Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
ReplyI see the usefulness for blind in a situation like the DR arena, but compared to mind jolt and the wizard sun, it's a few mana over priced. Also, if you compare 500s to 200s, 500s is chalked full of utility and attacks while our 200s isn't that great. Minor sanct could be combined with major but require envoke to rotate between them. Same with interference and mass interference.
Clerics have too many AS boosts to just stick with CS casting, but that depends on your play style. At cap I have 504bolt as and find bolting effective against champions in OTF and in reim.
>PS: Since people are asking, the combat spells I find myself using are 316, 335, 217 (aka the bandit rotation), 317, 302, 301, 230 and 240.
>Hardly ever use 311, but have pulled it out a couple times in the Sanctum. 110 never - with the much lower CS vs Cleric circle and mana cost high enough to not want to miss it more than once, I find it a better plan to just channel 317 and hope for knockdowns. 118 never, but I'd probably use it if I was bolting.
The creatures in the Sanctum don't shake off 311? I know they shake off 301, 316, 214, and 118, and I think I've seen them shake off Mass Calm from my ranger friend too. So if they shake off every disabler except pure stun, that would be interesting. Either that or the wiki is wrong and 311 is actually doing something different than stunning, which would at least kind of help me understand why it's an 11th level spell.
The combat spells I use at cap for bandits, Reim, and the Sanctum are 111, 118, 135, 201, 230, 240, 302, 316, 317, and 340. If dev was collecting information behind on the scenes on which spells clerics cast, then I'd be contributing some uses of 214, 306, 312, and 335 too, but I only use those against lower-level creatures that interrupt me in Pinefar bandits or on rescues.
Good to see another UAC cleric out there, by the way! I'm not the only absurd one. :P
>Hardly ever use 311, but have pulled it out a couple times in the Sanctum. 110 never - with the much lower CS vs Cleric circle and mana cost high enough to not want to miss it more than once, I find it a better plan to just channel 317 and hope for knockdowns. 118 never, but I'd probably use it if I was bolting.
The creatures in the Sanctum don't shake off 311? I know they shake off 301, 316, 214, and 118, and I think I've seen them shake off Mass Calm from my ranger friend too. So if they shake off every disabler except pure stun, that would be interesting. Either that or the wiki is wrong and 311 is actually doing something different than stunning, which would at least kind of help me understand why it's an 11th level spell.
The combat spells I use at cap for bandits, Reim, and the Sanctum are 111, 118, 135, 201, 230, 240, 302, 316, 317, and 340. If dev was collecting information behind on the scenes on which spells clerics cast, then I'd be contributing some uses of 214, 306, 312, and 335 too, but I only use those against lower-level creatures that interrupt me in Pinefar bandits or on rescues.
Good to see another UAC cleric out there, by the way! I'm not the only absurd one. :P
UAC seemed the logical thing to do, having done brawl/shield forever. Voln fu'd my way through the Stronghold for those terrible 6 levels between eidolons being too slow to hunt and being allowed into the Rift (pre-317), became too much a part of my character to drop it so I went all in on my last fixskills, traded in the spell aiming I rarely used for .5x CM.
SA is on my list of post-cap goals, but probably after maxing CM and hitting my lore targets. Just couldn't get into the bolting life.
As for 311 in the Sanctum, I don't really recall how quickly it was shaken off. Seemed to last long enough to deal with the other target, but I might be misremembering. I'm giving it a miss for another level or two after I ate a 19 second ewave, opening me up to death by a thousand cuts.
SA is on my list of post-cap goals, but probably after maxing CM and hitting my lore targets. Just couldn't get into the bolting life.
As for 311 in the Sanctum, I don't really recall how quickly it was shaken off. Seemed to last long enough to deal with the other target, but I might be misremembering. I'm giving it a miss for another level or two after I ate a 19 second ewave, opening me up to death by a thousand cuts.
You know, there are plenty of options for bolting clerics and empaths. They're called Wizard wands. My Empath had 2x spell aiming and something like 60 ranks of MIU; she used blue, gold and crystal wands to great effect. Get them from the pawn shop and have a wizard friend dupe them to save on cost.
