Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Why you so bad?
Please fix!
Thanks! =)
Seriously... I haven't considered using a shield on a character since GSIV started.
Basically, in GSIV offense > defense. The use of shields lessens offensive ability. So, a player is generally placed within the counter-intuitive scenario where in they choose to use a shield (for defense) and generally die more frequently because they are less apt at killing. Also, using shields doesn't really keep anyone safe from the biggest threats that characters face - spells and maneuvers. Yes, there's a bit of a bonus here for this, and a bit of a bonus there for that (to be really vague but mostly accurate).
I can think of a couple of things that could possibly change this.
1) Make stance dependent DS without a shield suffer greater than it presently does.
2) Make shields protect more thoroughly, by re-scaling the bonuses and granting them laterally across all defensive stats and mechanics (yes even TD and maneuvers). Perhaps even allowing them to grant DF reduction, like wearing plate, or having redux to a degree.
3) Up the 'block' formula for EBP. Aside from a few gross exaggerations where some folks have 3x shield use on a warrior with block mastery and self-cast 1609, the whole concept of 'block' in EBP is terribly underwhelming as it stands.
Thanks for reading! =)
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. - Albert Einstein
It's rare I agree but I have to say, that post sums it up pretty directly.
Shields are useless, unless you are a pure, and even then it is questionable if the cost is worth it. I've switched away from shield use on all my characters except for my paladin, whom has about a good inch of dust on him. The game is so offensively driven as to make shield value approach zero. There simply is no real tanking anymore because something will bypass your ability to tank in the time your lack of offense provides.
~Galenok
Shields are useless, unless you are a pure, and even then it is questionable if the cost is worth it. I've switched away from shield use on all my characters except for my paladin, whom has about a good inch of dust on him. The game is so offensively driven as to make shield value approach zero. There simply is no real tanking anymore because something will bypass your ability to tank in the time your lack of offense provides.
~Galenok
Strange enough, I was thinking about this the other and I agree 100%.
There are very few reasons to use a shield.
The main reason being your best DEFENSE is an unstoppable OFFENSE.
I don't think the whole issue is with shields though, some of the issue is what's in your other hand.
OHE's are mostly crap weapons and nobody wants to plink away at a creature.
Scimitar, Rapier, Estoc.
These weapons need to become faster, and possibly hit a little harder.
It's my belief that most people in the game use the same weapons.
Bow
Claidhmore
Lance
Maul
Handaxe
Falchion
Dagger
Short Sword
That leaves a whole lot of other weapons in the not wanted category.
Creature armors may have something to do with it too.
In Ta'Vaalor everything wears chain/plate with armor protection.
Level 10 creatures in plate, NOT A GOOD IDEA.
It's my belief that most people in the game use the same weapons.
Bow
Claidhmore
Lance
Maul
Handaxe
Falchion
Dagger
Short Sword
Let's see... for my characters that don't use a runestave, I use:
Light crossbow
Greataxe
Warsword
Shortsword and dagger (TWC ambushing rogue)
Katana
knee-basher (aka mace)
troll-claws
Broadsword
All of them seem to work quite well. Only one of my characters seems to use anything from your 'wanted' list.
-- Robert
Bow
Claidhmore
Lance
Maul
Handaxe
Falchion
Dagger
Short Sword
Let's see... for my characters that don't use a runestave, I use:
Light crossbow
Greataxe
Warsword
Shortsword and dagger (TWC ambushing rogue)
Katana
knee-basher (aka mace)
troll-claws
Broadsword
All of them seem to work quite well. Only one of my characters seems to use anything from your 'wanted' list.
-- Robert
Robert, I think there are many instances where you simply enjoy playing (and being) the devil's advocate. There will always be outliers and you are simply one of them. Fortunately, this was qualified for in the original statement with "most."
The list is probably 60-75% accurate across the board...and it represents about 10-15% of the total weapon choices, maybe. That's a big skew. What it says is that most players who put mechanics before roleplay go with the list. That's not to say that some weapons are underrated. Many are including your broadsword, one of the most underutilized weapons in the game. Very few use a light crossbow. I guess anything aimed at an eye will work if it hits.
However, you can base it on sales over any claims of effectiveness. What sells is that list because that is the list of weapons in demand. Even the overvalued claidhmore is in some decline of late. I do think the list should include the morning star and the fist-scythe since they are the weapons in demand in their class, at least.
~Galenok
The list is probably 60-75% accurate across the board...and it represents about 10-15% of the total weapon choices, maybe. That's a big skew. What it says is that most players who put mechanics before roleplay go with the list. That's not to say that some weapons are underrated. Many are including your broadsword, one of the most underutilized weapons in the game. Very few use a light crossbow. I guess anything aimed at an eye will work if it hits.
However, you can base it on sales over any claims of effectiveness. What sells is that list because that is the list of weapons in demand. Even the overvalued claidhmore is in some decline of late. I do think the list should include the morning star and the fist-scythe since they are the weapons in demand in their class, at least.
~Galenok
Robert, I think there are many instances where you simply enjoy playing (and being) the devil's advocate. There will always be outliers and you are simply one of them. Fortunately, this was qualified for in the original statement with "most."
The list is probably 60-75% accurate across the board...and it represents about 10-15% of the total weapon choices, maybe. That's a big skew. What it says is that most players who put mechanics before roleplay go with the list. That's not to say that some weapons are underrated. Many are including your broadsword, one of the most underutilized weapons in the game. Very few use a light crossbow. I guess anything aimed at an eye will work if it hits.
However, you can base it on sales over any claims of effectiveness. What sells is that list because that is the list of weapons in demand. Even the overvalued claidhmore is in some decline of late. I do think the list should include the morning star and the fist-scythe since they are the weapons in demand in their class, at least.
Granted I do enjoy playing (and being) devil's advocate in many cases. That said, let's look at some of the statements being made:
"More variety and value in OHEs wouldn't be bad. My TWC ambushing rogue uses handaxes or daggers, with nothing else being worthwhile."
Shortsword and broadsword are both excellent and worthwhile alternatives to dagger and handaxes for a TWC ambushing rogue. Maybe many/most people choose not to use them but they both work very well. If by variety we mean making more weapons mechanically the same then that seems kind of pointless to me.
A lot of folks like to min/max their stats to a certain style of play - there are certainly specific weapons that will mechanically compliment these styles of play under those circumstances. Should we alter weapons in general to favor the style of play that is in vogue or does it make sense that we have weapons that suit other styles of play as well?
Alternatively, if by variety we are talking about truly expanding on what we can do with certain weapons, I think this could add a new and exciting element to the game.
"Scimitar, Rapier, Estoc.
These weapons need to become faster, and possibly hit a little harder."
These weapons are pretty uninteresting at present outside of RP opportunities. I don't agree that the solution is to necessarily make them faster/hit harder (see commentary on simply making more weapons mechanically the same). Let's come up with some interesting ideas that 1) make sense for the weapons and 2) make them more interesting to use in the game. Introducing more weapon specific manuevers (such as TRIP with a polearm or runesaff) might be a fun approach to take - I recall some suggestions relating to net and bolas? being posted awhile back. What are some interesting things that might make sense to introduce for rapiers or estocs?
