warrior sub classes

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
auslyx
Sojourner
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis IN

warrior sub classes

Postby auslyx » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:04 pm

I was reading through a lot of posts where AP, pal, and especially rangers are referred to as 'useless'. Mainly, it looks like they're useless in groups vs. true warrior class. What is it that makes them that way? Like if people that reply list Ranger: good/bad, paladin: good/bad, etc?

How about if each sub class brought some moderate utility spells? Is it overpowered for a ranger to get haste at 10th circle? It would help lessen the load for the true mages in spelling them up..or others that hit in the group. Why can't rangers get sneak or hide? Since the true AD&D ranger could hit spells like fireball or other area spells, but to a lesser degree than say abby's wilting or whater, is that so bad? Chain lightning seems to tickle in some of these posts. what if rangers could snare in nature? better yet, set traps (trap being chromatic orb-nature only) ?

Paladins: How about if they had a group spell 'heaven's embrace' that lessened group's damage to melee or perhaps caused you to need -20 hps to die rather than -10 ? Perhaps being in a paladin's presense could give either a hit and or damage bonus due to paladin's ambiance?

Anti-Pal: same spells just inverted where they hinder the oponent. Mobs have worse hitrolls, or more chance to fail spells? Anti-paladin's presense might yield fear and lessened saves for mobs? And definitely, why can't AP's get vamp touch?

I'm sure there is equipment out there that makes me look ignorant (which I am) in this post but I would like to see more of these classes played. There are always rangers on, but I haven't really seen any paladin/anti-paladin. When I made my first post, I said how amazed I am about this mud and it's eye for detail. The sub-warriors _look_ like fun to play, but aparently they're missing something.

Just for info, I'm putting up fliers at the computer's lab for Torilmud! Talk about bad academic influence !!
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:13 pm

Some good ideas. Its nice to see someone new posting ideas and wanting to make improvements :)
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Re: warrior sub classes

Postby Treladian » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:29 pm

auslyx wrote:I was reading through a lot of posts where AP, pal, and especially rangers are referred to as 'useless'. Mainly, it looks like they're useless in groups vs. true warrior class. What is it that makes them that way? Like if people that reply list Ranger: good/bad, paladin: good/bad, etc?


Basic gist of it is as follows . . .

Paladin/Anti: They can do more damage than a warrior since they can use two handed weapons and still tank, but mounted combat isn't as reliable as shieldblock for warriors and melee damage in general isn't so hot compared to spell damage. Lots of area spells = dead horse, often followed by dead character. Being knocked off your horse = dead character.

Ranger: Priests and mages with good gear and spells on them can tank better than a ranger and a class focused on melee damage just isn't very useful when melee damage itself sucks. Archery has tons of problems and much has been written about it in other threads you can dig up with a search. It's unreliable, it's often overlooked by gods who don't have a full picture of it, it's a logistical headache, and also does less damage than melee at higher levels anyway. The only really universally useful thing about the class right now is that we can rescue casters and near-death tanks but our rescue skill increases at a horrendous pace. The saving grace of the class really has more to do with the players: A lot of people that still play rangers have been here a long time and have learned how to make the best of what's often a bad situation and happily teach the newer ones how to do the same. But mechanically, we're pretty bad right now.

As for your ideas, you have to always keep in mind that paladins/antis are designed to focus on tanking and rangers are designed with a focus on offense. All potential ideas are going to be weighed against those. While utility is always useful, players typically prefer improvements that help them achieve their class's focus instead of making them spread out more. Additionally, since the gods do realize that melee damage vs. spell damage is problematic right now and want to fix the situation, many players want to see the results of that rebalance before seriously coming up with ways to improve the class. Without knowing how the class may perform down the road, it's difficult to really evaluate ideas.
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'
Aldavien
Sojourner
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Aldavien » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:59 am

Hrm, me thinks your info on paladins a bit out of date Treladian...it's really rare that I see mounts die to areas since they jumped their hp up to ~3k and gave them the saves equal to their riders. If the person has a decent mounted combat skill it's really really rare to get knocked off their mount. It takes a lot of earthquakes and bash type effects to knock me off. I personally think that since the upgrades to pallies and anti's awhile back they are equal if not better to a warrior tank. Old reputations don't die easy plus there isn't exactly an abundance of paladin tanks out there atm. The lack of paladin tanks in general makes the ones out there who don't do their job so well stand out and give a reputation to the class as a whole. How long did it take for the bards to become popular in groups after their upgrade? Quite some time and I think that's sort of what's going on with paladins, in my opinion. They don't suck anymore but as a whole people don't see it.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Re: warrior sub classes

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:22 pm

Treladian wrote:
auslyx wrote:I was reading through a lot of posts where AP, pal, and especially rangers are referred to as 'useless'. Mainly, it looks like they're useless in groups vs. true warrior class. What is it that makes them that way? Like if people that reply list Ranger: good/bad, paladin: good/bad, etc?


Basic gist of it is as follows . . .

