Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
<<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?
I don't think anyone really cares if halt goes through a barrier spell and it is ok if you apply this rule to halt in my eyes. It makes sense. I care about the soul hit and expansion of the first strike penalty. It looks to me like the soul hit was an unintended consequence of making halt offensive. Yeah, that bothers me.
<<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.
One the one hand you give a soul hit to a spell we have used for ohhh ten years without a soul hit, then you offer a watered down version of halt without a soul hit (and with the various other limitations such as calm). I hope you can see where that is not that attractive at least to me, when you can simply...ohh, not apply a soul hit to halt and we are done with the issue.
What exactly do you lose if you don't apply a soul hit to halt?
1. It impacts no other guild.
2. It does not change the fact you can apply the rule you want (i.e. barrier spells).
3. Halt obviously fits within the framework of the guild.
4. You actually give us more non-violent methods.
In short, you lose nothing and still meet your end state.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>>I don't think anyone really cares if halt goes through a barrier spell and it is ok if you apply this rule to halt in my eyes<<
It might be more accurate to say no one CASTING Halt cares if it goes through barrier spells.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d194/huldahspal/flyingcompany.png
It might be more accurate to say no one CASTING Halt cares if it goes through barrier spells.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d194/huldahspal/flyingcompany.png
>I care about the soul hit and expansion of the first strike penalty. It looks to me like the soul hit was an unintended consequence of making halt offensive. Yeah, that bothers me.
You tried this since it first strike was changed? Over in Plat I still have a pristine soul after one first strike with SF, the second will knock me down below, but two prayers on a badge gets me back to pristine. I'm not sure if you use Halt more than once an hour, but it seems as if the revised first strike penalty for disablers is rather manageable. For comparison, one first strike with SF before the change took me to grey, took a similarly circled Paladin with less charisma to dark.
Halt wasn't causing first strike over here when we did the testing, however.
You tried this since it first strike was changed? Over in Plat I still have a pristine soul after one first strike with SF, the second will knock me down below, but two prayers on a badge gets me back to pristine. I'm not sure if you use Halt more than once an hour, but it seems as if the revised first strike penalty for disablers is rather manageable. For comparison, one first strike with SF before the change took me to grey, took a similarly circled Paladin with less charisma to dark.
Halt wasn't causing first strike over here when we did the testing, however.
I think the crux of the issue is in regard to first strike, not soul hit. Soul hit is a result of first strike. Halt counts as first strike ergo it is a soul hit.
If you're arguing that halt shouldn't count as first strike then you have to apply that principle to every other ability like halt in the game. That includes a lot of abilities and I can guarantee that if some of those abilities were cast on you that you would want to retaliate without the retaliation itself counting as first strike.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
If you're arguing that halt shouldn't count as first strike then you have to apply that principle to every other ability like halt in the game. That includes a lot of abilities and I can guarantee that if some of those abilities were cast on you that you would want to retaliate without the retaliation itself counting as first strike.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
>> I can guarantee that if some of those abilities were cast on you that you would want to retaliate without the retaliation itself counting as first strike.
Halt needs to be an offensive spell because that's what it is. I don't think some people are grasping this.
Unless you want to change how first strike works so I can stand around Mental Blasting you all day without that counting as a first strike on my part. Hey, that's okay too.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
Halt needs to be an offensive spell because that's what it is. I don't think some people are grasping this.
Unless you want to change how first strike works so I can stand around Mental Blasting you all day without that counting as a first strike on my part. Hey, that's okay too.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
>>Unless you want to change how first strike works so I can stand around Mental Blasting you all day without that counting as a first strike on my part. Hey, that's okay too.
While accurate, Mental Blast is going to be an unfortunate comparison because some people will lock onto its potential to do nerve damage as a determining factor for offensiveness.
Chain-stunning them with Dazzle would be a cleaner example (Or PS. Or BB. Or, really, any other disabler in the game that is not MB).