"There are very few reasons to use a shield.
The main reason being your best DEFENSE is an unstoppable OFFENSE."
"Shields are useless, unless you are a pure, and even then it is questionable if the cost is worth it."
Like weapons and spells I guess this is more situational than anything. There are certainly a number of creatures (especially towards cap) where the best strategy is to kill or disable them as quickly as possible. This doesn't necessarily transalate into using the largest and most mechanically advantaged weapon. Strategy and tactics go a long way towards success and survivability in hunting - it's pretty rare that any of my characters die (at least not with any frequency) despite that fact that I choose to hunt using 'inferior' and unpopular weapons. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that I do place a lot of value on defense and defensive skills vs. going 150% offense. I haven't done any kind of analytical comparison of the pros and cons of using a shield, but the shield user I have (a paladin) is pretty darned near invincible under most circumstances. My two-hander wielding warrior, while certainly more straight up offensive, definitely finds himself making a strategic retreat to heal up with much greater frequency. Said another way, shields seem to do a bang up job of making you harder to kill and keeping you in the thick of it vs. not having them. No offense is unstoppable all the time and when it fails shields seem to make a noticable difference. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement - but it doesn't mean that shields are broken or useless and in need of improvement simply because most folks prefer the offensive style of play - shield play works well also.
With regards to crossbow - the initial driver for my choice was RP driven - and crossbows do suffer from some mechanical downsides as compared to bows. Interestingly, I am finding that my one shot kill results seem to be a lot higher than other archers are reporting in my training range using a bow. Is this random luck - possibly - but at this point I'd go out on a limb and say that maybe the popular wisdom that crossbows are just plain inferior isn't completely accurate.
The list presented probably is a good representation of the popular weapons. My original post could have been presented better as I was primarily responding to the 'not wanted' statement more than the list itself. I don't know that weapon popularity would be a good driver (by itself) for making changes - in some cases it may be warranted - in other cases it may just be that these unpopular weapons are better suited to a style of play that isn't utilized by most at present.
-- Robert
The list is probably 60-75% accurate across the board...and it represents about 10-15% of the total weapon choices, maybe. That's a big skew. What it says is that most players who put mechanics before roleplay go with the list. That's not to say that some weapons are underrated. Many are including your broadsword, one of the most underutilized weapons in the game. Very few use a light crossbow. I guess anything aimed at an eye will work if it hits.
However, you can base it on sales over any claims of effectiveness. What sells is that list because that is the list of weapons in demand. Even the overvalued claidhmore is in some decline of late. I do think the list should include the morning star and the fist-scythe since they are the weapons in demand in their class, at least.
Granted I do enjoy playing (and being) devil's advocate in many cases. That said, let's look at some of the statements being made:
"More variety and value in OHEs wouldn't be bad. My TWC ambushing rogue uses handaxes or daggers, with nothing else being worthwhile."
Shortsword and broadsword are both excellent and worthwhile alternatives to dagger and handaxes for a TWC ambushing rogue. Maybe many/most people choose not to use them but they both work very well. If by variety we mean making more weapons mechanically the same then that seems kind of pointless to me.
A lot of folks like to min/max their stats to a certain style of play - there are certainly specific weapons that will mechanically compliment these styles of play under those circumstances. Should we alter weapons in general to favor the style of play that is in vogue or does it make sense that we have weapons that suit other styles of play as well?
Alternatively, if by variety we are talking about truly expanding on what we can do with certain weapons, I think this could add a new and exciting element to the game.
"Scimitar, Rapier, Estoc.
These weapons need to become faster, and possibly hit a little harder."
These weapons are pretty uninteresting at present outside of RP opportunities. I don't agree that the solution is to necessarily make them faster/hit harder (see commentary on simply making more weapons mechanically the same). Let's come up with some interesting ideas that 1) make sense for the weapons and 2) make them more interesting to use in the game. Introducing more weapon specific manuevers (such as TRIP with a polearm or runesaff) might be a fun approach to take - I recall some suggestions relating to net and bolas? being posted awhile back. What are some interesting things that might make sense to introduce for rapiers or estocs?
"There are very few reasons to use a shield.
The main reason being your best DEFENSE is an unstoppable OFFENSE."
"Shields are useless, unless you are a pure, and even then it is questionable if the cost is worth it."
Like weapons and spells I guess this is more situational than anything. There are certainly a number of creatures (especially towards cap) where the best strategy is to kill or disable them as quickly as possible. This doesn't necessarily transalate into using the largest and most mechanically advantaged weapon. Strategy and tactics go a long way towards success and survivability in hunting - it's pretty rare that any of my characters die (at least not with any frequency) despite that fact that I choose to hunt using 'inferior' and unpopular weapons. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that I do place a lot of value on defense and defensive skills vs. going 150% offense. I haven't done any kind of analytical comparison of the pros and cons of using a shield, but the shield user I have (a paladin) is pretty darned near invincible under most circumstances. My two-hander wielding warrior, while certainly more straight up offensive, definitely finds himself making a strategic retreat to heal up with much greater frequency. Said another way, shields seem to do a bang up job of making you harder to kill and keeping you in the thick of it vs. not having them. No offense is unstoppable all the time and when it fails shields seem to make a noticable difference. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement - but it doesn't mean that shields are broken or useless and in need of improvement simply because most folks prefer the offensive style of play - shield play works well also.
With regards to crossbow - the initial driver for my choice was RP driven - and crossbows do suffer from some mechanical downsides as compared to bows. Interestingly, I am finding that my one shot kill results seem to be a lot higher than other archers are reporting in my training range using a bow. Is this random luck - possibly - but at this point I'd go out on a limb and say that maybe the popular wisdom that crossbows are just plain inferior isn't completely accurate.
The list presented probably is a good representation of the popular weapons. My original post could have been presented better as I was primarily responding to the 'not wanted' statement more than the list itself. I don't know that weapon popularity would be a good driver (by itself) for making changes - in some cases it may be warranted - in other cases it may just be that these unpopular weapons are better suited to a style of play that isn't utilized by most at present.
-- Robert
I'm curious what your purpose within this thread is, PEREGRINEFALCON.
Mine is to discuss and attempt to foster an attitude of improvement towards shields.
This is a thread about shields and their deficiencies and ways to improve them.
Please consider contributing with your next post. =)
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. - Albert Einstein
Mine is to discuss and attempt to foster an attitude of improvement towards shields.
This is a thread about shields and their deficiencies and ways to improve them.
Please consider contributing with your next post. =)
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. - Albert Einstein
>>Mine is to discuss and attempt to foster an attitude of improvement towards shields.
All thread contributions are not being held to the same standard, which is not tolerable. When the weapons were brought up tangentially, the thread veered from purpose. If a shenanigans must be called, call it properly, I always say.
On shields -- I'd be happy to receive such benefits. Shields do need some love. The root cause of the need, however, seems whacked.
>>Basically, in GSIV offense > defense.
If this is the best root cause in support of shield improvements, I'm afraid this will be marked up as -- Resubmit in 90 days for final disapproval. The reason for my perspective is that, quite simply, many things would have to be looked at with shields in order to address this problem statement.
Oddly, Robert's post points out this very weakness. We might not have gotten this far without the weapons derailing and Robert's contribution. Which might suggest that the shenanigans call is premature in addition to being improperly ascribed -- after all, the proposal can be made all the stronger if the 'dissenting voice' is actually accounted for, incorporated and bought in with the change.
Unless that's not really important here, in which case I'll call shenanigans. Vicious circle. But, on with the improvements!
Can shield improvements not exist simply for the sake of shield improvements?
I especially like the suggestion about providing protections against maneuvers and TD / redux. Maneuvers might be problematic in one on one scenarios, but with a team (2 or more) of shield wielders, side-by-side as one example might should get a significant boost. TD boost might should be considered based on range, with the only possible better TD boost output granted to ranged / polearm wielders.
And do shields do 'damage padding' reductions on attacks at all? Why not? Perhaps it should have a sliding scale effect between zero (on failure) and heavy (normalized around somewhat to heavy). After all, even in a successful hit, the shield should be absorbing some damage.
Can we get confirmation of our opinion that no one carries a shield anymore? I suspect we won't like the answer, as it derails parts of our supportive argument.
But dammit. . . we just want shields to be useful!
Doug
All thread contributions are not being held to the same standard, which is not tolerable. When the weapons were brought up tangentially, the thread veered from purpose. If a shenanigans must be called, call it properly, I always say.
On shields -- I'd be happy to receive such benefits. Shields do need some love. The root cause of the need, however, seems whacked.
>>Basically, in GSIV offense > defense.
If this is the best root cause in support of shield improvements, I'm afraid this will be marked up as -- Resubmit in 90 days for final disapproval. The reason for my perspective is that, quite simply, many things would have to be looked at with shields in order to address this problem statement.
Oddly, Robert's post points out this very weakness. We might not have gotten this far without the weapons derailing and Robert's contribution. Which might suggest that the shenanigans call is premature in addition to being improperly ascribed -- after all, the proposal can be made all the stronger if the 'dissenting voice' is actually accounted for, incorporated and bought in with the change.
Unless that's not really important here, in which case I'll call shenanigans. Vicious circle. But, on with the improvements!
Can shield improvements not exist simply for the sake of shield improvements?
I especially like the suggestion about providing protections against maneuvers and TD / redux. Maneuvers might be problematic in one on one scenarios, but with a team (2 or more) of shield wielders, side-by-side as one example might should get a significant boost. TD boost might should be considered based on range, with the only possible better TD boost output granted to ranged / polearm wielders.
And do shields do 'damage padding' reductions on attacks at all? Why not? Perhaps it should have a sliding scale effect between zero (on failure) and heavy (normalized around somewhat to heavy). After all, even in a successful hit, the shield should be absorbing some damage.
Can we get confirmation of our opinion that no one carries a shield anymore? I suspect we won't like the answer, as it derails parts of our supportive argument.
But dammit. . . we just want shields to be useful!
Doug
"Basically, in GSIV offense > defense. The use of shields lessens offensive ability. So, a player is generally placed within the counter-intuitive scenario where in they choose to use a shield (for defense) and generally die more frequently because they are less apt at killing."
I'm having difficulty buying into your basic premise that shield users in GS die more frequently. My experience has been that for characters that were having survivability issues, their survivability improved when they switched to using a shield. Are you primarily looking for improvement towards the high end of hunting or do you feel there is a deficiency across all character levels with regard to a shields ability to defend?
1) Make stance dependent DS without a shield suffer greater than it presently does.
What you are basically saying here is "Make everything not involving shields more dangerous so shield usage would be more appealing." Would it make more sense to simply provide a larger DS bonus to shields or is the thought here that by increasing the overall risk to hunting, defensive options such as a shield would be more appealing?
2) Make shields protect more thoroughly, by re-scaling the bonuses and granting them laterally across all defensive stats and mechanics (yes even TD and maneuvers). Perhaps even allowing them to grant DF reduction, like wearing plate, or having redux to a degree.
For mechanics like physical DF reduction and redux its sort of already built in, isn't it? If you block with your shield you don't take any damage, if your block was unsuccessful then the shield wasn't in the right place and probably shouldn't be a factor. Would a block system that scales damage vs. mitigate hits be preferable? A damage reduction factor could be applied based on the success of the block - shield users would likely get hit more frequently under these circumstance but any individual hit would generally be less severe. You could likely also expect to see an increased block rate using a system along these lines. The major down-side I see to using scaled damage for block is that a lot of critters have mechanics that rely on a hit/no-hit concept that would need to be reviewed. My favorite example of this are the arctic manticores that can frequently hit you for 1 point of damage and then cause your head to explode from the ensuing cold crit.
3) Up the 'block' formula for EBP. Aside from a few gross exaggerations where some folks have 3x shield use on a warrior with block mastery and self-cast 1609, the whole concept of 'block' in EBP is terribly underwhelming as it stands.
Assuming we agree that the current block rate is too low, what do you feel is a reasonable 'like level' block success rate when using a shield?
One additional suggestion I can add to the mix would be to introduce some sort of aura capability for shields into the game. Make this a mechanic that is reasonably achievable with some effort (i.e. more common than a major raffle win) through forging, alchemy, a new spell, a specialy NPC, a common merchant, etc. You could pretty much go wild with this but some basic examples would be:
- elemental defense (offers some basic level of damage reduction or save vs. a given element)
- magical defense (increased warding against spiritual/elemental/mental, a specific spell circle, a specific spell - the more specific the better the protection offered).
- offensive aura (Increase AS, increase DF, etc)
- defensive aura (increase to block %, increase DS, increase DF)
- enhancement (increase a strength, increase health - already available via enhancives so maybe redundant)
For the above suggestion, I would be curious to know if you feel that something along these lines would be enough to mitigate the perceived downside to shield usage?
-- Robert
I'm having difficulty buying into your basic premise that shield users in GS die more frequently. My experience has been that for characters that were having survivability issues, their survivability improved when they switched to using a shield. Are you primarily looking for improvement towards the high end of hunting or do you feel there is a deficiency across all character levels with regard to a shields ability to defend?
1) Make stance dependent DS without a shield suffer greater than it presently does.
What you are basically saying here is "Make everything not involving shields more dangerous so shield usage would be more appealing." Would it make more sense to simply provide a larger DS bonus to shields or is the thought here that by increasing the overall risk to hunting, defensive options such as a shield would be more appealing?
2) Make shields protect more thoroughly, by re-scaling the bonuses and granting them laterally across all defensive stats and mechanics (yes even TD and maneuvers). Perhaps even allowing them to grant DF reduction, like wearing plate, or having redux to a degree.
For mechanics like physical DF reduction and redux its sort of already built in, isn't it? If you block with your shield you don't take any damage, if your block was unsuccessful then the shield wasn't in the right place and probably shouldn't be a factor. Would a block system that scales damage vs. mitigate hits be preferable? A damage reduction factor could be applied based on the success of the block - shield users would likely get hit more frequently under these circumstance but any individual hit would generally be less severe. You could likely also expect to see an increased block rate using a system along these lines. The major down-side I see to using scaled damage for block is that a lot of critters have mechanics that rely on a hit/no-hit concept that would need to be reviewed. My favorite example of this are the arctic manticores that can frequently hit you for 1 point of damage and then cause your head to explode from the ensuing cold crit.
3) Up the 'block' formula for EBP. Aside from a few gross exaggerations where some folks have 3x shield use on a warrior with block mastery and self-cast 1609, the whole concept of 'block' in EBP is terribly underwhelming as it stands.
Assuming we agree that the current block rate is too low, what do you feel is a reasonable 'like level' block success rate when using a shield?
One additional suggestion I can add to the mix would be to introduce some sort of aura capability for shields into the game. Make this a mechanic that is reasonably achievable with some effort (i.e. more common than a major raffle win) through forging, alchemy, a new spell, a specialy NPC, a common merchant, etc. You could pretty much go wild with this but some basic examples would be:
- elemental defense (offers some basic level of damage reduction or save vs. a given element)
- magical defense (increased warding against spiritual/elemental/mental, a specific spell circle, a specific spell - the more specific the better the protection offered).
- offensive aura (Increase AS, increase DF, etc)
- defensive aura (increase to block %, increase DS, increase DF)
- enhancement (increase a strength, increase health - already available via enhancives so maybe redundant)
For the above suggestion, I would be curious to know if you feel that something along these lines would be enough to mitigate the perceived downside to shield usage?
-- Robert
>>Are you primarily looking for improvement towards the high end of hunting or do you feel there is a deficiency across all character levels with regard to a shields ability to defend?<<
I think somewhere around level 35, where the really vicious spells and maneuvers start in is where shields begin to lose their luster as a defensive option. Once you get to level 50, you almost never see a character with a shield... and the only capped characters with shields I see are highly capped pures with a lot of extra TPs.
>>One additional suggestion I can add to the mix would be to introduce some sort of aura capability for shields into the game. Make this a mechanic that is reasonably achievable with some effort (i.e. more common than a major raffle win) through forging, alchemy, a new spell, a specialy NPC, a common merchant, etc. You could pretty much go wild with this but some basic examples would be<<
I like this a lot. I liken these sorts of improvements to be on parity with the recent improvements to runestaves.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the insight and contributions. One of the things I find particularly galling is when (in threads like this) a problem is addressed and remedy is sought that players themselves come in and naysay. Who doesn't like improvements? I generally regard that sort of behavior as suspicious, where in the naysayer clearly has something at stake and wishes for the statusquo to remain. Otherwise, why charge in, guns of devil's advocacy blazing, ready to shoot down whatever contributions and opinons people are providing?
As for you, Doug. . . see me in my office. . . after class. I call schenanigans on you!
And I like your incorporation of side-by-side and shield use, very clever and apt.
About the only thing I really like that shields do right now, is for warriors (and maybe paladins) and the use of the PROTECT verb will have those with shields and weapons block and or parry for their protectee, which doubles the chances of protection. That, and that they DO provide very good DS against most forms of bolt attacks. These are two areas that I think shields are performing well, and appropriately.
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. - Albert Einstein
I think somewhere around level 35, where the really vicious spells and maneuvers start in is where shields begin to lose their luster as a defensive option. Once you get to level 50, you almost never see a character with a shield... and the only capped characters with shields I see are highly capped pures with a lot of extra TPs.
>>One additional suggestion I can add to the mix would be to introduce some sort of aura capability for shields into the game. Make this a mechanic that is reasonably achievable with some effort (i.e. more common than a major raffle win) through forging, alchemy, a new spell, a specialy NPC, a common merchant, etc. You could pretty much go wild with this but some basic examples would be<<
I like this a lot. I liken these sorts of improvements to be on parity with the recent improvements to runestaves.
Lastly, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the insight and contributions. One of the things I find particularly galling is when (in threads like this) a problem is addressed and remedy is sought that players themselves come in and naysay. Who doesn't like improvements? I generally regard that sort of behavior as suspicious, where in the naysayer clearly has something at stake and wishes for the statusquo to remain. Otherwise, why charge in, guns of devil's advocacy blazing, ready to shoot down whatever contributions and opinons people are providing?
As for you, Doug. . . see me in my office. . . after class. I call schenanigans on you!
And I like your incorporation of side-by-side and shield use, very clever and apt.
About the only thing I really like that shields do right now, is for warriors (and maybe paladins) and the use of the PROTECT verb will have those with shields and weapons block and or parry for their protectee, which doubles the chances of protection. That, and that they DO provide very good DS against most forms of bolt attacks. These are two areas that I think shields are performing well, and appropriately.
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. - Albert Einstein
I capped as a warrior 3x in shield use. Never once lost their luster to me, if anything they became more attractive as time went by as they kept me alive far more often than my non-shield using counterparts.
Most everything you suggest for shield improvements is already achievable with TD boosting shields, Fusion orbs, or training in the appropriate CMANs to make use of your shield as an offensive device (CMAN SBash and CMAN SCharge). Flares and spikes can also make those particular CMANs more effective.
There are a great many other areas that could benefit from dev focus before shields. Improvements to shields would be fine with me, but fairly low on the dev totem pole.
-Richard/Fjalar.
Most everything you suggest for shield improvements is already achievable with TD boosting shields, Fusion orbs, or training in the appropriate CMANs to make use of your shield as an offensive device (CMAN SBash and CMAN SCharge). Flares and spikes can also make those particular CMANs more effective.
There are a great many other areas that could benefit from dev focus before shields. Improvements to shields would be fine with me, but fairly low on the dev totem pole.
-Richard/Fjalar.
>>and the only capped characters with shields I see are highly capped pures with a lot of extra TPs.<<
Hah! My cleric has always used a shield and brawling! Oh wait, she's a pure ... and now she's maga capped ... Umm, but, she did use a shield from birth! Of course, that was long before runestaves were invented.
The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me
Hah! My cleric has always used a shield and brawling! Oh wait, she's a pure ... and now she's maga capped ... Umm, but, she did use a shield from birth! Of course, that was long before runestaves were invented.
The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me
"Basically, in GSIV offense > defense. The use of shields lessens offensive ability. So, a player is generally placed within the counter-intuitive scenario where in they choose to use a shield (for defense) and generally die more frequently because they are less apt at killing."
I'd like to know where you are finding this to be true as well. You've already ruled out warriors and paladins because of their ability to block. A rogue who uses a shield is going to have more DS then one who doesn't and to kill most things your typical ambushing rogue just needs a dagger. More or less the same thing with a ranger, only from what Droit has said something heavier then a dagger is needed until later. Not too many sword/board rangers left, because for most archery is so much easier. I know during the earlier levels a shield will give a ranger more DS then archery, I am not sure when that changes or if it ever really does but if it doesn't archery closes the gap plenty enough to make it more worth while, obviously. It seems like most bards out there either swing polearms or just cast spells.
Which kind of brings us to the biggest point of why offensive over defense. For a bard(and any profession) in the earlier levels there is no easier path then swinging a polearm(or two-hander). And that path is suggested to any new player because it is a lot more enjoyable to smash things and kill them quickly then plinking away at them. The plinking can be frustrating and discouraging to a lot of people so they'd either give up or find another way, which leads them to the heavier hitting weapons. And once these new players are set on their path for the most part they stick with it.
And we(the more experienced players) encourage the use of heavy weapons over the use of lighter ones with a shield. We say the best defensive is a good offense because we've never had a compelling reason to use shields. After the earlier levels though a large majority of the creatures can be killed just as easily with a one-handed weapon as they are with the two-handed variety. It does seem like shield DS should be more, however, with my main character I tried a 3x shield build once and it didn't seem to provide any more DS(except against bolts) then 2x dodge. Perhaps the shield DS formula needs tweaked to increase the DS gained from shield use. Maybe just change the stance modifier from 50 to 55%.
I think the EBP formula is fine, some people even choose to use shields because of it. I don't rely much on the EBP myself because it is taking a gamble on whether or not you'll get hit, it is nice when it works in my favor but I will never plan on it doing so.
"and the only capped characters with shields I see are highly capped pures with a lot of extra TPs."
Kerl, Roblar, Kupaka, Ardwen, Jarlstrom, and Mohrgan are the capped warriors I know off the top of my head, Mogonis is another but he hasn't played in a while so not sure if he counts or not. Lancecile, is in his 90s so while not capped he is close. There used to be a female warrior who hunted OTF but I haven't seen her in a while and can't recall her name. For paladins I can only think of Valicar and Debia at cap, neither which are actively playing right now as far as I know. Culghuun, uses a shield and is steadily making his way towards cap, he is nearly 80 or pasted it already, I forget. Plenty of pure bards use shields for defense, Kilthal is the only one I know of at cap who uses a weapon as his primary attack method. For rogues at cap, Nordred, Picler, Kammaris(sp), Gibreficul, Draccor, and Ravashaak come to mind, also Lucos, but he is getting out of the game. I also believe Deron had capped using sword/board, no idea what he uses now.
I'd like to know where you are finding this to be true as well. You've already ruled out warriors and paladins because of their ability to block. A rogue who uses a shield is going to have more DS then one who doesn't and to kill most things your typical ambushing rogue just needs a dagger. More or less the same thing with a ranger, only from what Droit has said something heavier then a dagger is needed until later. Not too many sword/board rangers left, because for most archery is so much easier. I know during the earlier levels a shield will give a ranger more DS then archery, I am not sure when that changes or if it ever really does but if it doesn't archery closes the gap plenty enough to make it more worth while, obviously. It seems like most bards out there either swing polearms or just cast spells.
Which kind of brings us to the biggest point of why offensive over defense. For a bard(and any profession) in the earlier levels there is no easier path then swinging a polearm(or two-hander). And that path is suggested to any new player because it is a lot more enjoyable to smash things and kill them quickly then plinking away at them. The plinking can be frustrating and discouraging to a lot of people so they'd either give up or find another way, which leads them to the heavier hitting weapons. And once these new players are set on their path for the most part they stick with it.
And we(the more experienced players) encourage the use of heavy weapons over the use of lighter ones with a shield. We say the best defensive is a good offense because we've never had a compelling reason to use shields. After the earlier levels though a large majority of the creatures can be killed just as easily with a one-handed weapon as they are with the two-handed variety. It does seem like shield DS should be more, however, with my main character I tried a 3x shield build once and it didn't seem to provide any more DS(except against bolts) then 2x dodge. Perhaps the shield DS formula needs tweaked to increase the DS gained from shield use. Maybe just change the stance modifier from 50 to 55%.
I think the EBP formula is fine, some people even choose to use shields because of it. I don't rely much on the EBP myself because it is taking a gamble on whether or not you'll get hit, it is nice when it works in my favor but I will never plan on it doing so.
"and the only capped characters with shields I see are highly capped pures with a lot of extra TPs."
Kerl, Roblar, Kupaka, Ardwen, Jarlstrom, and Mohrgan are the capped warriors I know off the top of my head, Mogonis is another but he hasn't played in a while so not sure if he counts or not. Lancecile, is in his 90s so while not capped he is close. There used to be a female warrior who hunted OTF but I haven't seen her in a while and can't recall her name. For paladins I can only think of Valicar and Debia at cap, neither which are actively playing right now as far as I know. Culghuun, uses a shield and is steadily making his way towards cap, he is nearly 80 or pasted it already, I forget. Plenty of pure bards use shields for defense, Kilthal is the only one I know of at cap who uses a weapon as his primary attack method. For rogues at cap, Nordred, Picler, Kammaris(sp), Gibreficul, Draccor, and Ravashaak come to mind, also Lucos, but he is getting out of the game. I also believe Deron had capped using sword/board, no idea what he uses now.
> And we(the more experienced players) encourage the use of heavy weapons over the use of lighter ones with a shield. We say the best defensive is a good offense because we've never had a compelling reason to use shields.
I can give you one: GoS. My bard was walking into warcamps and hunting parties looking to the Gods essentially as a Wile E. Coyote figure. Not so much from the one stray, but from the pack that would inevitably charge into the room just as she was swinging/casting. Since picking up a shield her death quota is down 95%, most of that coming from the DS but a LOT of it coming from deflecting those irritating bolt spells that have radar for your eyes and other soft spots. What still kills her? The spells that shields don't deflect -- TD spells.
That being said, I don't believe that picking up a shield should be instant immunity from every attack in the game. It's fitting that she has that TD weakness, it's what keeps things interesting. (And makes empaths and clerics her very dear friends).
While this example is neither a pure nor capped, I thought I would throw out there that the Offense > Defense argument doesn't hold water in a multiple-opponent environment. Is she slower killing things? Possibly slightly, but since she isn't spending 1/3 of every hour raising/healing I'm willing to say she's coming out ahead. And since she's gradually converting to killing things with spells, I think the pendulum will swing in favor of the shield.
My two cents' worth.
~Niadja
I can give you one: GoS. My bard was walking into warcamps and hunting parties looking to the Gods essentially as a Wile E. Coyote figure. Not so much from the one stray, but from the pack that would inevitably charge into the room just as she was swinging/casting. Since picking up a shield her death quota is down 95%, most of that coming from the DS but a LOT of it coming from deflecting those irritating bolt spells that have radar for your eyes and other soft spots. What still kills her? The spells that shields don't deflect -- TD spells.
That being said, I don't believe that picking up a shield should be instant immunity from every attack in the game. It's fitting that she has that TD weakness, it's what keeps things interesting. (And makes empaths and clerics her very dear friends).
While this example is neither a pure nor capped, I thought I would throw out there that the Offense > Defense argument doesn't hold water in a multiple-opponent environment. Is she slower killing things? Possibly slightly, but since she isn't spending 1/3 of every hour raising/healing I'm willing to say she's coming out ahead. And since she's gradually converting to killing things with spells, I think the pendulum will swing in favor of the shield.
My two cents' worth.
~Niadja
I skipped some things because some people just want to read their own very long winded posts.
