1650/1635 ideas & comparison.

[TheLastShamurai]

i definitely think that we need an attack spell with a good chance of death/damage. either in the 1650 spot, or by being able to amp out the damage on 1635 with lores.

both of out semi brothers have kill spells and pets. i suppose our pets would be considered out bonded weapons, but we definitely lack in the department of spell damage.

im also in favor of combining 1615/1635 into just 1635. one version of the spell being targeted with less mana, the other open with more, like dispruption.

i know there is a big thing about us being able to cast from plate, but whopty do. bards don't have to leave guarded to anniliate everything in the room (with less lore training than i have now), and many rangers can just spike and pick everything off from hiding. about all the plate does is allow me to take hits, because i take a lot of them.

don't mistake this for complaining, as i am fine with my character/build, i am just curious about what others think about it and their ideas for improvement or comparison to other semis.


as an aside, one of my post cap goals is to get the skills i need to hunt with hiding/ambush. should be interesting.

[Stunseed]

Give me BESEECH, I'll gladly give you what you want.

[TheLastShamurai]

what is it you really feel you need it for?

[Stunseed]

You're the one in plate. What do you need it for that your "semi brother's" do not?

[TheLastShamurai]

because whatever GM made paladins is a fucking sadist.

we were designed to basically just stay in offensive and swing, swing, swing. i can't even imagine what we would do with our weak spells without plate and beseech.

whereas on the flip side of that coin, rangers are made to hide/ambush. its not everyones choice to choose that build, but they were made for it.

bards are well, better than both paladins and rangers in my opinion. bastards.

[Izzy]

Paladin's have no business with powerful attack spells. They're the physical semi, simple as that.

[TheLastShamurai]

i do not think its unreasonable to have a spell that does decent damage, not anything crazy, but decent damage. especially if it is going to cost 50 mana to cast.

it costs of 15/35 mana now just for a spell that basically only disables. for the most part the damage is negligable. they do sometimes crit kill things, but for creatures that aren't easily critted the damage is a joke.

bards and rangers both have spells that are less mana intensive, for the same if not better disabling ability and mass attack spells. they need those spells, becuase like you say, we can train more per/level in physical skills than the other two.

but if it wasn't an attack spell, 1650 would likely be some utility and/or defense, which in my opinion would go farther towards making us more powerful than a damage spell we can cast 4 or 5 times.

[Gelston]

Perhaps a spell like 1611 thats adds shitloads to CMan or whatever(I mean a lot) but for a short duration. Or drop that down to 1640 and make Divine Word 1650.

[Izzy]

i do not think its unreasonable to have a spell that does decent damage, not anything crazy, but decent damage. especially if it is going to cost 50 mana to cast.

it costs of 15/35 mana now just for a spell that basically only disables. for the most part the damage is negligable. they do sometimes crit kill things, but for creatures that aren't easily critted the damage is a joke.

bards and rangers both have spells that are less mana intensive, for the same if not better disabling ability and mass attack spells. they need those spells, becuase like you say, we can train more per/level in physical skills than the other two.

but if it wasn't an attack spell, 1650 would likely be some utility and/or defense, which in my opinion would go farther towards making us more powerful than a damage spell we can cast 4 or 5 times.

My 1615/1630 crits plenty often. You clearly just chose the wrong diety! rollplay before roleplay, sir, that is the gemstone way.

But seriously, lightning based 1615 is sweet. Again, paladin's aren't casters anyway. They fact that they even have a mass attack spell is amazing to me. Their spells should be geared towards making them more effective weapon users...because that's what they are. If you want to have attack spells..roll a pure or magical semi.

Also, what spells does a ranger have that are less mana intensive/more effective? 635 costs the same as 1635. 610 (assuming this is the disabling spell you refer to) is highly ineffective against things over your level. 615 is also fairly ineffective when overhunting. 616 costs more than 1615, and again, has overhunting limitations. I'm not shitting on ranger spells..my ranger is by far my favorite character. But 1615/1635 are not bad spells.

Bards, on the other hand, are haxsauce. I'll agree with you there.

[Fallen]

Paladins need a mana dump spell comparable to 650, but not as sucky. Something that gives them an extreme boost to their skills for a short period of time at a high rate of mana. They wouldn't be able to hunt with it running constantly, but it would be impressive, flashy, and powerful.

Their damage spells need better lore and SMC tie ins.