Weapon and Class Combinations

Hi all =) Hope everyone is well.

I was just thinking: when the game was released, if I remember correctly, all the tank classes could use all the weapon combinations like Sword and Board, Two-handed...and...well I think warriors were the only class that could use dual wield. I know this was changed some time later to what it is today .

I guess what I am asking is, what if we could go back to being able to wield all the weapon combinations again? Like give the passive dps buff to tanks who use sword and board and give the block buff to those using two-handers etc. Its not a game breaker for me but I would really like to use a two-hander with my warrior - maybe even a shield if I was feeling paladiny. I kinda feel left out when my shammy can switch between shield and or two handed =)

Theresa

I think that'll be pretty cool to be honest.

All of the tanks can still use any of the weapons (except for dual wielding), they just have disadvantages when they use weapons that are not their specialized type. Which is absolutely how it should be. Why even have classes if everybody gets everything? As a Warrior, you are already the only tank class that has an exclusive weapon set-up that no other tank can use, disadvantages or not (can dual wield), so no reason to feel 'left out.'

Its great when you see a paladin using a two-handed sword or a DK with a shield. Further, if the players are cognizant of the penalties that using a weapon platform that they are not specialized in but doing it because it is unique, even more so. I am so tired of cookie cutter characters, with predetermined attributes and gear.

I salute the Warrior who adds points to Intelligence, or the sorcerer with a 100 strength: Unique characters are so interesting.

No.

Just No.

Useless characters are not unique. They are useless.

This is from another post, but certainly applies here:

Like the old saying goes: "When everyone is special, no one is special." Yes, my evil Kurashasa Chaos Paladin uses a 2-hander, but I accept the penalty for doing so. However, the [m o r o n] who gave the Paladin a 2-hand epic should burn in hell!

SO. . . .

SO . . . .

SO WRONG!!!.

There is no such thing as a useless character. Each character is a rich tapestry of experiences, with possibilities of varied attributes, gear, and skills. If you are trying to say I have to play a paladin according to some predictable formula that has been tested, retested, and verified by formulas, then you have not the slightest idea what gaming is all about.

You can put your attribute points in whatever you feel like so long as you dont ever group and try to fulfill a viable role. This is not Rift or anyother game where ever class is the same/can do everything.

If you are a tank for a group and you think you are unique cause you dump all your points into INT/WIS > VIT and have SDF gear then you ARE a useless character. There is nothing more frustrating then joining a HerpDerp group and banging your head on a wall because some person in your group thinks they are "unique."

It drives me crazy, and add this to my list of pet peeves, when someone drones on about how I must play my character or how I must develop and equip my character to satisfy their idea of some pre-defined role. Who is to say that a unique combination of attributes and weapons will work in a situation?

I am playing the game because I want to exert my creativity over a character's development. How bland and dull is it to play a character that is a copy of something online -- Where is the thrill and excitement of learning what is good, what is bad, and what just fits with your character?

I hate games that simply make players stand in line doing exactly the same thing, using the same equipment, experiencing the same nauseating endless regurgitation of what someone else thinks is fun. Vanguard is about possibilities, endless ones. Why with all of that potential would you want to make a cookie cutter character!?!? Senseless.

I don't know if you noticed, but before you finish creating your first character you choose your own role. The game was made that way. Like I said before this is not rift. There are classes. Every class fills a certain role. No two classes are the same however.

Again, it is how the game is implemented/made. Feel free to do whatever you want to any of your characters so long as you dont try to join groups and bring any sort of value to that group.

That's all fine and dandy for roleplay purposes. I'm just asking you don't go out and hinder every group you go in cause you think an INT specced Warrior or STR specced Sorcerer is unique. And yes you will Hinder them.

I don't know how any of that applies.

I think both of you guys are somewhat right, but everything has limitations.

Apaelias is definitely right when it comes to end-game, or tough group content. It just isn't cool to waste the time of [5 or 23] other people by causing a wipe in tough content just to be different.

In content that doesn't require characters be maxxed-out, I think Shalimar is right, up to a point. Being unique in some way is cool, but I do not think attribute points are the best way to be unique. No one is likely to see that anyway.

Appearance armor slots let a person make a unique-looking character--one old buddy has a dress-wearing male Orc DK. My evil Paladin, for example, will most likely never be an end-game raid tank, but would use the proper tools if called on to do so. He still specs normally. But most who would see a Kura on a Nightmare of Chaos with a 2-hander would think 'DK' and be surprised to find a Pally instead. For all but the toughest content, he can tank just fine with a 2-hander, even with the (correct) penalties that brings, but will change if needed for tough content.

I will end my involvement with the discussion by saying I don't play the game to do a mad dash to the end. I enjoy my time in the game and my journey through it. I do it at my own pace with my own builds. I may ask what others are doing, but I am not out to copy what someone else does but rather enjoy seeing what others haven't done.

Obviously Apaelias enjoys raiding and grouping, stripping any real need of to be unique or even effective, rather letting the group as a mob run over tough targets. That is not nor ever will be why I play, but rather I play to enjoy every nuance of the game and to see how odd combinations can create exceedingly rich and powerful characters. In that vein that is why I create unique characters, with my own flavor of builds and equipment sets.

Apaelias seems to think that any character that is different than his (or his set ideas) must be bad. I do not see the logic in this, as no one build can succeed 100 percent of the time. So any idea of a stock cookie cutter character is foolish thinking.

I just hope out of this conversation others will learn to experiment with their characters and try things that may seem odd but may be rewarding. Its a game not a job, so there is no wrong way of doing something. Relax and have fun. Experiment. Try various things. Find what you like and play with it.

Thanks for the personal attacks and real insight into my own character. I like how you lumped me into this category that everyone needs to follow my ideas or they are wrong. I also like how you jump out and attack raiding when nothing was said about it.

Attribute points(for the most part) and weapon type choices (for tanks particularly) aren't not really up for opinions. You can hover over them and they actually tell you what they do. There aren't any secrets hidden somewhere. Like I said feel free to put your points wherever you choose, just don't go and hinder other peoples gameplay cause you want to be "unique."

Sure some classes can skew from the path (Disciples come to mind), but for the most part you cannot.

I think what ShalimarTroy was trying to say was (and I am sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that if every character is developed formulaic and stereotyped, to a powerplay style demanded by some, you may as well just play Diablo. These games are called MMORPGs for a reason (as opposed to MMOGs). Apologies if I have upset anyone, but....

I fully support the implementation of multiple viable wield preferences for the tank classes and had actually brought a similar discussion to the table back during the first round of class balancing and was promptly shown the door. The simple truth is, most players (most people) have little interest in variety and even less in complexity. People tend to prefer simplicity and there is nothing wrong with that. It just tends to make things dull in my opinion.

I am not sure that giving everyone the same abilities is the correct way to do it though. I think the proper way to accomplish it would be in several steps:

1. Separate shield/stance block %'s from the block attribute itself. It could be Block2 or whatever (there is a reason). Basically strip the block %s that classes currently receive directly from their held items/stance.
2. Slightly nerf (yes I said it) warrior/dk dual-wield/two-handed block2 bonuses by say 8%
3. Add block2 bonuses to select weapons and gear. For simplicity's sake we could assume a 4% bonus on select 1h weapons, an 8% bonus on select 2h weapons and then 0-4% bonus on select armor items, but limit other stat bonuses on these items.
3. Implement a cap for this new stat at say 28%

This would accomplish a few things:

1. Sword and board would remain the easiest way to cap block bonus.
2. Warriors and DKs would retain the effectiveness of their current stances while having the option to reach a higher block chance.
3. Warriors and Paladins would have the option of viably using two-handed weapons, but DKs would still have an edge.

Keep in mind that other existing itemization, class attributes, etc. would remain unchanged and all we would really be doing with the block2 stat is segregating the portion of block that is currently directly derived from held items and stances, such that:

1. Someone wielding a red shield would have block2 capped at 28% receiving the 28% bonus that they already receive.
2. A DK wielding a 2h weapon would receive the same bonus that they currently do (The bonus from their current stance modified as mentioned above with -8% plus 8% from a 2h weapon.
3. A warrior dual-wielding would receive the same bonus that they currently do (The bonus from their current stance modified as mentioned above with - 8% plus 4% x2 = 8% from wielding 2 one-handed weapons.