Paladin/Anti: They can do more damage than a warrior since they can use two handed weapons and still tank, but mounted combat isn't as reliable as shieldblock for warriors and melee damage in general isn't so hot compared to spell damage. Lots of area spells = dead horse, often followed by dead character. Being knocked off your horse = dead character.

Ranger: Priests and mages with good gear and spells on them can tank better than a ranger and a class focused on melee damage just isn't very useful when melee damage itself sucks. Archery has tons of problems and much has been written about it in other threads you can dig up with a search. It's unreliable, it's often overlooked by gods who don't have a full picture of it, it's a logistical headache, and also does less damage than melee at higher levels anyway. The only really universally useful thing about the class right now is that we can rescue casters and near-death tanks but our rescue skill increases at a horrendous pace. The saving grace of the class really has more to do with the players: A lot of people that still play rangers have been here a long time and have learned how to make the best of what's often a bad situation and happily teach the newer ones how to do the same. But mechanically, we're pretty bad right now.

As for your ideas, you have to always keep in mind that paladins/antis are designed to focus on tanking and rangers are designed with a focus on offense. All potential ideas are going to be weighed against those. While utility is always useful, players typically prefer improvements that help them achieve their class's focus instead of making them spread out more. Additionally, since the gods do realize that melee damage vs. spell damage is problematic right now and want to fix the situation, many players want to see the results of that rebalance before seriously coming up with ways to improve the class. Without knowing how the class may perform down the road, it's difficult to really evaluate ideas.



Were you in on the meeting when they planned EXACTLY what they wanted from each class? didn't think so. Personally i think you are almost correct in your assumptions, but not exactly. Rangers aren't just "melee damage machines". Antis and paladins aren't "tanks" as much as warriors are, but i digress. (would be more to this post here, but i don't want to hijack thread, would love to explain more in a diff forum)

I personally think the ideas are sound. I think a 10th circle haste spell (with shorter duration than enchanter of course due to lack of spec spellcast enchantment skill) is a great idea. It wouldn't make them tank better, but would perhaps put them up closer to rogues on damage. Also keep in mind haste doesn't currently affect archery speed/missiles.

As for the paladins/antis, i've not seen an idea such as this one. An "aura" of healing/fear/peace, etc, providing benefits to an entire group, not necessarily self only. I think that would definately make them more desired (at least 1 or 1 of each) in a zoning group.

As far as the vamp touch spell, not sure to what extent this would benefit the anti, except perhaps casting it before a combat and engaging barehanded (hoping you hit) and then switching to your weapon. Would be a neat thing to playtest. Don't know what to add to paladins to counter this, but i'm sure someone has an idea thats not overpowered =)

Del.
auslyx
Sojourner
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis IN

Postby auslyx » Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:43 am

Is it overpowered for a paladin's aura to give a group a 1% physical immunity chance? Meaning damage is either normal or the 1% is shrugged?
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:44 am

Considering that Magic Resistance is viewed as extremely powerful, and its only present on hard to get items in the 1-3% range, I would think that physical immunity would be viewed as more powerful.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:46 pm

Similar to the above idea mentioned, others have mentioned a "protection" capability. Something along the lines of one player is selected (presumably a mage or cleric) that the paladin provides extra protection to, taking physical hits that were aimed at the mage in question.

But on the note of what you are suggesting, i think the idea is quite sound. That is something that NO other class has. Would provide a unique, and possibly helpful skill to a party. I am all for it.

Can add an anti-paladin aura that is similar that increases the chance of melee in the party getting a critical hit or something. (by the same margin of 1% or whatever the equivalent would be)
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Re: warrior sub classes

Postby Treladian » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:14 am

Delmair Aamoren wrote:Were you in on the meeting when they planned EXACTLY what they wanted from each class? didn't think so. Personally i think you are almost correct in your assumptions, but not exactly. Rangers aren't just "melee damage machines". Antis and paladins aren't "tanks" as much as warriors are, but i digress. (would be more to this post here, but i don't want to hijack thread, would love to explain more in a diff forum)


For antis and palis? No. For rangers? One of my posts completely changed Miax's plans on how to update the ranger class for Sojourn3 back in alpha when he was asking rangers for feedback and ideas. More discussion led to revised plans for the class. So I definitley was in on the planning for the class. How much of that plan is still valid is another topic entirely.

Aldavien wrote:Hrm, me thinks your info on paladins a bit out of date Treladian...it's really rare that I see mounts die to areas since they jumped their hp up to ~3k and gave them the saves equal to their riders. If the person has a decent mounted combat skill it's really really rare to get knocked off their mount. It takes a lot of earthquakes and bash type effects to knock me off.


I'm only able to repeat what I've seen other players say here. Still, if it's any easier to knock you off your horse than it is to knock a warrior off their feet, it's an area where you're not as good as a warrior. To what degree or if there's any discrepency at all I have no idea.

auslyx wrote:Is it overpowered for a paladin's aura to give a group a 1% physical immunity chance? Meaning damage is either normal or the 1% is shrugged?


No idea how the balance of it would work out. However, I think that people would prefer something that fired more often for less effect. Reliability is often the key with abilities in groups. Something that caused some percent of damage to be shrugged on a fairly consistent basis could definately be useful.
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests