Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>This is incorrect IMO. It's quite boring at the top too, not just the mid-level. 317/111/118 are the only viable hunting spells up there, with 317 only if you're pure warding.
-JL177
The irony to me is that a very big part of the reason why it's boring to me is because of design choices that were probably intended to make the game less boring--and, for most professions, I'd even argue the design succeeds at that.
At cap almost everything shakes off calm, bind, stun, and webs (which doesn't negate what you said about 118; the bolt is viable because it includes damage). In the grand scheme, in the overall game, that's probably a good thing since it would be really dull if any capped hunting party that included a cleric or ranger could lock enemies into inaction forever with 316 or 619.
The trouble for clerics specifically is that there's not much left when you take away calm, bind, stun, and webs. The setup spells that do still work are in the hands of other professions:
410 - knocks down and induces RT
435 - knocks down, induces RT, and has a pretty good shot at killing squishy pure creatures
708 - prevents specific attacks and/or reduces DS
709 - knocks down multiple times
909 - knocks down multiple times and the self-cast version takes no RT on your part
912 - knocks down and stances down
1120* - makes creatures fight each other instead of you
1615/1630 - forces to kneeling
*At least I assume this still works at cap based on what other empaths say. Mine doesn't have 100 Telepathy ranks yet, so I can't say for sure.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
It exists, sure, but as a single-target 10 mana spell there isn't any real point to casting it instead of attacking. 410 is so amazing because it hits everything in the room and doesn't even have to go through a CS vs. TD check.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
| 410 is so amazing because it hits everything in the room and doesn't even have to go through a CS vs. TD check. |
| https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara |
I don't feel like you're giving credit to all the things that should be given credit. While elemental pures have greater crowd control, the offensive power against a single target is far less for a wizard. Bolts are mediocre, 519 is trash. 917 is alright if the target is squishy, but still doesn't compare to a single shot of a CS spell. Especially when you factor in 240.
912 doesn't work well against like-level opponents. 909, can knock them down multiple times, but they just stand right back up since there's no RT involved.
Sorcs are basically cheat mode, so it's silly to even use them in a comparison because they just don't follow the same rules that other classes follow.
Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control?
<Sorcs are basically cheat mode, so it's silly to even use them in a comparison because they just don't follow the same rules that other classes follow.>
They have good versatility and can take advantage of everything offered to them with a standard training plan, but around anything with maneuvers (which is pretty much every hunting ground above level 40) they're glass cannons. The true rule-breakers are empaths... whether you're talking just pures or professions in general. Bloody near impossible kill and can mow through enemies with bolt, CS, or melee... even a warpath is a terror with spells when they want to be.
I've felt powerful hunting with my sorcerer, but nowhere near the god-like feelings I've gotten hunting with my empath. Even after being made prone with half a dozen bleeders and 5 health remaining, she's hopped right back up and cleared the room without batting an eye.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
They have good versatility and can take advantage of everything offered to them with a standard training plan, but around anything with maneuvers (which is pretty much every hunting ground above level 40) they're glass cannons. The true rule-breakers are empaths... whether you're talking just pures or professions in general. Bloody near impossible kill and can mow through enemies with bolt, CS, or melee... even a warpath is a terror with spells when they want to be.
I've felt powerful hunting with my sorcerer, but nowhere near the god-like feelings I've gotten hunting with my empath. Even after being made prone with half a dozen bleeders and 5 health remaining, she's hopped right back up and cleared the room without batting an eye.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
>I don't feel like you're giving credit to all the things that should be given credit. While elemental pures have greater crowd control, the offensive power against a single target is far less for a wizard. Bolts are mediocre, 519 is trash. 917 is alright if the target is squishy, but still doesn't compare to a single shot of a CS spell. Especially when you factor in 240.
You might be right about not giving enough credit, or at very least I haven't been clear enough, because I agree with most of what you wrote there except that I think 917 is way better than alright. But yes, offensive power against single targets is far better with clerics than wizards.
Giving more credit where it's due, I'd even add another advantage that in slower hunting grounds clerics are practically invulnerable; 319 is the best defensive spell in the game as long as you're not fighting swarms. Combine that with 240 + (pick a spell) beating everything and there's a case to be made that clerics are the best single-target hunters in the game. (Not as offensively powerful as empaths, but more defensively powerful.)
The trouble with clerics definitely isn't their power in slower hunting grounds; clerics are incredible at that. The trouble is:
-Their power in swarmy hunting grounds, at least after 316 stops being reliable. (More on this in the next post.)
-Their fun in any hunting ground--because when one spell (even if people differ on which spell it is) is amazing against everything, there's no thought process to hunting and it's just a grind. It's enough for me that I spend hours and hours of doing nothing but casting 240 and 312 when Duskruin Arena rolls around; I don't want to do that in my everyday hunting too.
...among the other things I've mentioned. I'm not expecting or wanting clerics to become the uber incredible-at-everything profession, of course; I do think there should be sacrifices if we're gaining any serious strength in an area where we're currently weak. That's why whenever I propose something that would improve our abilities at mass damage, it always involves a huge tradeoff like getting rid of the protection of Soul Ward, spirit drain, or a cooldown.
>Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control?
I would.
Professions like bards, sorcerers, and paladins, have both, though.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
You might be right about not giving enough credit, or at very least I haven't been clear enough, because I agree with most of what you wrote there except that I think 917 is way better than alright. But yes, offensive power against single targets is far better with clerics than wizards.
Giving more credit where it's due, I'd even add another advantage that in slower hunting grounds clerics are practically invulnerable; 319 is the best defensive spell in the game as long as you're not fighting swarms. Combine that with 240 + (pick a spell) beating everything and there's a case to be made that clerics are the best single-target hunters in the game. (Not as offensively powerful as empaths, but more defensively powerful.)
The trouble with clerics definitely isn't their power in slower hunting grounds; clerics are incredible at that. The trouble is:
-Their power in swarmy hunting grounds, at least after 316 stops being reliable. (More on this in the next post.)
-Their fun in any hunting ground--because when one spell (even if people differ on which spell it is) is amazing against everything, there's no thought process to hunting and it's just a grind. It's enough for me that I spend hours and hours of doing nothing but casting 240 and 312 when Duskruin Arena rolls around; I don't want to do that in my everyday hunting too.
...among the other things I've mentioned. I'm not expecting or wanting clerics to become the uber incredible-at-everything profession, of course; I do think there should be sacrifices if we're gaining any serious strength in an area where we're currently weak. That's why whenever I propose something that would improve our abilities at mass damage, it always involves a huge tradeoff like getting rid of the protection of Soul Ward, spirit drain, or a cooldown.
>Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control?
I would.
Professions like bards, sorcerers, and paladins, have both, though.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>That's why whenever I propose something that would improve our abilities at mass damage, it always involves a huge tradeoff like getting rid of the protection of Soul Ward, spirit drain, or a cooldown.
>Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control?
I most definitely wouldn't, as a post-cap cleric. Pures should stay pures and not have their core abilities nerfed to accommodate mutant builds. I have more fun playing my cleric than any other post-cap pure at this point. Fun is subjective. The last thing I'd want is more options that allow for a low power ceiling while requiring tedious hunting for those who don't script. I disagree with imposing cooldowns or other mechanics that add more tedium, which is definitely not my idea of fun.
I also respectfully disagree with the assessment of clerics vs. empaths here. Clerics have far more RP flavor and utility than empaths do, and I don't miss not having a melee option as a pure spiritualist. That's what paladins are for, and were intended to become, when the class splintered off. That allows for both types of religious spiritualists to enjoy their RP AND their preferred combat style without having to settle to be less than at best. Choices should entail choices in profession, not just having every class be a cookie cutter duplicate of another so everyone can do everything, just less well. They already can. There's no need to water that down any further.
>Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control?
I most definitely wouldn't, as a post-cap cleric. Pures should stay pures and not have their core abilities nerfed to accommodate mutant builds. I have more fun playing my cleric than any other post-cap pure at this point. Fun is subjective. The last thing I'd want is more options that allow for a low power ceiling while requiring tedious hunting for those who don't script. I disagree with imposing cooldowns or other mechanics that add more tedium, which is definitely not my idea of fun.
I also respectfully disagree with the assessment of clerics vs. empaths here. Clerics have far more RP flavor and utility than empaths do, and I don't miss not having a melee option as a pure spiritualist. That's what paladins are for, and were intended to become, when the class splintered off. That allows for both types of religious spiritualists to enjoy their RP AND their preferred combat style without having to settle to be less than at best. Choices should entail choices in profession, not just having every class be a cookie cutter duplicate of another so everyone can do everything, just less well. They already can. There's no need to water that down any further.
Earlier on Discord Viduus asked if I was sure about what I said a few posts above that almost everything at cap shakes off bind/calm/stun/web. I said I'd double check, so I did a tour of capped hunting grounds and:
Sanctum
Deathsworn fanatics, lithe veiled sentinels, pale scaled shapers, patchwork flesh monstrosities, and shambling lurks all shake off all the disablers. Additionally, 316 does nothing to patchwork flesh monstrosities if its endroll is less than 150.
Rift
Enormous rift crawlers are affected by Calm, but shake off Web, shake off Bind, and are unaffected by 316.
Fallen crusaders shake off Web, but everything else works.
Glistening cerebralites are affected by all disablers.
Scatter
Darkly inked fetish masters are affected by all disablers.
Liches shake off webs and are immune to Calm and Prayer of Holding because they're low level spells, but are affected normally by Censure.
Murky soul siphons shake off webs, but other disablers work.
Vvrael destroyers are immune to magic.
Old Ta'Faendryl
Greater and lesser constructs are immune to magic.
Ithzir adepts, heralds, initiates, and janissaries are affected by all disablers, though they can knock the calm off of each other.
Ithzir champions can be webbed and calmed, but Web is difficult to hit with unless using 340 and Calm is difficult to hit with even when using 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
War griffins can be webbed. Calm works, but is difficult to hit with even when using 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll and is shaken off very quickly even with a 150+ endroll.
Temple Nelemar
This one was tough to collect info from, even on the test server with instant full healing, because there are so many enemy types and there's a lot of getting imploded and sent back to town. So this has a few missing pieces, but...
Sirens and triton combatants, dissemblers, executioners, and magi are affected by all disablers.
Ethereal triton sentries can be webbed or bound. Calm works but will usually miss without 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Greater water elementals are affected by all disablers, but Web will usually miss without 340 and Calm will usually miss even with 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Spectral triton defenders are affected by all disablers, but 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Triton radicals can be bound, but 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll. I apparently forgot to check these for Web and Calm.
Water elementals are affected by all disablers, but Calm will usually miss without 340 and 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Confluence
Huge air, earth, ice, and water elementals shake off all status effects. This was the last hunting ground I checked and I was too tired after the Nelemar experience to find my way to the hot side and check, but since it's the more dangerous area and they're all the same elemental family of creatures, I'm guessing it's the same.
Conclusions:
At one extreme end, in the Sanctum and Confluence there's little if any point to cleric disablers.
At the other extreme end, the Scatter is a fantastic place to use disablers. (However, Vvrael destroyers are more problematic to clerics than other professions besides sorcerers since we don't have the swing speed of wizards or AS of empaths.)
In between are OTF, Plane 4, and Nelemar.
I was half-right and half-wrong about OTF. The Ithzir can be disabled, but champions are hard to affect, war griffins shake off 316, and constructs are magic immune. The mix of constructs and griffins among the others is probably why I thought more OTF enemies ignore the spell than actually do.
Disablers work perfectly fine in Plane 4, but it's a slow enough hunting ground that I don't see a need for them.
I'm mostly going to leave Nelemar alone since I don't have experience with it other than going in for that one test, but I will say TDs were so low on most enemies that I'd expect the most effective plan is to just obliterate everything with 312--the cleric spell that most benefits from high endrolls.
Does any of this change my mind about lack of variety in effective abilities at cap?
If you're hunting the Scatter--especially the south side--I'd say yes. That was better than I remembered. Anywhere else, no, it still seems better to go right for the kills.
It was good to double check myself on this!
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
Sanctum
Deathsworn fanatics, lithe veiled sentinels, pale scaled shapers, patchwork flesh monstrosities, and shambling lurks all shake off all the disablers. Additionally, 316 does nothing to patchwork flesh monstrosities if its endroll is less than 150.
Rift
Enormous rift crawlers are affected by Calm, but shake off Web, shake off Bind, and are unaffected by 316.
Fallen crusaders shake off Web, but everything else works.
Glistening cerebralites are affected by all disablers.
Scatter
Darkly inked fetish masters are affected by all disablers.
Liches shake off webs and are immune to Calm and Prayer of Holding because they're low level spells, but are affected normally by Censure.
Murky soul siphons shake off webs, but other disablers work.
Vvrael destroyers are immune to magic.
Old Ta'Faendryl
Greater and lesser constructs are immune to magic.
Ithzir adepts, heralds, initiates, and janissaries are affected by all disablers, though they can knock the calm off of each other.
Ithzir champions can be webbed and calmed, but Web is difficult to hit with unless using 340 and Calm is difficult to hit with even when using 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
War griffins can be webbed. Calm works, but is difficult to hit with even when using 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll and is shaken off very quickly even with a 150+ endroll.
Temple Nelemar
This one was tough to collect info from, even on the test server with instant full healing, because there are so many enemy types and there's a lot of getting imploded and sent back to town. So this has a few missing pieces, but...
Sirens and triton combatants, dissemblers, executioners, and magi are affected by all disablers.
Ethereal triton sentries can be webbed or bound. Calm works but will usually miss without 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Greater water elementals are affected by all disablers, but Web will usually miss without 340 and Calm will usually miss even with 340. 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Spectral triton defenders are affected by all disablers, but 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Triton radicals can be bound, but 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll. I apparently forgot to check these for Web and Calm.
Water elementals are affected by all disablers, but Calm will usually miss without 340 and 316 does nothing without a 150+ endroll.
Confluence
Huge air, earth, ice, and water elementals shake off all status effects. This was the last hunting ground I checked and I was too tired after the Nelemar experience to find my way to the hot side and check, but since it's the more dangerous area and they're all the same elemental family of creatures, I'm guessing it's the same.
Conclusions:
At one extreme end, in the Sanctum and Confluence there's little if any point to cleric disablers.
At the other extreme end, the Scatter is a fantastic place to use disablers. (However, Vvrael destroyers are more problematic to clerics than other professions besides sorcerers since we don't have the swing speed of wizards or AS of empaths.)
In between are OTF, Plane 4, and Nelemar.
I was half-right and half-wrong about OTF. The Ithzir can be disabled, but champions are hard to affect, war griffins shake off 316, and constructs are magic immune. The mix of constructs and griffins among the others is probably why I thought more OTF enemies ignore the spell than actually do.
Disablers work perfectly fine in Plane 4, but it's a slow enough hunting ground that I don't see a need for them.
I'm mostly going to leave Nelemar alone since I don't have experience with it other than going in for that one test, but I will say TDs were so low on most enemies that I'd expect the most effective plan is to just obliterate everything with 312--the cleric spell that most benefits from high endrolls.
Does any of this change my mind about lack of variety in effective abilities at cap?
If you're hunting the Scatter--especially the south side--I'd say yes. That was better than I remembered. Anywhere else, no, it still seems better to go right for the kills.
It was good to double check myself on this!
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
I have a level 100 wizard and a level 69 cleric currently.
My wizard I feel is in an excellent place in regards to hunting ability since the release of 917. He's water lore based and I like using 410 (added bonus to SMVR from water lore) in conjunction with 917 and then sitting back as 917 wrecks stuff. He's very much a one trick pony, but that's my personal choice and not a profession limitation as I hunted him using a variety of different bolts prior to cap. When he hunts with my paladin I use 912 quite a bit since that knocks down and forces a lower stance on turtling casters like Ithzir Adepts and Ithzir Seers. I have a low level war wizard and have seen capped war wizards in action and 1 sec RT combined with 410 and 912 trumps just about any other melee I've seen in action. I have a SPAM addiction when it comes to watching my war wizard flail away at critters with 1 sec RT and having a 7x hammer with knockout flares, disintegrate flares, and ensorcel. It's fun and one of the main reasons I rolled up a bard as a TWC user just to watch him swing away in 2 seconds with 2 swords and all the flares. I really don't hear much of anything from wizards these days in the wizard folder. Either folks gave up or are satisfied for the time being. My bottom line, the profession was pretty darn easy to level compared to the speed at which I did my paladin to cap.
My cleric is having some issues though as a pure CS caster and being smite now that she is past level 60. It was pretty much cake up through the Citadel as there are plenty of undead for her to destroy. I don't have her trained in Spell Aim at all and am rather regretting it as she doesn't have anything other than 302 which hits like a wet noodle against living opponents for her or 312. Her CS isn't great as she's a half-krolvin despite being at 122 cleric ranks at level 69. So she burns through mana way to fast using 317 and can't even fry. I hunt her with my level 70 sorc who is also a pure CS caster and the disparity between the two is just silly in regards to power from CS spells. The sorc is using 702, 705, 706, 709, and 719 and doing just dandy the entire time and has burned through one or two long term exp boosts while my cleric is struggling to reached numb.
It seems to me that sorcerers, bards, rangers, and paladins are so well rounded and powerful feeling because they don't have a Major Spell Circle confusing matters. All their power is built into their profession's spell circle; especially sorcerers. Empaths are so insanely powerful across the board because their power lies in their profession circle AND major spiritual just happens to compliment their profession circle so well.
My wizard I feel is in an excellent place in regards to hunting ability since the release of 917. He's water lore based and I like using 410 (added bonus to SMVR from water lore) in conjunction with 917 and then sitting back as 917 wrecks stuff. He's very much a one trick pony, but that's my personal choice and not a profession limitation as I hunted him using a variety of different bolts prior to cap. When he hunts with my paladin I use 912 quite a bit since that knocks down and forces a lower stance on turtling casters like Ithzir Adepts and Ithzir Seers. I have a low level war wizard and have seen capped war wizards in action and 1 sec RT combined with 410 and 912 trumps just about any other melee I've seen in action. I have a SPAM addiction when it comes to watching my war wizard flail away at critters with 1 sec RT and having a 7x hammer with knockout flares, disintegrate flares, and ensorcel. It's fun and one of the main reasons I rolled up a bard as a TWC user just to watch him swing away in 2 seconds with 2 swords and all the flares. I really don't hear much of anything from wizards these days in the wizard folder. Either folks gave up or are satisfied for the time being. My bottom line, the profession was pretty darn easy to level compared to the speed at which I did my paladin to cap.
My cleric is having some issues though as a pure CS caster and being smite now that she is past level 60. It was pretty much cake up through the Citadel as there are plenty of undead for her to destroy. I don't have her trained in Spell Aim at all and am rather regretting it as she doesn't have anything other than 302 which hits like a wet noodle against living opponents for her or 312. Her CS isn't great as she's a half-krolvin despite being at 122 cleric ranks at level 69. So she burns through mana way to fast using 317 and can't even fry. I hunt her with my level 70 sorc who is also a pure CS caster and the disparity between the two is just silly in regards to power from CS spells. The sorc is using 702, 705, 706, 709, and 719 and doing just dandy the entire time and has burned through one or two long term exp boosts while my cleric is struggling to reached numb.
