Pre-emptive "Paladin outdamage SK outrageous"
- Thread starter Wiz
- Start date
Maimai said:
I agree. This has been touched upon in other threads too I think, but at lvl 50 why do Paladins even get the "nuke" Flame of Light? It does 125 damage iirc, not even useful at lvl 50.
Wiz, I saw your post saying that you wanted to see how these current changes are panning out, but once it's steadied and things are alright, could you perhaps look into some sort of higher nuke for Paladins at lvl 60+? Just seems like Flame of Light is thrown in there with no purpose or successor at higher level.
So, I'm not real clear on this.
The only difference in tanking between SKs and Palys is some aggro generation and a situational, short term 10% avoidance?
Is that correct? Because as tanks, that doesn't put SKs very far ahead of Palys in the tanking game.
Are these adjustments that 'lower' paladins tanking ability proportional to their new damage output abilities and overall group utility? In relation to SKs, what are SKs better at now, Aggro? They've always been better at aggro. If Palys and SKs can wear all the same gear, the palys can do more damage, and make the group do more damage, can tank as well as SK's except for minor aggro issues, I'm not seeing a whole lot of reasons to bring an SK unless a target is one of those mobs that needs SK spell aggro lock.
Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities new to paladins.
The only difference in tanking between SKs and Palys is some aggro generation and a situational, short term 10% avoidance?
Is that correct? Because as tanks, that doesn't put SKs very far ahead of Palys in the tanking game.
Are these adjustments that 'lower' paladins tanking ability proportional to their new damage output abilities and overall group utility? In relation to SKs, what are SKs better at now, Aggro? They've always been better at aggro. If Palys and SKs can wear all the same gear, the palys can do more damage, and make the group do more damage, can tank as well as SK's except for minor aggro issues, I'm not seeing a whole lot of reasons to bring an SK unless a target is one of those mobs that needs SK spell aggro lock.
Or maybe I'm overestimating the abilities new to paladins.
I should mention, that for tanking purposes, mitigation is far more important than avoidance, so that +10% short term avoidance is far less useful for tanking than say, 10% mitigation.
I could be totally overestimating new pally skills though, as I said. We DO know that pallys were decidedly underwhelming before revamp. These changes may have brought them up to snuff, in both relation to SK's and other classes in general.
I trust Wiz and crew to keep an eye on pallys and adjust accordingly for balance.
I could be totally overestimating new pally skills though, as I said. We DO know that pallys were decidedly underwhelming before revamp. These changes may have brought them up to snuff, in both relation to SK's and other classes in general.
I trust Wiz and crew to keep an eye on pallys and adjust accordingly for balance.
Look I can understand the lore reasons for SK's having an agro generating combat style but I havent used it since I was about level 13, not sure about any other SK's maybe they would like to chime in about it. So I guess Zodium what I was trying to say is not that the style doesnt fit in with the class, its just not really useful. Like Volkov said our terror line doesnt get resisted, ever, which makes it extremely easy to hold agro once you have the right spells in that line. Since I got the final spell in the terror line I havent lost agro once to anyone when I didnt mean to.
About the leeching hand style Ive only ever found it to be useful in extremely rare situations, I dont know about anyone else. Its a cool idea for a style and I like the concept behind it, maybe I just dont have the right AA's and such to get the full benefits out of it (which is probably the plain truth of it, but Ive only ever found it to be useful in extremely rare situations).
About the leeching hand style Ive only ever found it to be useful in extremely rare situations, I dont know about anyone else. Its a cool idea for a style and I like the concept behind it, maybe I just dont have the right AA's and such to get the full benefits out of it (which is probably the plain truth of it, but Ive only ever found it to be useful in extremely rare situations).
Zaos
Dalayan Adventurer
I can see a balance in reducing sta cost on loathing stance in order to beef sk tanking a bit. With us having guarding blade which is a bit better (how much, I'd like to know) than the /s 3 def stance it seems legit.
I am actually wondering as a paladin how much the paladin guarding blade stance has been reduced and if its now prudent to use a 1h+shield over a 2h in guarding blade stance since before our 2h stance was officially said to be superior to 1h + shield for tanking. Is it about even now or should I break out the shield?
I am actually wondering as a paladin how much the paladin guarding blade stance has been reduced and if its now prudent to use a 1h+shield over a 2h in guarding blade stance since before our 2h stance was officially said to be superior to 1h + shield for tanking. Is it about even now or should I break out the shield?
im the master of coming in late i know. Anyway i also agree with volkov, i rarely use any stance other than defensive or loathing guard besides in very rare situation. However, id just like to point out if any stance was done away with i think the interupt style should be the one to go. It doesnt work at the endgame level which is pretty annoying but i can see why it doesnt. Leech stance is actually pretty nice for rare situations, imagine maxed HT aas + leech stance and youll see what i mean, with the leech harmtouch thats around a 4k heal maybe more, or an unresistable 2k heal, not sure what max dmg is tbh.