Vanguard to Universal Tree

[Bagel99]

I feel that Vanguard should have been a universal tree as its not exactly powerful by itself, synergizes well with many other trees and is a KEY element in allowing sword and board combat to be up to par or competitive. No changes. no nothing aside that Paladin and Fighter should have more creative universal trees which are unique.

In Short Vanguard for Universal? Yay or nay

Strong Yes from me!

Eldritch Knight Vanguard seems cool, Warpriest Vanguard ... nice classic cleric, Barbarian Vanguard .... i can see a Raider esk build becoming prominent with Hand and a Half weps, Warlock Vanguard ... seems legit with feydark illusionist, Arti Vanguard Tank ... Renegade with shields ? So many options. Such a simple way to open build diversity.

IF this isnt possible how about a bespoke tree, maybe small shields and a couple select weapons like Heavy Pick, Morningstar, Battle Axe, Scimitar and maybe a few other oddball ones for a Raider Tree?

[slarden]

Great idea, fighters and paladins have two sword and board trees even though few non-tanks choose that playstyle since the dps is terrible. Make it a universal tree and give fighters and paladins another dps tree.

[droid327]

I think the issue though is ANY fighter tree could be a universal tree, because fighter itself is a generic fighting class. Whatever you come up with to replace it would simply be more of the same...

S&B needs help with its feats, not by just letting people run vanguard based on char level instead of fighter splash.

[Ripjaw7]

I think the issue though is ANY fighter tree could be a universal tree, because fighter itself is a generic fighting class. Whatever you come up with to replace it would simply be more of the same...

I've never played a fighter to level 20. I've found that it makes for a good splash class with the main class you choose to run. I prefer Kensei for my melee DPS. I agree with you in saying that Fighter is a generic class, and that makes for generic enhancement trees and abilities.

[JollySwagMan]

I think a shield oriented Archetype with a unique tree and Swashbuckling + Vanguard trees might be neat

[shores11]

I love Vanguard under the Paladin class. I only play the Vanguard Paladin class for my melee fighter. His shield bashes are very strong and a decent crowd control with the multiple cleaves. I vote keep Vanguard a part of Paladin tree.

[Aelonwy]

I like the idea of a Vanguard or Sword & Board Universal tree but I also like the idea of more Universal trees in general. I still think a Staff Fighting Universal tree would be a good idea because what is the most common weapon besides bare hands? The simple staff.

[Xgya]

The main issue with this is Fighter is meant to be the generic class that does the "hit things with things" bit.

That, in turn, is what makes Vanguard a good Fighter tree - it's generic down to its bones.
It's weird that Paladin gets access to it. Paladins are as proficient with shields as Barbarians and Rangers are.

That both classes with heavy armor proficiency get essentially the same tanking tree made a lick of sense though, as Paladins and Fighters do indeed wear the same kinds of armor.

I'd rather do away with Fighters entirely if I had my say. Introduce DDO to the wonderful world of Warblades, and never look back.

[LurkingVeteran]

Don't you need to pair it with a tank tree to survive due to the longer takedown times compared to THF? Most classes do not have that.

A THF tree could be really popular for all the classes that are currently pegged into TWF or sticks (monks, rogues, rangers...).

I think a spear combat (reach weapon) tree with longer melee range would also be cool, and the mechanics are already there in SD.

[Eantarus]

I would really like to see Sword and Board become a viable DPS option, and not just Turtle Power. A lot of people really like the concept, but if its only any good for tanking... what's the point?

[droid327]

I like the idea of a Vanguard or Sword & Board Universal tree but I also like the idea of more Universal trees in general. I still think a Staff Fighting Universal tree would be a good idea because what is the most common weapon besides bare hands? The simple staff.

A club, which is why I'd still like to see a Brawler universal tree that supports unarmed/club/greatclub melee

Plus there's already several classes that specifically support Staff combat, and plenty of good Staves to use as well. All staff combat needs is to have its base animations sped up to match other THF base speed. IDK why it was left out of the THF overhaul, and why its never been addressed since...


I would really like to see Sword and Board become a viable DPS option, and not just Turtle Power. A lot of people really like the concept, but if its only any good for tanking... what's the point?

