Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Community Member Xandrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ape_Man View Post
    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.
    "No quarter to stowaways!"
    Captain's Crew

  2. #22
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xandrel View Post
    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.
    Personal d000m level: 83%

    Quote Originally Posted by zwiebelring View Post
    Ape_Man does clever trolling nothing more. Don't feed him/her.

  3. #23
    Founder & Hero Uska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    22,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ape_Man View Post
    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

    The ANTI-Realms FANBOI NUKE THE REALMS ITS THE ONLY REAL WAY TO BE SURE

  4. #24

    Default

    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.
    Ascent, Argonnessen ~ Cleatus Yogurthawker | Isostatic Rebound | Mohorovicic Discontinuity | Angular Unconformity
    Ghalanda ~
    Feldspathic Greywacke

  5. #25
    Community Member SealedInSong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    997

    Default This

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley_Nicholas View Post
    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).
    Character Compendium
    __________________
    Sarlona*Eternal Wrath
    __________________

  6. #26
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SealedInSong View Post
    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.
    Personal d000m level: 83%

    Quote Originally Posted by zwiebelring View Post
    Ape_Man does clever trolling nothing more. Don't feed him/her.

  7. #27
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    207

    Default

    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...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload