Frostwrath, Blade of Command
- Thread starter Eustace
- Start date
Eustace
Dalayan Adventurer
I don't disagree with you there, but I have no idea how to approach the "why isn't bard on this?" question and request.
It just seems really odd that only those 3 classes are on this weapon in regards to the progression of other, similar weapons through the tiers.
GuiardoTuneweaver
Staff Emeritus
Do you realize you just insulted someone who volunteered a big chunk of their time to make content for the game you play? And do you realize comments like this might make them completely lose interest in considering anything you have to say?
Keep your comments constructive and you're much more likely to get what you ask for.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea who designed any of these particular items.)
ryutakin
Dalayan Beginner
Just because an item has/doesn't have your class on it doesn't mean it's wrong or poor design. Maybe X class isn't supposed to have X item. People need to learn to deal with the game and just play
Nodnal
Dalayan Elder
Items from several tiers above other items should not retroactively set a precedence. Sorry, but this post is illogical and way out of line.
...
Frostwrath is PAL/SK usable, but is a relatively horrible weapon for knights considering some of the other weapons they can get by tier 8 or 9. Why is it knight usable at all? And why is Caex not?
Caex seems pretty much like the successor to Frostwrath and is, in my opinion, well designed. It isn't usable by PAL/SKs. Bards, rogues and rangers can all use it and utilize the defensive mods on it, why is it such a huge difference when it comes to Frostwrath?
I didn't mean to insult anyone, since i certainly greatly appreciate any and all of the work the devs here do. I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies which make no sense to me.
Nodnal
Dalayan Elder
PAL and SHD can both use Caex. Like I already said...you cannot compare a late tier Sanctum item to an Upper Thaz encounter. They aren't even related, they are just both tanking 1hs weapons with parry mods.
Also, Frostwrath is a great tanking weapon for knights at that tier. It isn't great for DPSing, but that isn't a knight's main role anyways.
Eustace
Dalayan Adventurer
Frostwrath is the only aggro weapon from any of the tiers that is equippable by a warrior and not by a ranger. Caex doesn't set a precedent for Frostwrath being adjusted to include more classes, it simply reinforces my point that Frostwrath is out of line for weapon progression due to the classes that are on it. It is unique in the fact that the only dual-wield class that can equip it is a warrior. Typically, if a warrior can equip it, rangers and/or other classes can also use it, especially given the fact that this item is primary and secondary, and not just secondary.
As for this being a sweet knight weapon, I have to disagree. It has a horrible ratio(For a knight weapon) and only slightly more stats than the Hammer of Warding. I can imagine some knights might use it when they skip tiers and they're waiting on something better, but a knight with whirlwind, HoW, or antediluvian would be extremely unlikely to use Frostwrath.
Xeldan
Staff Emeritus
I'll give you two guesses.
No actually, I'll just give you the answer: they were designed by different people.
And for the second answer: this is a tanking weapon. It is, and always will be. It wasn't designed to be used by bards. It wasn't designed to be used by rogues. It wasn't designed to be used by rangers. It wasn't designed to be used situationally. It was designed primarily for warriors as an upgrade option, but most importantly, it was designed as a tank weapon.
But sure, I'll ask Zaela if she's cool with every single weapon in the game having each class that can wield that weapon on it.
Hey, talk about lazy item design.
Nodnal
Dalayan Elder
Frostwrath has a damned good ratio for its tier, so saying it would only be used for tanking is kind of wrong. I never said it was a sweet knight weapon, but it IS better for tanking than most knight weapons out there (unless others have HUGE aggro procs, more AC, and a great parry mod). Again, the ratio on Frostwrath pretty much crushes any non-ToT-Quest/non-Sanctum weapon, so that alone would be worth keeping other dual wielding classes off of it.
Maybe this was made primarily for warriors, but I don't think that means it should just have other classes added to it for "free".
Maybe this was made primarily for warriors, but I don't think that means it should just have other classes added to it for "free".
Eustace
Dalayan Adventurer
Frostwrath is only .05 better than the longsword from pofrost, and only .02 better than the anti-magic longsword from ember. Blade of Reckless energy is actually .03 better ratio than Frostwrath, although oddly enough, Flamescar is .04 less than Frostwrath.
Kind of odd that Frostwrath has a better ratio than Flamescar, which takes considerably more effort to get.
Kind of odd that Frostwrath has a better ratio than Flamescar, which takes considerably more effort to get.
Nodnal
Dalayan Elder
A 5% ratio difference and a 2% ratio difference is huge. Blade of Reckless Energy is from a MUCH harder encounter than UT Water.
Mythryn
Dalayan Master
It would only need a nerf if classes that didn't have terrible DPS to begin with were able to use it. Which is basically what you're going for here. Or is it now that you're not going to have your silly request answered (or at least in the way you wanted it), you want it nerfed?
Also:
Let's spell it out: Frostwrath is NOT an agro weapon. It actually generates very, very little agro, due to its higher delay (compared to most true agro weapons) and the fact that the proc is very small agro, rarely procs, and is resistable. It is a TANKING weapon. Meant for TANKS.
Eustace
Dalayan Adventurer
Man you people don't make any sense. You say it's an amazing weapon, then you say it's a bad weapon, then you say it's a good weapon, then you say it's not.
The only thing that makes it "a tank weapon" is the fact that it only has PAL, SK, and WAR on it. The fact that it only has those 3 classes on it is what makes it so unusual. It may have been designed as a really hot upgrade for warriors with knights tossed on so they're not left out of weapons options in thaz. I didn't design it, so I can't say.