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
While accurate, Mental Blast is going to be an unfortunate comparison because some people will lock onto its potential to do nerve damage as a determining factor for offensiveness.
Chain-stunning them with Dazzle would be a cleaner example (Or PS. Or BB. Or, really, any other disabler in the game that is not MB).
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
>>If you're arguing that halt shouldn't count as first strike then you have to apply that principle to every other ability like halt in the game. That includes a lot of abilities and I can guarantee that if some of those abilities were cast on you that you would want to retaliate without the retaliation itself counting as first strike.
Very good post.
Here's my question:
If a Paladin only wishes to stop a conflict/aggression, why would he/she need more than calm? The only possible reason I can come up with for a Paladin desiring Halt over Calm (if supposedly just trying to eliminate aggression) is if they plan on doing something offensive. Thus, it is flagged as an offensive spell and incurs the first strike penalty.
Here's my suggestion:
Give Paladins a new spell. Call it Righteous Will or whatever. Make it similar to SICK.
>>Madigan bows his head and chants a prayer
>>Madigan gestures at you as a stream of golden light pours out of his body.
>>You feel an overwhelming calm pass over you.
Roundtime: 8 seconds.
throw madiga
>>You begin to throw your mallet at Madigan before realizing it's not something a noble Paladin would do.
From there on, I'm calmed. But to make it unique, give it RT that comes around periodically. So after X amount of seconds.
>>You gaze at your hands in dismay, ashamed at the thought of wanting to harm another person.
Roundtime: 5 seconds.
The amount of success the Paladin has in casting the spell determines how severe the RT is. No OP abilities please thank you.
Vinjince Rexem'lor
Very good post.
Here's my question:
If a Paladin only wishes to stop a conflict/aggression, why would he/she need more than calm? The only possible reason I can come up with for a Paladin desiring Halt over Calm (if supposedly just trying to eliminate aggression) is if they plan on doing something offensive. Thus, it is flagged as an offensive spell and incurs the first strike penalty.
Here's my suggestion:
Give Paladins a new spell. Call it Righteous Will or whatever. Make it similar to SICK.
>>Madigan bows his head and chants a prayer
>>Madigan gestures at you as a stream of golden light pours out of his body.
>>You feel an overwhelming calm pass over you.
Roundtime: 8 seconds.
throw madiga
>>You begin to throw your mallet at Madigan before realizing it's not something a noble Paladin would do.
From there on, I'm calmed. But to make it unique, give it RT that comes around periodically. So after X amount of seconds.
>>You gaze at your hands in dismay, ashamed at the thought of wanting to harm another person.
Roundtime: 5 seconds.
The amount of success the Paladin has in casting the spell determines how severe the RT is. No OP abilities please thank you.
Vinjince Rexem'lor
Causing RT is still enough to be considered a 'First Strike'.
Calm alone isn't although it'd still contest barriers. It's fine to have nifty messaging periodically like that, but in order to avoid 'First Strike' the spell really needs to not do anything at all that would impair the target if they were under assault. Again remember it's a both ways thing. If RT isn't, then you being hit by SICK wouldn't let you bonk them either, etc etc.
The target should be able to just waltz away or stick around, and if they're attacked shouldn't have any defensive penalties or things forcing them there.
And as a previous poster mentioned, the penalty is really so much less it just kind of seems to be complaining for complaint's sake when nobody's experimented with it yet. If you really must halt somebody to keep them still, go ahead and do it and keep doing it, the hit will be fixable much faster and you probably will barely notice you got it.
On a side note: I got approval for making aim / target / advance count from the CE bosses, so I'll be working that in soon.
-Z
Calm alone isn't although it'd still contest barriers. It's fine to have nifty messaging periodically like that, but in order to avoid 'First Strike' the spell really needs to not do anything at all that would impair the target if they were under assault. Again remember it's a both ways thing. If RT isn't, then you being hit by SICK wouldn't let you bonk them either, etc etc.
