One big soul hit but opponent dead and now I have plenty of time to go repair my soul.
Under the new system and with the removal of smite foe and the reduction on halt, I will have to cast multiple disablers in order to get to melee (i.e. chain stun/halt them until I can get there). I am going to get smoked by multiple soul hits and my capacity to use my abilities is diminished each time I take a soul hit and the opponent is still alive as my capacity goes south. Recall, this same situation will arise whether I gank someone out of the blue or I am simply responding to someone aiming a weapon at me or targetting me.
In my view, the physical attack (ranged, melee or a damaging spell) should be the first strike and I take a soul hit. No soul hits before, none after.
The bottom line is this:
1. The old first strike was bad, but we could function under it and it worked well under the first strike philosophy. Ultimately, we ended up with a soul hit if we hurt someone (even after we halted them). The only rational reasons I see for expanding the first strike system to encompass more are:
a. Hey, we had to give something up for removing first strike if someone disabled us. This violates the common sense test in my book. What will we have to give up next to remove the first strike penalty from someone aiming, targetting or advancing us?
b. This is purely a consent-policy issue. We want halt to be an offensive spell that grants consent, and therefore if it is offensive we need to tag it for a soul hit. Form over substance. No one gives a hoot about consent, but we do give a hoot about expanding first strike.
And, we end with this:
<<It is up to each person to decide if it was a net loss or not based on their own style and judgement. However, I would argue the "getting nothing" part is not really valid.
It most certainly is valid for the reasons stated above. In addition, this statement applies to the paladin guild as a whole over the last 18 months. Hey, I get change and I get GM's come and go and have their own stuff they want to do. Holy cow but we have been smoked over the last 18 months. Do I think we are getting nothing in light of everything. You are darn right, and since I know you like to play devil's advocage...prove me bloody wrong.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
1. Nice first step to common sense.
<<In addition, combat disablers will also grant you the coverage of having been "attacked" if cast against you.
I think this is great, and should have been changed long ago. Someone casts something at me, I should be able to retaliate without a soul hit. Common sense. Although I am appreciative of this change, it really is something that should have been around long ago and I am unwilling to accept I (we) have to give something up for this.
Now, you should also change aiming, targetting and advancing then we will have completed the full return to common sense and first strike.
2. To the meat of the matter.
<<Halt became less effective on the flip side, and yes it now counts as a pre-emptive or first strike attack if you should use it in that capacity.
Under the old method, I could halt someone without a soul hit and decide what to do. I can attack them (i.e. attempt to cause harm) and I take a soul hit. On the other hand, I had the opportunity to halt them and do other non-violent actions (talk, leave, Banner...you name it). The old system protected against the underlying core of the first strike philosophy (do no harm to those that intend no harm to you).
Now, I take a soul hit for a non-violent response. Does that make sense to you when the old system worked to fulfill the intent of the first stike soul hit?
3. Many small ones better than one big one?
<<In exchange for lowering the soul hit for first stike, you take the hit at the time a disabler is cast as well. Net gain in mine.
The fundamental question with whether lowering the soul hit outweighs the expansion of this penalty revolves around the key question above. I suggest the answer is not only no, but if you have ever been in a PvP fight playing a paladin the answer is obviously no.
Under the old system, someone aims at me I would either halt them and kill them at melee or kill them with smite foe. One big soul hit but opponent dead and now I have plenty of time to go repair my soul.
Under the new system and with the removal of smite foe and the reduction on halt, I will have to cast multiple disablers in order to get to melee (i.e. chain stun/halt them until I can get there). I am going to get smoked by multiple soul hits and my capacity to use my abilities is diminished each time I take a soul hit and the opponent is still alive as my capacity goes south. Recall, this same situation will arise whether I gank someone out of the blue or I am simply responding to someone aiming a weapon at me or targetting me.
In my view, the physical attack (ranged, melee or a damaging spell) should be the first strike and I take a soul hit. No soul hits before, none after.