Regardless of any of the above, it can't be argued that Frostwrath is not an unusual item that falls out of line of normal progressive itemization. It's even out of line for warriors, in the ease of acquisition vs. quality of the item over even the ToT quest sword Flamescar.
Current arguments against changing it are:
Eustace is a lootwhore. (Tossed out by the guy who wants 9 guilds to be able to raid in thaz at one time.)
The ratio is too good for anything other than warriors. (Though definately not good enough for knights.)
The parry mod (+10) is too powerful for a ranger. (Despite the availability of other defensive mods.)
It's a tank weapon and should remain a tank weapon. (I will not argue that this was the chief idea behind the design, but the inability to convert it into a knight weapon via a quest similar to Whirlwind's leaves it lacking. Also, the only thing that makes this stand out above other "tank weapons" is the inability of anything other than tanks to use it - mods and stats are not really unique in this case in comparison with other items through the tiers.)
Frostwrath could just be left as is, but it will continue to stand out as outside of normal progressive itemization, especially with the addition of Caex. The most simple way to bring this item in line is to add more classes to it, or remove two classes from it.
The only thing that makes it "a tank weapon" is the fact that it only has PAL, SK, and WAR on it. The fact that it only has those 3 classes on it is what makes it so unusual. It may have been designed as a really hot upgrade for warriors with knights tossed on so they're not left out of weapons options in thaz. I didn't design it, so I can't say.
Regardless of any of the above, it can't be argued that Frostwrath is not an unusual item that falls out of line of normal progressive itemization. It's even out of line for warriors, in the ease of acquisition vs. quality of the item over even the ToT quest sword Flamescar.
Current arguments against changing it are:
Eustace is a lootwhore. (Tossed out by the guy who wants 9 guilds to be able to raid in thaz at one time.)
The ratio is too good for anything other than warriors. (Though definately not good enough for knights.)
The parry mod (+10) is too powerful for a ranger. (Despite the availability of other defensive mods.)
It's a tank weapon and should remain a tank weapon. (I will not argue that this was the chief idea behind the design, but the inability to convert it into a knight weapon via a quest similar to Whirlwind's leaves it lacking. Also, the only thing that makes this stand out above other "tank weapons" is the inability of anything other than tanks to use it - mods and stats are not really unique in this case in comparison with other items through the tiers.)
Frostwrath could just be left as is, but it will continue to stand out as outside of normal progressive itemization, especially with the addition of Caex. The most simple way to bring this item in line is to add more classes to it, or remove two classes from it.
This makes perfect sense. Thanks for the answer.
Ya, my bad actually, i failed to see PAL/SK usable on Caex.
And although Zae has already explained it, there are now better knight weapons obtainable by tier 8 that make Frostwrath obsolete.
Ranger aggro
Any Ranger worth his salt can hold aggro even when in /s 4. Heck, I've even held aggro on raid named while BOWING from near point-blank range. I made Deyranni (may have misspelled that) my red-headed stepchild so often that it kinda became expected that I'd tank her after Sald dropped.
Rangers have a spell book, learn how to use it. Taunt button is for wusses :dance:
Only Sks that spam hate spells and suicidal wizards can keep aggro from a Ranger that wants it. But.... don't gank it if you can't tank it®. AC augs FTW!
Any Ranger worth his salt can hold aggro even when in /s 4. Heck, I've even held aggro on raid named while BOWING from near point-blank range. I made Deyranni (may have misspelled that) my red-headed stepchild so often that it kinda became expected that I'd tank her after Sald dropped.
Rangers have a spell book, learn how to use it. Taunt button is for wusses :dance:
Only Sks that spam hate spells and suicidal wizards can keep aggro from a Ranger that wants it. But.... don't gank it if you can't tank it®. AC augs FTW!
Eustace
Dalayan Adventurer
lol...I like how you went and made a new account just to post here to try and brag about your leet skillz and try to flame me.
Brandar, your post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Nothing in the slightest. You mentioned nothing about Frostwrath. Your post is so offtopic, so very offtopic, that's it obvious why you posted here. You're an idiot.
Is Frostwrath now outside of normal progression? Yes. Was it always such? Apparently not. However, this doesn't sully my argument that it should have ranger on it. Your ability to use sun-quiver, icerend, and snare to hold aggro also does not lessen my argument that Frostwrath should have ranger on it, and should have from the start.
Rather, the only argument viable for my line of reasoning is that it was meant to be a great upgrade for warriors and knights were added so they were not left out at the tier. Zaela's confirmation of this is the only reason I will not further press this argument.
robopirateninja
Staff Emeritus
Some items have weird classes on them. Writhing Drape of Knotted Veins has awesome stats for a wizard and has other int classes on it, but no WIZ. It doesn't mean that it's a poorly designed item, it means that Wizards aren't supposed to be able to wear it.
I guess I can understand your statement that Frostwrath is "out of the line of normal ranger 1hs item progression" because it isn't a ranger's 1hs, but I don't think that's really relevant to a discussion about improving it.
Do you have any reason to improve Frostwrath other than "Warriors and knights can use it, but I can't!" ?
I guess I can understand your statement that Frostwrath is "out of the line of normal ranger 1hs item progression" because it isn't a ranger's 1hs, but I don't think that's really relevant to a discussion about improving it.
Do you have any reason to improve Frostwrath other than "Warriors and knights can use it, but I can't!" ?