Warriors should be able to dual wield tank in Everquest. I don't care about the math behind it or the logic of historical precedence in regards to using shields in the real world. Dual wield tanking is FUN, and something that makes a warrior different from knights in this game. The idea that dual wield for warriors will become nothing more than a dps option like using a 2h weapon is a cop out. Dps (while of course needed) is an afterthought, and dual wield should not be an afterthought for warriors. A warrior who ALWAYS needs to use a shield to tank is really just a knight without a spellbook in this game. A knight without a spellbook is a gimpy knight indeed, and far from what a warrior should be. Idea: Warriors could be tuned to use dual wield to tank normal mobs in groups and clearing trash in raids while using a shield to tank named mobs in groups and bosses in raids. There could be snap aggro abilities that require dual wield to use, and defensive abilities would require a shield to be equipped to use. What do you think?
Two parts: 1. Warriors have general defense issues because EQ has become more complex - but Warriors have not. 2. Dual Wield needs a DPS boost and some other benefit (tbd) to make it a viable stance again. I was with you until here. For instant discs it needlessly complicates things because players will just /bandolier /disc /bandolier. For duration discs, you need to realize this wouldn't be a benefit for DW. It would be a restriction on other abilities and this is bad. I'm actually kind of surprised Knights never got a Deflection upgrade that doesn't require a shield to use.
Sounds good on paper but reality is dual wield isn't of any value in its current form. I remember the days of dual wielding pretty much all the time but the game has changed. They have added stuff for us via shield specialist ect. Our other melee lines now are useless to use. Well other then to max our skills out and few other short duration uses. They recently gave us a rune proc warrior only weapon kind of points the direction they envision for the class. I love rune proc weapons to help with adds it has really nice AoE hate generator. In my case I even went as far as getting the rune weapon from NToV just for that use. A warrior disking really doesn't even need procs to help them on hate anymore. Just wish we would be usable as DPS in situations since likely is case for most high end warriors we don't get shammy, bard, or beasty nor should we. But with our disk if we had a primary like Pal-SK we could maybe be competitive in short duration parses. Either way I will play on as warrior just thinking out loud. I play my off no matter the situation and still push my hardest to climb parse even with tools and everything stacked against us.
Preferably, any ability tied to a weapon type/setup should be passive, not activated. ----- As far as DW tanking... a boost to DW aggro wouldn't get me using it again in XP groups, missions, or raids. Sure, overall DW DPS 'should' be buffed, but I doubt it will be buffed beyond S&B dps anytime soon. So how about: dramatically buff DW dps while tanking, by making DPS abilities that require a secondary weapon and work off of defensive skills (eg super riposte) or innate defensive procs. I would only use DW in groups again if it had a clear (ie at least 15%) DPS boost over S&B while tanking.
I think we're all in agreement that DW DPS needs to be buffed, plus some type of 'extra' benefit, so maybe we should post ideas as to what that benefit should be. I'll start. Parry bonus similar to shield block % Parry attacks intended at groupmates Hundred hands proc (improved swing agro + sustained DPS) Multitarget attacks (rampage/wild rampage) Stun proc with significant coverage (~30%)
Keeping in mind that SOE's position is DW is not for tanking and it's an alternative to 2H for DPSing and that makes sense since a sword is not a shield and shields provide protection... ....and besides we all know what happened when tanking current content was possible DWing. Warriors used it all the time like they were Rangers and passed on shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block. We already CAN tank DWing. Let's do the very rough math average raid/group AC is 7500AC average raid/group shield is 250AC - let's call it double that to account for shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block 500AC. 7000/7500 ~90% of the AC you'd have with a shield. Let's kindly remember the easier quadraped current content mobs and more are being tanked by Monks, Beastlord pets, Mage Pets, some Rangers, Do we really contend all of those not tanks have 90% (yeah I realize mitigation is not necessarily linearly proportional to AC, but we're talking rough numbers here) of the survivability of a non-disced Warrior? And we haven't even considered light blue mobs don't hit for as much fast kill experience mobs from previous expansions. What's really being asked for is DW to be able to tank content that ought to require a shield - challenging content. When knights asked for the benefits of shields to be given to their 2Handers devs gave them 2H Bash (because they can't kick and with 2H they lost Bash their only "second attack"). They didn't get shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block on their 2Handers - swords are not shields. Why given the relatively equal treatment given S&B for all three classes that tank would devs give Warriors defensive capabilities on a DPS set up that they wouldn't give knights? So Warriors can go beyond tanking trivial mobs and DPSing with someone else tanking with DW (and I assume 2H - if one DPS set up is given defensive abilities why not all of them?) to encompass almost everything once again? Devs will do what devs will do. But they've rejected such suggestions in the past by knights and by Warriors. I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do so now. Shields are protection carried in the hand. Swords are offense. It's "physics" for knights and should be physics for Warriors. I'm sorry some diehards can't do what other Warriors have done - accept that challenging content should have always been tanked using S&B by heavy plate tanks and hope our DPS setups are adjusted for when we are DPSing or tanking trivial mobs. I've read a few posts, PN's and /'tells by Warriors who take that position. BUT just because some diehard SK's want pet pulling or some diehard Wizzies want unchanged manaburn doesn't mean SOE should go along with it. There's the are you tanking (tanks tank challenging content with a shield) or DPSing issue (no shield/all swords) AND the fairness to knights issue to say nothing of whats sensible. I don't think at this late date with settled policy allowing Warriors access to shield AC not subject to the softcap and Shield Block (sonething we did not have when it was DW 24/7) SOE should ignore the arguments against change and essentially require all non-raiders to set aside their shields and obtain another 1Hdr and an aggro aug when S&B plus 2H should meet their needs in all situations (provided they'd like to 2H DPS rather than DW DPS) using 1H, 2H, and a shield - variety.
Shield and Board should be left alone as the Tank Set Up Dual Wield should be the 1/2 Tank 1/2 DPS Set Up 2H should be DPS Set Up. All 3 should get some boosts relative to where they are now. In Tank Set Up: I'd add AAs that boost Riposote Damage ((Useless if not tanking)) In DPS Set UP: I'd add AAs that boost Off Hand, and 2H Damage In utility, I'd add something to Off Hand that makes it a better tanking choice than 2H but not as good as that 280 Soft Cap breaking Shield. I suspect an innate proc like Beastlords get, that only fires off off-hand weapons would be the deal. A Rune or Heal Proc. ((Heal would be best as warriors NOT tanking at the time in a raid, could use that to help off set Wild Ramp and AE damage. Then bandolier swap to SB when they go to MT a Boss/Mini Boss))
I know my Paladin would like his DPS set up to be DPS/Tank. After all, why should Warriors get to use a DPS setup tanking and not knights? And if his DPS 2Hander can have shield benefits I know my Warrior would want to get in on it too.
Warriors should be able to tank as effectively with two weapons as with one and a shield PERIOD. The day we let some of the community jump on the sword and board bandwagon was the day this class started to stagnate and has brought us to the point we are at now. That's a utility discussion. This is what we need to get dual wield back: 1) In every tier in every expansion warrior only weapons drop. Those need to be made offhand only, have content equivalent AC to shields and class appropriate heroics equal to what we see on bows. The proc should be large tap or healing burst effect. We can hold agro these days with a rusty short sword. So if you want to S&B great you still can! Just do it with the stunning strike/rune weapons that seem to drop every tier as well. 2) Similar to shield block or staff block we need an AA that gives us the same mitigation boost we get when using a shield. when we equip a weapon in our offhand. That's all, that's it. For those who say but then we will be dual wielding 24/7 I say no that's not true. Nothing outlined above will stop warriors from using a shield IF THEY SO CHOOSE. Go ahead be a knight. Spend your DKP on a shield and a primary weapon of your choosing. I would spend it on the warrior only off-hander and a main hander of my choosing. As it sits right now I have ZERO choice in the matter, and that is not what I rolled a warrior for. We are masters of ALL weapon types. Because of this there is no reason to think we do not have fantastic defensive skills because of this when we have a weapon equipped offhand. We have unrivalled strength and stamina to survive the most brutal battles. No where in that description is the caveat "but only with a shield equipped". We rolled warriors because of what made us different than the other two tank types. The devs, have taken that away from us mainly in part because when they did SOME warriors got on the bandwagon and doomed us to where we are at now. When we gave up our ability to tank while dual wielding not only did we give up the single most class defining ability we have, we relegated dual wield and thus any utility even when not tanking we should be able to gain because of this class defining ability to atrophy and decline. I'm sorry, but to certain devs who believe that we ought not to tank while dual wielding ever again, I say I have to respectfully disagree. To warriors who believe the same, simply shame on you.