It seems to me that sorcerers, bards, rangers, and paladins are so well rounded and powerful feeling because they don't have a Major Spell Circle confusing matters. All their power is built into their profession's spell circle; especially sorcerers. Empaths are so insanely powerful across the board because their power lies in their profession circle AND major spiritual just happens to compliment their profession circle so well.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
<My cleric is having some issues though as a pure CS caster and being smite now that she is past level 60. It was pretty much cake up through the Citadel as there are plenty of undead for her to destroy. I don't have her trained in Spell Aim at all and am rather regretting it as she doesn't have anything other than 302 which hits like a wet noodle against living opponents for her or 312.>
Have you tried the tree spirits in Red Forest? I don't know how often they spawn in relation to the two living critters in the same area, but it's an undead option....
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
Have you tried the tree spirits in Red Forest? I don't know how often they spawn in relation to the two living critters in the same area, but it's an undead option....
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
>Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control?
I'd make it a training choice. Keep everything as-is and you have existing lethality with limited crowd control. Train a different list or lores and get better crowd control but perhaps lower rate of lethality. There's no reason to nerf anything.
I'd make it a training choice. Keep everything as-is and you have existing lethality with limited crowd control. Train a different list or lores and get better crowd control but perhaps lower rate of lethality. There's no reason to nerf anything.
| >Would you be willing to give up single target lethality for more crowd control? |
| I'd make it a training choice. Keep everything as-is and you have existing lethality with limited crowd control. Train a different list or lores and get better crowd control but perhaps lower rate of lethality. There's no reason to nerf anything. |
I was thinking along the lore lines as well. One lore for 240, one lore for better crowd control. But, it 240 should probably have a cool down, to match the other top end abilities, 950/550, etc. It seems to be the only power up without a cooldown that has to be worked down/off. Even 515 has a cooldown that takes a lot of post cap training to remove. Why doesn't 240 have this requirement?
| -Their fun in any hunting ground--because when one spell (even if people differ on which spell it is) is amazing against everything, there's no thought process to hunting and it's just a grind. It's enough for me that I spend hours and hours of doing nothing but casting 240 and 312 when Duskruin Arena rolls around; I don't want to do that in my everyday hunting too. |
This is valid, but I think it would take more than just 1 new spell to fix. And it would probably come with rebalancing all the existing spells power. (nerfs)
I strongly disagree with proposing nerfs to offensive power or additional cooldowns. 350 and 340 are the intended situational use emergency rescue/power-ups with cooldowns and limitations that already exist. As a post-cap cleric, I never have crowd control issues even in the areas mentioned above. There is no reliable crowd control for anyone in the Confluence by design of the hunting area, not as a profession limitation, and a spiritualist should not expect the same level of proficiency hunting elementals as others might hunting undead.
There are other tactics one can use in any given area, which is what strategy is all about. Clerics are also perfectly balanced to be ideal hunting partners, contributing to group dynamics while requiring their continued presence instead of being designated as pure spell up/utility characters.
The SLR was well done. I wouldn't want any of it changed. The spiritual pure/warrior hybrid class already exists -- as a paladin.
There are other tactics one can use in any given area, which is what strategy is all about. Clerics are also perfectly balanced to be ideal hunting partners, contributing to group dynamics while requiring their continued presence instead of being designated as pure spell up/utility characters.
The SLR was well done. I wouldn't want any of it changed. The spiritual pure/warrior hybrid class already exists -- as a paladin.
>This is valid, but I think it would take more than just 1 new spell to fix. And it would probably come with rebalancing all the existing spells power. (nerfs)
-Veythorne
I don't see why it would or should come with nerfs. Just as an illustration, if they added a 309 single-target maneuver spell and a 320 mass maneuver spell and had reasonable levels of power, I'd use both of them. 312/317 could stay as universally powerful as they are, but there would still be niches for the other two abilities in swarms or against enemies that have high TD and poor maneuver defense.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
-Veythorne
I don't see why it would or should come with nerfs. Just as an illustration, if they added a 309 single-target maneuver spell and a 320 mass maneuver spell and had reasonable levels of power, I'd use both of them. 312/317 could stay as universally powerful as they are, but there would still be niches for the other two abilities in swarms or against enemies that have high TD and poor maneuver defense.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
Wizards are wizards and clerics are clerics.
I might bring up another profession's ability to do something well to advocate for a different profession to gain a similar level of parity because it makes sense to me, but I'm not seeking to take anything away from that profession.
It is downright silly to think that improving cleric abilities in regards to bolting, CS, or melee means that another profession, such as wizards, needs something in return to keep them viable or that clerics need to lose something to gain something.
Any change needs to be looked at from the perspective of that profession only and whether the change is going to enhance the overall play of the profession or have a negative impact. I think GM Viduus and GM Coase (sorry if I left someone out) are doing an excellent job in regards to tweaking paladins and augmenting their overall choices in regards to play style. I think all paladins will agree that the profession is in a better place now thanks to the improvements, tweaks, and new releases that paladins have gained over the past two years. Bards and rangers continue to do well and the universe hasn't ended even though they didn't get something in return since all three are semi professions.
My overall point being, if you want to advocate for wizards, there is a wizard folder to do so in. Keep it positive and lay out your thoughts and suggestions in a manner that lends itself to a conducive discussion and get folks involved to lend their ideas as well.
I might bring up another profession's ability to do something well to advocate for a different profession to gain a similar level of parity because it makes sense to me, but I'm not seeking to take anything away from that profession.
It is downright silly to think that improving cleric abilities in regards to bolting, CS, or melee means that another profession, such as wizards, needs something in return to keep them viable or that clerics need to lose something to gain something.
Any change needs to be looked at from the perspective of that profession only and whether the change is going to enhance the overall play of the profession or have a negative impact. I think GM Viduus and GM Coase (sorry if I left someone out) are doing an excellent job in regards to tweaking paladins and augmenting their overall choices in regards to play style. I think all paladins will agree that the profession is in a better place now thanks to the improvements, tweaks, and new releases that paladins have gained over the past two years. Bards and rangers continue to do well and the universe hasn't ended even though they didn't get something in return since all three are semi professions.
My overall point being, if you want to advocate for wizards, there is a wizard folder to do so in. Keep it positive and lay out your thoughts and suggestions in a manner that lends itself to a conducive discussion and get folks involved to lend their ideas as well.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
| I strongly disagree with proposing nerfs to offensive power or additional cooldowns. 350 and 340 are the intended situational use emergency rescue/power-ups with cooldowns and limitations that already exist. |
340 doesn't appear to have a cooldown. 350 does have a cooldown that matches the other x50 spells tho.
Given there is no 250, and the level of power that 240 grants, it should have had a cooldown from the beginning. But then again, it's a spiritualist power up and not something a wizard can cast, so no water lore requirements. You may not like me pointing it out, or agree with it, but I feel there is a double standard when it comes to SLR and ELR implementations.
| I don't see why it would or should come with nerfs. Just as an illustration, if they added a 309 single-target maneuver spell and a 320 mass maneuver spell and had reasonable levels of power, I'd use both of them. 312/317 could stay as universally powerful as they are, but there would still be niches for the other two abilities in swarms or against enemies that have high TD and poor maneuver defense. |
Sorry, but I don't agree that clerics should have powerful CS, bolting, and melee attacks on top several maneuver spell options. Clerics are primarily CS casters with the ability to fall back on bolting. Wizards are primarily bolters, with the ability to fall back on maneuver spells.
Unless the plan is to scrap what classes are best at, and allow all of them to do everything, essentially homogenizing the pure classes to nothing more than different flavored versions of the same thing.
The pure classes are already unbalanced in favor of spiritualists IMO, new additions shouldn't make that unbalance worse. If 514, 914, or 915 are reworked and the balance of power (with regard to CS) comes closer to being equal, then I could support those things. But as is, Clerics = CS...
>Sorry, but I don't agree that clerics should have powerful CS, bolting, and melee attacks on top several maneuver spell options.
I've never said they should.
Right now clerics have powerful CS, no maneuver spells (except 125, which isn't worth it), okay bolting, and weak melee. Adding good maneuver spells would make them powerful in two areas, not four.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
I've never said they should.
Right now clerics have powerful CS, no maneuver spells (except 125, which isn't worth it), okay bolting, and weak melee. Adding good maneuver spells would make them powerful in two areas, not four.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
| >Sorry, but I don't agree that clerics should have powerful CS, bolting, and melee attacks on top several maneuver spell options. |
| I've never said they should. |
| Right now clerics have powerful CS, no maneuver spells (except 125, which isn't worth it), okay bolting, and weak melee. Adding good maneuver spells would make them powerful in two areas, not four. |
I consider 135 to be a maneuver spell, although not a very powerful one. I also feel like 240 is the great equalizer when it comes to bolting, and previous posts while I couldn't mark this category as read pointed out how bolting at cap is viable. Having weak melee makes sense though, because pure class. Estild? once mentioned something about balancing class power. It could be saved somewhere but it's probably gone with the forum purge.
But.
Instead of arguing against your requests, I'll state what I would support: A maneuver spell that was undead only.
Why undead only? Because clerics are undead specialists. I feel that is the niche for the class. If empaths wanted a maneuver spell that was living only, I could support that as well. Opposite sides of the same coin.
What I don't support is providing any additional advantages that further unbalance the classes. A strong maneuver ability (via 917) is one of the few advantages wizards have. Bolts are also supposed to be an advantage, but I don't consider having more options much of an advantage. When you request additional bolt spells, it just further cuts into what makes each pure class different.
So, strong undead-only maneuver? Sure, that's your thing, I can get on board with that. New, powerful murder maneuver on anything? No. New, powerful bolt against anything, no. Because each class should have some advantage in a specific category.
The cleric already has powerful, unique tools to deal with the undead. A new one, to 'win more' vs undead...this is not something we need, nor will it help the class in any way shape or form.
Wizards have plenty of advantages and are also in a good place. Also the wizard thread is that way points. Shall clerics start coming in the wizard folder to tell them what they should and should not get?
The cleric problems are lack of diversity in hunting styles as well as being rather bland to play, plus an inability to deal well with swarms. Balance should be asymmetrical, and encourage differentiation in classes. However, every class needs to be able to have SOME tool or option to deal with each situation, even if those tools are subpar compared to another class.
Allowing a manuever spell that is effective vs undead and living would not somehow invalidate the awesomeness of 917 for wizards. Theres been several proposals that are interesting and unique, including mine (shameless plug) but you seem to be under the odd view that if it uses SMRv2 its 'exactly the same' as 917. This is disingenuous and simply untrue. 917 will remain one of the top manuever attacks in the game for pures, even taking some of the more powerful suggestions given here.
Right now, lets not focus on how to keep other classes less than yours. Lets try and get Clerics up to a good spot, and on parity in fun level with Wizards...who I main, and who are awesome.
Berbels shrilly exclaims, "Ise takings hims tos secretses lairses!"
Berbels grabs you and drags you east.
Wizards have plenty of advantages and are also in a good place. Also the wizard thread is that way points. Shall clerics start coming in the wizard folder to tell them what they should and should not get?
The cleric problems are lack of diversity in hunting styles as well as being rather bland to play, plus an inability to deal well with swarms. Balance should be asymmetrical, and encourage differentiation in classes. However, every class needs to be able to have SOME tool or option to deal with each situation, even if those tools are subpar compared to another class.
Allowing a manuever spell that is effective vs undead and living would not somehow invalidate the awesomeness of 917 for wizards. Theres been several proposals that are interesting and unique, including mine (shameless plug) but you seem to be under the odd view that if it uses SMRv2 its 'exactly the same' as 917. This is disingenuous and simply untrue. 917 will remain one of the top manuever attacks in the game for pures, even taking some of the more powerful suggestions given here.
Right now, lets not focus on how to keep other classes less than yours. Lets try and get Clerics up to a good spot, and on parity in fun level with Wizards...who I main, and who are awesome.
Berbels shrilly exclaims, "Ise takings hims tos secretses lairses!"
Berbels grabs you and drags you east.
| The cleric already has powerful, unique tools to deal with the undead. A new one, to 'win more' vs undead...this is not something we need, nor will it help the class in any way shape or form. |
You could try playing a different class if you don't like the class that is designed as an undead specialist.
| Wizards have plenty of advantages and are also in a good place. Also the wizard thread is that way points. Shall clerics start coming in the wizard folder to tell them what they should and should not get? |
Design doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are 4 pure classes, each designed to offer some unique form of game play.
| The cleric problems are lack of diversity in hunting styles as well as being rather bland to play, plus an inability to deal well with swarms. Balance should be asymmetrical, and encourage differentiation in classes. However, every class needs to be able to have SOME tool or option to deal with each situation, even if those tools are subpar compared to another class. |
What situation do clerics not have a tool for? Swarms? 135, 111. Subpar? Sure, but you state above that subpar abilities are okay as long as you have the option, which clerics do.
| Allowing a manuever spell that is effective vs undead and living would not somehow invalidate the awesomeness of 917 for wizards. Theres been several proposals that are interesting and unique, including mine (shameless plug) but you seem to be under the odd view that if it uses SMRv2 its 'exactly the same' as 917. This is disingenuous and simply untrue. 917 will remain one of the top manuever attacks in the game for pures, even taking some of the more powerful suggestions given here. |
Unless I don't understand your suggestion, it's a damage + DoT. Which is exactly what 917 does. How is your suggestion different?
| Right now, lets not focus on how to keep other classes less than yours. Lets try and get Clerics up to a good spot, and on parity in fun level with Wizards...who I main, and who are awesome. |
Clerics are already in a good spot, cast 240 and then one shot everything. That's how they were designed. I don't agree that you should have OP CS abilities on top of bolting and maneuvers.
>Estild? once mentioned something about balancing class power. It could be saved somewhere but it's probably gone with the forum purge.
-Veythorne
I'm guessing you're thinking of the one from Simucon 2017 when he said that good class balance means each profession being jealous of things other professions can do.
I remember that without looking it up because I agree with it so strongly that I've been turning it over in my head ever since last year, asking myself why my empath would be jealous of my cleric mechanically. So far the answer is that she wouldn't.
>I consider 135 to be a maneuver spell
It's a CS spell.
>Having weak melee makes sense though, because pure class.
That doesn't stop wizards and empaths from being good at it, which you should know since your wizard swings.
>I'll state what I would support: A maneuver spell that was undead only. Why undead only? Because clerics are undead specialists. I feel that is the niche for the class. If empaths wanted a maneuver spell that was living only, I could support that as well. Opposite sides of the same coin.
Empaths aren't specialists in fighting the living. There are many living enemies that 1106 can't hit because they have no bones, and the Elemental Confluence, which is entirely made of living enemies, is infamous as an area where pure warding empaths are useless because neither 1106 nor 1115 works. Instead they have to use 1110, their bolt.
Other than those rare exceptions like elementals, empaths are fantastic against both the living and the undead. And the fact that empaths can be great at both is one among several other reasons like the undead gap, bandits, Grimswarm, and no undead-only capped hunting grounds (besides Reim, which is pay or premium only) why any new offensive cleric spells shouldn't be constrained to only the undead.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
-Veythorne
I'm guessing you're thinking of the one from Simucon 2017 when he said that good class balance means each profession being jealous of things other professions can do.
I remember that without looking it up because I agree with it so strongly that I've been turning it over in my head ever since last year, asking myself why my empath would be jealous of my cleric mechanically. So far the answer is that she wouldn't.
>I consider 135 to be a maneuver spell
It's a CS spell.
>Having weak melee makes sense though, because pure class.
That doesn't stop wizards and empaths from being good at it, which you should know since your wizard swings.
>I'll state what I would support: A maneuver spell that was undead only. Why undead only? Because clerics are undead specialists. I feel that is the niche for the class. If empaths wanted a maneuver spell that was living only, I could support that as well. Opposite sides of the same coin.
Empaths aren't specialists in fighting the living. There are many living enemies that 1106 can't hit because they have no bones, and the Elemental Confluence, which is entirely made of living enemies, is infamous as an area where pure warding empaths are useless because neither 1106 nor 1115 works. Instead they have to use 1110, their bolt.
Other than those rare exceptions like elementals, empaths are fantastic against both the living and the undead. And the fact that empaths can be great at both is one among several other reasons like the undead gap, bandits, Grimswarm, and no undead-only capped hunting grounds (besides Reim, which is pay or premium only) why any new offensive cleric spells shouldn't be constrained to only the undead.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
| >I consider 135 to be a maneuver spell |
| It's a CS spell. |
I had to take another look on the wiki. For some reason I thought it was basically the spiritual version of 435, but it is in fact a CS spell.
I can see now where there is no maneuver based ability.
My first question would be, is that by design or oversight?
| >Having weak melee makes sense though, because pure class. |
| That doesn't stop wizards and empaths from being good at it, which you should know since your wizard swings. |
Mmm, empaths are the anomaly IMO. Wizards are only okay at it because of having the 506 crutch. As a wizard, I still require a lot of toys to have anywhere close to a decent AS.
I'm sure it does suck as a cleric to swing.
| Empaths aren't specialists in fighting the living. There are many living enemies that 1106 can't hit because they have no bones, and the Elemental Confluence, which is entirely made of living enemies, is infamous as an area where pure warding empaths are useless because neither 1106 nor 1115 works. Instead they have to use 1110, their bolt. |
I see them as living specialists because 1106 doesn't work on undead and they're forced to spend more mana to hunt undead (1115). Where as it's cheap for a cleric because that's what they specialize for. I also don't consider elementals to be "living" and think the confluence should be an area of weakness.
| Other than those rare exceptions like elementals, empaths are fantastic against both the living and the undead. And the fact that empaths can be great at both is one among several other reasons like the undead gap, bandits, Grimswarm, and no undead-only capped hunting grounds (besides Reim, which is pay or premium only) why any new offensive cleric spells shouldn't be constrained to only the undead. |
I would agree empaths are great at killing something that's alive, although I'd place then lower in ranking against undead. I understand the desire for something maneuver based better now that I've corrected my understanding of 135. There is a gap there.
But how would a new maneuver ability function? I don't think it's a good idea to rip off 410/435/917 and I still kind of think it should be undead specific. 435 has a lore requirement to hit flying creatures, so a lore requirement to hit living creatures maybe, if it doesn't align with the other other lore options so you have to make a choice for that ability.
Maybe 320 as some kind of holy fear, that does to undead what they can do to lower level characters. Put the fear of god into those undead creatures.
>You could try playing a different class if you don't like the class that is designed as an undead specialist.