Players satisfied with their existing wield set up could continue merrily that way with no impact. Players who would like to change things up could work on acquiring the items to make it viable. As mentioned above though, armor with the block2 stat would have to yield lower values for other stats to compensate. That way classes effectively remain as they are, the way that all naysayers prefer they remain, but they would have the option of fulfilling the role of that class in different ways.

If really wanted to make things interesting we could open dual wield to the Paladin/DK classes, but I know we'd see vehement opposition ^^. If you consider it in this context though, there really wouldn't be anything wrong with it because while it would be an option, it would be very difficult to make viable. The point however is that it could be made viable rather than blindly accepting some artificial limitation.


Come at me! Rawr!

Sounds about right.

The weapon types affect a lot more than just block percentages. Would you have DK abilities that now require a two-hand weapon to use be made to work with all weapon types? Same for Warriors and Paladins--you are talking about changing a lot more than just block percentages, including opening up a whole new can of worms involving class balance that we just got sorted. And for what purpose? What real benefit? Just so you can play a dual-wielding Paladin?

And so what makes Warriors/Dual Wielding different in this respect? Do you not think DKs were ticked when Pallys got a 2-hand epic? Do you think carrying this mistake even further is a good thing? Do you think DKs should get 4 epics--2-hander, 2 x 1-handers, and an epic shield? Do you think all tanks should have 4 epics--then they would all be the same.

Sorry, but it sounds like you want to increase the individuality of one character within their class by destroying the unique flavor that has always made the classes themselves unique. That is a trade I would not be willing to make.

I think the idea of tanks being able to use all weapons and being able to still do whats needed is a good Idea. As for limiting them to what they are now is really no different then playing WoW, EQ2, Rift or any other MMORPG out there in my opinion. And no offence to no one else but I dont see a problem with a Pally using a 2-hander and tanking still. As for them being better in certain set-ups like one handed and shield on a pally and dual wield on warrior and DK's being two hander only this makes me play other classes and makes them feel bland to me even tho my main is a pally. I just dont like being put into a certain setup on gear and being forced to play that way only to be worth while.

No, I would be fine giving paladins and dk's dual wield. There isn't really a reason why they shouldn't, or any other class for that matter. Last I checked, all characters have two hands and should be able to hold whatever they like. Classes should be defined by their skills and abilities and customized by players through gear choices. It introduces greater diversity.

No other archetype imposes the kind of wield restrictions that the tank archetype does. In that one regard the tank archetype is similar to Warhammer Online class structure wherein all items are 100% segregated by class. At that point, gear becomes meaningless because it is nothing more than an extension of the class. It would be no different if they just eliminated gear and rolled the stats/effects of it into character level/quest progression.

light melee have similar restrictions. your changes are too much effort for too little effect. diversity in weapon use is nice but there are other issues that are more pressing than this.

Meaningless way I rationalize it, is like this; the cleric has five kinds determined by deity; shaman has three kinds determined by patron; tank has three kinds determined by weapon style. Tank is not a category, it's a class with three flavors. Other classes don't really lend themselves to having noticeably different development paths, but clerics, shamans, and tanks do.

It would be sorta hard to make a "healer druid", even though their heals come in handy a lot. I could have put strength on this healer druid but, in the 50s it can be killed by the 20s in Hillsbury Manor because they silence casting, and I have no melee weapon. So, technically I could reroll this strength boosted healer druid in any race that didn't originally have druids. My thirst for customization is satisfied, after all, I was so good at caster dps that it was no longer interesting.

Well, the main reasons for dk to go using a shield, are mainly since it feels neat and for aesthetic purposes. And I believe you probably could do that and still be effective against stuff that's not a huge challenge to the group. Usually we don't tell the druid to leave the group because a mob has arcane resistance. But when stuff gets up there and it's really important to have a nice weapon, which get fewer and further between, it's a lot easier to just do upgrades for one kind, instead of for instance oh, now the dread knight is going to roll on weapons that everyone else wants...let alone if that started to include caster daggers. Would not really want to be just fine for tanking 55+ mobs with a dk because, oh I went around in Magi Hold for a while and a club and shield dropped, the fact that I pursue rare weapons of a certain kind competing mostly just with other dk's and maybe a bear shaman...is that really an unfair restriction, or just the individuality of it? I think it would be more generic if suddenly dk's and warriors had great cause to suddenly be needing, or at least getting equal fulfillment, from shields.