Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Hey Viduus,
I was giving some thought to this spell and am struggling to come up with a case where I would ever really use it. I could see it as something a lower level paladin might use until they get better spells, and maybe that is this spells niche. Or maybe there are play styles that better lend themselves to this spell.
That said, if there was an opportunity to make this more useful for higher level paladins, what about making the spell ward after any attack made by the paladin and not just attacks where there is a miss? Even with that, I still think I would favor my current approach in most situations but it might at least be a harder choice.
Possibly I'm missing some usage or this spell really shines with additional training / once the final updates go in. Not really sure but thought I'd put the idea out there while the review and discussion is going on.
-- Robert
Templar's Verdict (1603)
When cast, the target of Templar's Verdict is subject to a warding roll. If the target fails to ward off the spell, they will take minor/moderate plasma damage and receive a 30 second debuff of -5 DS/-3 TD/-5 SMRv2.
Subsequent attack, casting, or combat maneuver misses from the Paladin toward the target cause the target to ward against the spell again and, upon failure, receive damage and another stack of the debuff. This effect can trigger a base of 3 times, increased with Spiritual Lore, Summoning.
-- Robert
>> Tarence stares at you.
It's to be used in conjunction with a hard hitting weapon. This way, when infused, your first hits on whatever target always have a guiding light flare and a 1603 flare. If it kills, the next creature gets the same. Ad nauseum. It's highly efficient, just needs it's damage tweaked - and Viduus is currently doing that.
DERP - big miss on my part.
Killing a target under the effects of the spell causes the Paladin to become Zealous, causing their next successful attack within 60 seconds to always trigger a Guiding Light flare.
This spell makes more sense to me now and I can see how it might be more useful with harder hitting weapons.
-- Robert
>> Tarence stares at you.
Killing a target under the effects of the spell causes the Paladin to become Zealous, causing their next successful attack within 60 seconds to always trigger a Guiding Light flare.
This spell makes more sense to me now and I can see how it might be more useful with harder hitting weapons.
-- Robert
>> Tarence stares at you.
>> If memory serves me right too the more summoning lore you have the more it triggers the stacking debuff.
Yes. I tend to discount this feature as it requires you to miss the target in order to trigger the effect each time. If I am missing more than 3 times (the base without summoning lore) I'm probably doing something wrong out the gate. Maybe there are cases where this would be a useful feature though? Hrmm... cast it on a tough opponent, MSTRIKE in DEFENSIVE, let your party have fun attacking it with the reduced defenses for 30 seconds? 5 swing MSTRIKE (and some lore) would result in -25 DS/-15 TD/-25 SMRv2.
Fun way to help lower level characters out maybe.
-- Robert
>> Tarence stares at you.
Yes. I tend to discount this feature as it requires you to miss the target in order to trigger the effect each time. If I am missing more than 3 times (the base without summoning lore) I'm probably doing something wrong out the gate. Maybe there are cases where this would be a useful feature though? Hrmm... cast it on a tough opponent, MSTRIKE in DEFENSIVE, let your party have fun attacking it with the reduced defenses for 30 seconds? 5 swing MSTRIKE (and some lore) would result in -25 DS/-15 TD/-25 SMRv2.
Fun way to help lower level characters out maybe.
-- Robert
>> Tarence stares at you.
>>Yes. I tend to discount this feature as it requires you to miss the target in order to trigger the effect each time. If I am missing more than 3 times (the base without summoning lore) I'm probably doing something wrong out the gate. Maybe there are cases where this would be a useful feature though? Hrmm... cast it on a tough opponent, MSTRIKE in DEFENSIVE, let your party have fun attacking it with the reduced defenses for 30 seconds? 5 swing MSTRIKE (and some lore) would result in -25 DS/-15 TD/-25 SMRv2.
Oh I didn't realize it was on a miss for that effect that seems backwards thinking. Should trigger on any swing misses or hits that seems just dragging out a kill for that.
Oh I didn't realize it was on a miss for that effect that seems backwards thinking. Should trigger on any swing misses or hits that seems just dragging out a kill for that.
Late response from me, but I'm liking this spell a lot as a cheap opener on my mid leveled (lvl 58) paladin. It's a warding spell that I get to cast while staying in guarded stance, and it pretty much guarantees a stun as long as it wards.
Stun works really well with cmans after the recent updates, it gives a big bonus to your rolls, and I've found 1603 to be pretty nice used in combination with stuff like charge or feint.
Here's a charge done on a stone troll who's not stunned:
[SMR result: 157 (Open d100: 52, Bonus: 17)]
Your size significantly hinders your attack!
Competent charge and a stone troll is sent crashing to the ground!
... 3 points of damage!
Minor puncture to the right arm.
Here's one on a stone troll that's been stunned by 1603:
You gesture at a stone troll.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +169 + CvA: +20 + d100: +32 == +129
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 25 points of damage!
Intense beam of plasma shears away large chunks of the stone troll's forearm!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>_state scripting on
>stance off
>cman charge
You are now in an offensive stance.
You rush forward at a stone troll with your red mithril lance and attempt a charge!
[SMR result: 138 (Open d100: -5, Bonus: 52)]
Your size significantly hinders your attack!
Fair charge and a stone troll is knocked over by the blow.
... 5 points of damage!
Minor puncture to the right leg.
The bonus on the cman roll was a lot higher due to the stun from 1603.
I don't know if I'll keep using 1603 as an opener at cap, but for now it's pretty nice for conserving mana.
Stun works really well with cmans after the recent updates, it gives a big bonus to your rolls, and I've found 1603 to be pretty nice used in combination with stuff like charge or feint.
Here's a charge done on a stone troll who's not stunned:
[SMR result: 157 (Open d100: 52, Bonus: 17)]
Your size significantly hinders your attack!
Competent charge and a stone troll is sent crashing to the ground!
... 3 points of damage!
Minor puncture to the right arm.
Here's one on a stone troll that's been stunned by 1603:
You gesture at a stone troll.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +169 + CvA: +20 + d100: +32 == +129
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 25 points of damage!
Intense beam of plasma shears away large chunks of the stone troll's forearm!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>_state scripting on
>stance off
>cman charge
You are now in an offensive stance.
You rush forward at a stone troll with your red mithril lance and attempt a charge!
[SMR result: 138 (Open d100: -5, Bonus: 52)]
Your size significantly hinders your attack!
Fair charge and a stone troll is knocked over by the blow.
... 5 points of damage!
Minor puncture to the right leg.
The bonus on the cman roll was a lot higher due to the stun from 1603.
I don't know if I'll keep using 1603 as an opener at cap, but for now it's pretty nice for conserving mana.
>Saying it "Pretty much always stuns" sounds to me like you need to do some more testing.
Let me clarify then. I've been using 1603 as an opener for almost every critter I've killed since the paladin update, and the chances of it failing to stun upon a successful ward has been less than a 1 in 10 occurrence for me. In the event that it does fail, since it's dirt cheap at 3 mana, I just cast it again.
Let me clarify then. I've been using 1603 as an opener for almost every critter I've killed since the paladin update, and the chances of it failing to stun upon a successful ward has been less than a 1 in 10 occurrence for me. In the event that it does fail, since it's dirt cheap at 3 mana, I just cast it again.
Been seeing this a few times a hunt. Basically I'm zealous (killed a critter that was under the effect of 1603) but when I go to cast 1603 on the next critter, I lose the buff and receive no GL flare. Clip below. Can't reproduce unfortunately - it'll do this for 2 or 3 casts of 1603 then work normally.
You gesture at a supple Ivasian inciter (VVD).
Violet flames erupt from beneath a supple Ivasian inciter (VVD).
CS: +300 - TD: +217 + CvA: +9 + d100: +68 == +160
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a supple Ivasian inciter (VVD) in its searing embrace!
... 15 points of damage!
Superheated arc of plasma traces blackened path across the Ivasian inciter (VVD)'s belly!
The Ivasian inciter (VVD) is stunned!
A supple Ivasian inciter's (VVD) defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
The violet flashes in your peripheral vision disappear.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
I wonder what you're doing differently than I, then. Here's empirical data collected this morning:
Flares: 100
Lowest Ward: 173
Highest Ward: 333
Lowest Damage Done: 0 (fumble); 0 (dodged); 1 (connected)
Highest Damage Done: 10
Total Damage Done: 630
Average Damage Done: 6.3 per flare
Flares resulting in stuns: 4
Flares resulting in knockdowns: 0
Flares resulting in criticals: 0
My logs are available upon request. All enemies were Krolvin pirates between 100th and 108th level. Approximately 40% of them were undead, and 33% were boss creatures (the dodged flares were on these).
This data should make it very clear that either your remembering of your hunt is anecdotal, or there is a level component to the flare. In either case, I wouldn't call 4% "almost every time" for stuns, the damage is laughable, and the critical results and knockdowns are inexistent. The DS pushdown is present, but at levels this high: completely negatable. A solid 1614, or (if you're mana rich) 1615 is a far better infusion in the post-cap game.
- D
Flares: 100
Lowest Ward: 173
Highest Ward: 333
Lowest Damage Done: 0 (fumble); 0 (dodged); 1 (connected)
Highest Damage Done: 10
Total Damage Done: 630
Average Damage Done: 6.3 per flare
Flares resulting in stuns: 4
Flares resulting in knockdowns: 0
Flares resulting in criticals: 0
My logs are available upon request. All enemies were Krolvin pirates between 100th and 108th level. Approximately 40% of them were undead, and 33% were boss creatures (the dodged flares were on these).
This data should make it very clear that either your remembering of your hunt is anecdotal, or there is a level component to the flare. In either case, I wouldn't call 4% "almost every time" for stuns, the damage is laughable, and the critical results and knockdowns are inexistent. The DS pushdown is present, but at levels this high: completely negatable. A solid 1614, or (if you're mana rich) 1615 is a far better infusion in the post-cap game.
- D
>1615 is a far better infusion in the post-cap game. - Big D
I believe you two are talking about using 1603 differently since you, Dhairn, mention infusion. And the other poster talks about casting 1603.
The casting of 1603 is, right now, a completely different ball game. I also cast it as my opener and the damage/stun/crits it can pull off on low end rolls is pretty crazy (wildly inconsistent though, and absolutely better than the infused version.
I believe you two are talking about using 1603 differently since you, Dhairn, mention infusion. And the other poster talks about casting 1603.
The casting of 1603 is, right now, a completely different ball game. I also cast it as my opener and the damage/stun/crits it can pull off on low end rolls is pretty crazy (wildly inconsistent though, and absolutely better than the infused version.
Another hunt log:
Flares: 69
Lowest Ward: 47
Highest Ward: 281
Lowest Damage Done: 0 (fumble); 1 (connected)
Highest Damage Done: 10
Total Damage Done: 444
Average Damage Done: 6.43
Flares resulting in stuns: 1
Flares resulting in knockdowns: 0
Flares resulting in criticals: 0
This was from about an hour in Reim, from entrance through royalty. Again, logs available upon request.
- D
Flares: 69
Lowest Ward: 47
Highest Ward: 281
Lowest Damage Done: 0 (fumble); 1 (connected)
Highest Damage Done: 10
Total Damage Done: 444
Average Damage Done: 6.43
Flares resulting in stuns: 1
Flares resulting in knockdowns: 0
Flares resulting in criticals: 0
This was from about an hour in Reim, from entrance through royalty. Again, logs available upon request.
- D
>I wonder what you're doing differently than I, then. Here's empirical data collected this morning:
>...All enemies were Krolvin pirates between 100th and 108th level...
