PDA

View Full Version : Stalwart Defender Shield Requirement



Bilger
04-16-2013, 11:33 PM
I am trying to understand why it is required to have a shield for SD.

Are you trying to kill TWF tanks?

Some of us have TWF builds that use SD and tank. (yes besides what others say it is possible to tank while TWF with ac, prr, dodge, and saves)

With this change to SD enhancements multiple builds will be ruined.

If going to keep the shield requirement, answer me this, why isn't the shield on flawless not working as a shield. It does for Unyielding in Epic Destinies for shield bonuses?

Yes I bug reported it.

If going to keep shield requirement then the shield + like on white armor should effect this.

White atm is only one with this property other than shield wands. Make me understand the thoughts behind this please makes no sense to me.

Stanley_Nicholas
04-17-2013, 02:43 AM
This requirement sucks big time. Sure, have enhancements in there that beef up shield usage - that's the proper place to put them. But it's not proper to have 90% of the enhancements non-functional without a shield. The stalwart stance in particular shouldn't require a shield in order to confer any benefit. Combined with how ridiculously expensive everything in here is, this section needs a lot of work.

InsanityIsYourFriend
04-17-2013, 09:34 AM
make it if you have a shield bonus at all it gives you all effects! (go shield wand UMD!)
Question has anyone checked if these bonuses work with a rune arm or an orb?

bhgiant
04-17-2013, 09:46 AM
It's a bug, I bug reported it so it has to be.

In all seriousness I sent in a bug report about this. There's been enough negative feedback about it. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the requirement is restrictive, completely unnecessary and spoils the prestige. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it.

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 09:52 AM
This change is completely unacceptable as stated below.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=414774

Don't worry, the fanboi sycophants will be here shortly to "correct" you.

Bowser_Koopa
04-17-2013, 10:03 AM
Really how are you going to be Stalwart without a shield i mean look at the definition, how could you think anyone without a big shield is going to defend you loyally, reliably, and work hard at it without a giant shield to protect themselves and you. This is just silly especially Ape_Man who thinks of someone with not one but two weapons to be defending anything, they're attacking obviously they only care about offense else they would have a defensive piece of gear in their off hand. Turbine I hope you leave this the way it is so that i know when i play my squishy healer or some other random toon that the guy with a shield is a stalwart defender not the guy who thinks a weapon can be used for defense.

Adjective
Loyal, reliable, and hardworking: "he remained a stalwart supporter of the cause".
Noun
A loyal, reliable, and hardworking supporter or participant in an organization or team: "the stalwarts of the Ladies' Auxiliary".
Synonyms
sturdy - stout - strong - robust - firm - lusty - hefty

Bowserkoopa,

The above post is obviously totally serious and Turbine is awesome and lag is a myth.

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 10:07 AM
Really how are you going to be Stalwart without a shield i mean look at the definition, how could you think anyone without a big shield is going to defend you loyally, reliably, and work hard at it without a giant shield to protect themselves and you. This is just silly especially Ape_Man who thinks of someone with not one but two weapons to be defending anything, they're attacking obviously they only care about offense else they would have a defensive piece of gear in their off hand. Turbine I hope you leave this the way it is so that i know when i play my squishy healer or some other random toon that the guy with a shield is a stalwart defender not the guy who thinks a weapon can be used for defense.

Adjective
Loyal, reliable, and hardworking: "he remained a stalwart supporter of the cause".
Noun
A loyal, reliable, and hardworking supporter or participant in an organization or team: "the stalwarts of the Ladies' Auxiliary".
Synonyms
sturdy - stout - strong - robust - firm - lusty - hefty

Bowserkoopa,

The above post is obviously totally serious and Turbine is awesome and lag is a myth.

You are maybe a CR45 troll, not troll enough to take seriously.

You're semi-troll. You're quasi-troll. You're the margarine of troll. You're the Diet Coke of troll. Just one calorie, not troll enough.

The Paladin defender tree has no such ridiculous requirement.

PS: "Fanboikoopa" has a nice ring to it, perhaps for your bardcher?

Bowser_Koopa
04-17-2013, 10:17 AM
The paladin tree doesn't have it because paladins are already known as defenders of their faith.

Also no fanboi koopa.

Furthermore Paladins aren't stalwart, they just defend Siberys and they don't claim to be stalwarty.

Really though I've taken everything in the current "Alpha" as not something that is done or near done just some ideas they had that are restrictive and odd and we're going to cry and they'll pull back the curtain and we'll have something that is at least 50% decent and after another 2 years will be 75% decent then they'll rewrite the whole thing again anyways.

Bowserkoopa,

Stalwarts without a shield what's next Barbs that use a sword and shield?

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 10:22 AM
Really though I've taken everything in the current "Alpha" as not something that is done or near done just some ideas they had that are restrictive and odd and we're going to cry and they'll pull back the curtain and we'll have something that is at least 50% decent and after another 2 years will be 75% decent then they'll rewrite the whole thing again anyways.



If this is released live in it's current form without major changes it's game over. Stick a fork in DDO, it's done. Have you seen the Cleric trees?

This is NGE all over again.

IronClan
04-17-2013, 10:24 AM
Simple a TWF hate tank is doing far more DPS and thus getting more out of Intim and threat gear and DOS/SD hate boosts, while also doing... um... well far more DPS?

So you're able to have your cake and eat it

The shield requirement is just them brute force correcting an obvious mistake they made back when they nerfed Intim and Shield Blocking and made any DPS geared TWF that isn't even trying to be a tank, into the best tanks in the game, by proxy because they can generate far more hate than a S&B even when the S&B is loaded with hate gear and the TWF is not (because of course the TWF is loaded with DPS gear which is better than +% hate )

I agree that it's a little abrupt and brute force, and maybe there's a better way. They probably should allow some form of non S&B for THF and TWF Stalwarts. In fact losing the +6 CON and STR when going into THF mode sucks even for S&B toons. But it's one way to make S&B viable and correct Eladrin's mistaken belief that a S&B Pali or SD would be able to be good "tanks" when TWF's are doing so much more DPS.

Maybe make it so not wearing a shield locks out the "+ threat", and then double the threat lines only for Shield users. Yes double. because that might be enough to allow a S&B to keep aggro over a TWF with good DPS gear while the S&B has to wear AC, PRR and threat gear. 50%/100%/150%. instead of the current.

Or they could just revert to shield intiming... Sometimes "realistic" isn't much fun. My unrealistic Pali initmi tank that shield blocked and maintained aggro by calling out yo momma jokes, and your uncle looks like a Kobold one liners (maybe shield blocked 5% of the time at most) and effectively did the job of tanking in the rare places it was useful, hasn't been much fun to play since... Since even with good gear and DOS and S&B feats, max CHA Divine Might+ Intim + Zeal plus 60 sec Pali threat boost (righteousness?) and multiple re-specs, it always losses aggro to higher DPS TWF.

Bowser_Koopa
04-17-2013, 10:35 AM
If this is released live in it's current form without major changes it's game over. Stick a fork in DDO, it's done. Have you seen the Cleric trees?

This is NGE all over again.

Besides on the forums i haven't looked at much i intend to this weekend, i really haven't been motivated to play DDO with the arrival of Bowser Jr. in the household i try to stay free so i can stop what i'm doing and take care of him. The tree i'm really curious about is going to be rogue just to see if my years of building my acrobat will be meaningful at all to see some possible direction of where that is going, also curious to see barb which hopefully isn't just Frenzy anymore.

Bowserkoopa,

Currently playing Disgaea 2 because he is crazy

Xandrel
04-17-2013, 10:38 AM
Turbine I hope you leave this the way it is so that i know when i play my squishy healer or some other random toon that the guy with a shield is a stalwart defender not the guy who thinks a weapon can be used for defense.

I agree totally, Stalwarts should have a shield to maintain their stance.

Though, I think switching a weapon to a wand should not kick you out of stance.

But the shield should be a requirement....

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 10:49 AM
Simple a TWF hate tank is doing far more DPS and thus getting more out of Intim and threat gear and DOS/SD hate boosts, while also doing... um... well far more DPS?