The bottom line is this:
1. The old first strike was bad, but we could function under it and it worked well under the first strike philosophy. Ultimately, we ended up with a soul hit if we hurt someone (even after we halted them). The only rational reasons I see for expanding the first strike system to encompass more are:
a. Hey, we had to give something up for removing first strike if someone disabled us. This violates the common sense test in my book. What will we have to give up next to remove the first strike penalty from someone aiming, targetting or advancing us?
b. This is purely a consent-policy issue. We want halt to be an offensive spell that grants consent, and therefore if it is offensive we need to tag it for a soul hit. Form over substance. No one gives a hoot about consent, but we do give a hoot about expanding first strike.
And, we end with this:
<<It is up to each person to decide if it was a net loss or not based on their own style and judgement. However, I would argue the "getting nothing" part is not really valid.
It most certainly is valid for the reasons stated above. In addition, this statement applies to the paladin guild as a whole over the last 18 months. Hey, I get change and I get GM's come and go and have their own stuff they want to do. Holy cow but we have been smoked over the last 18 months. Do I think we are getting nothing in light of everything. You are darn right, and since I know you like to play devil's advocage...prove me bloody wrong.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Geez, that ended up being long winded. Summary:
1. Bonus of no first strike for certain spell is good, but should also be expanded to aiming, advancing and targetting.
2. Point #1 should be common sense in my view, therefore why do we need to give something up for it (i.e. first strike on our disablers).
3. Old rules protect the same as new rules, but less severe in practical application. In short, the intent is still there and the protection is still there. Just make the soul hit on the back end (when we hit someone we should get the soul hit from the potential damaging attack, not the disabler).
4. I am probably making too much hay on the issue because I feel smoked on the overall state of the guild.
Salute folks, sorry to rage a bit.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
1. Bonus of no first strike for certain spell is good, but should also be expanded to aiming, advancing and targetting.
2. Point #1 should be common sense in my view, therefore why do we need to give something up for it (i.e. first strike on our disablers).
3. Old rules protect the same as new rules, but less severe in practical application. In short, the intent is still there and the protection is still there. Just make the soul hit on the back end (when we hit someone we should get the soul hit from the potential damaging attack, not the disabler).
4. I am probably making too much hay on the issue because I feel smoked on the overall state of the guild.
Salute folks, sorry to rage a bit.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>>I am going to get smoked by multiple soul hits and my capacity to use my abilities is diminished each time I take a soul hit and the opponent is still alive as my capacity goes south.
I think you need to re-read how all this works. Your logic does not match with statments made by multiple GMs. I understand you ahve been fighting the good fight RE: soul hits and defensive use, but I think right now your emotions over theses changes have you jumping to conclusions without reading the entire posts.
From GM posts. Emphasis mine:
>>At some point in the next few days, the penalty for killing another player will be revisited. GM Ssra reduced the penalty for killing in order to balance the penalty for first strike. Since both have now been reduced, there will be a new consideration -- if you start a fight (first strike) and kill the target, the penalty will be greater than just the combination of murder and first strike...but still lower than it was before either set of tweaks.
>>- - You still only suffer first strike on somebody once. This means if you Stun Foe them, then hit them (or the reverse), there is not a second whammy to your soul. And the whammy is way, WAY less than it was before. Way less.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
Also: Moo.
I think you need to re-read how all this works. Your logic does not match with statments made by multiple GMs. I understand you ahve been fighting the good fight RE: soul hits and defensive use, but I think right now your emotions over theses changes have you jumping to conclusions without reading the entire posts.
From GM posts. Emphasis mine:
>>At some point in the next few days, the penalty for killing another player will be revisited. GM Ssra reduced the penalty for killing in order to balance the penalty for first strike. Since both have now been reduced, there will be a new consideration -- if you start a fight (first strike) and kill the target, the penalty will be greater than just the combination of murder and first strike...but still lower than it was before either set of tweaks.
>>- - You still only suffer first strike on somebody once. This means if you Stun Foe them, then hit them (or the reverse), there is not a second whammy to your soul. And the whammy is way, WAY less than it was before. Way less.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
Also: Moo.
<<I think right now your emotions over theses changes have you jumping to conclusions without reading the entire posts.