We didn't even have DW when we rolled our class. We got it at level 7. I didn't know we even had it. I rolled a Warrior because it was the Primary Tank - plate armor, shield, sword - tank. Not too long after SOE increased 2H damage bonuses so Knight 2H DPS performed better compared to Warrior and Ranger DW DPS. DW DPS. Our most defining class ability became, once it was provided, Defensive and other defensive related abilities (tank). The Phase 2 Melee Update was intended to narrow a too wide utility gap, After it was canceled and after the DoN tank parity announcement I took a look at the utility gap and started discussion about some consistant with the Warrior class character and within the Tank Archetype modest group friendly utility without much if any raid use. We got such utility - not only what was discussed in those threads but other things as well. With some knights agitating for tank parity in raids too I opposed additional Warrior utility in a TSW thread http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showpost.php?p=300063&postcount=2 pointing out that if we wanted to preserve our unmatched survivability vs most brutal mobs role in raids we couldn't become the Knight with Yellow Mana and 5th rate utility. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but IMO one ought not characterize people who argued Warriors should be better able to use shields as destroying our utility when its not the case at all - in fact the opposite, as far as players suggesting things goes, is true. So I'd suggest erasing what you said and emulate George Orwells NewSpeak - say instead people who tried to knighify Warriors with utility later tried to knightify them with S&B. When echoing what you hear on talk radio its usually best to fact check first.
Increase the damage of dual wield 750-1000DPS above maxxed out shield specialist so that it is viable to use. would make a lot of warriors happy!
I posted this on the warrior boards a few days back, and it seemed to go over well, so I'll suggest it here as well. Note: I've played a war since Kunark, and I chose it as a dual-wielding tank class. Over the years I've been very disappointed the way the warrior class has evolved, and I don't enjoy the current state of the class. Ideally, I'd like to see warriors go back to their class defining dual wield while tanking . . . and I mean tanking anything, trash, or raid bosses. The problem of course, is that there has been so many AAs put in suggesting wars hide behind shields, and the AC bonus, and dps boost is so large, that anything BUT sword and shield is poor choice. Since I feel you'll have a hard time dissuading warriors from giving up the AC bonus, now that we've grown so accustomed to it, why not implement war-only, offhand-only weapons, with normal warrior-esque ratios, normal warrior-esque procs, with a large amount of AC, comparable to, but not necessarily as high as current shields. I say lock it to secondary, to avoid abuse of the system, using a high AC primary + a shield. Additionally, to compensate for the ISS DPS boost, either throw that AA out the window, as it really makes no sense having the high defensive stance be the highest dps, or simply increase warrior passive dps when dual wielding, either by tweaking weapon ratios, or putting in an AA. Honestly, the ONLY reasons wars use shields now, is for the AC, and DPS. Shield block is complete crap, and fires MAYBE a dozen times when tanking a raid boss, and sometimes never during the duration of a group fight. The survivability added by that facet of the AA is negligible. To be clear, I'm not in ANY way arguing for this because I feel our aggro is lacking (it's absolutely not), that our dps is lacking (we're tanks, if we wanted to put out big numbers, we'd have rolled a different class), or that our survivability is lacking (the amount of clicks, AAs, discs at our disposal is frankly stupid to the point where most of the half-baked abilities that go live are never used..tempest. def? armor of runes? really?) Essentially what I'm suggesting, is to return the horribly-bastardized war class to its roots of dual-wield tanking, without suffering a colossal setback from where it currently is. Having a dual wielding tank will not only be a renewed, interesting for players to play, but also for developers to have fun with, creating innovative and unique abilities revolving around two weapons in a tanking role. And before Battleblade pipes in with his knight-wannabe rhetoric, yes, a sword is not a shield, but yes, a sword can be used to defend as well. Thoughts?
I love the idea, Pwning. I don't think we should be stuck with swordnboard as the only effective tanking set-up. No one cares that that DW warrior somehow violates someone's deep-seeded ideals about what a "warrior" should look like. That is just pure window-licking nonsense.
Thoughts? Best tank is Warrior class defining. Once it became available Defensive was. I rolled a Warrior because it was the Primary Tank, not because it DW'd. Didn't get DW until level 7 and didn't know it existed. I identified with tanks, not with Rangers, Rogues, and Bards. After getting DW I saw knight 2H DPS compared to Warrior DW DPS (2H damage bonus adjustments). I rolled a Warrior knowing full well that to be the best tank depended on acquiring protection in the form of armor. We weren't a nimble avoiding class nor an adroit at parrying.class. We were a "thanks to their heavy armor and unheard of stamina Warriors have the unmatched ability to survive" class. So there's this piece of hand held heavy armor: maybe like some shields with WAR and only WAR on it (were Warrior only shields a meta joke, like knight offhand daggers which they couldn't use? I don't think so). heavy armor that has long had it's AC not subject to the softcap (and Warriors were included) heavy armor which provided Shield Block (and Warriors were included) Did Warriors never use shields? Not at all. We built up aggro under Fortitude while DWing and took up a shield when tanking challenging content that lived long enough to justify doing that. And two otherwise dissimilar tanks used shields faaar more conveniently. Why? Not because devs failed to give DW the benefits of using a shield - DW never had them. But because Warriors did not have 1Hdrs with shield appropriate ratios and we lost aggro when we dropped our off hander. And here's the important part - did they change shields or shield benefits? Wait for it....no, they made those benefits more readily accessible to Warriors. No more and no less acessible to Warriors than the other two classes that tank and get more protection by putting more armor on their characters. Do knight 2Hndrs get shield benefits? - no, 2H is not using a shield Do Warrior 2Hndrs get shield benefits? - no, 2H is not using a shield Do Warriors get shield benefits when DWing? no. they aren't using a shield Do Warriors, Paladins, and Shadow Knights all (as of a couple of years ago) have fairly equal accessibility to shield benefits? You betcha. We didn't have equal access and now we do. We S&B too much? I don't recall DW fans complaining we DW'd too much. Besides, how much Warrior, Paladins, and SK's S&B depends on relative benefit and......our roles - we're tanks. Paladins, and SK's can tank without a shield, they just don't get the benefits of using a shield when they do it. Which is exactly where Warriors are. Fair is fair. Change the rules more? An all swords setup is defensive for Warriors but not for knights? Can I has BP benefits when not wearing a BP too?? Just for Warriors of course. SOE could have simply given Warriors shield benefits regardless of what we were weilding at any time. But all swords is clearly not adding in another defensive piece of armor. Not 14 years ago and not now. We have the benefits of using a shield (thank goodness) and just like every other class that tanks we have to use a shield to receive them. Bbbut and offhander can provide some protection? Aye - you have seen parrying daggers right? I'd have absolutely no issue with type 4, type 8 augment Skill Mod: Parry +8 % (36 Max). If someone wants to use that instead of a 10DMG aug that ought to be their choice. (I doubt devs would do that however - the S&B=tanking challenging content, SW and 2H=trivial content and DPS makes it unnecessary).
DW is lvl 1 for monks, level 13 for war/rog and 17 for bard/rng/bst. Discounting the <1% of weapons created for 'flavor' (probably looked back upon as mistakes) DW was the defining ability used to differentiate skilled fighter-archetypes from lesser-skilled (tank-caster hybrids) or non-fighting archtypes in early EverQuest. As far as the AC portion of weapons/shields, the problem is EQ is a computer game. The AC value exists as an entirely oversimplified and generic 'boost to defense'. A more complex system would allow a player to 'raise their shield defensively' to deflect melee attacks and spells, at an opportunity cost a-la Skyrim. What it all comes down to really, people have two hands. Whether your left hand is holding a shield, a weapon, or are gripping one weapon with two hands, or holding nothing at all, the hand/arm and what (if anything) is attached to it is what is really being used to defend attack. Simply standing there with a shield in hand just makes you easier to spot by enemy combatants. That benefit of having two arms need not exist only when a shield is equipped. This is somewhat accounted for in DPS terms with swing AA's for 2h (not nearly enough, IMO) but nowhere in the ability to deflect additional attacks like it should for DW/2H. Shield block/Specialist are bad solutions to problems fabricated by shield AC and Knight weapon ratios being used as shortcuts around limits in EQ's code.