There are virtually no undead hunting grounds after level 63. A hunting ground with an undead critter in it is not the same sort of thing at all as a hunting ground which is primarily undead and most of the game lacks proper hunting for an undead specialist. (which is another reason why clerics get boring, there stops being anything to hunt)
There are virtually no undead hunting grounds after level 63. A hunting ground with an undead critter in it is not the same sort of thing at all as a hunting ground which is primarily undead and most of the game lacks proper hunting for an undead specialist. (which is another reason why clerics get boring, there stops being anything to hunt)
Yeah, I think creatures should be something that are constantly added. People spend a majority of their time in game hunting. There should be as many options from 60+ as there are from 0-20.
My personal viewpoint is that you should be able to go 0-100 from your favorite town. Establish yourself in a community and build up from there.
My personal viewpoint is that you should be able to go 0-100 from your favorite town. Establish yourself in a community and build up from there.
No one profession (Pure or otherwise) owns maneuver attacks. If that did exist, it would have gone to Rangers due to Spike Thorn (616) a long time ago and Wizards would not have got Earthen Fury (917).
I am unlikely to support any future Cleric spells that only work on undead (or that alignment are based). They already have a few of those, which does reinforce that niche, but also restricts their hunting potential (by almost half of all the creatures in the game). To argue that is the way it should be would be like saying we should take half of the Wizard spells and only make them work on elemental creatures. It's not a fun design when it has such a significant impact on the player's choices.
What I am most interested in for Clerics is a spell that would break up their existing combat repetitiveness. Instead of just casting [302|312|317] over and over, a spell that could change the dynamic by encouraging its use along with their normal attack spells.
GameMaster Estild
I am unlikely to support any future Cleric spells that only work on undead (or that alignment are based). They already have a few of those, which does reinforce that niche, but also restricts their hunting potential (by almost half of all the creatures in the game). To argue that is the way it should be would be like saying we should take half of the Wizard spells and only make them work on elemental creatures. It's not a fun design when it has such a significant impact on the player's choices.
What I am most interested in for Clerics is a spell that would break up their existing combat repetitiveness. Instead of just casting [302|312|317] over and over, a spell that could change the dynamic by encouraging its use along with their normal attack spells.
GameMaster Estild
>>What I am most interested in for Clerics is a spell that would break up their existing combat repetitiveness. Instead of just casting [302|312|317], a spell that could change the dynamic by encouraging its use along with their normal attack spells.
To address some of the crowd control issues, why not allow an open version of 214 to be unlocked with training in Summoning lore for additional mana? This would give Clerics and Empaths a more universal way of controlling crowds that 316 and 118 are simply not good at accomplishing.
It would be very interesting to replace 309 with an SmR attack that was around halve the overall damage of 917/616, but just as capable of producing high critical damage with religion lore improving the critical damage rank - and it could have a secondary lore benefit (likely summoning) that adds a chance to knock the target over similar to how 917 w/ earth lore has a high chance of knocking targets over. That would give clerics a tool to handle targets that are difficult to ward provided the enemy was susceptible to critical attacks.
This would work very well when combined with 240 as an instantaneous 2nd cast of the spell from the "mote" would result in an attack of similar power to 917/616, and would be useful early on for clerics struggling to ward targets - for 18 mana they could cast twice on a target subject to SmR defense vs trying to ward something with 317 and failing.
Besides, 309 is super redundant in it's current form.
To address some of the crowd control issues, why not allow an open version of 214 to be unlocked with training in Summoning lore for additional mana? This would give Clerics and Empaths a more universal way of controlling crowds that 316 and 118 are simply not good at accomplishing.
It would be very interesting to replace 309 with an SmR attack that was around halve the overall damage of 917/616, but just as capable of producing high critical damage with religion lore improving the critical damage rank - and it could have a secondary lore benefit (likely summoning) that adds a chance to knock the target over similar to how 917 w/ earth lore has a high chance of knocking targets over. That would give clerics a tool to handle targets that are difficult to ward provided the enemy was susceptible to critical attacks.
This would work very well when combined with 240 as an instantaneous 2nd cast of the spell from the "mote" would result in an attack of similar power to 917/616, and would be useful early on for clerics struggling to ward targets - for 18 mana they could cast twice on a target subject to SmR defense vs trying to ward something with 317 and failing.
Besides, 309 is super redundant in it's current form.
@Estild I could see 320 as a utility spell for clerics with a 5 min timer. I'll call it Divine Punishment for now.
Divine Punishment - 320
Cleric borrows a portion of his patron arkati's power to enhance their spells.
302 - While under the effect of divine punishment the bane or smite aspect of 302 is reversed. Bane clerics will have full effectiveness against undead and smite clerics will have full effectiveness against the living.
306 - While under the effect of divine punishment Holy Bolt becomes a bolt spell that works against the living and that uses the plasma table for DF and critical damage.
312 - While under the effect of divine punishment the charge time is halved. The fully powered 6 second charge time would be halved to 3 seconds.
317 - While under the effect of divine punishment the target has a chance to incur RT and be forced to plead with the cleric for mercy.
Divine Punishment - 320
Cleric borrows a portion of his patron arkati's power to enhance their spells.
302 - While under the effect of divine punishment the bane or smite aspect of 302 is reversed. Bane clerics will have full effectiveness against undead and smite clerics will have full effectiveness against the living.
306 - While under the effect of divine punishment Holy Bolt becomes a bolt spell that works against the living and that uses the plasma table for DF and critical damage.
312 - While under the effect of divine punishment the charge time is halved. The fully powered 6 second charge time would be halved to 3 seconds.
317 - While under the effect of divine punishment the target has a chance to incur RT and be forced to plead with the cleric for mercy.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
>I see them [empaths] as living specialists because 1106 doesn't work on undead and they're forced to spend more mana to hunt undead (1115).
>...
>I also don't consider elementals to be "living" and think the confluence should be an area of weakness.
1106 works on all undead with bones. That said, there's a pretty good case that we haven't touched on yet for empaths being comparatively weaker against the undead, though, which is that 1108 doesn't work on them and 1120 needs heavy training in Telepathy lore. I don't think that having slightly more trouble against the undead means being a living specialist, though.
The game treats elementals as living for the purposes of Smite/Bane. Whether it should is a different question, though, and I'd like for Smite to affect elementals--though that's not because of the Confluence. Clerics are actually great in the Confluence, where 312 is perfect because its two main drawbacks of not stunning and not being able to crit kill already don't apply to elementals. The problem is more for lower-level pure clerics fighting enemies like cold guardians or fire guardians.
>To address some of the crowd control issues, why not allow an open version of 214 to be unlocked with training in Summoning lore for additional mana? This would give Clerics and Empaths a more universal way of controlling crowds that 316 and 118 are simply not good at accomplishing.
-Ashraam
That would be useful, but only in very niche situations. 316 and 1120 are good enough in almost every case, especially because 214 is cast with lower CS and already has a scaling mana cost based on enemy level. Once enemies are around 40, even the single-target Bind costs 17 mana.
I might not have said this anywhere yet, but I'm not sold on clerics having trouble with crowd control pre-cap since very few enemies can shake off 316 or are immune to it. (There are scattered exceptions like, off the top of my head, frost giants shaking off immobility and major spiders being immune to Censure.)
It's at cap where 316 went from being a spell I use all the time to a spell I use only against bandits, because it doesn't work in the Sanctum or the Confluence, the OTF mix has magic-immune constructs and immobility-shaking war griffins, and plane 4 has 316-immune rift crawlers. And both plane 4 and the Confluence are slow enough anyway that I don't need disablers in the first place and can just go for the kills.
What I have said clerics have trouble with, both pre-cap and even significantly post-cap, is doing moderate mass damage in a quick way that's friendly to group hunting. (Moderate being around, say, the power of 1630.) The way that 335 works in waves and doesn't carry over between rooms makes group hunting overly awkward.
As a super quick proposal, a new CHANNEL version of 335 that does only one cycle and has a higher damage factor would solve that problem for me. Or a wearable version of 335 where the cycles can be infused into the cleric for X extra mana and unleashed on the cleric's own timing.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>...
>I also don't consider elementals to be "living" and think the confluence should be an area of weakness.
1106 works on all undead with bones. That said, there's a pretty good case that we haven't touched on yet for empaths being comparatively weaker against the undead, though, which is that 1108 doesn't work on them and 1120 needs heavy training in Telepathy lore. I don't think that having slightly more trouble against the undead means being a living specialist, though.
The game treats elementals as living for the purposes of Smite/Bane. Whether it should is a different question, though, and I'd like for Smite to affect elementals--though that's not because of the Confluence. Clerics are actually great in the Confluence, where 312 is perfect because its two main drawbacks of not stunning and not being able to crit kill already don't apply to elementals. The problem is more for lower-level pure clerics fighting enemies like cold guardians or fire guardians.
>To address some of the crowd control issues, why not allow an open version of 214 to be unlocked with training in Summoning lore for additional mana? This would give Clerics and Empaths a more universal way of controlling crowds that 316 and 118 are simply not good at accomplishing.
-Ashraam
That would be useful, but only in very niche situations. 316 and 1120 are good enough in almost every case, especially because 214 is cast with lower CS and already has a scaling mana cost based on enemy level. Once enemies are around 40, even the single-target Bind costs 17 mana.
I might not have said this anywhere yet, but I'm not sold on clerics having trouble with crowd control pre-cap since very few enemies can shake off 316 or are immune to it. (There are scattered exceptions like, off the top of my head, frost giants shaking off immobility and major spiders being immune to Censure.)
It's at cap where 316 went from being a spell I use all the time to a spell I use only against bandits, because it doesn't work in the Sanctum or the Confluence, the OTF mix has magic-immune constructs and immobility-shaking war griffins, and plane 4 has 316-immune rift crawlers. And both plane 4 and the Confluence are slow enough anyway that I don't need disablers in the first place and can just go for the kills.