I used only the cast version of 1603. I don't know if the infused version acts any different, but just tossing it out here for clarification. Also, I mostly uses it while having 1617 active, so I wasn't receiving any benefits from 1618.
I also hunt OSA on my capped empath and from my experience a decent number of the krolvin and incorporeal undead pirates are flat out stun immune. If you were testing the stunning chance of cast 1603 on a population of critters with many stun immune specimens, your data would be, ah, pretty compromised.
My experience with 1603 on critters that can be stunned (stone trolls below as well as many citadel & marsh keep critters from River's Rest) is that it's really reliable even on low warding margins. Some examples from a single hunt from a couple of days below:
You gesture at a stone troll.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +175 + CvA: +20 + d100: +10 == +101
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 20 points of damage!
Plasma encircles the stone troll's neck causing skin to shrivel and bleed!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +175 + CvA: +20 + d100: +11 == +102
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 15 points of damage!
Dazzling arc of energy traces blackened path across the stone troll's back!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
Your red mithril lance pulses with a burst of plasma energy!
... 15 points of damage!
Precise burst of energy causes the stone troll's neck to blacken and peel.
Your red mithril lance sprays with a burst of plasma energy!
... 5 points of damage!
Searing strike to back causes the stone troll to grunt in pain.
The violet flashes in your peripheral vision disappear.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +175 + CvA: +20 + d100: +11 == +102
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 25 points of damage!
The stone troll's fingers burn and explode leaving blackened stumps!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
My experience with 1603 is that when I use it on stunnable stuff, a successful ward that fails to stun is something that occurs a few times week. It's very rare that I don't even expect to see it in the course of a single hunt. If I'm hunting unstunnable stuff like massive troll kings, I switch to 1615. If you want to test out the chances of 1603 stunning, you might want to try it out on stunnable capped critters, like non-champion ithzirs or the living/corporeal stuff in Nelemar.
>...All enemies were Krolvin pirates between 100th and 108th level...
I used only the cast version of 1603. I don't know if the infused version acts any different, but just tossing it out here for clarification. Also, I mostly uses it while having 1617 active, so I wasn't receiving any benefits from 1618.
I also hunt OSA on my capped empath and from my experience a decent number of the krolvin and incorporeal undead pirates are flat out stun immune. If you were testing the stunning chance of cast 1603 on a population of critters with many stun immune specimens, your data would be, ah, pretty compromised.
My experience with 1603 on critters that can be stunned (stone trolls below as well as many citadel & marsh keep critters from River's Rest) is that it's really reliable even on low warding margins. Some examples from a single hunt from a couple of days below:
You gesture at a stone troll.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +175 + CvA: +20 + d100: +10 == +101
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 20 points of damage!
Plasma encircles the stone troll's neck causing skin to shrivel and bleed!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +175 + CvA: +20 + d100: +11 == +102
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 15 points of damage!
Dazzling arc of energy traces blackened path across the stone troll's back!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
Your red mithril lance pulses with a burst of plasma energy!
... 15 points of damage!
Precise burst of energy causes the stone troll's neck to blacken and peel.
Your red mithril lance sprays with a burst of plasma energy!
... 5 points of damage!
Searing strike to back causes the stone troll to grunt in pain.
The violet flashes in your peripheral vision disappear.
Violet flames erupt from beneath a stone troll.
CS: +246 - TD: +175 + CvA: +20 + d100: +11 == +102
Warding failed!
A column of violet flame envelops a stone troll in its searing embrace!
... 25 points of damage!
The stone troll's fingers burn and explode leaving blackened stumps!
The stone troll is stunned!
A stone troll's defenses are diminished in the wake of the flames.
My experience with 1603 is that when I use it on stunnable stuff, a successful ward that fails to stun is something that occurs a few times week. It's very rare that I don't even expect to see it in the course of a single hunt. If I'm hunting unstunnable stuff like massive troll kings, I switch to 1615. If you want to test out the chances of 1603 stunning, you might want to try it out on stunnable capped critters, like non-champion ithzirs or the living/corporeal stuff in Nelemar.