So you're able to have your cake and eat it

The shield requirement is just them brute force correcting an obvious mistake they made back when they nerfed Intim and Shield Blocking and made any DPS geared TWF that isn't even trying to be a tank, into the best tanks in the game, by proxy because they can generate far more hate than a S&B even when the S&B is loaded with hate gear and the TWF is not (because of course the TWF is loaded with DPS gear which is better than +% hate )

Dude, TWFing "tanking" was killed in U14 when Monk-spalsh AC was nerfed to the stone-age. In the current DDO there are SIGNIFICANT defensive advantages to having a shield equipped be it PRR (which alwasy works) or AC (which sometimes works) and the threat is even with the 75% bonus threat from S&B equipped.

Seriosly, anything easy enough to be "tanked" with TWFing doesn't actually require a tank to do it.



I agree that it's a little abrupt and brute force, and maybe there's a better way. They probably should allow some form of non S&B for THF and TWF Stalwarts. In fact losing the +6 CON and STR when going into THF mode sucks even for S&B toons. But it's one way to make S&B viable and correct Eladrin's mistaken belief that a S&B Pali or SD would be able to be good "tanks" when TWF's are doing so much more DPS.

Have actually ever played one of these toons? I have, had both a TWFing Stalwart and DOS before U14 when the concept was viable. Your statement of them doing "so much more DPS" is utterly laughable. The DPS was TERRIBLE, so much so that when using a shield you really weren't losing much.

Seriously, if you ever played a TWFing DOS pre-U14 you'd never in a zillion years acuse that of being good DPS, you'd have to be delusional or have no concept as to what good DPS actually is.

U14 widened this divide. The difference between an offensive ED and a Defensive ED is an order of magnitude. TWFing as a Sentinel is still pretty darned terrible DPS, and a TWFing Stalwart in an offensive ED like Dread really doesn't have any defense. keeping the +6 STR and CON is harely game breaking at all.




Or they could just revert to shield intiming... Sometimes "realistic" isn't much fun. My unrealistic Pali initmi tank that shield blocked and maintained aggro by calling out yo momma jokes, and your uncle looks like a Kobold one liners (maybe shield blocked 5% of the time at most) and effectively did the job of tanking in the rare places it was useful, hasn't been much fun to play since... Since even with good gear and DOS and S&B feats, max CHA Divine Might+ Intim + Zeal plus 60 sec Pali threat boost (righteousness?) and multiple re-specs, it always losses aggro to higher DPS TWF.

There are not words in the English language that can properly describe how lame and terrible that idea is.

IronClan
04-17-2013, 10:57 AM
I agree totally, Stalwarts should have a shield to maintain their stance.

Though, I think switching a weapon to a wand should not kick you out of stance.

But the shield should be a requirement....

The wording is conspicuous "melee weapon" makes me wonder if a Casting stick or anything with an "implement bonus" will knock you out of SD stance. Can anyone on Lam actually test that?

I say this with "IronNoggin" a would be Dwarven Defender Wizard in Ron's character planner, as well as "IronDuergar" a Dwarven Bard S&B using Hammer of the Leaden Clouds (has an implement bonus) that's at mid levels, also created with Defender PrE in mind.

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 11:02 AM
I agree totally, Stalwarts should have a shield to maintain their stance.

Though, I think switching a weapon to a wand should not kick you out of stance.

But the shield should be a requirement....

Just to judge the "informed" nature of people opinions . . . do you even know what stalwart stance does?

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 11:04 AM
The wording is conspicuous "melee weapon" makes me wonder if a Casting stick or anything with an "implement bonus" will knock you out of SD stance. Can anyone on Lam actually test that?

I say this with "IronNoggin" a would be Dwarven Defender Wizard in Ron's character planner, as well as "IronDuergar" a Dwarven Bard S&B using Hammer of the Leaden Clouds (has an implement bonus) that's at mid levels, also created with Defender PrE in mind.

This whole "must be S&B" stupidity is to prevent the "OP" combinations of Dorf/WF stalwart casters. Those builds would be gimped anyway because there's no way in hell they'll have the AP to not be terrible.

Look a the pally defender stuff . . . no S&B requirement for stance . . . because Turbine has no need to "fear" this.