The target should be able to just waltz away or stick around, and if they're attacked shouldn't have any defensive penalties or things forcing them there.
And as a previous poster mentioned, the penalty is really so much less it just kind of seems to be complaining for complaint's sake when nobody's experimented with it yet. If you really must halt somebody to keep them still, go ahead and do it and keep doing it, the hit will be fixable much faster and you probably will barely notice you got it.
On a side note: I got approval for making aim / target / advance count from the CE bosses, so I'll be working that in soon.
-Z
>>On a side note: I got approval for making aim / target / advance count from the CE bosses, so I'll be working that in soon.
Awesome, freaking awesome!
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
Awesome, freaking awesome!
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
Not that I want to push my luck here but what about FACE? Why would anyone face without desire to perform harm? All three of those make you auto-face your objective.
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
Vindicator Adakin of Prime
WorldsBestMagic Kastr of TF
"The Key To Immortality Is Living A Life Worth Remembering."
"Killing Time Murders Opportunities."
<<On a side note: I got approval for making aim / target / advance count from the CE bosses, so I'll be working that in soon.
That is awesome. Much easier for me to take this change with some flexibility on the downside of having the penalty.
<<And as a previous poster mentioned, the penalty is really so much less it just kind of seems to be complaining for complaint's sake when nobody's experimented with it yet. If you really must halt somebody to keep them still, go ahead and do it and keep doing it, the hit will be fixable much faster and you probably will barely notice you got it.
Not at all complaining to complain. I believe the change (concerning the soul hit) is unnecessary and I have posted why. The reasoning is sound and restated below.
Most if not all of my complaints initially are resolved, and I thank you very much for dealing with those (multi-soul hits for one action, the aspect of advancing, targetting and aiming). That is great.
Is the change necessary? Still absolutely not in my opinion:
1. You are predetermining the intent of the paladin with the soul hit on the disabler. Seb provided some excellent posts on this issue.
If we take the extension of your line of reasoning to an extreme, I cast courage before I go kill someone. I think everyone can agree that should not be a soul hit. However, an argument can be made that predetermining our intent is easy in this situation. An extreme example, I readily admit but ideally it shows (in my opinion) the flaw in the rational.
2. You can protect the intent of the first strike penalty by making it apply on the actual action of physical violence.
3. Your removal of the soul hit with halt impacts no other guild.
4. Ultimately, clerics can use halt better and in more instances than paladins. Hey good for clerics so not knocking them. This is not an issue of more skill, but merely and issue of applying the soul hit to halt.
So, we are left with why? My impressions are:
1. It is hard to pull soul hit out of the offensive flag now created.
Ok, I get this. If this is the case, then not a big deal. Probably not the best use of resources to spend a ton of time fixing a soul hit issue if you make the soul hit low enough. I can live with that answer.
2. From a guild standpoint, we want any action that is not in defense to take a soul hit.
Now, this goes to the core of the guild and I absolutely disagree with this approach and I would like an open discussion before we really get too far out on this type of issue. I may end up in the minority, but at least the guild had a chance to discuss the issue.
3. Meh, just suck it up. We changed it the way we want it and we can change it back...but no.
That is a bit hard to swallow. Especially if it is (i) easy to switch off and (ii) doesn't really impact anyone or the ultimate goal of the change (i.e. the barrier spell thing).
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
That is awesome. Much easier for me to take this change with some flexibility on the downside of having the penalty.
<<And as a previous poster mentioned, the penalty is really so much less it just kind of seems to be complaining for complaint's sake when nobody's experimented with it yet. If you really must halt somebody to keep them still, go ahead and do it and keep doing it, the hit will be fixable much faster and you probably will barely notice you got it.
Not at all complaining to complain. I believe the change (concerning the soul hit) is unnecessary and I have posted why. The reasoning is sound and restated below.
Most if not all of my complaints initially are resolved, and I thank you very much for dealing with those (multi-soul hits for one action, the aspect of advancing, targetting and aiming). That is great.