Fair point and well taken. Crap I am mad about this stuff. Who in the blazes is in our corner on anything anymore? I think that upsets me more than anything and I sure can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Fair point and well taken. Crap I am mad about this stuff. Who in the blazes is in our corner on anything anymore? I think that upsets me more than anything and I sure can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
> I suspect he's referring to the fact that any stun attack on you removes any first strike penalties from any attacks you may commit in response.
Bingo. We have a winner. First strike is tracked for everyone, not just paladins. Why? Not only for consent reasons should there be an assist, but so the system can tell if the paladin attacked first. If someone casts a hold on a paladin, they are flagged with first strike, which allows the paladin to retaliate without a penalty. Now the reverse is also true -- if the paladin casts a hold first, they just initiated the conflict via a first strike.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
Bingo. We have a winner. First strike is tracked for everyone, not just paladins. Why? Not only for consent reasons should there be an assist, but so the system can tell if the paladin attacked first. If someone casts a hold on a paladin, they are flagged with first strike, which allows the paladin to retaliate without a penalty. Now the reverse is also true -- if the paladin casts a hold first, they just initiated the conflict via a first strike.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
<<I'm with you. I just don't think they actually "get" paladins at all.
Wasn't that the point of some of the discussion recently? No one really has one single overarching idea of what a DR Paladin is or should be. I'd personally find it difficult to code abilities and the like for a guild without a clear background and purpose.
I am sad that some of the guild's most fervent players and defenders feel this way though. It really should be flashing warning lights to the PTB when folks like Madigan's player and you others are this upset.
I hope in a few days when emotions calm down there is increased discussion by the players and the GMs involved on how to properly move the guild forward again. Because we all know the Paladin guild needs some serious love.
- George, Player of Foresee
Wasn't that the point of some of the discussion recently? No one really has one single overarching idea of what a DR Paladin is or should be. I'd personally find it difficult to code abilities and the like for a guild without a clear background and purpose.
I am sad that some of the guild's most fervent players and defenders feel this way though. It really should be flashing warning lights to the PTB when folks like Madigan's player and you others are this upset.
I hope in a few days when emotions calm down there is increased discussion by the players and the GMs involved on how to properly move the guild forward again. Because we all know the Paladin guild needs some serious love.
- George, Player of Foresee
> Who in the blazes is in our corner on anything anymore?
Let's see...it takes 3-5 of the new first strikes to equal one of the old in terms of penalty, and you are seeing this as a step backwards? As long as you aren't running around halting (or stunning) people -for no reason-, I'm not sure I can see how this is anything but an overall positive move. If you are running around halting people for no reason, I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
Let's see...it takes 3-5 of the new first strikes to equal one of the old in terms of penalty, and you are seeing this as a step backwards? As long as you aren't running around halting (or stunning) people -for no reason-, I'm not sure I can see how this is anything but an overall positive move. If you are running around halting people for no reason, I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
>>Let's see...it takes 3-5 of the new first strikes to equal one of the old in terms of penalty, and you are seeing this as a step backwards? As long as you aren't running around halting (or stunning) people -for no reason-, I'm not sure I can see how this is anything but an overall positive move. If you are running around halting people for no reason, I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy.
Now that paladins are getting slammed with soul hits for this type of thing are non paladins still allowed to cast the spell at no cost?
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
Now that paladins are getting slammed with soul hits for this type of thing are non paladins still allowed to cast the spell at no cost?
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
I haven't tested against Stun Foe but if it can be used for a chain-stun (why would the GMs make it this way if they are against it?) then I think you guys came out of it pretty good. There's pretty much nowhere to go but up from here.
As for the soul hits... I believe Halt, Stun Foe, and any other disabler or attack should have a first strike penalty. After that, nothing else should activate. If the enemy disables or attacks in any way, Paladin should not get a first strike penalty for anything.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if first strike penalties are eliminated entirely.
Vinjince Rexem'lor
As for the soul hits... I believe Halt, Stun Foe, and any other disabler or attack should have a first strike penalty. After that, nothing else should activate. If the enemy disables or attacks in any way, Paladin should not get a first strike penalty for anything.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if first strike penalties are eliminated entirely.