What's the point of SWF if you make S&B into just another single-weapon DPS style? That seems like far too much overlap of rolespace

Rather than turning S&B into a SWF clone, I think shields need an overhaul to give more palpable defensive benefits. Then S&B has a clearly defined and distinct role, to justify its lower relative DPS. You can have a more tanky playstyle than current melee while still not being a full-blown tank. That being said, it might still need more DPS as well - it should be less than the other styles, but not too much less...a small penalty to DPS is worth a lot of opportunity cost

(Also on the same token...can we please revisit the IPS penalty? Its ginormous and unfair)

I'd say shields should have a % chance to block any melee attack (ie Elusive Target mechanic), relative to shield size and feat investment, with a higher % chance to block a ranged attack (ie Deflect Arrow mechanic)...then give MRR bonuses vs all projectile/hitbox based spells, not just Reflex based ones - reasonably, you should still be able to block rays like Disintegrate even if they're Fort saves. And no shenanigans like reduced effect in Reaper either.

[Xgya]

A club, which is why I'd still like to see a Brawler universal tree that supports unarmed/club/greatclub melee

Plus there's already several classes that specifically support Staff combat, and plenty of good Staves to use as well. All staff combat needs is to have its base animations sped up to match other THF base speed. IDK why it was left out of the THF overhaul, and why its never been addressed since...



What's the point of SWF if you make S&B into just another single-weapon DPS style? That seems like far too much overlap of rolespace

Rather than turning S&B into a SWF clone, I think shields need an overhaul to give more palpable defensive benefits. Then S&B has a clearly defined and distinct role, to justify its lower relative DPS. You can have a more tanky playstyle than current melee while still not being a full-blown tank. That being said, it might still need more DPS as well - it should be less than the other styles, but not too much less...a small penalty to DPS is worth a lot of opportunity cost

(Also on the same token...can we please revisit the IPS penalty? Its ginormous and unfair)

I'd say shields should have a % chance to block any melee attack (ie Elusive Target mechanic), relative to shield size and feat investment, with a higher % chance to block a ranged attack (ie Deflect Arrow mechanic)...then give MRR bonuses vs all projectile/hitbox based spells, not just Reflex based ones - reasonably, you should still be able to block rays like Disintegrate even if they're Fort saves. And no shenanigans like reduced effect in Reaper either.

I had a strange idea.
Make the S&B style the defensive, RETRIBUTIVE style.
Hand back the mobs a % of their unmitigated damage if a shield blocked the hit. Percentage increased by the shield-user's tree, but starting off high enough that the well-over-player-HP mobs can FEEL their own hits back.
Give all shields a cosmetic spiky appearance while in that specific fighting style.

It gets its own niche, without trying to do what TWF style does but worse which is what it currently is.
As an add-on, it allows a tank extra ways to generate aggro without having to hit back.

[Eantarus]

What's the point of SWF if you make S&B into just another single-weapon DPS style? That seems like far too much overlap of rolespace

DPS is DPS. It doesn't need rolespaces. What we DON'T need is more defense at the cost of DPS. Current S&B has a clearly defined, distinct, and largely useless roll.

[droid327]

I had a strange idea.
Make the S&B style the defensive, RETRIBUTIVE style.
Hand back the mobs a % of their unmitigated damage if a shield blocked the hit. Percentage increased by the shield-user's tree, but starting off high enough that the well-over-player-HP mobs can FEEL their own hits back.
Give all shields a cosmetic spiky appearance while in that specific fighting style.

It gets its own niche, without trying to do what TWF style does but worse which is what it currently is.
As an add-on, it allows a tank extra ways to generate aggro without having to hit back.

Thorns builds are alway potentially problematic too though...

For one, scaling is an issue, since player hp/damage and mob hp/damage are so disparate, and also because mob hp vary so much by level and difficulty. That's partially why thorns on gear was never really a viable mechanic after like 2009. It'd work better as a buff building system, and there's a few mechanics that give you buffs for blocking, but it's hard to try to make it worthwhile to block and attack vs just attacking twice.

For two, they don't like to give too much permanent auto damage, because of potential afk abuses

For three, you need to actually have aggro to make that work, which means two shield builds in the same group are detrimental to each other, or at least one gets designated to be pointless

[Xgya]

Thorns builds are alway potentially problematic too though...

For one, scaling is an issue, since player hp/damage and mob hp/damage are so disparate, and also because mob hp vary so much by level and difficulty. That's partially why thorns on gear was never really a viable mechanic after like 2009. It'd work better as a buff building system, and there's a few mechanics that give you buffs for blocking, but it's hard to try to make it worthwhile to block and attack vs just attacking twice.

For two, they don't like to give too much permanent auto damage, because of potential afk abuses

For three, you need to actually have aggro to make that work, which means two shield builds in the same group are detrimental to each other, or at least one gets designated to be pointless

1 - The scaling part we should manage to figure out. Even if the thorns damage instead came from the player's equipment, say, their shield, much like a weapon-user's damage mostly comes from their weapon. I still want it to be a LOT higher than simply a shield bash's worth, because players get hit a lot less often than they hit monsters.
2 - They don't, but it might just reach Auralock levels.
3 - That's true for any tank build. One of them has to try and hit mobs, and they do it worse than people that were built to try and hit mobs. Or they can trade mobs, grab different groups, and do whatever tanks do when there's more than one (which is a lot of feeling useless, but not only that)

[Marshal_Lannes]

Once again we have the issue of looking at all things from the view of R10. With hardcore only a week away I'd suggest trying a Vanguard build on an equal playing field and you will likely be surprised by how much DPS it has along with good defenses. Vanguard allows multiple playstyles weapon-wise; Dwarven Ax 20x3 w/strikethroughs, bastard sword 19-20x2 w/strikethroughs, (and Knight's training weapons) Warhammer 18-20x3, Battle ax 19-20x3, longsword 19-20x3.

[FuzzyDuck81]

Once again we have the issue of looking at all things from the view of R10. With hardcore only a week away I'd suggest trying a Vanguard build on an equal playing field and you will likely be surprised by how much DPS it has along with good defenses. Vanguard allows multiple playstyles weapon-wise; Dwarven Ax 20x3 w/strikethroughs, bastard sword 19-20x2 w/strikethroughs, (and Knight's training weapons) Warhammer 18-20x3, Battle ax 19-20x3, longsword 19-20x3.

I ran a vanguard/kensei (no points at all in stalwart defender, was using lamplighter as main weapon once capped) a while ago (annoyingly I TRed just before the new destiny stuff was announced or I would have kept it to try it out) & yeah, it's a solid performer; stalwart/sacred defender are about being defensive while vanguard is about using the shield as a combination defensive implement & secondary weapon. In fact, thanks to the many buffs shields get through that tree to make up for the engine limitations regarding how often you can make a shield bash, while the DPS may not be as high the damage per hit is great & stunning shield can have an excellent DC - also fewer but larger hits suffer less from the reduced damage in reaper than lots of weaker, faster attacks so I suspect it should be more competitive than people initially think.

[AbyssalMage]

I think it would make a great "universal tree" addition to the game.

Fighter could get Psi Warrior (or Rune Knight, ect) from 3rd Ed splat books. Not really sure what Eberron got from those days. Eberron is a "high magic" setting so a Fighter with magic (thanks to the Quori or Giants) makes sense lore wise.

Paladin could go "anti-Paladin" to make the community happy. I mean the Lord of Blades is evil (which still makes me giggle that he empowers Warforged to actively go against his grand plans). So the 3rd Tree would be "evil/chaos damage on hit." They could be given "Harm Touch" in the tree which shares a timer, charges, etc with LoH. The Aura as someone already mentioned would be a detrimental de-buff to NPC's of some sort (possible multiple depending on toggle). Finally, give them access to PM shrouds at 18, 20 with Death Aura's to round out the theme of the ultimate Death Knight/anti-Paladin.

I do like the idea of a Vanguard Barbarian (39 Vanguard, 41 in Ravager). Maybe not the strongest choice but it could be fun for the few levels where Visage of Terror lands.

[Bjond]

I would really like to see Sword and Board become a viable DPS option, and not just Turtle Power. A lot of people really like the concept, but if its only any good for tanking... what's the point?

The problem with Vangard is that it's a tree that only works for pure-class builds. It needs the core+capstone increases to melee attack rate to remain competitive as a DPS style. Pures have other issues, too.

Pures that don't achieve balance until L20 are stuck with lackluster heroic play. IMHO, it's never so bad that it can't be done. It's more that someone who has played a sorc or other blaster in heroics is left feeling like they traded a Ferrari for a clown car.

And, if you're going to build with a focus on epic play (ignoring how bad heroic is for that character -- eg. lots of ETR or parking at cap for raids), you can usually gain a LOT more from a multiclass than a pure.

Returning to the OP's premise of making VG Universal, I'd disagree. I think it needs exactly one change: line it up with Swashbuckler for performance. Swashbuckler is more shrub than tree, but oh what a shrubbery it is! It peaks at L3 with 11 AP. This is what makes Bard so useful as a splash AND so fun to play as slightly impure melee.

VG is L20 or punt. However, if it only needed L3 & 11 AP (like Swash), there would be a TON more S&B characters. There would also be a LOT more utility in Medium and Heavy armor, which IMHO is pointless unless you're using a Large Shield; ie. it would no longer be Light or punt for Melee DPS. M&H would be back on the menu.