Stalwart Stance requiring S&B is not acceptable

[Jay203]

rangers will be ranged or twf
barbs will be twf or thf
wizards will be cc or dps(all dc based, ofc)
sorcs will be dps(w/o dc prolly)

how are these any different from what we have on live atm??? O_o

[Taojeff]

how are these any different from what we have on live atm??? O_o

I do not think everyone is comparing to what we have on live or what would be balanced, rather to what their wishlist is for the new system.

[Mosch]

I haven't calculated anything, so this comes straight from my gut feeling, but how about just halving all the Stalwart Defense boni and granting the other half while wearing a shield? So the shieldless earth stance tanking monk could gain his +3 strength/constitution, 10% HP and 7 PRR while my tower shield toting fighter could still pull out his thrower once in a while without waiting in the corner for a minute.
That makes sense thematically, too: You're experienced in defensive combat, but to fully use your knowledge you would need the tools of the trade - namely a shield. You still know how to position yourself or roll with the punches if you pull out a scroll or throwing weapon, though, so the dimished boni always apply.

[Draiden]

Meh. The shield thing makes sense to me, not the sword thing so much.

No. A shield should be a requirement to MAXIMIZE the defensive abilities, as is the case... but having one presently equiped should not be a requirement for the ENTIRETY of the PrE benefits.

Would a "Stalwart Defender", a master of defensive combat strategies, only be effective in minimizing damage so long as he/she is holding a shield and sword? Or do you think it's feasible that other elements of combat could attribute to their overall defensive strategy? Sure, to completely turtle up and maximize their defensive abilities, it makes sense that they would invest fully in shield proficiencies and such. However, to completely pigeon-hole the entire PrE to a very cookie-cutter kind of build... that's not DDO. That's WoW.

[Draiden]

Yeah, being forced to use a shield pretty much kills the PrE for people who were using it for survivability rather than tanking (and assuming DoS follows suit, both PrEs will go from versatile to pigeonholed tank PrEs).

This. Stop reading what I'm writing, and read Wrunt's comment again. And again.

[eonfreon]

No. A shield should be a requirement to MAXIMIZE the defensive abilities, as is the case... but having one presently equiped should not be a requirement for the ENTIRETY of the PrE benefits.

Would a "Stalwart Defender", a master of defensive combat strategies, only be effective in minimizing damage so long as he/she is holding a shield and sword? Or do you think it's feasible that other elements of combat could attribute to their overall defensive strategy? Sure, to completely turtle up and maximize their defensive abilities, it makes sense that they would invest fully in shield proficiencies and such. However, to completely pigeon-hole the entire PrE to a very cookie-cutter kind of build... that's not DDO. That's WoW.

Unfortunately, logic has very little to do with any of this. The Devs' intentions are clear. Because Kensei and Monks can now access SD enhancements, they don't want there to be passive bonuses to the stance. Otherwise everyone would be dual wielding and using two handed weapons and Monk stances and be enjoying the majority of the Defender's bonuses(like they do now on Live). So they've come up with this clunky way of curtailing that. A Defender can grab some decent amount of dps stuff from Kensei, but he'll have to drop his shield to get any real benefit (TWF or THF) or he can hope his Intimidate and hate generation is enough to keep aggro while he whittles down his opponent. Really, the Defender line is pretty much dead if it goes out like that. People will still grab enhancements from it, after all those enhancements were "general" once, including Intimidate. There's also some decent AC passive bonuses to Armor. Which is good, because people are going to want to find something, anything to spend points on in the Dfender tree, because that's how you get "Toughness" nowadays, lol.

What's just completely baffling is the fact that the stance also breaks if you switch to anything besides another one-handed weapon. I absolutely don't get the thinking behind that penalty. ANd the ridiculous cooldown? Only thing I can figure is that the Devs are making it so ridiculously bad at this point so that we'll actually be happy when they get rid of those penalties and then it's "just" about the shield. We'll be so glad to see the ridiculous cooldown and everything under the sun breaking the stance, that we'll actually commend the Devs for listening to us, lol.

Want to know what's really funny? You can't get the Shield Defensive Stance until level 6, but you can get upgrades to it at levels 1 to 5. LOL.

Well-thought out, indeed. By that point every new player will have invested in Kensei, where they'll get abilities they can actually use from first level on. By the time they start getting to putting points into Defender and getting something useful out of it, they'll be mostly Kensei and of that mindset. It'll be interesting to see how many players really get into a "shield-style" combat after wielding Two Handed Weapons.

I've never played WOW, but I have played Aion. This reminds me alot of Aion. Except Aion was built from the ground up like this.

[Carpone]

Chew on this: Sacred Defender doesn't require sword & board to use defensive stance.