What I have said clerics have trouble with, both pre-cap and even significantly post-cap, is doing moderate mass damage in a quick way that's friendly to group hunting. (Moderate being around, say, the power of 1630.) The way that 335 works in waves and doesn't carry over between rooms makes group hunting overly awkward.
As a super quick proposal, a new CHANNEL version of 335 that does only one cycle and has a higher damage factor would solve that problem for me. Or a wearable version of 335 where the cycles can be infused into the cleric for X extra mana and unleashed on the cleric's own timing.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>What I am most interested in for Clerics is a spell that would break up their existing combat repetitiveness. Instead of just casting [302|312|317] over and over, a spell that could change the dynamic by encouraging its use along with their normal attack spells.
Holier than thou (6 mana)
The cleric calls upon their deity to strike down their unholy target. Unfortunately for overly proud clerics their patron will not necessarily agree with the cleric's judgement. Single lightning crit striking the target if a manoever roll is succcessful and the cleric if it isn't. If the room is wet, a second strike (decided by a second roll) occurs. If either party is soaked by holy water, they get a substantial bonus on the die roll, but suffer a worse crit if they end up being targetted anyway. Religion lore give a die roll bonus, blessing lore gives resistance to the cleric who isn't as holy as they think they are.
...
Needs to be manoever, because that changes the dynamic. Needs to be modest mana, because thats where the power gap is worst. Lightning is the classic way for gods to strike down those that offend them, and clerics really ought to have something like this available.
Holier than thou (6 mana)
The cleric calls upon their deity to strike down their unholy target. Unfortunately for overly proud clerics their patron will not necessarily agree with the cleric's judgement. Single lightning crit striking the target if a manoever roll is succcessful and the cleric if it isn't. If the room is wet, a second strike (decided by a second roll) occurs. If either party is soaked by holy water, they get a substantial bonus on the die roll, but suffer a worse crit if they end up being targetted anyway. Religion lore give a die roll bonus, blessing lore gives resistance to the cleric who isn't as holy as they think they are.
...
Needs to be manoever, because that changes the dynamic. Needs to be modest mana, because thats where the power gap is worst. Lightning is the classic way for gods to strike down those that offend them, and clerics really ought to have something like this available.
| No one profession (Pure or otherwise) owns maneuver attacks. If that did exist, it would have gone to Rangers due to Spike Thorn (616) a long time ago and Wizards would not have got Earthen Fury (917). |
I don't believe anyone claimed ownership of maneuver attacks. Also, I believe I specifically pointed out there is a gap in cleric abilities when it comes to having any type of maneuver attack. However, I don't feel like any new addition should just be a copy of some existing ability. Unless you guys aren't able to come up with something creative and just want to make all the classes the same.
| I am unlikely to support any future Cleric spells that only work on undead (or that alignment are based). They already have a few of those, which does reinforce that niche, but also restricts their hunting potential (by almost half of all the creatures in the game). To argue that is the way it should be would be like saying we should take half of the Wizard spells and only make them work on elemental creatures. It's not a fun design when it has such a significant impact on the player's choices. |
A cleric's hunting potential isn't restricted by spells, it's restricted because hunting grounds are incomplete. If the amount of undead creatures were adequate, it wouldn't be an issue and clerics could fulfill their niche role.
I also feel like it makes no sense to compare hurling a fire ball or shards of ice. However, cold spells don't work on most undead. And opposite elements don't really fully function on most things that are elemental in nature. Fire vs trolls is the only thing that really comes to mind as fully functional.
Fun should always be a consideration, but you designed an undead focused pure class. Pretty much every spell in the cleric list is undead oriented in some way. I'm not arguing against being able to attack the living, but I wouldn't consider them to be the best at it.
| What I am most interested in for Clerics is a spell that would break up their existing combat repetitiveness. Instead of just casting [302 | 312 | 317] over and over, a spell that could change the dynamic by encouraging its use along with their normal attack spells. |
| GameMaster Estild |
I blame the repetitiveness on the addition of 240. When you have something so clearly OP that it works against everything so well, there's no reason to use anything else. The reason why Wizards are less repetitive, is because we're forced to be after 519 was removed. High bolt DS? Try 917. Not a squishy creature? Try bolting, with or without a knockout first. Undead immune to cold? Use fire. The limitations of their abilities is what causes variability. The spiritual pures don't have those limitations, just 240 + CS spell on everything.
The boring-ness is a self-inflicted wound because 240 is so good.
| >I see them [empaths] as living specialists because 1106 doesn't work on undead and they're forced to spend more mana to hunt undead (1115). |
| >... |
| >I also don't consider elementals to be "living" and think the confluence should be an area of weakness. |
| 1106 works on all undead with bones. That said, there's a pretty good case that we haven't touched on yet for empaths being comparatively weaker against the undead, though, which is that 1108 doesn't work on them and 1120 needs heavy training in Telepathy lore. I don't think that having slightly more trouble against the undead means being a living specialist, though. |
| The game treats elementals as living for the purposes of Smite/Bane. Whether it should is a different question, though, and I'd like for Smite to affect elementals--though that's not because of the Confluence. Clerics are actually great in the Confluence, where 312 is perfect because its two main drawbacks of not stunning and not being able to crit kill already don't apply to elementals. The problem is more for lower-level pure clerics fighting enemies like cold guardians or fire guardians. |
I touched on this in the previous post, but I'll point it out again because I feel it highlights why wizards may be considered to be more fun.
Wizards don't have a one-size-fits-all attack. Each ability has some type of limitation which means you have to change it up depending on what creature you're facing.
While spiritualists have some limitations, like the ones you mentioned above, I assume it's not an issue once capped. 240 + 1115 or 312 against everything.
Empaths should have more limitations against the undead (1108/1120), and Clerics should have more limitations against the living. At least IMO, because that creates unique limitations, and opportunities for each class.
Low-level clerics should have access to 306, which should hit fire guardians. They would also gain access to 111 by the time cold guardians became an option. I would personally consider that adequate for the role of an undead specialist. Because limitations aren't always a bad thing.
| It's at cap where 316 went from being a spell I use all the time to a spell I use only against bandits, because it doesn't work in the Sanctum or the Confluence, the OTF mix has magic-immune constructs and immobility-shaking war griffins, and plane 4 has 316-immune rift crawlers. And both plane 4 and the Confluence are slow enough anyway that I don't need disablers in the first place and can just go for the kills. |
The only disabler I even use is 410 because everything shakes anything else. I do feel like clerics should have a strong disabler against the undead that cannot be shaken. A 320 disabler/maneuuver that functions like sheer fear on undead would be neat. They may eventually overcome your spiritual power but they should be locked down for a few rounds at the minimum. If blessing lore was required, I could see it eventually effecting the living, but for a shorter duration.
My main argument is that the classes should feel and play differently. So they're not just flavored versions of the same abilities. Each class should have an advantage in some aspect. I currently see the spiritualists as having the CS advantage. I feel like one of the few advantages a wizard has is a strong maneuver. Bolting is pretty crappy, and Estild? has posted before how any bolt upgrades should apply to all classes because all classes will have the same issues. So there would be no advantage there.
| No, your argument is that you don't want other classes to be able to bolt. If they can bolt, then you want wizards to be able to CS cast harder. |
Is it? I don't see where I stated that in any of my posts.
But yes, if spiritualists are suddenly able to bolt just as well as wizards, then wizards should gain access to CS abilities equal to spiritualists. How obvious does the double-standard for spiritualists vs wizards need to be?
| Clerics literally have heavy restrictions on undead or living depending on their alignment. Wizards do not have restrictions to this level. Yes a wizard might have to choose a different spell or a different SMC ability to combat a foe, but clerics have 4 spell circle attacks while wizards have 9. |
That alignment is a choice, and it's only an issue for 1 spell (302), correct? It doesn't look like 312 or 317 are limited in any way based upon alignment. 306 is already a copy of 903/904.
And Wizards have more restrictions. No cold spells against undead. No lightning spells in water rooms. No fire spells in gassy rooms. No lightning spells against reflective creatures. No cold spells against ice creatures. No fire spells against fire creatures.
312 works on everything doesn't it?
302 works in all of those conditions? All you pay is 2x the mana for 50% of the damage?
The wizard limitations are probably why wizards have 9 bolts and clerics only have 4 attacks. Spiritualists have fewer limitations with their attacks, and those limitations are overcome easily via 1 spell, 240. Is it mana intensive, yes. But from what I understand that's not an issue at cap.
| Bolting is not crappy, it's effective if you know what you're doing and know what you're fighting. |
It's considerably slower than simply casting 240 and one shotting everything. It's only decent IMO if you're channeling. Which requires offensive stance and 3s hard RT. If you want to trade standing around in guarded with soft RT for that, I would gladly give up all the bolt spells for 240 + CS spells.
| You keep tossing out 240 like it's a godsend. While it's useful, it's not sustainable while hunting. Wizards have 950, 535, 540, and 550 which they can stack. |
950 has a cooldown, that requires you to make a difficult choice when it comes to lore training. Here's the link if you want to read about the spell: https://gswiki.play.net/Core_Tap_(950)
240 has no cooldown, requires no choice when it comes to lore training (uses 1 vs using 4 in 950). Here's the link if you want to read about the spell: https://gswiki.play.net/Spirit_Slayer_(240)
The other spells are defensive spells, so it's pointless to compare them to an offensive ability.
So let's compare more closely.
950 = 1x per minute
240 = Unlimited based upon mana.
950 = Forced choice between 4 lores.
240 = 1 lore, not a choice, because that same lore affects all the other combat spells.