Uska
04-17-2013, 11:23 AM
I dont have a problem with it taking a shield what I have a problem with is not being able to use a scroll, wand or thrower

Uska
04-17-2013, 11:26 AM
If this is released live in it's current form without major changes it's game over. Stick a fork in DDO, it's done. Have you seen the Cleric trees?

This is NGE all over again.

Thats a little dramatic its nowhere near as bad as NGE yet.

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 11:31 AM
Thats a little dramatic its nowhere near as bad as NGE yet.

The Stalwart stuff? No. The cleric stuff? Yes, it is "NGE" bad.

count_spicoli
04-17-2013, 12:12 PM
Surs you can be a.stalwart def twf. Why not. You dont need a shield to fight defensively. Hell there is sven a feat that i.crease your ac when twf. And yes thefs is massive difference between stalwart dps and kensai dps. Or maybe not after these changes loomi.g at new kensai tree. No tactics, action boosts or ftr haste. This goes thru it will kill one of my favorite builds.

Xandrel
04-17-2013, 01:24 PM
Just to judge the "informed" nature of people opinions . . . do you even know what stalwart stance does?

I don't feed trolls, I slay them.

To me it makes sense that a shield would be needed to use the Stance.

I also think this should apply to Paladin DoS, in order to use their Stance.

Does this mean I am right or wrong, it just means I have a different view on those stances. To me they way they are implemented in some builds is more like 'exploiting the PrE', circumventing the design concept behind it's conception.

That is just my opinion.

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 01:26 PM
I don't feed trolls, I slay them.

To me it makes sense that a shield would be needed to use the Stance.

I also think this should apply to Paladin DoS, in order to use their Stance.

Does this mean I am right or wrong, it just means I have a different view on those stances. To me they way they are implemented in some builds is more like 'exploiting the PrE', circumventing the design concept behind it's conception.

That is just my opinion.

And you can't answer the question because you don't actually know what it does.

Uska
04-17-2013, 02:55 PM
The Stalwart stuff? No. The cleric stuff? Yes, it is "NGE" bad.

Nah to be as bad as NGE they would have to remove all classes but cleric and give us everything automaticly with no choice.

its CU bad but nothing will ever equal NGE(No Good for Everyone) I would have played even CU SWG forever

Stanley_Nicholas
04-17-2013, 04:07 PM
It makes sense that the stance would grant benefits for using a shield. It does not make sense that a shield is required for any benefit at all. A shield is not required to fight defensively.

And besides that, it makes the appeal of this tree too narrow.

SealedInSong
04-17-2013, 10:01 PM
It makes sense that the stance would grant benefits for using a shield. It does not make sense that a shield is required for any benefit at all. A shield is not required to fight defensively.

And besides that, it makes the appeal of this tree too narrow.

To those that think that shields are required for fighting defensively, have you ever considered:

Combat Expertise (req: 13 int)
Defensive Fighting (granted to all characters)
Earth Stance
Dodge
Armor
Wisdom bonus to armor when centered
Unyielding Sentinel stances

Do those defensive abilities require a shield? Nope.

Should they require a shield? Nope.

Whom does requiring a shield for stalwart stance benefit? Only shield-users, and then every other person thinking to roll a creative build gets shafted.

What should using a shield do? Give you a shield bonus to armor class! Active blocking! Shield-only effects! Unique named shields! And on live, it gives you extra threat to compensate for not using TWF (better DPS), or THF (generally considered the best DPS with the current destinies).

Ape_Man
04-17-2013, 10:02 PM
To those that think that shields are required for fighting defensively, have you ever considered:
.

Stop right there . . . they didn't consider anything because that would require thinking.

SerPounce
04-30-2013, 10:02 PM
In addition to the shield only issue (and I agree with the consensus, the live system is fine), if the wiki is right and I'm reading it right (I can't seem to get on lama this time around) it appears the PRR bonus from defensive stance has been nerfed. On live it's 20 for being in stance + 20 for holding a shield (40 total), now on lama it's 25 total, that's a 15 point hit even if you're using a shield.

Or am I missing something here, it seems odd no one else has complained about this...