Way back when, Clerics could only single-train in Directed Spells, same as weapons...
...which meant that, at 40th level, Bravery+Heroism made them precisely as good as a double-trainer, same as weapons. (And then, falling behind at only one point per level.)
So, yeah, Krakii was always fully trained in DirSpells just to have the option of the alternate attack form, and she wasn't going to have any Minor spells for a long, long time. (Everone was only able to gain a single spell per level, max, too. You could do it more or less cheaply, depending on profession, but 1 was the limit.)
Now that you can cast one for 0 mana, why wouldn't you want the extra attack type, particularly since just the havingness of the ranks makes your runestaff defense go up?
...which meant that, at 40th level, Bravery+Heroism made them precisely as good as a double-trainer, same as weapons. (And then, falling behind at only one point per level.)
So, yeah, Krakii was always fully trained in DirSpells just to have the option of the alternate attack form, and she wasn't going to have any Minor spells for a long, long time. (Everone was only able to gain a single spell per level, max, too. You could do it more or less cheaply, depending on profession, but 1 was the limit.)
Now that you can cast one for 0 mana, why wouldn't you want the extra attack type, particularly since just the havingness of the ranks makes your runestaff defense go up?
Two things.
1) Would anyone be interested in creating a player State of Clerics like what Doug is aiming for in the wizard forums? That discussion can be seen here... http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Developer's%20Corner%20-%20Wizards/thread/1843505?get_newest=true ...and Estild did say this:
2) Regarding 311...
It turns out the wiki is wrong, like I thought it might be after a few people stuck up for the spell. Whatever 311 does, it's something more than just stun since I've found certain enemies not shaking it off. I'd update the wiki myself now except that I don't know what exactly it does... flavor-wise I would have thought it's the same as 135, which the wiki calls "disoriented," but the messaging when it wears off is different. It would be nice if a GM could chime in!
This only reinforces my thoughts on not many people casting this spell, though--and I only tried it myself because I was purposely avoiding 316 while helping my level 84 characters since I didn't want to ruin the loot for everything. If people were really casting it, somebody should have mentioned in this thread or the other thread that it's not mere stun.
(A couple did mention they thought it might be something else, but they didn't express confidence about it. And a couple people said the spell was useful, but still didn't correct the misunderstanding. If someone said something wrong about spells like 317, 316, 302, 118, etc. that definitely are widely used, everything I usually see on these forums makes me think someone would very quickly jump in to set the record straight.)
So I'd still like to see something more to 311. Anything! A bolt version like Web, a chance to knock unconscious, a buff to its base chance to force kneeling, a buff to how fast Religion ranks increase the chance, do some damage like 135, cost less mana (while keeping the same power)... anything that makes any kind of sense.
1) Would anyone be interested in creating a player State of Clerics like what Doug is aiming for in the wizard forums? That discussion can be seen here... http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Developer's%20Corner%20-%20Wizards/thread/1843505?get_newest=true ...and Estild did say this:
| This is a worthy cause and I still support it - for every profession. The wiki is a great tool for such collaboration. |
2) Regarding 311...
It turns out the wiki is wrong, like I thought it might be after a few people stuck up for the spell. Whatever 311 does, it's something more than just stun since I've found certain enemies not shaking it off. I'd update the wiki myself now except that I don't know what exactly it does... flavor-wise I would have thought it's the same as 135, which the wiki calls "disoriented," but the messaging when it wears off is different. It would be nice if a GM could chime in!
This only reinforces my thoughts on not many people casting this spell, though--and I only tried it myself because I was purposely avoiding 316 while helping my level 84 characters since I didn't want to ruin the loot for everything. If people were really casting it, somebody should have mentioned in this thread or the other thread that it's not mere stun.
(A couple did mention they thought it might be something else, but they didn't express confidence about it. And a couple people said the spell was useful, but still didn't correct the misunderstanding. If someone said something wrong about spells like 317, 316, 302, 118, etc. that definitely are widely used, everything I usually see on these forums makes me think someone would very quickly jump in to set the record straight.)
So I'd still like to see something more to 311. Anything! A bolt version like Web, a chance to knock unconscious, a buff to its base chance to force kneeling, a buff to how fast Religion ranks increase the chance, do some damage like 135, cost less mana (while keeping the same power)... anything that makes any kind of sense.
Just because some people don't know how to use certain spells is no obligation for other people to spell out how every single mechanic in the game works. 311 is very effective as it is, and I would not want it changed in any way that diminishes its effectiveness for its core function. I find a lot of the fun in coming up with my own strategies that aren't in a cookie cutter guide for generic use.
I feel that clerics are in an extremely good state and in the best place among the pure professions in terms of balance. I'm very happy as a player of a cleric.
I feel that clerics are in an extremely good state and in the best place among the pure professions in terms of balance. I'm very happy as a player of a cleric.
>Just because some people don't know how to use certain spells is no obligation for other people to spell out how every single mechanic in the game works.
I didn't mean "should" in the obligation sense--I meant it in the modus tollens sense. Maybe the surrounding context and comparison weren't enough to make that clear, and it might come down to two letters; all I had to write is "would" instead of "should," I guess. So to reword for more clarity:
"If people were really casting 311, it's likely that somebody would have mentioned in this thread or the other thread that it's not mere stun (just like, if somebody got something wrong regarding 317, 316, 302, or 118 (my later comparison), I think somebody would have corrected it immediately)."
>311 is very effective as it is, and I would not want it changed in any way that diminishes its effectiveness for its core function.
Yep, neither would I. For that or any combat spell.
I didn't mean "should" in the obligation sense--I meant it in the modus tollens sense. Maybe the surrounding context and comparison weren't enough to make that clear, and it might come down to two letters; all I had to write is "would" instead of "should," I guess. So to reword for more clarity:
"If people were really casting 311, it's likely that somebody would have mentioned in this thread or the other thread that it's not mere stun (just like, if somebody got something wrong regarding 317, 316, 302, or 118 (my later comparison), I think somebody would have corrected it immediately)."
>311 is very effective as it is, and I would not want it changed in any way that diminishes its effectiveness for its core function.
Yep, neither would I. For that or any combat spell.
Censure (316) is cast 10x as much as Blind (311). Blind is nothing other than a standard stun, with a chance to force a target to kneel. Most creatures that are immune or able to shake a stun don't care about the source of the incapacitation (Blind (311), Mind Jolt (706), stunned from an attack, etc).
GameMaster Estild
GameMaster Estild
The oddity you are seeing with blind is that the stun effect is reapplied every so often during the spell duration. So if something is able to break the stun it will become stunned again during the next 'tick' of the spell. Atleast that is how I remember it functioning. I also remember using this spell somewhat regularly at certain levels when I couldnt get large warding margins consistently with other disablers.
>Censure (316) is cast 10x as much as Blind (311).
This doesn't really say much, but just because a spell may be useful in certain situations does not mean it is useless or needs to be changed. I would strongly disagree with that.
There is nothing incorrect about the Wiki with respect to these two spells.
I will add that it took many years for clerics to return to a good state after the GemStone III changes, and I've been extremely pleased with the direction that GM Estild and the Development GMs have taken the class ever since. We've received a lot of very positive development in recent years. I hope to see this positive trend continue and not more tearing down or nerfing things to accommodate mutant builds that are antithesis of the definition of what a cleric is intended to be, after the splintering of the profession into the paladin class gave options for those who want to play more physical styles.
This doesn't really say much, but just because a spell may be useful in certain situations does not mean it is useless or needs to be changed. I would strongly disagree with that.
There is nothing incorrect about the Wiki with respect to these two spells.
I will add that it took many years for clerics to return to a good state after the GemStone III changes, and I've been extremely pleased with the direction that GM Estild and the Development GMs have taken the class ever since. We've received a lot of very positive development in recent years. I hope to see this positive trend continue and not more tearing down or nerfing things to accommodate mutant builds that are antithesis of the definition of what a cleric is intended to be, after the splintering of the profession into the paladin class gave options for those who want to play more physical styles.