Is the change necessary? Still absolutely not in my opinion:
1. You are predetermining the intent of the paladin with the soul hit on the disabler. Seb provided some excellent posts on this issue.
If we take the extension of your line of reasoning to an extreme, I cast courage before I go kill someone. I think everyone can agree that should not be a soul hit. However, an argument can be made that predetermining our intent is easy in this situation. An extreme example, I readily admit but ideally it shows (in my opinion) the flaw in the rational.
2. You can protect the intent of the first strike penalty by making it apply on the actual action of physical violence.
3. Your removal of the soul hit with halt impacts no other guild.
4. Ultimately, clerics can use halt better and in more instances than paladins. Hey good for clerics so not knocking them. This is not an issue of more skill, but merely and issue of applying the soul hit to halt.
So, we are left with why? My impressions are:
1. It is hard to pull soul hit out of the offensive flag now created.
Ok, I get this. If this is the case, then not a big deal. Probably not the best use of resources to spend a ton of time fixing a soul hit issue if you make the soul hit low enough. I can live with that answer.
2. From a guild standpoint, we want any action that is not in defense to take a soul hit.
Now, this goes to the core of the guild and I absolutely disagree with this approach and I would like an open discussion before we really get too far out on this type of issue. I may end up in the minority, but at least the guild had a chance to discuss the issue.
3. Meh, just suck it up. We changed it the way we want it and we can change it back...but no.
That is a bit hard to swallow. Especially if it is (i) easy to switch off and (ii) doesn't really impact anyone or the ultimate goal of the change (i.e. the barrier spell thing).
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Madigan are you or are you not comfortable with the idea of me being able to stand there and chain stun you for ten minutes with Dazzle, and you still incurring a first strike penalty when you snap out of it and hit me back?
And you bring up Seb's posts but Seb also said that a calm spell would suffice to replace Halt's use as a conflict diffuser. Do you disagree with this, and if so why?
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
And you bring up Seb's posts but Seb also said that a calm spell would suffice to replace Halt's use as a conflict diffuser. Do you disagree with this, and if so why?
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
Reene: I don't mind answering your questions, but why do you care whether we have a soul hit on halt or not?
<<Madigan are you or are you not comfortable with the idea of me being able to stand there and chain stun you for ten minutes with Dazzle, and you still incurring a first strike penalty when you snap out of it and hit me back?
For me it is damage or a clear intent to do harm (aim, advance or fire). Dazzle does no damage (I think), so the answer is no. If dazzle does damage (or rather has the potential to do damage), then the answer is yes.
<<And you bring up Seb's posts but Seb also said that a calm spell would suffice to replace Halt's use as a conflict diffuser. Do you disagree with this, and if so why?
I don't think a watered down version of halt is the answer, although I do like this idea very much if halt is going to retain a soul hit.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
<<Madigan are you or are you not comfortable with the idea of me being able to stand there and chain stun you for ten minutes with Dazzle, and you still incurring a first strike penalty when you snap out of it and hit me back?
For me it is damage or a clear intent to do harm (aim, advance or fire). Dazzle does no damage (I think), so the answer is no. If dazzle does damage (or rather has the potential to do damage), then the answer is yes.
<<And you bring up Seb's posts but Seb also said that a calm spell would suffice to replace Halt's use as a conflict diffuser. Do you disagree with this, and if so why?
I don't think a watered down version of halt is the answer, although I do like this idea very much if halt is going to retain a soul hit.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>> Reene: I don't mind answering your questions, but why do you care whether we have a soul hit on halt or not?
If my angsty posting regarding the REPENT mechanics wasn't enough of an indication, I actually do have a decently circled Paladin that I haven't touched in a long time.
That, and I understand why it is how it is. This is better than the alternative, IMO, and I don't understand why you are so upset by what is (to me) a net gain for Paladins.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
If my angsty posting regarding the REPENT mechanics wasn't enough of an indication, I actually do have a decently circled Paladin that I haven't touched in a long time.