<<I think somewhere around level 35, where the really vicious spells and maneuvers start in is where shields begin to lose their luster as a defensive option. Once you get to level 50, you almost never see a character with a shield... and the only capped characters with shields I see are highly capped pures with a lot of extra TPs.>>
This.
<<Otherwise, why charge in, guns of devil's advocacy blazing, ready to shoot down whatever contributions and opinons people are providing?>>
Double this, in every topic or suggestion brought up, someone has to come in to try to kill the improvement.
<<There are a great many other areas that could benefit from dev focus before shields. Improvements to shields would be fine with me, but fairly low on the dev totem pole.>>
I've stopped caring about make-believe priorities.
I'd rather have a running list of things that could/should be done on the off chance people get to work on small "fun projects".
<<Shields are fine!>>
If shields were fine more people would use them.
Look at the player market and you'll see what systems could use adjustments to become more popular/equal in choice.
Looking for improvement is always good, of course, but I don't see a real problem to fix here. A lot of us still use shields. They work perfectly well. Maybe they could be better, but most things could.
I do agree with the idea of making more OHE and OHB weapons better. I have several characters who use one or the other, but almost always morning stars and falchions. Maces used to be worth having because of puncture immunity, but that no longer matters. The other types of one handed weapons could definitely use work.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
I do agree with the idea of making more OHE and OHB weapons better. I have several characters who use one or the other, but almost always morning stars and falchions. Maces used to be worth having because of puncture immunity, but that no longer matters. The other types of one handed weapons could definitely use work.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
Looking for improvement is always good, of course, but I don't see a real problem to fix here. A lot of us still use shields. They work perfectly well. Maybe they could be better, but most things could.
I do agree with the idea of making more OHE and OHB weapons better. I have several characters who use one or the other, but almost always morning stars and falchions. Maces used to be worth having because of puncture immunity, but that no longer matters. The other types of one handed weapons could definitely use work.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
I do agree with the idea of making more OHE and OHB weapons better. I have several characters who use one or the other, but almost always morning stars and falchions. Maces used to be worth having because of puncture immunity, but that no longer matters. The other types of one handed weapons could definitely use work.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
I have two shield users, so a small percentage of the characters I play, but on those two characters shields are slightly more than sufficient I'd say. Though I think my bard with a sonic tower/air lore and a paladin maxed in shield use with a sanctified shield can demonstrate the best a shield can offer. One thing I've wanted to see in recent years would be flares that can activate on a block/parry. That would give a little oomph to a largely defensive shield use build, but on the same vein weapons that are less desirable might also be coded to parry more often. Jittes/sais, estocs, quarterstaves, and such would all make sense. Though perhaps size/speed would be the only factor if something like this was ever implemented. Gives flaring weapons/shields/runestaves a bit more of an edge then current.
Lochiven
I think a small tweak to the DS produced by shield skill would go a long way. It wouldn't need to be much, say 1 point of DS in offensive for every 10 ranks of shield use. That would make a big difference.
Another thought that I think would add some real sex appeal to shields would to make shield flares reactive, with a chance to flare everytime you block a blow. This would have to have some sort of control placed on it, otherwise people would just stand around in defensive with a shield in thier hand, blocking all the incoming blows. Perhaps the quantity of flares could be stance dependant in reverse ratio to stance, so that in defensive stance you'd get no flares, 20%xbase percentage in guarded stance... up to 100%xbase percentage in offensive stance. As it stands, making use of shields with flares is a rare thing since almost no one uses shield CMANs, but with this change, flaring shields would kick butt.
As for whether or not shields are effective, I use a wall shield on all normal hunts. I find them effective enough to use one almost all the time, even though I'm fully trained in TWC. The TWC mostly just comes out during invasions or when I'm administering a coup-de-grace. I am however also a hurler, so I bypass some of my foe's melee defense. That makes a big difference too.
Kerl
Another thought that I think would add some real sex appeal to shields would to make shield flares reactive, with a chance to flare everytime you block a blow. This would have to have some sort of control placed on it, otherwise people would just stand around in defensive with a shield in thier hand, blocking all the incoming blows. Perhaps the quantity of flares could be stance dependant in reverse ratio to stance, so that in defensive stance you'd get no flares, 20%xbase percentage in guarded stance... up to 100%xbase percentage in offensive stance. As it stands, making use of shields with flares is a rare thing since almost no one uses shield CMANs, but with this change, flaring shields would kick butt.
As for whether or not shields are effective, I use a wall shield on all normal hunts. I find them effective enough to use one almost all the time, even though I'm fully trained in TWC. The TWC mostly just comes out during invasions or when I'm administering a coup-de-grace. I am however also a hurler, so I bypass some of my foe's melee defense. That makes a big difference too.
Kerl
Shields really could use some love.
Maybe shield flares could have a chance to go off if you would have been hit if you hadn't been holding the shield.
IE: If the DS provided by my shield is 50, and the end result of the AS/DS resolution is between 50-100, it has a chance to flare, but if the result is 20, it won't flare.
Some... thing... to separate the sizes more than just DS penalties to dodge and bonuses to shield use would be cool too.
Maybe shield flares could have a chance to go off if you would have been hit if you hadn't been holding the shield.
IE: If the DS provided by my shield is 50, and the end result of the AS/DS resolution is between 50-100, it has a chance to flare, but if the result is 20, it won't flare.
Some... thing... to separate the sizes more than just DS penalties to dodge and bonuses to shield use would be cool too.
I vote for making shields work when worn. Put minimum training thresholds on each based on shield size and have swinging with a worn shield add RT that is trained off with shield+armor ranks.
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
I've suggested a bunch of shield improvements before, but here's one I haven't.
Shields being reactive for flares and spikes would help, however I like this approach. It helps the new UAC system and improves on an existing system that isn't used very often.
First remake bucklers into something similar to a disk-shaped vambrace that's always worn on the outer forearm. Lower the melee DS and Block benefit but increase the Parry chance to allow for the change. Ranged DS would suffer a larger DS loss. Lower the spike flare chance due to not having the space for a lot of spikes. Limited shield Cman usage is limited to new buckler only Cmans, leaving Sbash/Scharge out due to the smaller size. TP skill cost would still be the same though.
Then you can:
Make them usable with TWC and UAC with minimal penalty (-10 AS, -10 MM)
Give buckler specific CMans to help UAC and TWC.
Move the existing hindrance (but keeping the existing bonuses) that bucklers have and give them to medium shields, then drop large and tower down one level too.
Thrown shield CMans using the (RSN) Thrown system.
-farmer
Shields being reactive for flares and spikes would help, however I like this approach. It helps the new UAC system and improves on an existing system that isn't used very often.
First remake bucklers into something similar to a disk-shaped vambrace that's always worn on the outer forearm. Lower the melee DS and Block benefit but increase the Parry chance to allow for the change. Ranged DS would suffer a larger DS loss. Lower the spike flare chance due to not having the space for a lot of spikes. Limited shield Cman usage is limited to new buckler only Cmans, leaving Sbash/Scharge out due to the smaller size. TP skill cost would still be the same though.
Then you can:
Make them usable with TWC and UAC with minimal penalty (-10 AS, -10 MM)
Give buckler specific CMans to help UAC and TWC.