If you're strictly "CAST"ing 1603 instead of firing it from an infuse, you're subjecting yourself to 3 seconds additional soft RT. This may not seem important, but it increases your TTK on every mob. Also, many of the creatures I used the infuse cast on were stunnable, and were stunned. They aren't OSA Krolvin. If there's this large of a disparity between the infused 1603 and the casted 1603, one is left to wonder a few things: 1, are you evoking the spell instead of regular casting? 2, is there "Channel" involved? Are you open handed? If the infused 1603 isn't acting as a casted 1603, it sounds very much like a bug to me... and like I said in my original reply to your statements about the spell, if you're seeing "almost always stuns" then there's something seriously askew.
- D
- D
>If you're strictly "CAST"ing 1603 instead of firing it from an infuse, you're subjecting yourself to 3 seconds additional soft RT. This may not seem important, but it increases your TTK on every mob.
I LIKE the 3 second soft RT. I get to stay in the safety of guarded stance and can run if I get additional mobs or if anything goes wrong. It's safer than going straight out in offensive to attack or maneuver a critter. I care more about my safety than TTK. Perhaps this is due to a difference in our play style or even gear. Regardless, the OP of the thread was wandering whether people found a use for this new spell, I found one and offered my experience.
>Also, many of the creatures I used the infuse cast on were stunnable, and were stunned. They aren't OSA Krolvin.
Sounds good. Or did you mean they weren't?
>If there's this large of a disparity between the infused 1603 and the casted 1603, one is left to wonder a few things: 1, are you evoking the spell instead of regular casting? 2, is there "Channel" involved? Are you open handed? If the infused 1603 isn't acting as a casted 1603, it sounds very much like a bug to me... and like I said in my original reply to your statements about the spell, if you're seeing "almost always stuns" then there's something seriously askew.
I am not doing anything special with this spell other than just a plain cast. Nothing that gives me hard RT or anything weird, just casting with a lance in hand. APLOM above mentioned that he noticed a big difference between the power of the regular cast and infused 1603, and that his experience with cast 1603 is similar to mine. I think that (infused being gimpy) is what you're noticing as well.
I LIKE the 3 second soft RT. I get to stay in the safety of guarded stance and can run if I get additional mobs or if anything goes wrong. It's safer than going straight out in offensive to attack or maneuver a critter. I care more about my safety than TTK. Perhaps this is due to a difference in our play style or even gear. Regardless, the OP of the thread was wandering whether people found a use for this new spell, I found one and offered my experience.
>Also, many of the creatures I used the infuse cast on were stunnable, and were stunned. They aren't OSA Krolvin.
Sounds good. Or did you mean they weren't?
>If there's this large of a disparity between the infused 1603 and the casted 1603, one is left to wonder a few things: 1, are you evoking the spell instead of regular casting? 2, is there "Channel" involved? Are you open handed? If the infused 1603 isn't acting as a casted 1603, it sounds very much like a bug to me... and like I said in my original reply to your statements about the spell, if you're seeing "almost always stuns" then there's something seriously askew.
I am not doing anything special with this spell other than just a plain cast. Nothing that gives me hard RT or anything weird, just casting with a lance in hand. APLOM above mentioned that he noticed a big difference between the power of the regular cast and infused 1603, and that his experience with cast 1603 is similar to mine. I think that (infused being gimpy) is what you're noticing as well.
>...
Yes, I do. If I measure my characters purely on killing speed, aka TTK, my wizard would absolutely blow my paladin out of the water. And yet I like playing my paladin better since my paladin wears plate and can tank a lot of crap that would insta-gib the wizard. Part of what makes my paladin nice is their survivability. There's more than one factor that one can use to measure how powerful a character or play style can be. Focusing only on "muh TTK" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. There is nothing wrong with my preference to disable critters while staying in soft RT & guarded stance, versus hard RT & offensive.
Hopefully these can provide a different view and some food for thought, D.