Vinjince Rexem'lor
<<we all know the Paladin guild needs some serious love.>>
It's not just this, although no paladin would mind having the armor set, etc, looked at and made viable.
It's that it seems that many of the decisions that impact the guild just don't *make sense* to some of the "veteran" paladins.
For whatever reason, our guild was always cast under this ideal that for each bonus we get, there needs to be some kind of corresponding detriment. You can bonus x, but it takes away from y.
Divine Armor. Sentinel's Resolve. Righteous Wrath. Some of the spells were *so bad* that they were used as offensive spells just to put the penalty on other players.
We finally started to move away from that ideal. It seemed like we were getting abilities that were simply "bonuses" which didn't turn around and kick you in the ass when you use them.
This change to Halt is unnerving not because it's something new, but because it reminds us of something old. It reeks of the guild that we've wanted to leave behind for so long.
We don't need "love", we need understanding.
-Mr. Glemm
It's not just this, although no paladin would mind having the armor set, etc, looked at and made viable.
It's that it seems that many of the decisions that impact the guild just don't *make sense* to some of the "veteran" paladins.
For whatever reason, our guild was always cast under this ideal that for each bonus we get, there needs to be some kind of corresponding detriment. You can bonus x, but it takes away from y.
Divine Armor. Sentinel's Resolve. Righteous Wrath. Some of the spells were *so bad* that they were used as offensive spells just to put the penalty on other players.
We finally started to move away from that ideal. It seemed like we were getting abilities that were simply "bonuses" which didn't turn around and kick you in the ass when you use them.
This change to Halt is unnerving not because it's something new, but because it reminds us of something old. It reeks of the guild that we've wanted to leave behind for so long.
We don't need "love", we need understanding.
-Mr. Glemm
>>I haven't tested against Stun Foe but if it can be used for a chain-stun (why would the GMs make it this way if they are against it?) then I think you guys came out of it pretty good. There's pretty much nowhere to go but up from here.>>
I was just going to ask about chain stunning with Stun Foe until my stupid mouse that registers one click as two, closed all my windows.
Madigan, you realize there comes a price with having advancing/targetting/aiming count as first strike right? If so, if you ever advanced/aimed/targetted someone else without them striking first, you'd take a soul hit as well. You can't have all the benefits without consequences. You'd probably be better off dropping the argument on that subject before they implement what I just said.
I was just going to ask about chain stunning with Stun Foe until my stupid mouse that registers one click as two, closed all my windows.
Madigan, you realize there comes a price with having advancing/targetting/aiming count as first strike right? If so, if you ever advanced/aimed/targetted someone else without them striking first, you'd take a soul hit as well. You can't have all the benefits without consequences. You'd probably be better off dropping the argument on that subject before they implement what I just said.
<<Madigan, you realize there comes a price with having advancing/targetting/aiming count as first strike right? If so, if you ever advanced/aimed/targetted someone else without them striking first, you'd take a soul hit as well. You can't have all the benefits without consequences. You'd probably be better off dropping the argument on that subject before they implement what I just said.>>
... says the person who doesn't get it in the least bit.
I, for one, enjoy sitting there as a target until shot so that I can retaliate against an enemy without a soul hit.
-Mr. Glemm
... says the person who doesn't get it in the least bit.
I, for one, enjoy sitting there as a target until shot so that I can retaliate against an enemy without a soul hit.
-Mr. Glemm
>>Madigan, you realize there comes a price with having advancing/targetting/aiming count as first strike right? If so, if you ever advanced/aimed/targetted someone else without them striking first, you'd take a soul hit as well. You can't have all the benefits without consequences. You'd probably be better off dropping the argument on that subject before they implement what I just said.<<
Let me get this straight? You feel paladins would be WORSE off if they didn't get a soul hit for taking offensive actions against somebody that is threating them by any of the above actions vs standing around praying that they survive whatever shot they know is comming?
You can't be serious. Its like I'm in the twillight zone or something. I would take your so-called "consequences" anyday of week instead of the way things are right now.