240 is the spiritualist crutch. It's like 506 in some ways, it's the only thing that makes anything work at all. Imagine how much of a power gap would need to be filled without it. It's almost like instead of taking the time to fix the spiritualist classes correctly, they instead chose to add a one-size-fixes-all solution. Which left you with a boring class.
Would you (meaning, clerics as a whole) be happy with less powerful spells, with limits, that forced variation in combat? Because that's what the real issue is from my viewpoint. Clerics are boring because 240 + CS one shots is boring. The way to make things not boring, is to not be able to one shot everything, and be forced to change up your combat choices based upon your target. It doesn't really matter what they add if that basic flaw is left uncorrected, you're just replacing one spell with another.
How would you feel about 240 having a cooldown, where you had to make a choice between 3 lores to decide which part of the spell you wanted to power up? What if one part worked on CS, one part on Bolts, one part on Maneuvers? If there were more limitations in place, where the power cap is lowered, that means that power loss can be spread out to other abilities. (Using Estilds? previous comments about balancing a power cap of a class.)
Would that be more or less fun?
Or do you simply want 240 + 410 + 518 + 917. That way clerics can be the best at everything.
I'm not trying to crap over all the ideas, I'm just trying to give you an alternative viewpoint and something to think about. If you play other classes which are more fun than clerics, what is it about that class that is more fun for you?
Veythorne, offer some new ideas instead of waiting for the next post someone else makes to simply nitpick and restate the same arguments you've been posting over and over. Everyone understands your opinion at this point. Please stop trying to dominate the discussion with it.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| Whick's body sways back and forth for a bit. |
| * Whick drops dead at your feet! |
| >>I'm not trying to crap over all the ideas, I'm just trying to give you an alternative viewpoint and something to think about. If you play other classes which are more fun than clerics, what is it about that class that is more fun for you?>> |
| Many wizards have graced out boards hooting and hollering about us bolting. Every time they end up walking away bitter because their opinion means nothing on a class they don't play. |
Did any of them say they just don't want the pure classes to be carbon copies of each other? Clerics already have 903 and 904 via 306.
| Clerics are boring because they're the "one spell from level 2 to cap" class. |
Okay, that's something I can understand. But is that something unique to clerics? Bolting is pretty much choose whichever spell you can use to fill your bucket before running out of mana. Warmage is basically 506 and swing swing swing until dead. Sorcerers do 702. It seems like it's more than just a one spell to cap issue that makes clerics boring.
| 312 requires 6 seconds of hard RT for the spell to be worth a damn. |
Yeah, 6s would suck, get rid of the RT. But would that be less boring?
| 317's crit cycle utilizes deity specific damage types |
411, 435, 502, 518, these spells utilize attunement for specific damage types. Would it be better if you could devote random to change the damage type, but not have a choice in what you get? Or maybe toggle between a deity specific and a generic (weaker) version? Would that be less boring?
| The reason I pointed out the higher spell levels wizards have is because they're useful in one way or another. We really only have 140 (lasts 90 seconds), 340 (few charges1, takes spirit and mana to recast), 350 (self raise, woo), and the wizard's biggest complaint, 240. |
240 isn't my biggest complaint. It's just relevant to the discussion when talking about adding additional combat abilities. Because things aren't discussed in a vacuum where you can conveniently forget about the massive on demand power up.
Both classes have profession x50 spells.
Clerics have 340, Wizards don't have a 940.
Both classes have their major x40 spell.
Clerics have 140, Wizards don't have 440.
Tell me again how the high level spells don't compare when wizards don't even have them?
| You play a warmage, as I do. How would you feel if celerity had a 60 second cooldown added? My warmage can do more DPS than my cleric with 240 active, casting 317 like a mad man. |
Don't you have a blink weapon? How do they compare if you use a 0x weapon? I'm not surprised that you can put out a ton of damage using a weapon that costs 400k bloodscrip to create.
However, I would assume that 506 factors into the overall power cap. Maybe that's why 519 was nerfed so hard. So Wizards can't be the best at everything. Would being better at melee be less boring?
| Once again, you don't play a cleric so your "observations" of how they perform are skewed. Once you've capped a cleric and tried hunting in SoS, Nelemar, the Confluence, or the rift, you'll understand why people who commonly play clerics are voicing their opinions. |
I'm able to read, and clerics have posted how bolts are viable at cap. Fleurs did a comparison of CS spells which showed spiritualists at the top of that food chain. That's like saying go play a monk to realize they're horrible. Some things are just obvious.
The complaint is that clerics are boring, but the only word seen is nerf when anyone talks about the crutch that keeps clerics hobbling along. Do you disagree that the forced variability is what makes wizards more fun? Do you disagree that their limitations are what forces that variability?
What choices are clerics forced to make?
>I've seen mention of 307 scaling like empath spells. Would that fix swinging?
I think it might. To add an idea and muddy the water, by definition it seems like a sanctified weapon should be the most powerful weapon a cleric can use. Maybe 307 only scales if the cleric is using a sanctified weapon, or at least just a naturally sanctified material. It might breathe some life back into them. It still wouldn't address the inability to give them holy water flares, but the extra AS would (might?) be of more value.
I think it might. To add an idea and muddy the water, by definition it seems like a sanctified weapon should be the most powerful weapon a cleric can use. Maybe 307 only scales if the cleric is using a sanctified weapon, or at least just a naturally sanctified material. It might breathe some life back into them. It still wouldn't address the inability to give them holy water flares, but the extra AS would (might?) be of more value.
| Would being better at melee be less boring? |
It wouldn't help pure clerics any, but it would sure help me out.
My favorite cleric hunting in the game, maybe even my favorite pre-cap hunting with any profession, was in Shadow Valley with shadow mares, shadow steeds, and night mares.
The first two are noncorporeal undead, so 302 Smite was the fastest, safest, and most efficient way to kill them--but I spent a lot of time physically attacking them anyway, especially the mares. The idea was that after I got down to 30 mana or so then I would take the slower option against the least dangerous enemy so I could keep a reserve of mana for 301 or 316 if I needed them, and a reserve for 302 against the more dangerous steeds.
It was an engaging hunting ground that kept me alert, and a great illustration that as long as melee's viable, the fact that it doesn't use mana can add a different type of strategy.
| In addition to Fleurs research, Estild also posted numbers highlighting the power of the spiritualists CS spells. Good luck finding it after the forum purge, but it's out there. |
It's right here: https://gswiki.play.net/Research:Mean_casts_per_kill_(317,_519,_1115)
That page and the existence of 1117 are the main reasons I've said that empaths are better than clerics at CS spells.
Another minor reason, though, is that Summoning lore boosts the power of 240 and 1115 but doesn't boost the power of any offensive CS spells in Cleric Base.
(Speaking of lores, I really think clerics and wizards should be able to 3x lores in their sphere. I wouldn't say there's a balance issue--maybe with wizards, but not clerics--but flavor-wise it's bugged me that since empaths can 2x spiritual lores and know Major Spiritual, nothing mechanical suggests that clerics are better masters of the spiritual realm than empaths. The same is kind of true too for sorcerers having 2x elemental lores, but at least they don't know Major Elemental.)
| I've seen mention of 307 scaling like empath spells. Would that fix swinging? |
It would be a start, at least, and I've said for a while that it should happen. I'm guessing it would be a pretty easy change and wouldn't take much time away from developing things for pure clerics, who should be the main priority, so it's a simple and straightforward suggestion even if not a creative one.
If it did happen, below is how the situation would work out. I've assumed 65 Blessings lore for a cleric (full chrisms breakpoint), 80 for an empath (automatic healing of rank 2 scars everywhere breakpoint), and 0 Earth lore for a wizard, and that the cleric and empath can get 509 from a wizard while the sorcerer and wizard can get 211 from pure potions.
Cleric (now): 86 AS from spells, can use sanctified weapons, can immobilize with 316 (at least in most areas)
Cleric (if 307 melee AS scaled): 112 AS from spells
Empath: 133 AS from spells, one swing can hit multiple enemies with 1117
Sorcerer: 80 AS from spells, can knock prone with 410/708/709
Wizard: 80 AS from spells, has 506 to swing 5 times as often, can knock prone with 410/909/912
If we include imbeds and rare scrolls, then sorcerers and wizards can close the gap by 30 with +5 AS from 307 and +25 from 215.
| What would make it [335] better? |
Some options include:
* An instant speed one-cycle CHANNEL version with higher DFs.
* Higher DFs in general. According to the wiki, 1030 has a 0.600 DF while 335, which is 5 levels higher and is a pure spell instead of a semi spell, has a 0.200 DF.
* A divine energy system like 1650 to be able to use other abilities while the spell lasts, which is almost 30 seconds.
* Self-cast 335 to use charges on my own timing.
* Add a component where Blessings lore does something, since it's the only one that doesn't. This could be any of the above or something entirely different, like adding flares or giving a short-term powerup that lasts while the spell is in effect.
* The ability for its waves to carry over from room to room, since right now this spell basically has a cooldown unless you're willing to stand still and wait out all four waves. Or STOP 335 should allow recasting immediately. (Right now it just stops remaining cycles.)
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara
>The complaint with most Clerics is the lack of variety while grinding. We only have 4 cleric spell circle attacks and 2 of those require more than 10 mana.
And of those that don't cost more than 10 mana
302 - is nerfed by a factor of about 3 against "wrong" targets
306 - requires training that severely limits the effectiveness of all the other attack spells, disablers and 319. Also hits like a wet noodle against practically every critter for the second half of the game.
Having the staple spells limited by critter type when one type of hunting ground vanishes from the game 3.5m exp in, is really bad design. There needs to be at least one spell of around 6 mana cost that hits almost everything decently hard that can take over from 302 as a staple mid game when undead hunting ceases to be viable as a means of progress.