Yes, I do. If I measure my characters purely on killing speed, aka TTK, my wizard would absolutely blow my paladin out of the water. And yet I like playing my paladin better since my paladin wears plate and can tank a lot of crap that would insta-gib the wizard. Part of what makes my paladin nice is their survivability. There's more than one factor that one can use to measure how powerful a character or play style can be. Focusing only on "muh TTK" is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. There is nothing wrong with my preference to disable critters while staying in soft RT & guarded stance, versus hard RT & offensive.
Hopefully these can provide a different view and some food for thought, D.
The comparison isn't "Have 3 seconds of soft RT" or "Have fun". When you have the ability to decide to NOT have the 3 seconds of soft RT, saying "It's safer" is a fallacy, as you could just as easily sit there with 0 seconds of RT and twiddle your thumbs. Now if what you were trying to say is that you need those 3 seconds in order to keep you patient, because otherwise you'd make all sorts of mistakes? Well that's got nothing to do with the game itself, or the soft RT. It's like someone offering you a 20 dollar bill and you saying "I don't want money!" because it would make you want more. One is not related to the other, simply an indicator of your mental state.
I didn't once mention time to kill. There are plenty of reasons to NOT want to infuse 1603, but "I like the 3 seconds soft RT!" is kinda silly unless something about the progress bar gets your motor running. Here are some legitimate reasons:
1. I would rather have my weapon deliver a different spell like 1614 or 1615.
2. I like having control over when I cast the 1603 because I don't necessarily want to use magic on these.
3. I don't like the screen scroll that comes with excessive flaring.
4. My weapon is made of kroderine, and therefore I cannot infuse.
5. I'm a pacifist, and therefore do not swing a weapon at all.
6. It's Tuesday. I don't infuse any spells that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as the day of the week.
I'm sorry, but I can't get behind an argument that seems to be posed only for the sake of arguing. I'm glad you're having fun playing your paladin the way you play your paladin. I apologize for even bringing up the concept of infusing 1603 into your weapon. I hope I didn't cause irreparable damage to your psyche. It seems since the paladin changes went on test server, every Tom, Dick, and Harry came out of the woodwork spouting all sorts of ridiculous things that we didn't have to deal with before in these forums and I keep getting draw into it. Shame on me.
As I stated before, if your casted 1603 is showing different results than my infused - then the casted 1603 is behaving differently than the infused. This I'm willing to bet, is not intended, and I will bug it. The matter should've just been left at that.
-D
I didn't once mention time to kill. There are plenty of reasons to NOT want to infuse 1603, but "I like the 3 seconds soft RT!" is kinda silly unless something about the progress bar gets your motor running. Here are some legitimate reasons:
1. I would rather have my weapon deliver a different spell like 1614 or 1615.
2. I like having control over when I cast the 1603 because I don't necessarily want to use magic on these.
3. I don't like the screen scroll that comes with excessive flaring.
4. My weapon is made of kroderine, and therefore I cannot infuse.
5. I'm a pacifist, and therefore do not swing a weapon at all.
6. It's Tuesday. I don't infuse any spells that begin with the same letter of the alphabet as the day of the week.
I'm sorry, but I can't get behind an argument that seems to be posed only for the sake of arguing. I'm glad you're having fun playing your paladin the way you play your paladin. I apologize for even bringing up the concept of infusing 1603 into your weapon. I hope I didn't cause irreparable damage to your psyche. It seems since the paladin changes went on test server, every Tom, Dick, and Harry came out of the woodwork spouting all sorts of ridiculous things that we didn't have to deal with before in these forums and I keep getting draw into it. Shame on me.
As I stated before, if your casted 1603 is showing different results than my infused - then the casted 1603 is behaving differently than the infused. This I'm willing to bet, is not intended, and I will bug it. The matter should've just been left at that.
-D
>I'm sorry, but I can't get behind an argument that seems to be posed only for the sake of arguing. -Big D
I enjoy you Dhairn but this is very funny coming from you.