Move the existing hindrance (but keeping the existing bonuses) that bucklers have and give them to medium shields, then drop large and tower down one level too.
Thrown shield CMans using the (RSN) Thrown system.
-farmer
Doing some calculations on Shield Use investment. Based on Krakii with a Rogue at 22nd using a Cloud-etched Lantern shield (as if the elemental flares are any use), which is 4x I come up with this calculation.
Rank 1 + Str/4 (3.25) +dex/4 (3.75) / (1.5) = 12 for Base DS Bonus
Base DS Bonus of 12 + medium shield mod .5 (0.0/2 in offensive) x 1 + 20 + 20 = 46.
If I boost my shield to 5 ranks my Base DS Bonus increases to 18 and the calc puts shield DS bonus at 49.
When I tested on a Rolton I had 124 DS with no shield, but 184 DS with a shield. I assume this is an empty hands thing.
Confirm/Deny?
-Geijon
Rank 1 + Str/4 (3.25) +dex/4 (3.75) / (1.5) = 12 for Base DS Bonus
Base DS Bonus of 12 + medium shield mod .5 (0.0/2 in offensive) x 1 + 20 + 20 = 46.
If I boost my shield to 5 ranks my Base DS Bonus increases to 18 and the calc puts shield DS bonus at 49.
When I tested on a Rolton I had 124 DS with no shield, but 184 DS with a shield. I assume this is an empty hands thing.
Confirm/Deny?
-Geijon
Name: Macho Man Randy Savage Race: Sylvankind Profession: Rogue (not shown)
Gender: Male Age: 0 Expr: 558717 Level: 21
Normal (Bonus) ... Enhanced (Bonus)
Strength (STR): 77 (13) ... 77 (13)
Constitution (CON): 76 (13) ... 76 (13)
Dexterity (DEX): 61 (15) ... 61 (15)
Agility (AGI): 61 (10) ... 61 (10)
Discipline (DIS): 80 (10) ... 80 (10)
Aura (AUR): 82 (21) ... 82 (21)
Logic (LOG): 77 (13) ... 77 (13)
Intuition (INT): 72 (11) ... 72 (11)
Wisdom (WIS): 82 (16) ... 82 (16)
Influence (INF): 79 (14) ... 79 (14)
Mana: 8 Silver: 0
>skill
Awesome Alt Dude(at level 21), your current skill bonuses and ranks (including all modifiers) are:
Skill Name | Current Current
| Bonus Ranks
Armor Use..........................| 40 8
Shield Use.........................| 5 1
Combat Maneuvers...................| 146 46
Edged Weapons......................| 146 46
Ambush.............................| 64 13
Physical Fitness...................| 93 21
Dodging............................| 93 21
Disarming Traps....................| 165 65
Picking Locks......................| 169 69
Stalking and Hiding................| 74 16
Perception.........................| 153 53
Climbing...........................| 50 10
Spell Lists
Minor Elemental....................| 3
Gender: Male Age: 0 Expr: 558717 Level: 21
Normal (Bonus) ... Enhanced (Bonus)
Strength (STR): 77 (13) ... 77 (13)
Constitution (CON): 76 (13) ... 76 (13)
Dexterity (DEX): 61 (15) ... 61 (15)
Agility (AGI): 61 (10) ... 61 (10)
Discipline (DIS): 80 (10) ... 80 (10)
Aura (AUR): 82 (21) ... 82 (21)
Logic (LOG): 77 (13) ... 77 (13)
Intuition (INT): 72 (11) ... 72 (11)
Wisdom (WIS): 82 (16) ... 82 (16)
Influence (INF): 79 (14) ... 79 (14)
Mana: 8 Silver: 0
>skill
Awesome Alt Dude(at level 21), your current skill bonuses and ranks (including all modifiers) are:
Skill Name | Current Current
| Bonus Ranks
Armor Use..........................| 40 8
Shield Use.........................| 5 1
Combat Maneuvers...................| 146 46
Edged Weapons......................| 146 46
Ambush.............................| 64 13
Physical Fitness...................| 93 21
Dodging............................| 93 21
Disarming Traps....................| 165 65
Picking Locks......................| 169 69
Stalking and Hiding................| 74 16
Perception.........................| 153 53
Climbing...........................| 50 10
Spell Lists
Minor Elemental....................| 3
- Minor Spirit:
101: Spirit Warding I - 2:47:59
103: Spirit Defense - 0:18:04
107: Spirit Warding II - 2:48:08
- Minor Elemental:
401: Elemental Defense I - 3:36:17
406: Elemental Defense II - 3:36:30
414: Elemental Defense III - 3:36:42
- Major Elemental:
503: Thurfel's Ward - 1:51:34
509: Strength - 0:17:19
- Ranger:
601: Natural Colors - 0:22:48
- Wizard:
911: Mass Blur - 0:30:20
You are now in an offensive stance.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +134 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +60 = +89
A clean miss.
>rem shield
You sling a cloud-etched lantern shield off from over your shoulder.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +164 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +32 = +31
A clean miss.
>lm sense
With a seasoned eye, you begin to examine both yourself and the area in an attempt to ascertain the current conditions for lockpicking...
After a thorough examination, you determine that you are in excellent shape, physically. As far as you can tell, the area around you has pretty average lighting.
You are now in a defensive stance.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +226 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +13 = -50
A clean miss.
>wear shield
You sling a cloud-etched lantern shield over your shoulder.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +198 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +81 = +46
A clean miss.
101: Spirit Warding I - 2:47:59
103: Spirit Defense - 0:18:04
107: Spirit Warding II - 2:48:08
- Minor Elemental:
401: Elemental Defense I - 3:36:17
406: Elemental Defense II - 3:36:30
414: Elemental Defense III - 3:36:42
- Major Elemental:
503: Thurfel's Ward - 1:51:34
509: Strength - 0:17:19
- Ranger:
601: Natural Colors - 0:22:48
- Wizard:
911: Mass Blur - 0:30:20
You are now in an offensive stance.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +134 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +60 = +89
A clean miss.
>rem shield
You sling a cloud-etched lantern shield off from over your shoulder.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +164 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +32 = +31
A clean miss.
>lm sense
With a seasoned eye, you begin to examine both yourself and the area in an attempt to ascertain the current conditions for lockpicking...
After a thorough examination, you determine that you are in excellent shape, physically. As far as you can tell, the area around you has pretty average lighting.
You are now in a defensive stance.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +226 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +13 = -50
A clean miss.
>wear shield
You sling a cloud-etched lantern shield over your shoulder.
A greater burrow orc swings a short sword at you!
AS: +128 vs DS: +198 with AvD: +35 + d100 roll: +81 = +46
A clean miss.
Ok, took some work. Sure wish Mark saw this before I got the urge to solve it.
I think the answer to your question is yes -- open hand parry is 50. Math below -- caution!
Values I'm using.
Armor - 20 (4x)
Shield - 20 (4x)
Spells - 65 (all worn as displayed, plus 20 phantom dodge for 911)
AGI - 10
Open hand parry - 50 in def
Without any other modifiers, that's 115 to DS. Then we have to calculate Evade DS (because of the Dodge training and 911), and we have to then calculate the shield hit to Evade DS.