That, and I understand why it is how it is. This is better than the alternative, IMO, and I don't understand why you are so upset by what is (to me) a net gain for Paladins.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
<<If my angsty posting regarding the REPENT mechanics wasn't enough of an indication, I actually do have a decently circled Paladin that I haven't touched in a long time.
Gotcha. Repent is one weird deal. I feel your pain.
<<That, and I understand why it is how it is. This is better than the alternative, IMO, and I don't understand why you are so upset by what is (to me) a net gain for Paladins.
Fair enough. I see it a bit different but let me also say that the changes after the release is making it look pretty good. I am especially happy to see aim, advance and target open up.
I am still not comfortable with the predetermination of intent (i.e. Seb's well discussed argument). And, I do not like the idea of expanding first strike in general. In light of the current game environment, it puts paladins at a real disadvantage.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
Gotcha. Repent is one weird deal. I feel your pain.
<<That, and I understand why it is how it is. This is better than the alternative, IMO, and I don't understand why you are so upset by what is (to me) a net gain for Paladins.
Fair enough. I see it a bit different but let me also say that the changes after the release is making it look pretty good. I am especially happy to see aim, advance and target open up.
I am still not comfortable with the predetermination of intent (i.e. Seb's well discussed argument). And, I do not like the idea of expanding first strike in general. In light of the current game environment, it puts paladins at a real disadvantage.
Madigan
Paladin Motto 2009 "You can kill us, but you can't eat us."
>I don't understand why you are so upset by what is (to me) a net gain for Paladins.
I believe it is largely a matter of perception. Do you remember when the GMs gave stealth actions a thematically appropriate nighttime bonus and many stealth-oriented players subsequently complained about the new daytime stealth penalty? Even when we gain, some of us think we've lost. We see the target, we mark the goal, we desire the optimal end. Anything short is detrimental. Mortalkind does focus overmuch on the negative in life.
~Innocence lost, ignorance slain.
I'm a self-loathing narcissist. It's a love-hate relationship.
I believe it is largely a matter of perception. Do you remember when the GMs gave stealth actions a thematically appropriate nighttime bonus and many stealth-oriented players subsequently complained about the new daytime stealth penalty? Even when we gain, some of us think we've lost. We see the target, we mark the goal, we desire the optimal end. Anything short is detrimental. Mortalkind does focus overmuch on the negative in life.
~Innocence lost, ignorance slain.
I'm a self-loathing narcissist. It's a love-hate relationship.
>>>I believe it is largely a matter of perception. Do you remember when the GMs gave stealth actions a thematically appropriate nighttime bonus and many stealth-oriented players subsequently complained about the new daytime stealth penalty? Even when we gain, some of us think we've lost. We see the target, we mark the goal, we desire the optimal end. Anything short is detrimental. Mortalkind does focus overmuch on the negative in life.
The only downside here is that you can't use Halt to avoid combat without a soul hit but Z has already offered to make another spell that will do that so really, there's no downside.
The only downside here is that you can't use Halt to avoid combat without a soul hit but Z has already offered to make another spell that will do that so really, there's no downside.
>>offered to make another spell
>meh.. I would rather take the soul hit as a Paladin then waste a spell slot on a calm spell.
Or just make BoT castable at someone. >Cast does the same as it does now, >Cast (person) makes it a single target calm spell. No reason to make a new spell (and use another spell slot).
>meh.. I would rather take the soul hit as a Paladin then waste a spell slot on a calm spell.
Or just make BoT castable at someone. >Cast does the same as it does now, >Cast (person) makes it a single target calm spell. No reason to make a new spell (and use another spell slot).
glyph of calm would be very suitable.
in fact, I can think of a very suitable type quest for it. To whom would I address the suggestion?
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.
in fact, I can think of a very suitable type quest for it. To whom would I address the suggestion?