~Silus
Smite first, ask questions later.
Let me get this straight? You feel paladins would be WORSE off if they didn't get a soul hit for taking offensive actions against somebody that is threating them by any of the above actions vs standing around praying that they survive whatever shot they know is comming?
You can't be serious. Its like I'm in the twillight zone or something. I would take your so-called "consequences" anyday of week instead of the way things are right now.
~Silus
Smite first, ask questions later.
>>Let me get this straight? You feel paladins would be WORSE off if they didn't get a soul hit for taking offensive actions against somebody that is threating them by any of the above actions vs standing around praying that they survive whatever shot they know is comming?>>
No. I said they'd be worse off if they received soul hits for advancing/targetting/aiming at people before the other person initiated first strike.
That would mean if you advanced Joe before Joe did anything. Bam, soul hit. If you aimed at Bob before casting halt. Soul hit. If you targetted Steve with a spell, soul hit.
You cannot ask for targetting/aiming/advancing to count as a first strike penalty against you (granting you the ability to cast spells/attack without taking a soul hit) without it being retroactive.
No. I said they'd be worse off if they received soul hits for advancing/targetting/aiming at people before the other person initiated first strike.
That would mean if you advanced Joe before Joe did anything. Bam, soul hit. If you aimed at Bob before casting halt. Soul hit. If you targetted Steve with a spell, soul hit.
You cannot ask for targetting/aiming/advancing to count as a first strike penalty against you (granting you the ability to cast spells/attack without taking a soul hit) without it being retroactive.
> You can't have all the benefits without consequences.
I think, in the end, this is the real problem. Once upon a time, paladins had more special abilities than any other spellcasting guild as part of the whole soulstate concept, so there was a bit more validity to the whole idea of penalties. Nowadays that isn't necessarily true.
On the flip side, most guilds that do have special abilities have conditions, costs, and penalties involved as well. Just not the same. So it's not like paladins are being singled out here. They are just...different.
On the same token, we are not talking about penalties that impact their entire gameplay, just the use of abilities tied to soulstate. The fact that these soul hits upset so many people indicate that these abilities do at least have some value, so we cannot exactly say there is no benefit to having soul.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. There are certain standards of behavior expected of paladins. One of those standards is that paladins do not go around starting fights anytime they feel like it, and if they do throw the first punch, there is going to be a price to pay, even if they felt they had just cause. That price is now substantially lower, but it is not going away. I realize there are serious problems with allowing someone else to strike first in PvP right now. I'm working on that. The days of "whoever hits first is going to win" are going away.
- 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, in the end, this is the real problem. Once upon a time, paladins had more special abilities than any other spellcasting guild as part of the whole soulstate concept, so there was a bit more validity to the whole idea of penalties. Nowadays that isn't necessarily true.
On the flip side, most guilds that do have special abilities have conditions, costs, and penalties involved as well. Just not the same. So it's not like paladins are being singled out here. They are just...different.
On the same token, we are not talking about penalties that impact their entire gameplay, just the use of abilities tied to soulstate. The fact that these soul hits upset so many people indicate that these abilities do at least have some value, so we cannot exactly say there is no benefit to having soul.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. There are certain standards of behavior expected of paladins. One of those standards is that paladins do not go around starting fights anytime they feel like it, and if they do throw the first punch, there is going to be a price to pay, even if they felt they had just cause. That price is now substantially lower, but it is not going away. I realize there are serious problems with allowing someone else to strike first in PvP right now. I'm working on that. The days of "whoever hits first is going to win" are going away.
- GM Dartenian
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford
<<The days of "whoever hits first is going to win" are going away.>>
Thanks for posting. 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.
Of course, the would-be attacker would see it if they looked/marked the paladin and it would be skill/stat based, but whatever.
Some of us just aren't in the best mood right now.
-Mr. Glemm
Thanks for posting. 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.
Of course, the would-be attacker would see it if they looked/marked the paladin and it would be skill/stat based, but whatever.
Some of us just aren't in the best mood right now.
-Mr. Glemm