People have 2 hands. If they put pie in both they don't do much damage. It's what you put in your hands and how many you have that matters. Swords are not shields. AC is the "heavy armor" method by which tanks increase their survivability through gear in EQ. Noting that D&D might have us move from a 32-sided die to a 16-sided die doesn't have a whole lot to do with EQ. We have the benefits of using a shield. Just like other classes that tank we can choose to have those benefits or not by equipping a shield or not equipping a shield. Many years ago Warriors did not have ready access to those benefits. It was fixed and it was fixed sensibly and even-handedly. You equip a shield you get the benefit. As you say yourself, Warriors are used to having those benefits - translation even willing to use a shield like other classes must to get those benefits. Would knights like those benefits when using their 2Handers? You bet they would. Should that happen? Nope. type 4, type 8 augment Skill Mod: Parry +8 % (36 Max). If someone wants to use that instead of a 10DMG aug that ought to be their choice <- should be Secondary only of course. Would many DWers use such an aug? Nope - they wouldn't want the DMG loss - DW is for DPS. Besides, Parry +8 % (36 Max) is pretty weak. Nod the defensive properties of an offhand weapon is pretty weak - please note what they've been in EQ lo these 14 years - pretty much 0. It was only when we finally had access to shields and they did what they were supposed to do that those favoring DW all the time saw a DW need for survival we did not previously have, but should have had - when and only when we equipped a shield. They could have decided to give all our weapon setups shield benefits at any time, but they didn't. And it would have been hard to justify it if they had. SOE did the right thing and people are encouraging them to now do the wrong thing generating fairness issues with every class that sometimes uses a shield and sometimes does not. Will they want shield benefits or the benefits by another method when not using a shield too? You bet they will. Pretty cut and dried.
We really don't. We get a minuscule 'block' chance, a boost to an ambiguous oversimplified statistic and both of these come at no opportunity cost - we have only penalties when using anything but a shield. Shields in EQ have been broken since day 1, especially in modern day EQ for the Warrior class.
We have the benefits of using a shield. If we did not sir, people wouldn't not want those benefits or those benefits by another method when DWing (at no opprotunity cost I might add. All weapons/no shield, just like 2H). I've been itching to say: We didn't have equal access to shields and their benefits. Some debated this publicly for a very long time. Others sat in their comfort zone. Elidroth made changes - whether he noted those debates or not he addressed the FACT that knights had 1Handers appropriate for use with shields and Warirors did not. You and other DW all the time preferers don't seem to question whether we are entitled to the benefits <- important. You just want them when DWing (no mention of people who might want them using 2Handers or other DWers). You might have spoken up during early discussions and made your case. Wwwwe want shield benefits without using shields. But you didn't. After the problem was solved. After Warriors and knights all get relatively equal access to shield benefits if and only if we use a shield, y'all come up with this. I wasn't kidding when I suggested SOE should put EoA focuses on shields here on out. The devs are pretty nice guys apparently. Abashi however would've torn ya's a new one and he'd would have been100% entitled to. You wouldn't have just gotten that Parry aug, you would have seen shields be a legal destination for 1H weapon ornamentation - Woo woo! My sword IS a shield!!!!1111!!! You want a not full of it argument for your position? We want to go back to DWing almost all the time. Make it happen. For cosmetic reasons. Please note I initially discussed better access for Warriors to shields for gameplay/class balance/Tank Archetype reasons. From that point of view a Warrior equipping a shield and getting protective increases while not getting as much protection when using All Swords makes perfect sense. Devs could agree what you wield is a matter of cosmetics not the inherent properties of items (they really could) and enjoy a bunch of classes saying "Me too." You're certainly entitled to your opinion. It was an interesting read.