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.
I'm gonna have to vote for spell. Just seems more fair that way for everyone else. Also, if that's not the paladins style, he doesn't have to choose that spell. Ideally banner would have two options, cast (target) for a single calm, or just cast for normal room. Also, while it's being tweaked/rewritten, being able to cancel it would be great. Not sure if that'll ever happen, but thems my votes.
DRPrime - Celeres Turrance
DRPrime - Celeres Turrance
I always felt that glyphs when traced upon our person should be protective and enhancing... when cast upon an area they should be beneficial and when traced upon an opponent they should be preventative... with that in mind the glyph of calm is plausable... now with that said...
I feel like a guild should not have all types of debuffers... if everyone has everything then why bother making a distinction between the ways the flow are utilized differently by guilds at all... I liked how paladins had nifty Niche spells that were original and differant from other guilds.... like Holy Warrior, Rutilor's edge and Crusader's challenge. Let's keep that idea going and get over this -cast a spell on you without penalty- business. If you wanna use calm... well then brush up on your magical devices and the workings of lunar magics. And if a moonmage wants to raise their intelligence... they should ask for a cast of Divine guidance from a paladin.
Oh and watch for exploding limbs... Yeah... that part should go away... but Nothing ends a fight in a more humorous fashion then blowing off your own arms after rubbing an aveas runestone.
I feel like a guild should not have all types of debuffers... if everyone has everything then why bother making a distinction between the ways the flow are utilized differently by guilds at all... I liked how paladins had nifty Niche spells that were original and differant from other guilds.... like Holy Warrior, Rutilor's edge and Crusader's challenge. Let's keep that idea going and get over this -cast a spell on you without penalty- business. If you wanna use calm... well then brush up on your magical devices and the workings of lunar magics. And if a moonmage wants to raise their intelligence... they should ask for a cast of Divine guidance from a paladin.
Oh and watch for exploding limbs... Yeah... that part should go away... but Nothing ends a fight in a more humorous fashion then blowing off your own arms after rubbing an aveas runestone.
>> If you wanna use calm... well then brush up on your magical devices and the workings of lunar magics. And if a moonmage wants to raise their intelligence... they should ask for a cast of Divine guidance from a paladin.
Except for the part where Paladins already have an AoE calm spell and Moon Mages actually have an intelligence booster.
Status effects or stat boosts are not subject to guild monopolies nor should they be.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
Except for the part where Paladins already have an AoE calm spell and Moon Mages actually have an intelligence booster.
Status effects or stat boosts are not subject to guild monopolies nor should they be.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
>didn't realize moonmages could boost intelligence...
Only with a certain amount of annoying spell mechanics and while giving up the ability to boost what many see as more beneficial stats in a lot of situations.
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Invocation_of_Energy
>Moonmages really do get just about everything don't they... heh.
No. Moon Mage grass always being greener is simply a skin-deep illusion.
>well you only have 180 stance points so Nyah!
Moon Mages get 1 extra defense stance point for every 20 circles if that's what you were talking about.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
Only with a certain amount of annoying spell mechanics and while giving up the ability to boost what many see as more beneficial stats in a lot of situations.
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Invocation_of_Energy
>Moonmages really do get just about everything don't they... heh.
No. Moon Mage grass always being greener is simply a skin-deep illusion.
>well you only have 180 stance points so Nyah!
Moon Mages get 1 extra defense stance point for every 20 circles if that's what you were talking about.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
>>Moon Mages get 1 extra defense stance point for every 20 circles if that's what you were talking about.
No, he/she's talking about Holy Warrior, which gives us an additional 60 defensive stance points.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
Trinean says, "He's tougher than Dametri."
No, he/she's talking about Holy Warrior, which gives us an additional 60 defensive stance points.
- Sir Korsik Rippentropp, Most Noble Paladine
Crusader against the Innocent
Defender of All That is Wrong
Trinean says, "He's tougher than Dametri."
