I was thinking about the whole sword and board thing and it got me wondering, why not: - make the knight one handers usable by warriors - redo Shield Specialist to keep dps the same as what warriors do now with sword and board - profit from higher dps dualwielding with a knight one hander in primary (they are all primary only) and regular one hander in offhand Not sure on the numbers, would this push warriors too close or over dps classes?
The itemization/AA backtrack required would be quite the feat, which makes this unlikely. However, the devs could push toward generic 'tank' weapons by giving Knights more SS ranks in the place of weapon ratio upgrades. TBH, from a DPS perspective I'd rather get my mitts on their 2handers. Knight and Warrior 1H weapons are itemized to have similar ratios when accounting for SS. Knight 2H are itemized to be superior to their 1h but this simply isn't the case for Warriors.
It would be a disaster. The right thing to have done was to recognize from the start that low ratio fast 1Handers designed to be used two at a time were unsuitable for use with a shield. (They recognized this with knights but Warriors, given that they DWed, made that approach untenable at the time. It was a design error). At that point one can either create shield appropriate 1 Handers for use with a shield only and live with other 1Handers appropriate for DWers (creating quite the burden for Warriors) OR give all primary only 1 handers shield appropriate ratios and have DWers only able to use weak offhand daggers shared with casters for use in extreme circumstances as the only weapons weildable in the offhand. Shield appropriate primary and main gauche/parrying dagger or shield in the offhand. Do that and the only issues are (eheh - nothing more slippery than "only issues") skills, abilities, and AA abilities used to differentiatate the now very close in characteristics S&B, DW, and 2H setups. Warrior, knight, Rogue, Ranger weapons could have been practically identical except for procs. And offhand weapons could have also been shared with caster mainhand weapons except for procs. That's the way to go frankly and having made the design error in not doing that turning back the clock and trying to retro fit it would have been neigh impossible. Certainly Warriors DWing shield appropriate weapons would have been unacceptable.
Can't really call it a design error when the content was designed around the notion that warriors would be dual wielding. The weapons were appropriate for the time. If I recall, knight weapons with better ratios were also there to help offset their lower skill values more than to be just shield-mate weapons. The game has changed a lot since then though.
It was a design error since there were Warrior Only shields prior to Kunark, early on we actually had higher Bash skills than knights, on paper we benefited from shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block but in practice we took a ~30% reduction in aggro (so severe players had to wait for us to build aggro while they did not need to with knights tanking with a shield) and ~30% loss in DPS with DPS representing a greater share of Warrior total class power than knights (see the "Knights will still do less damage than Warriors and other pure melee. This is one of the costs for having a spellbook." comment made when the 2H damage bonus was adjusted. Kinda obvious if we're to get more DPS then DPS is a bigger piece of our class power than it is for knights. See also the early Real DPSer 120%, Warrior 100%, Knight 80% damage guideline that was once used). Besides the fix was not a minor tweak. I'm sure there was a lot of soul searching that went on to decide if Warriors should be tanking with a 1Hander designed to be used 2 at a time while knights got boosted ratio weapons to use with their shields. BTW the pre-50 cap for 1H and 2H weapons... Warriors 200 Paladins 200 Double attack - Warriors at level 15(Iirc). Paladins at level 20. Our skills were the same (we had the edge in Bash at one time and initially knights had awful archery - which I publicly suggested improving after witnessing knights standing around wondering wtheck they were supposed to do in a Finean (sp?) Ro raid which at the time was done with 1 Warrior tanking and everyone range DPSing). I agree things change. BUT IMO if gear is to matter for classes that have always been pretty gear dependent then DW or 2H should not be used for tanking at least harder previous expansion content and all but the initial get your feet wet beach head zone in new expansions vs, the easiest mobs by any tank. Group-geared, raid geared, or afic a dev in a Suit of Invulnerability. I see EQ as lead soldiers war games -> D&D (made sensible) -> DikuMUD (improved) and not Racoons tanking with twin flowers because twin flowers are cute. We use S&B and not rifles to tank because rifles are outside of the technological time period and tanking is not the proper role for pure DPS weapons. I've pointed out that one would expect armored fighters to combine survivability and DPS output to roll over the not moss snake opposition (we should face not moss snake opposition). That's what armored and shield using Spartans, Romans, and medieval plate center battle group fighters did. (Medieval heavy infantry didn't abandon shields until halbards, poleaxes, and later gunpowder compelled them to - Salt/pepper, shields/tanks). Tanks commonly using DPS setups to tank is wildly outside of any reasonable Tank Archetype. It's as if people read 'T' 'A' 'N' 'K' and insist it spells Ranger or Berserker.
