Wizard's Ward Spell orb

[Pantronic]

Simple answer: it's not iconic.

Staff and Orb: iconic. You even used it in your own artwork.

Exactly. My casters would like to hold an orb and a staff (upright, please, not held parallel to the ground) and don't care if the staff can be used for melee at all.

[walkin_dude]

Why make staves such a great use to a caster (bother random drops and the new War Wizards Staff) and then screw everyone who farmed for them by making the orb non equipable with the staff?

my best guess: staves tend to be the best spell casting implements, and aren't considered to need any extra augmentation. if you forgo the best implement, then you can use a lesser one and augment it with the orb. seems pretty simple . . .

[pjw]

staves tend to be the best spell casting implements, and aren't considered to need any extra augmentation . . .

Only by people who don't play casters. I still walk around with two sticks in my hand a lot of the time, even with an upgraded CiTW staff.

[Musouka]

Only by people who don't play casters. I still walk around with two sticks in my hand a lot of the time, even with an upgraded CiTW staff.

How many melees walk around with different weapons too? We all have situational weapons.

EDIT: NM I think I misunderstood you. My casters still don't use staves, but they also get much more out of 2 items instead of one double.

[moriedhel]

Why we can't use orbs and staves at the same time? Why can't we use scepters and staves at the same time too, I could hold a scepter in one hand and a staff in the other

The reason is game balance (though let's make it clear this game isn't actually balanced, but this is the excuse, to not further upset balance). The way they designed staves in the previous updates to be almost as powerful as two one handers means they won't allow you to equip another one hander.

Why did they make orbs in the first place then? Well they are marginally better than a one hander, but really, it's just a marketing point, new item "type" and all that. Be glad you don't have to actually buy the 750 tp pack to get your hands on one

[legendlore]

Cause you failed to implement the Feat Monkey Grip

Monkey Grip [General, Fighter]
This feat allows you to wield a weapon one size larger than normal in one hand.
Prerequisite: Str 13, +1 Base Attack Bonus.
Benefit: This feat grants the ability to wield melee weapons that are one size too large for your race, as if they were one size smaller, at a –2 penalty to hit. (This includes using two-handed weapons as single-handed weapons, as two-handed weapons are considered a size category larger.)
Special: A Fighter may select this as a bonus feat.

So Instead of answering a perfectly fine question you troll,
perfect way to show Turbine costumer relationship.

While I as well don't find snappy remarks from developers as funny as some on the forums (they don't really upset me either I'm mostly puzzled by them, since they don't really help with anything).

Monkey grip wouldn't help wizards hold a staff in one hand at all. First staffs are double weapons specifically mentioned in the feat to not work. Second the quote above is as writen on the page home brewed (seams like a cut and paste from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Monkey_...283.5e_Feat%29), it's not the 3.5 monkey grip feat.

Monkey grip [general]
You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size

Prerequisite:Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a large Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon.
Normal: You can use a melee weapon one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, and the amount of effort it takes to use the weapon increases. A larger light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon, and you cannot use a two-handed weapon at all.

This is the 3.5e Monkey Grip feat (and the 2005 errata of Complete Warrior doesn't change the 2003 edition one), it doesn't allow 2handed weapons to be used in one hand, much less the use of double weapons in one hand or 2h weapons to be used in an off hand.

Now some DM:s allowed for 2h weapons to be wielded in one hand based on the weapon size conversion table, which is fine but just like the above webpage quote is a home brewed house ruling of the feat. Why was this something many discussed and house ruled, well likely because in 3.0 it was allowed and the feat was pretty bad otherwise and almost always worse than Power attack.

[pjw]

Why we can't use orbs and staves at the same time?...
The reason is game balance... but this is the excuse

It kind of goes without saying that they release the game in a state that they believe is as balanced as possible.

It also kind of goes without saying that people who say "Make X more powerful" believe that they got the balance wrong.

Hence this thread.

[Rhomnibus]

On top of that, in DDO, the Arcane skeletons are clearly duel-wielding a longsword and a quarterstave. That's like totally not fair that the NPCs get to do that, and I can't.

Couldn't agree more. I demand equal wielding rights with Mariliths.

[bartharok]

I demand equal strength with giants

[MrkGrismer]

Exactly.

Orbs are not a purely cosmetic item. They are intended to provide bonuses to your character comparable to what you could otherwise find on an item that is equipped to one hand.

Staves, simply put, are designed to provide power to spellcasters equal to two hands worth of items.

While we can understand that players may want the thematic aspect of being a badass spellcaster with a staff of arcane power in one hand, and a swirling orb of thunderous fury in the other, that's something that we could only reasonably offer if orbs were a cosmetic item that conferred no in-game bonuses.

Unfortunately, that is not in our current vision for these items. We intend them to be paired with one-handed weapons, such as scepters, and the statistics on these items are balanced for that purpose.

Screw all that, I want to be able to have 10 or more ion stones circling my head.