>I hope to see this positive trend continue and not more tearing down or nerfing things to accommodate mutant builds that are antithesis of the definition of what a cleric is intended to be, after the splintering of the profession into the paladin class gave options for those who want to play more physical styles.
I'm a little unclear on this. If the paragraph below describes a cleric, then which mutant builds are we talking about?
>Clerics tap their power from the spiritual realm, a source of power rooted within the deities of Elanthia. As masters of this spiritual power, Clerics follow many paths; some as simple priests, others as crusaders devoted to preserving life whether by use of their spells or by dint of arms. Through their spell mastery, Clerics may commune with deities, resurrect the dead, protect themselves and their comrades and banish the undead. Clerics can gain skill at arms, but they must devote more time and energy to it than non-spell users. Heavier armor may adversely affect their ability to cast spells.
There's a lot in there about "arms" but maybe it's an old writeup. I liked clerics better when they had more training options. If we followed the cleric/paladin example, empaths and warpaths would be split into 2 professions, wizards and warmages, sorcerers and.. something. I don't think this would be a good thing. In each case, both new professions might get more options, but they are "narrower" options - there is little variance. I don't think there's any question that paladins are like this. There is very little wiggle room, and this becomes frustrating over time. Professions with broader options have more choices as they advance. If they get tired of ambushing from hiding, they respec to something else and continue playing in a new way.
I'm a little unclear on this. If the paragraph below describes a cleric, then which mutant builds are we talking about?
>Clerics tap their power from the spiritual realm, a source of power rooted within the deities of Elanthia. As masters of this spiritual power, Clerics follow many paths; some as simple priests, others as crusaders devoted to preserving life whether by use of their spells or by dint of arms. Through their spell mastery, Clerics may commune with deities, resurrect the dead, protect themselves and their comrades and banish the undead. Clerics can gain skill at arms, but they must devote more time and energy to it than non-spell users. Heavier armor may adversely affect their ability to cast spells.
There's a lot in there about "arms" but maybe it's an old writeup. I liked clerics better when they had more training options. If we followed the cleric/paladin example, empaths and warpaths would be split into 2 professions, wizards and warmages, sorcerers and.. something. I don't think this would be a good thing. In each case, both new professions might get more options, but they are "narrower" options - there is little variance. I don't think there's any question that paladins are like this. There is very little wiggle room, and this becomes frustrating over time. Professions with broader options have more choices as they advance. If they get tired of ambushing from hiding, they respec to something else and continue playing in a new way.
>I liked clerics better when they had more training options.
As a player of a post-cap cleric who has played the profession since GemStone III, I completely disagree. Clerics today have far more combat options that are actually viable than ever before. However, I far prefer that the profession is developed primarily for those who played the profession as it was, focusing on pure magic, rather than trying to turn it into something else.
>I don't think there's any question that paladins are like this.
Paladins are hands down the most powerful and versatile semis in the game, especially at a post-cap level. I disagree with advocating for profession homogenization or a jack of all trades approach to every profession. People generally play different professions because they enjoy different play styles. I chose to remain a cleric even after the temporary period to convert because I enjoy the profession.
As a player of a post-cap cleric who has played the profession since GemStone III, I completely disagree. Clerics today have far more combat options that are actually viable than ever before. However, I far prefer that the profession is developed primarily for those who played the profession as it was, focusing on pure magic, rather than trying to turn it into something else.
>I don't think there's any question that paladins are like this.
Paladins are hands down the most powerful and versatile semis in the game, especially at a post-cap level. I disagree with advocating for profession homogenization or a jack of all trades approach to every profession. People generally play different professions because they enjoy different play styles. I chose to remain a cleric even after the temporary period to convert because I enjoy the profession.
If 311 works how Sasathi says, then the wiki is incomplete because it doesn't explain the full advantage of the spell. It would be like if the Tremors page didn't mention that there's more than one knockdown. Much better numbers than I expected for its usage, by the way.
As far as clerics in general go, we're golden on the CS side of things, but like Krakii said earlier, I'd just like to see pretty much anything else added to the arsenal. An Earthen Fury type spell, a bolt, flares, a Spike Thorn type spell, an AS booster... anything. Right now I think we're the most one-dimensional pure.
If nothing else, I can think of at least five times as many situations where I'm playing my 14.5m experience cleric and wish she could do something my 5.9m experience empath can than vice versa. Clerics aren't lacking for power, though, so whenever I suggest anything that could make my cleric more enjoyable and more in line with my empath, I feel that I have to lean toward versatility or utility instead of something that would increase the power ceiling.
As far as clerics in general go, we're golden on the CS side of things, but like Krakii said earlier, I'd just like to see pretty much anything else added to the arsenal. An Earthen Fury type spell, a bolt, flares, a Spike Thorn type spell, an AS booster... anything. Right now I think we're the most one-dimensional pure.
If nothing else, I can think of at least five times as many situations where I'm playing my 14.5m experience cleric and wish she could do something my 5.9m experience empath can than vice versa. Clerics aren't lacking for power, though, so whenever I suggest anything that could make my cleric more enjoyable and more in line with my empath, I feel that I have to lean toward versatility or utility instead of something that would increase the power ceiling.
I still believe there is something to be said for self-discovery of abilities and hunting tactics if one plays around with the spells in one's arsenal rather than relies on scripts or guides to detail every facet of every spell. This is personally something I enjoy.
>a bolt, flares, an AS booster... anything.
We have all of these.
>Right now I think we're the most one-dimensional pure.
I completely disagree, as a player of all four pures. In my view, clerics are the most balanced of the pures with the class preserved primarily for those who play them as mains and not bots. Group spells and other abilities are balanced with the profession in mind first and then other end users. Clerics have some of the best reliable disabling spells and offensive attack spells in the game.
>If nothing else, I can think of at least five times as many situations where I'm playing my 14.5m experience cleric and wish she could do something my 5.9m experience empath can than vice versa. Clerics aren't lacking for power, though, so whenever I suggest anything that could make my cleric more enjoyable and more in line with my empath, I feel that I have to lean toward versatility or utility instead of something that would increase the power ceiling.
And I completely disagree here too, which is fine as everyone enjoys different things. That's why different professions are intended to have unique characteristics rather than be homogenized jack of all trades. I would rather play my post-cap cleric any day than my empath. What is important to understand is that utility and versatility will never increase the power ceiling because they come at the expense of the power ceiling. I play a post-cap pure cleric because I enjoy the power ceiling that clerics currently enjoy, while enjoying just as much utility as empaths are able to provide. The last thing I want is a slide towards homogenization and a mediocre power ceiling that is achievable at best.
>a bolt, flares, an AS booster... anything.
We have all of these.
>Right now I think we're the most one-dimensional pure.
I completely disagree, as a player of all four pures. In my view, clerics are the most balanced of the pures with the class preserved primarily for those who play them as mains and not bots. Group spells and other abilities are balanced with the profession in mind first and then other end users. Clerics have some of the best reliable disabling spells and offensive attack spells in the game.
>If nothing else, I can think of at least five times as many situations where I'm playing my 14.5m experience cleric and wish she could do something my 5.9m experience empath can than vice versa. Clerics aren't lacking for power, though, so whenever I suggest anything that could make my cleric more enjoyable and more in line with my empath, I feel that I have to lean toward versatility or utility instead of something that would increase the power ceiling.
And I completely disagree here too, which is fine as everyone enjoys different things. That's why different professions are intended to have unique characteristics rather than be homogenized jack of all trades. I would rather play my post-cap cleric any day than my empath. What is important to understand is that utility and versatility will never increase the power ceiling because they come at the expense of the power ceiling. I play a post-cap pure cleric because I enjoy the power ceiling that clerics currently enjoy, while enjoying just as much utility as empaths are able to provide. The last thing I want is a slide towards homogenization and a mediocre power ceiling that is achievable at best.
Hey folks, I put up a rough sketch of a Wiki page (looks like Estild was there too) for the spell:
https://gswiki.play.net/Ethereal_Censer_(320)
Feel free to edit and make changes with actual research.
Estild, any chance for an incense crit table? ;)
Dhuul