And of those that don't cost more than 10 mana
302 - is nerfed by a factor of about 3 against "wrong" targets
306 - requires training that severely limits the effectiveness of all the other attack spells, disablers and 319. Also hits like a wet noodle against practically every critter for the second half of the game.
Having the staple spells limited by critter type when one type of hunting ground vanishes from the game 3.5m exp in, is really bad design. There needs to be at least one spell of around 6 mana cost that hits almost everything decently hard that can take over from 302 as a staple mid game when undead hunting ceases to be viable as a means of progress.
| >>In addition to Fleurs research, Estild also posted numbers highlighting the power of the spiritualists CS spells. Good luck finding it after the forum purge, but it's out there. |
| https://gswiki.play.net/Research:Mean_casts_per_kill_(317,_519,_1115) |
| Huh, odd. The research shows EXACTLY what people on this thread, that you've been arguing with, have been saying. |
| >>For clerics/empaths, 67/67/169 spell ranks with a CS of 508. For wizards, 75/160/68 for a CS of 556. |
| Huh, looks to me like Wizards have one of the highest possible CS' in the game and with lores are 2nd to warding. Luckily we have 240 to even it out, unlike empaths....wait a minute... |
You are aware that it's not about having the highest number, right? Wizards could have 1000 CS but if elemental TD is 999. Guess what that means?
I didn't realize you were arguing about who has the highest number. While a Wizard may have a bigger... number, spiritual TDs are lower across the board.
However, look at the actual important part where it says 0x Lore and Casts per kill. Notice how the spiritualists require less casts per kill against every capped creature? Now add in 240 and decrease the # of casts by 60%. 519 CAN get closer to the spiritualist numbers, but it requires you to sacrifice a lot of other things to do so. There are those forced choices and limitations again to gain a specific power increase. Where are those forced choices, and sacrifices, for spiritualists?
| It's right here: https://gswiki.play.net/Research:Mean_casts_per_kill_(317,_519,_1115) |
| That page and the existence of 1117 are the main reasons I've said that empaths are better than clerics at CS spells. |
| Another minor reason, though, is that Summoning lore boosts the power of 240 and 1115 but doesn't boost the power of any offensive CS spells in Cleric Base. |
I would agree that Empaths are at the top. I think part of the reason is because Clerics are tied to Empaths in too many ways. They had to tie summoning lore to 240 because if it was religion, where the other combat spells gain power, it would be bad for empaths. So it makes more sense now why it's a single lore power boost instead of having forced choices. I guess they chose empaths over clerics for the power boost.
| If it did happen, below is how the situation would work out. I've assumed 65 Blessings lore for a cleric (full chrisms breakpoint), 80 for an empath (automatic healing of rank 2 scars everywhere breakpoint), and 0 Earth lore for a wizard, and that the cleric and empath can get 509 from a wizard while the sorcerer and wizard can get 211 from pure potions. |
It could be helpful to make these comparisons, but I disagree with everything you're including to get your numbers. I don't think that every spell you can possibly get in some way should be included. I would also leave out the lore additions, because they're small, and the spiritualists share the training so it's a wash for them anyway.
Clerics:
211 - 15
215 - 25
307 - 15
Total: 55
Wizards:
425 - 50
509 - 15
Total: 65
Empaths:
211 - 15
215 - 25
1109 - 15
1130 - 55
Total: 110
So Empaths are at the top for CS and Melee. Is that a design choice? Or is it a failure? If Empaths are going to be the best at CS and Melee, should they be the worst at maneuver attacks and bolting? 1110 is a pretty decent CS/Bolt combo. Does that mean Clerics and Wizards should be best at bolting and maneuver attacks? Or is each class going to be balanced to be more equal in all the forms of attack?
Personally, I stopped enjoying the cleric class after they changed 302. I used a combination of old repel and melee attacks. That was fun at the time. But the question I have is, what are clerics supposed to be best at? Also, maybe Empaths really should lose Major Spiritual access and be pushed to minor mental. Look at the numbers without the +40 AS from the 200's. It would also open up 240 to have more forced choices through the other spiritual lores.
| >The complaint with most Clerics is the lack of variety while grinding. We only have 4 cleric spell circle attacks and 2 of those require more than 10 mana. |
| And of those that don't cost more than 10 mana |
| 302 - is nerfed by a factor of about 3 against "wrong" targets |
| 306 - requires training that severely limits the effectiveness of all the other attack spells, disablers and 319. Also hits like a wet noodle against practically every critter for the second half of the game. |
| Having the staple spells limited by critter type when one type of hunting ground vanishes from the game 3.5m exp in, is really bad design. There needs to be at least one spell of around 6 mana cost that hits almost everything decently hard that can take over from 302 as a staple mid game when undead hunting ceases to be viable as a means of progress. |
Most of the x02 spells are limited IMO. 702, 502, 1101, they all have a shelf life. I don't see the issue with that one because you are supposed to scale up as you hunt. Maybe 306 should become a middle-ground CS spell, with the ability to turn it into 903 via evoke kind of like 705. But yes, 306/903 is junk later in the game. There's a reason I say bolting is trash for the most part. I do support the forced choices for power up that you dislike about 306 though. I have 0 fire lore, because it's trash after the 519 nerf, and it's still a hard choice where to place lores and get all the boosts I'd really like to have. Would I like to have it all? Yes. But forcing people to choose priorities creates differences between characters so it's not cookie cutter.
| What would make it [335] better? |
| Some options include: |
>* An instant speed one-cycle CHANNEL version with higher DFs.
This could work if it was for a reduced mana cost, similar to 1030. 35 mana per cast doesn't work on a single target basis.
>"Each cast begins with a 12 second summoning period (build-up time), followed by three rounds of damage (with 6 seconds between rounds), as long as the cleric does not leave the room."
The summoning period should disappear as well.
I think it would be good if 335 was similar to 917 in the way it hits. Still CS based so it's "different", but a strong DoT that is equally fast. It does nothing for the, but we only have 4 spells issue, but at least 335 becomes something you would want to use.
What are your thoughts on the following?
304 = Bless - But get rid of 309, and shove 315 into 304. 304 can now bless a weapon, or a player to remove a curse.
306 = Middle damage CS spell addition, changed to plasma bolt via evoke instead of 903.
307 = Scaling AS bonus, maybe a doubled bonus for attacks against aligned targets? Or... (see 340)
309 = Plasma ball (Even tho sorcerers already stole that via 713)
320 = "Holy" maneuver spell - Reverse sheer fear, forced RT, breakable eventually. Works on opposite alignment via forced lore choices.
335 = Still CS based, but no waiting period, same DoT but with increased speed like 917, probably a little stronger and with a single target evoke? version.
340 = Make this spell have the additional AS bonus instead of 307, allow the truehand effect to apply to melee attacks on aligned targets instead of CS attacks. Remove the chant requirement before each cast and turn it into a 60s duration instead when activated (Still required the 40 mana + spirit to charge, but maybe allow enough charges to complete a full hunt and you refill when you rest). Slightly less tedious but still has the "usage" cost similar to 506. Losing the CS truehand because 240, but gaining a stronger bolt/melee ability via truehand.
315 = ??? New melee/bolt AS spell for aligned targets, plus lore for unaligned? (Minus the 340 changes above)
Does that fill in the gaps? If not, what would still be missing?
So a wizard that deliberately trains to cripple their chosen attack form is almost as good as a cleric that maximises their training?
A wizard that trains 101/101/101 is doing something else than spamming MjE CS spells. Get out there and do the research on the attack forms they actually use if you want to do a proper comparison for that type of spell training.
A wizard that trains 101/101/101 is doing something else than spamming MjE CS spells. Get out there and do the research on the attack forms they actually use if you want to do a proper comparison for that type of spell training.
| So a wizard that deliberately trains to cripple their chosen attack form is almost as good as a cleric that maximises their training? |
| A wizard that trains 101/101/101 is doing something else than spamming MjE CS spells. Get out there and do the research on the attack forms they actually use if you want to do a proper comparison for that type of spell training. |
Wizards are forced to cripple some attack forms (Mainly 519), because we're forced to train 2 spell lists due to our benefits being spread out and not in a single profession spell list. You could make the choice to maximize 500's, but you're giving up a lot of things to do so, DS, TD, 917, enchanting ability. Imagine if spiritualists had to train a second spell list to 100 or lose major class defining benefits. They don't, because all of their power comes from their profession lists. Some suggestions have been made to move the CS spells (502,516,519) to the profession circle so the pures are equal in that regard, but I don't believe that's something they will ever do.
I will also point out that I'm okay with spiritualists being better at CS spells, I just don't think they should be equally as good in the other attack forms. Because limitations create diversity.
And the posted link to the researched CS spells is valid. It shows each of the pures capstone CS spell being compared against each other. Spiritualists don't train 100 in each circle, because they're not forced to. Nothing is lost by not doing so. The Wizard class does have more variety in spell training, because we're forced to, so some people will prioritize 900's for 917 or enchanting. Some will prioritize 500's for 516 and to maybe have 519 as a disabler.
Would you support being forced to train Major Spiritual up to 100 or lose out on some benefit? What if the % boost provided by 240 was limited by how many Major Spiritual spells you had? Where you had to choose between max CS or max double cast %. That's the kind of choice that Wizards have to make, do you want max CS, or do you want to lose all of these other benefits. Do you want a strong 519, or do you want to split your lores to have more than 1 spell be functional.
What choices do you really make as a Cleric when it comes to training, where you lose something because you chose to train one way or another?