[Chai]

Not saying you're wrong, but isn't once/page enough?

I am mimicing how annoying it is in game with a like amount of repetition on the forums.

It appears youve met your rep quota for the day. Click this message to raise your rep quota in the DDO store.

[RumbIe]

Let's think balance here. I like the OP's idea or at least the concept, but let's consider that we will now have every caster out there with a staff and orb. So the original thought of it making for different options means everyone will once again do the same. It's kind of the argument of why not have two caster sticks vs one staff. With two "clubs" or daggers you might end up allowing for a better spread of increased power. I.e. you can have a + focus in a couple different schools and maybe 3 or 4 types of spells (cold, acid, etc) but by going staff you get much higher damage (potency) in only 2 spells types.

So if they treat the orb as a rune arm it will just be a boost to the staff that makes it all around better than two clubs (or daggers or whatever) because the staff did more damage to begin with so now you are just adding to it. Now while I prefer the THW staff and extra damage it's more of a playstyle choice and sometime I go TWF with two clubs or daggers. Making a staff equip-able with an orb and using two daggers or clubs would be obsolete. Or maybe not, but I hope my point is getting clearer.


So in a balanced world the orb plus staff should be equivalent(though not exactly the same) to using the staff two handed. Each one has an advantage situationally over the other because one will excel in one area (more focused power) and one may add effects but at the cost of slightly reduced damage (orb plus staff)

Let's take a Thurm Staff of Acid Lore. Let's say it has acid +110 and glaciation +110 and acid lore which is 6% crit increased damage (or whatever it is. I'm too lazy to look it up). Right now you hold this staff two handed. At the same level range you might have a club that gives +60 acid, +60 glaciation and 6% acid lore and a dagger that gives +1 DC evocation and +1 DC conjuration. So which is better? Well the extra DCs are nice so in some situations you may use the two weapons over the one staff. There is some balance and argument to use either. (please do not pick apart my examples too much. I'm sure there are better combos to illustrate this and I personally would take the staff because I have DC slotted elsewhere, but let me continue )

Now let's say we have the same Thurm staff and you add an orb. Let's say the orb with +120 negative energy, +2 Spell Focus Mastery, Spell Pen IX and the 10 % elemental absorption. All you've done now is add to the power of the Thurm staff. There is no trade off. And saying you can't melee at higher levels is not much of a trade off. Without question you would equip a Thurm staff and orb. You'd never consider the club and dagger. It would be insane. So now everyone runs around with the same staff and orb.

So if you had a game dynamic that said if you use the Thrum Staff as a one handed weapon you get a reduction of 50% so it only +55 acid and +55 cold and the orb gets the same reduction when slotted with a THW so now it has +60neg energy, +1 spell focus mastery and 5% elemental absorb (some things like Spell Pen may be hard or unnecessary to halve) then you get a little balance. Maybe a 50% reduction is too much. Maybe it only needs to be 20% reduction. But in any case you balance things so there are times when using a staff two handed makes sense and pays off.

Also it should be noted in the above example that it you used the orb and a club or dagger the orb would not get a reduction because it is paired with a single handed weapon. Same if you paired it with a shield.

I also like the example of using a dwarven axe or bastard sword two handed versus one. I'm sure a similar dynamic could be applied to damage and crit range. I;e. I'm sure I could do more damage swinging a big bastard sword two handed versus the damage I would get pairing it withe a shield. But since it's not as big as a great sword it would not do as much damage as a THW versus a greatsword. the trade off being that in specializing in the BS I can get more damage with the shield pairing then I would if used a shield and a longsword. All about balance and trade offs.

Sorry for the long response and I hope it makes sense. I'm sure other people can make better real examples, but I hope the point is understood.

[nibel]

This is not 4th edition (yet(hopefully)).

Half-elves disagree.

Except of course they don't. 90% of the time two one-handers are still better.

Then why am I seeing a LOT of casters walking around with staves after U14? And I do not mean twilight or other named staff, but random generated staves.

Before U14, any casting staff, if not named, was utter garbage because you could get the same stats in a one-handed item, and use another one on the off-hand. Sure, some people still prefer to switch up to magnetism + glaciation while dotting, and back to their main set for the next 10 seconds, then switch again, redot, rinse, repeat. But for the average joe that play the game, a thaumaturgy staff is great for slot consolidation.

[donfilibuster]

Also, Monkey Grip was never a core feat. It was something users added, because they just wanted to be cool. If you look it up in the D&D wiki, you can clearly see that it is apart of the Homebrew section.

Those dndwikis and all its clones are not a good place to find sources, they resorted to put everything not open content into the homebrew section due to the license.

D&D is all the official books. Core is just the base books, and the SRD is a smaller subset.
DDO already takes a lot of things from the important books, like the complete series.
We have stuff from all four complete warrior, arcane, divine and adventurer.

Monkey grip is in CW, which have power critical, hamstring, two weapon defense and zen archery.
Also the kensai, the knight of the chalice, nature's warrior, war chanter.

Naturally, it's the DM aka the devs are who decide what fits and what not.
The "DDO is not D&D" doesn't exclude that PnP stuff can be suggested, which can avoid having to reinvent the wheel.
The DM of course has plenty of room to invent things, create PrCs, feats and spells, etc. (and that's by core even)

Point is it doesn't kill to have a look and see if there's something that works in there.
This is why people would all the time come to the forums to post that find or feel things are missing,
or that there's underused weapons and stuff, or things that "need love".

[Daemoneyes]

While I as well don't find snappy remarks from developers as funny as some on the forums (they don't really upset me either I'm mostly puzzled by them, since they don't really help with anything).

Monkey grip wouldn't help wizards hold a staff in one hand at all. First staffs are double weapons specifically mentioned in the feat to not work. Second the quote above is as writen on the page home brewed (seams like a cut and paste from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Monkey_...283.5e_Feat%29), it's not the 3.5 monkey grip feat.



This is the 3.5e Monkey Grip feat (and the 2005 errata of Complete Warrior doesn't change the 2003 edition one), it doesn't allow 2handed weapons to be used in one hand, much less the use of double weapons in one hand or 2h weapons to be used in an off hand.

Now some DM:s allowed for 2h weapons to be wielded in one hand based on the weapon size conversion table, which is fine but just like the above webpage quote is a home brewed house ruling of the feat. Why was this something many discussed and house ruled, well likely because in 3.0 it was allowed and the feat was pretty bad otherwise and almost always worse than Power attack.

While you are right on both terms,
it still doesnt matter much what the exact requirements are, cause the feat would have to be re-balanced for the game.
So at least for me, only the fact counts that it exists and that FoS should know such things and not give troll replies.

As side note i recalled the feat but had way higher min requirements (18str+) in my head, i think there was a second level of that feat which allowed even bigger weapons.
Also i remembered that the feat allows 2h weapons but well, its been years since i used it.
(wasnt it also in Neverwinter?)

[Tres_Tacos]

How about just adding some new scepters that look more like quarterstaves, but keep the stats of scepters.

[FranOhmsford]

Half-elves disagree.



Then why am I seeing a LOT of casters walking around with staves after U14? And I do not mean twilight or other named staff, but random generated staves.

Before U14, any casting staff, if not named, was utter garbage because you could get the same stats in a one-handed item, and use another one on the off-hand. Sure, some people still prefer to switch up to magnetism + glaciation while dotting, and back to their main set for the next 10 seconds, then switch again, redot, rinse, repeat. But for the average joe that play the game, a thaumaturgy staff is great for slot consolidation.

I always hated being forced to wield two sceptres {and taking the two weapon fighting penalties} when I actually wanted to wield a Quarterstaff.
My Elf Wiz/Rogue still wants to wield a Longsword as his main weapon!
I think you'll find that the majority of people who are now wielding Q-Staves are doing so because of Lore/Roleplaying reasons now that the penalties have gone away.

Now as things stand Orbs are Epic only right?
Orbs are the be all and end all.
And it's looking suspiciously like we're all going to be forced into Sceptre and Orb having levelled up with Q-Staff!

Well sorry but Sceptre and Orb may be a positive bonus when compared to two sceptres {it also gives the possibility of a real one handed weapon and Orb} BUT I don't wish to see Q-Staves become a Gimp weapon again thank you.

Actually - Thinking about it - Sceptre and Orb is a massive boost vs Two Sceptres/Clubs/Daggers whathaveya as you'll no longer take Two Weapon Fighting penalties.

The Balance is in the whole NOT just the "Arcane casting" Part!

P.S. My Archmage {Lvl 17} is still stuck wielding Sceptre of the Ogre Magi and a Generic Spell Pen Sceptre - When forced to melee the graphic shows him wielding the Sceptre of the Ogre Magi TWO HANDED!

[Qezuzu]

So Instead of answering a perfectly fine question you troll,
perfect way to show Turbine costumer relationship.

That wasn't trolling. He answered the question with a rhetorical question. If you get flustered over THAT...

[Missing_Minds]

Equip an Orb and a Staff at the same and lose the ability to melee attack, maybe?

No, they can attack. Just let them attack as if they were unarmed and not proficient.

I mean obviously they could lift a leg to try to boot stomp kick something. Think of the breakables!

Like a rune arm is special linked to crossbows, so you could link the orb to staff, and just define that the orb must always be off hand. (I don't have an arcane caster currently so I can't play it up to see and have a lookie if the orb is already only offhand.)

[Daemoneyes]

Screw all that, I want to be able to have 10 or more ion stones circling my head.

Hey would be total cool for me that you can run with 10 Ioun stones.
Aslong as the ability to wear 10 Ioun stones costs you enough to keep the game balance.
So 1feat (with some requirements) and or a ton of enhancement points for the ability to wear a second Ioun stone, why not?