You completely de-railed the conversation to post data not related to the conversation (which was the CASTing of 1603) and started being dismissive of someone for how and why they were using it. If the player finds CASTing of 1603 to be a more reliable way of inducing a stun (than using a shield man or CMAN or straight attack) and is safer for them, I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue the conversation in such a belittling way.
No one is saying their "psyche" is being damaged. In fact you are the one blowing the conversation way out of proportion and should probably have taken your own advice prior to your last message. All you're doing now is trying to have the last word and come out on top and correct.
You're correct. I did start off under the assumption he was infusing. I was wrong in that regard. I also had no idea until this mistake that there was a difference between infused 1603 and casted 1603, so it wouldn't have otherwise been an issue. Now it seems that there is.
I was congenial in regards to the difference, and mentioned infusion as I wasn't quite grasping why someone would choose to cast it instead. I wasn't looking to argue. A response of anything from not being at bonding rank 5 all the way up to infusing some other spell would've been more than enough for me to say "Oh." and understand completely. I happen to get a bit perturbed however, when people say things that are simply silly. I jumped off the rails at this point partly because of all the time I spent in parsing my results knowing full well my 1603 didn't stun "Almost every time", and being (as I saw it at the time) inconvenienced by having to do it simply to douse any fires of misinformation that people would be giving young paladins in these forums.
I get a lot of paladin questions weekly. A lot of them. And I wouldn't have to field so many if it wasn't for the sheer amount of misinformation flying around. No, it's not my job to police it - and I wish that part of my personality would just let me sit by and watch it happen. But it doesn't, and sometimes that comes across in a rather confrontational manner.
So to you, JTU - I apologize. And thanks for bringing me back to my head long enough to realize I was doing it again, APLOM.
- D
>So to you, JTU - I apologize. And thanks for bringing me back to my head long enough to realize I was doing it again, APLOM. - Dhairn
You're welcome and thank you for saying that.
JTU,
At this point, Viduus is well aware of all the 1603 differences in PRIME. He has said numerous times the version we have is not final and to not get "comfortable" with what we have now.
I'm sure the infusion bit will be strengthened but that is all I feel confident guessing at.
Honestly the damage/crit on the cast version with such low end rolls is probably going to change! I wasn't noticing ANY difference (anecdotally for what its worth <not much>)when I was running 1618 or 1609/1617 with my CASTs of 1603.
>So to you, JTU - I apologize. And thanks for bringing me back to my head long enough to realize I was doing it again, APLOM.
That's fine. You've changed your view when presented with new info, that's earnest and already makes you a lot better than a good hunk people I've met online. Let's all just get back on topic.
APLOM,
>At this point, Viduus is well aware of all the 1603 differences in PRIME. He has said numerous times the version we have is not final and to not get "comfortable" with what we have now.
Yeah that's what I heard too.
>Honestly the damage/crit on the cast version with such low end rolls is probably going to change! I wasn't noticing ANY difference (anecdotally for what its worth <not much>)when I was running 1618 or 1609/1617 with my CASTs of 1603.
Would be a shame if it changes, since I'm managing to get good use out of it. But it is what it is. I'm overall happy with the recent changes and I'm optimistic that whatever final version of 1603 will probably be pretty usable, too.
That's fine. You've changed your view when presented with new info, that's earnest and already makes you a lot better than a good hunk people I've met online. Let's all just get back on topic.
APLOM,
>At this point, Viduus is well aware of all the 1603 differences in PRIME. He has said numerous times the version we have is not final and to not get "comfortable" with what we have now.
Yeah that's what I heard too.
>Honestly the damage/crit on the cast version with such low end rolls is probably going to change! I wasn't noticing ANY difference (anecdotally for what its worth <not much>)when I was running 1618 or 1609/1617 with my CASTs of 1603.
Would be a shame if it changes, since I'm managing to get good use out of it. But it is what it is. I'm overall happy with the recent changes and I'm optimistic that whatever final version of 1603 will probably be pretty usable, too.