[psykopeta]

guess that devs are forcing to some classes to be tanks and divines to be healers, because they're gonna make ddo less soloable and harder

oh wait, it's ddo, they are simply breaking it again, like every update/maintenance, don't look for any reason, simply customization is gonna die... done! more 8 years old brats w/o clue will see ddo attractive to spend their daddy's money!

oh wait, graphics here aren't that outstanding, and ddo isn't even announced, so guess than... yes, they're simply breaking ddo

luckily have 1 mule with shields because loved the idea oh doing some pally or fighter life grabbing aggro while my hire kills the mobs, now only need to be something more than a useless tree

[Ape_Man]

Chew on this: Sacred Defender doesn't require sword & board to use defensive stance.

Kinda shoots to hell the fanboi arguement doesn't it?

[Taojeff]

No. A shield should be a requirement to MAXIMIZE the defensive abilities, as is the case... but having one presently equiped should not be a requirement for the ENTIRETY of the PrE benefits.

Would a "Stalwart Defender", a master of defensive combat strategies, only be effective in minimizing damage so long as he/she is holding a shield and sword? Or do you think it's feasible that other elements of combat could attribute to their overall defensive strategy? Sure, to completely turtle up and maximize their defensive abilities, it makes sense that they would invest fully in shield proficiencies and such. However, to completely pigeon-hole the entire PrE to a very cookie-cutter kind of build... that's not DDO. That's WoW.

Totally agree. Basically 50% of the line should be give if you switch to thf or a scroll or something. Its not like you would forget everything about tanking. Also the hitpoints should be seperated from the stance at the top tier. It is silly to loose 400 hitpoints just because you switched weapons.

[bhgiant]

No. A shield should be a requirement to MAXIMIZE the defensive abilities, as is the case... but having one presently equiped should not be a requirement for the ENTIRETY of the PrE benefits.

Agreed. Bug it!

[Postumus]

Thank goodness interweb forums did not exist back in the seventies... Gygax would have quit out of frustration before AD&D came out.

"Elf is no longer a separate class?!!! That is the stupidest decision evarrr!!"

[Ape_Man]

Thank goodness interweb forums did not exist back in the seventies... Gygax would have quit out of frustration before AD&D came out.

"Elf is no longer a separate class?!!! That is the stupidest decision evarrr!!"

None of these guys designing this stuff can hold a candle to Gygax.

[HungarianRhapsody]

None of these guys designing this stuff can hold a candle to Gygax.

It's entirely possible that they're better voice actors, though. Have you heard the Delera's DM narration?!?

(I'm still glad that they got EGG to do that dungeon narration, but OH MY GOODNESS!)

[Ape_Man]

It's entirely possible that they're better voice actors, though. Have you heard the Delera's DM narration?!?

(I'm still glad that they got EGG to do that dungeon narration, but OH MY GOODNESS!)

Voice acting was his dump-stat.

[Engoril]

No stance toggle should ever go off because of a temporary situation change. The toggle should always remain on. Only its benefits should depend on a shield being equipped. Have a shield out, get the benefit. Temporarily have the shield away, then lose the benefits until you re-equip one. Then no need to remember to re-toggle a power that may be on cooldown.

That way you also avoid the inevitable bug that Turbine will code that causes loss of stance toggle when you switch to a different shield or maybe even different weapon set that uses the same shield.

I'm primarily speaking as one who hates the stance de-toggles that already happen on my monk for various reasons. Inevitably I notice the turned off stance after having fought for an hour or more with it off and not realising.

[Ape_Man]

No stance toggle should ever go off because of a temporary situation change. The toggle should always remain on. Only its benefits should depend on a shield being equipped. Have a shield out, get the benefit. Temporarily have the shield away, then lose the benefits until you re-equip one. Then no need to remember to re-toggle a power that may be on cooldown.

That way you also avoid the inevitable bug that Turbine will code that causes loss of stance toggle when you switch to a different shield or maybe even different weapon set that uses the same shield.

I'm primarily speaking as one who already hates stance de-toggles that already happen on my monk for various reasons. Inevitably I notice the turned off stance after having fought for an hour or more with it off and not realising.

There is already a pretty massive AC and PRR hit when you put away a shield.

Seriously are you people arguing that the stances as they are now are over-powered? Pass me whatever you are smoking?

[Captain_Wizbang]

Changes like this decrease diversity and versatility...and being able to come up with my own versatile builds (such as my current paladin) is the main reason I'm playing this game - if these options disappear altogether, my main reason to play also disappears...and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

This

[Chai]

Thank goodness interweb forums did not exist back in the seventies... Gygax would have quit out of frustration before AD&D came out.

"Elf is no longer a separate class?!!! That is the stupidest decision evarrr!!"

Actually in the social networking back then, which was letters to the editor, and cons, most of the feedback that was provided was for races and classes to be separated into their own entity, which was something included in AD&D.

[Sonos]

It's entirely possible that they're better voice actors, though. Have you heard the Delera's DM narration?!?

(I'm still glad that they got EGG to do that dungeon narration, but OH MY GOODNESS!)

Gygax's Delera's DM narration was perfectly fine! Pitted against Dave Arneson's Threnal, it soars in comparison.