Base Value = Dodge Ranks + (Agility Bonus) + trunc(Intuition Bonus / 4)
Base Value = 41 (21 trained, plus 20 phantom) + 10 + 2 = 53
Evade DS = Base Value * Armor Penalty * Shield Penalty * Stance Modifier
Evade DS for offensive (no shield) = trunc(53 * 1 * .75) = 39
Evade DS for offensive (w/ shield) = trunc(53 * .7 * .75) = 27
Evade DS for defensive (no shield) = trunc(53 * 1 * 1) = 53
Evade DS for defensive (w/ shield) = trunc(53 * .7 * 1) = 37
Shield DS is 42 in offensive, and 44 in defensive. (In the original post, 5 ranks would get 43 in offensive, and 47 in defensive).
Using those values, let's see where we land
So, it matches perfectly.
Doug
I think the answer to your question is yes -- open hand parry is 50. Math below -- caution!
Values I'm using.
Armor - 20 (4x)
Shield - 20 (4x)
Spells - 65 (all worn as displayed, plus 20 phantom dodge for 911)
AGI - 10
Open hand parry - 50 in def
Without any other modifiers, that's 115 to DS. Then we have to calculate Evade DS (because of the Dodge training and 911), and we have to then calculate the shield hit to Evade DS.
Base Value = Dodge Ranks + (Agility Bonus) + trunc(Intuition Bonus / 4)
Base Value = 41 (21 trained, plus 20 phantom) + 10 + 2 = 53
Evade DS = Base Value * Armor Penalty * Shield Penalty * Stance Modifier
Evade DS for offensive (no shield) = trunc(53 * 1 * .75) = 39
Evade DS for offensive (w/ shield) = trunc(53 * .7 * .75) = 27
Evade DS for defensive (no shield) = trunc(53 * 1 * 1) = 53
Evade DS for defensive (w/ shield) = trunc(53 * .7 * 1) = 37
Shield DS is 42 in offensive, and 44 in defensive. (In the original post, 5 ranks would get 43 in offensive, and 47 in defensive).
Using those values, let's see where we land
| MODS | OFF no shield | OFF w/ shield | DEF no shield | Def w/ shield |
| Armor | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Shield | 0 | 42 | 0 | 44 |
| Spells | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| Evade | 39 | 27 | 53 | 37 |
| AGI | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Parry | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 |
| Equals | === | === | === | === |
| Totals | 134 | 164 | 198 | 226 |
So, it matches perfectly.
Doug
Also, make sure you're using the formula properly if you want 100% accurate results. Improper order of operations leads to 95% accuracy.
.
ORDER OF OPERATIONS: base -> armor modifications -> shield modifications (2 different ones) -> stance modifications -> final result (for melee) -> ranged bonus
.
BASE: dodge ranks + agility bonus + (TRUNC(intuition bonus / 4))
ARMOR MODIFICATIONS: ((TRUNC(maneuver penalty / 2)) + 100) / 100
SHIELD MODIFICATIONS: ((X + 100) / 100)
X = -22 if small, -30 if medium, -38 if large, -46 if tower
FIRST SET: TRUNC(TRUNC(base * armor modifications) * shield modifications) + Y
Y = -5 if large, -10 if tower, 0 if small/medium/rangedattack
STANCE MODIFICATIONS: (75 + (Z / 4)) / 100
Z = 0 if offensive, 20 if advance, 40 if forward, 60 if neutral, 80 if guarded, 100 if defensive
.
melee DS = TRUNC(first set * stance modifications)
ranged DS = TRUNC((melee DS * 1.5) + .5)
.
MANEUVER PENALTY NOTES: The maneuver penalty, as it pertains to evade DS, is based on the '.5 training rounds up' thought (IE: 130 armor bonus / 20 = 6.5 which rounds up to 7 RT removal). The maneuver penalty becomes worse if you're under trained, but it is not a set loss of DS so someone 1 rank under penalty removal (5.5 in my example) will have a smaller hit than someone 2+ ranks under.
RANGED DS NOTES: This formula has been extensively tested against melee attacks, but not as much with ranged attacks. However, given the influence ranged has on the formula, I can't imagine there being a difference in the results of moderate testing vs. extensive testing.
ARMOR ENCHANT NOTES: This is probably the best location to add armor enchant (1:1 ratio) to DS determination. This goes for any items that add DS and aren't a weapon or a shield (since you can nullify parry/shield DS, but you can't nullify evade DS even with 0 ranks in dodge). Be aware that you can't nullify shield enchant (or the natural +20 DS it has).
STANCE/2 NOTES: I have long felt that the STANCE/2 part of the parry DS formula is better represented here, as the only time it's nullified is when you're attacked by a ranged weapon and you're wielding a weapon that YOU'RE TRAINED FOR (see note in above post for explanation).
.
ORDER OF OPERATIONS: base -> armor modifications -> shield modifications (2 different ones) -> stance modifications -> final result (for melee) -> ranged bonus
.
BASE: dodge ranks + agility bonus + (TRUNC(intuition bonus / 4))
ARMOR MODIFICATIONS: ((TRUNC(maneuver penalty / 2)) + 100) / 100
SHIELD MODIFICATIONS: ((X + 100) / 100)
X = -22 if small, -30 if medium, -38 if large, -46 if tower
FIRST SET: TRUNC(TRUNC(base * armor modifications) * shield modifications) + Y
Y = -5 if large, -10 if tower, 0 if small/medium/rangedattack
STANCE MODIFICATIONS: (75 + (Z / 4)) / 100
Z = 0 if offensive, 20 if advance, 40 if forward, 60 if neutral, 80 if guarded, 100 if defensive
.
melee DS = TRUNC(first set * stance modifications)
ranged DS = TRUNC((melee DS * 1.5) + .5)
.
MANEUVER PENALTY NOTES: The maneuver penalty, as it pertains to evade DS, is based on the '.5 training rounds up' thought (IE: 130 armor bonus / 20 = 6.5 which rounds up to 7 RT removal). The maneuver penalty becomes worse if you're under trained, but it is not a set loss of DS so someone 1 rank under penalty removal (5.5 in my example) will have a smaller hit than someone 2+ ranks under.
RANGED DS NOTES: This formula has been extensively tested against melee attacks, but not as much with ranged attacks. However, given the influence ranged has on the formula, I can't imagine there being a difference in the results of moderate testing vs. extensive testing.
ARMOR ENCHANT NOTES: This is probably the best location to add armor enchant (1:1 ratio) to DS determination. This goes for any items that add DS and aren't a weapon or a shield (since you can nullify parry/shield DS, but you can't nullify evade DS even with 0 ranks in dodge). Be aware that you can't nullify shield enchant (or the natural +20 DS it has).
STANCE/2 NOTES: I have long felt that the STANCE/2 part of the parry DS formula is better represented here, as the only time it's nullified is when you're attacked by a ranged weapon and you're wielding a weapon that YOU'RE TRAINED FOR (see note in above post for explanation).