For warriors sword and board do you want a fast wep for DPS? Or slower harder hitting? I've just recently taken on leveling a warrior and just curious
For S&B my mainhander is an aggro weapon. It generally has the best DMG/DLY ratio I can get but It's an aggro weapon and therefore it's not going to be as good DPS as a DPS weapon. Further, I'm either going to figure my aggro has been good in which case I use a 10 DMG aug or I hedge my bets and use a 5 DMG+Rune aug or I want my AC h/e/m to be higher and show an AC aug. An all out DPS weapon will outperform my tanking weapon in DPS. I look at DMG/DLY and the proc when selecting a DPS weapon - not fast or slow really. ------------------ Most people are aware that S&B is for tanking and that DW is for DPS. In fact some players have no difficulty at all comprehending the DW and 2H is for DPS part. I care what we use. When tanking we should use a tank setup - if added survival alone isn't enough to encourage that, putting EoA on our shields (especially given we should never get our own VoT buff) will. When DPSing, just like Rangers we should DW or use a 2H. But at the same time given that Warriors don't have a whole lot of group friendly utility it's only reasonable that when we are performing our usual role (tanking) and geared properly to perform it (geared like a Tank and not a Bard or Ranger) that we do "Warriorly" DPS. Yep, when we are a substitute DPSer (DPSing with another player tanking) DW and 2H (our DPS setups) should out damage S&B used under that circumstance. By all means continue bumping DW 24/7 kplsthnx~ threads. It give tanks a chance to remind people what archetype we fall under.
This is really the key argument. Because atm it does not. A Sword and Board with the Stilleto + 10 Dam aug will out DPS ANY other combination atm, and that is what happens. A bard just AMPLIFIES the effect as Flurry's only come from the primary. So you basically have everyone on the raid with S&B. Considering that Duel Wield,2H means you are going to take a thumping from the AE RAMP these days, the ratios of 2H should be approaching knights and we should have seperate secondary only weapons with amplified ratios that warriors can use in a duel wield situation.
A very very few thing: It's no less "key" for S&B to be the most effective setup when we tank than it is for DW or 2H to deliver the best results when we DPS with another player tanking. Better Secondary Weapons? Maybe? But part of the problem, as you observed is that S&B does "too good" DPS when we are not tanking. You're simply arguing that our tanking DPS when properly geared to tank should be less than our DPS when we are geared to DPS with someone else tanking. I'm not 100% convinced. When "really" tanking we're using defensive and not offensive discs. I've suggested moving some DPS from weapon generation when we're in S&B to another form. An example is having a damage shield in the Mage or Druid buff slot that's extremely good that is present when and only when we are using a shield and either reducing SS a tad or as you suggest increasing secondary weapon DPS. Do that and we still do "Warriorly" DPS when we are in S&B AND getting hit, but not DPSing with someone else tanking which is the DPSer role. Having "guaranteed" DW and 2H's proper role it's only reasonable to similarly guarantee S&B's tanking role. Put EoA only one shields from this point forward. There were Greek shields with a grinning face sticking it's tongue out, a grinning Medusa, etc. Surely there can be a "taunting shield". Issue War, Pal, and Shd shields with 25% more AC h/e/m. Shields don't provide a large enough survival benefit if people are commenting how they can tank practically everything without them. The NTtB situation - what it does that it shouldn't, what it doesn't do but stil needs to be addressed, etc. can also be rationally repaired. Unfortunately people who are actually demanding and angling for as close to DW 24/7 as they can get or put NTtB back the way it was aren't particularly reasonable or realistic IMO.
The first shieldmate-style weapon was, I think, Bloodmoon, which was only usable by Humans and Dark Elves. This was back when all knights used 2-handers, NOBODY used a shield, and small races were considered gimped because they couldn't slam to interrupt casters. There wasn't a corresponding PAL weapon because there were no PAL races with slam so there was nothing to balance out. There were a lot of early drops that were built around balancing races, because otherwise all you would see were TRL OGR SKs and BAR TRL OGR warriors. Bloodmoon and the (Ashenbone?) shield were designed to make small-race SKs viable, the Nautilus shield was there to give non-Barbarian/Troll/Ogre warriors something to swap in to bash with (no warrior ever wore it full-time, and we stopped even keeping it in a bag after we got kicks that stunned at level 55), there was the ERU PAL-only shield that spawned a thousand low-level ERU PAL alts, human and erudite clerics (why would you ever play one of those? they're blind!) got some unique quests when Paineel opened... Heck, there were even discussions on the interrealms Ranger board at the time about how you should play a human or half-elven ranger because wood elves (hands-down the most common ranger race) couldn't use the Hero Bracers. Anyway, sorry for the rambling.
What if warrior dps is where the devs want it to be right now? That means a warriors highest dps (S&B) accomplishes that. Now I'm not saying nerf warrior AAs, but what if the only way to have duel wield and 2h do more is to decrease S&B damage?
See my immediately previous post. It's quite possible to move damage from the mainhander when using S&B to things like DS, ripos, a counter-bash, etc. all of which would be unavailable when using S&B and not tanking. There's be not reason to use S&B not tanking and therefor DW and 2H would be our defacto best DPS when substituting for a DPS class (DPSing with another player tanking). Further damage output is not the only thing that can be adjusted - there's aggro and survivability. If players rightfully expect DPS setups to provide the best DPSing while another player tanks outcome then IMO they have to accept that S&B is for tanking too. Keep in mind that the fans of DW 24/7 did not complain that game circumstances required S&B to seldom be used by Warriors. They can hardly complain when game circumstances/ability and item adjustment corrects the situation.
Why would you put anything else on a shield to lose even more when were not wearing them ? no thanks.
Thanks, great idea. A parry should not be added to offhandweapons. DW is not for tanking. S&B is for tanking [BA: and not for doing one's best DPS when DPSing with anotherplayer tanking]. Tanking = survival and aggro [BA and DPS created when properly geared to tank]. It's perfectly legitimate to adjust several controls to encourage the correct outcome.
It is a terrible idea and not even a new one . Dw should be for tanking fast kill weenie blue con and white con mobs.Where we want the most dps. And so we can have an easier time getting those groups by being more dps and still keep our survival nearly the same. Keep on this BA you are not going to get the knights also losing the ability to tank with a 2hander. The community will out voice you in other ways then these monotonous posts you make. Harder zones and raids should be where the shield shines. You still think I am making up what the preorder page said ? How about NTTB being sustainable ? Still questioning that one too ? And if you really try to point out were the dw 24/7 crowd make sure you read what I have bolded and underlined. We are not a substitute for a dps class either them are called wizard and rogue mercs. Because they out dps us by a mile. Heck most of us prolly would not care if they made the parry buff group tanking only and completely not work on raid con mobs. I wouldn't care because that is not where I am trying to get dw usable again.
If ... "Dw is for dps" "Shields are for tanking" Explain to me why you keep arguing that shield use should give better dps while tanking? I don't know about you, but I always do the tanking. If shield use is supposed to give the best dps while tanking ... then what you should really be saying is: "Shields are for tanking" "Dw is for never" 2hand and DW should always give more threat and dps. If that means extra unnecessary defense offered by shield use can be situationally given up for more threat and dmg output - fantastic. I call that flexibility and choice - and that's something everyone (well everyone but 1 poster) agrees with.
Of course shields should produce the best results when tanking. DW isn't any kind of tanking setup - it's a DPS setup. Now rather obviously when some Warriors argue for an offhand Parry ability or that Warriors should get a VoT self-buff that's trying to stack the circumstances deck so DW can intrude further into S&B's tanking role. Never? Well, as it turns out Rangers who are a DPS classes almost always use DW (a dps setup), 2H (a DPS setup), or archery (a ranged DPS setup). They don't frequently use a shield because DPSing is their role not Tanking. You and several other Warriors insist DW (a dps setup) and 2H (a dps setup) should produce the best results when we substitute for a DPS class. But Warriors usually Tank and they are not a DPS class and ergo we should almost always use a shield. Surely those that would stack the deck to allow DW further penetration into S&B's tanking role can't reject adjusting S&B tanking and acting like a DPS class DPS, it's aggro, and survivability. Having yourselves pointed out the methods surely you can't object to them being applied to right both the S&B doing too much damage when employed to DPS while not tanking AND DPS saetups intruding on S&B's role. DPS setups - DW and 2H, You guys rightfully insist Ranged DPS - bow or thrown stone. Makes perfect sense Tanking - S&B If one wanted to DW 24/7 the right archetype choice is not the tank archetype. But you are correct - things CAN be fixed. Alternately y'all can concede that vs. trivial content a gladius wielded with a scutum = a meatgrinder. Because guys it very was. Bash the heck out of your opponent creating an opening, stab, opponent dies, next. Versus current content S&B should be used for tanking and vs. trivial content it shouldn't matter what you use. But those trying to force Warriors back to DW 24/7 wouldn't go for that...more importantly, neither would devs.
They (DW and 2hander) should produce the best DPS results in all situations. They should not produce thr best TANKING results, and they don't and won't when we finally see a fix to out dps problems. A ranger will tank best using a shield, dps best when using DW. A monk will tank best using a 2hander, dps best with DW. A knight will tank best using a shield, dps best with a 2hander. Any of the above can choose to tank worse and dps more with their dps configuration. When I tank on my monk I fall back on 2hander. When I tank anything remotely current or challenging with my ranger I use a shield. Soooo ... ??? You are making zero sense. If warriors want to 'tank worse' on any content (trivial or otherwise) and do more damage like every other melee in the game who also can opt to use a shield (or staff block for monks), why not? Because that doesn't jive with your desire to mandate how every other warrior in the game plays their character? Because then you might be tempted to ditch that shield on trivial content? Oi
I'm at a loss, Battleblade. Are you saying that you aren't capable of tanking easy content with a dps set up (DW or 2H)? If you are, why wouldn't you use those over sword and board? If you aren't, why not let those who are capable of it do so? Edit - By "easy" I mean generally. I'm not talking about five+ end tier mobs, of course, or even brutal end tier single mobs. But for an average group, where single pulls are probably the norm, why not use a dps set up when tanking where a shield clearly isn't needed?
