Why exactly are paladins not allowed to be two weapon fighting without being gimped ?

[Walking_Ride]

The game shouldn't be that easy though, it needs challenge. When a new player comes to the forum asking what to play for the last year Paladin has been the default answer because its easy and needs the least amount of work to make work cast holy sword, cast zeal and you are good. How you spend your enhancements points doesn't even really matter.

I still think Paladin is the the default easy button class to tell players to pick up but its not as easy as it was before that's not a bad thing in my book. Now we need to keep an eye on Barbarians make sure they are to powerful

Only because paladin is easier to addapt from for new palyers which by the way is a GOOD thing, doesn't mean they should suck ass and be less powerful by a huge margin in a particular fighting style.

And i don't buy it either. Rangers are a much easier easy button at level 12 because they do get the equivalent *improved* version of holy sword except being much better due to it working with off hand weapons.

[Axeyu]

made obsolete by this change in a matter of secounds. I did not complain when rangers got their overpowered buffs.

Maybe you should have.

[bartharok]

Only because paladin is easier to addapt from for new palyers which by the way is a GOOD thing, doesn't mean they should suck ass and less powerful in a particular fighting style.

Should all classes be equally good at everything, or just pallies?

[Grailhawk]

Are you seriously telling me that rangers should be ahead by 60% compared to paladins utilizing the two weapon fighting style in terms of dps ?

Yes a TWF Ranger can be 60% better then a TWF Paladin as long as a SWF/THF Paladin can match a Rangers DPS.

So basically : For THF/SWF go paladin otherwise ranger ?

Rogue, Monk, and Fighter should have TWF options on par with Ranger from a flavor point of view.

This is nonsense. Why then not exclude twf for paladins ? No point using it while being severly crippled like a pathetic dog.

The game does like to support flavor builds Eldritch Knights suck in this game but they are still an option.

Even barbarians, bards and rogues can put out more dps now using that style. This has nothing to do with being a ranger either.

Rogues and Barbarians should put out more DPS then a Paladin period. As long as THF and S&B Paladin comes out ahead of a bard things are ok there.


NOTE: the holy sword offhand nerf is excessive and was not needed. But I also have no issue with Paladin not being the dominate TWF build in the game.

[Grailhawk]

Maybe you should have.

Come on we both know he did its was a massive thread. lol.

[Axeyu]

Come on we both know he did its was a massive thread. lol.

Oh, so he is that guy. Ofcourse. I've not been keeping up.

[Walking_Ride]

Yes a TWF Ranger can be 60% better then a TWF Paladin as long as a SWF/THF Paladin can match a Rangers DPS.




Rogue, Monk, and Fighter should have TWF options on par with Ranger from a flavor point of view.




The game does like to support flavor builds Eldritch Knights suck in this game but they are still an option.




Rogues and Barbarians should put out more DPS then a Paladin period. As long as THF and S&B Paladin comes out ahead of a bard things are ok there.


NOTE: the holy sword offhand nerf is excessive and was not needed. But I also have no issue with Paladin not being the dominate TWF build in the game.

So you don't care about balance because right now you are saying that every melee class > paladin.

Nonsense. Take care.

[Grailhawk]

And i don't buy it either. Rangers are a much easier easy button at level 12 because they do get the equivalent *improved* version of holy sword except being much better due to it working with off hand weapons.

Defensively Rangers are harder to pull of it takes more work then a Paladin who slaps on Heavy armor and spends 12-24 AP in a tree.

Rangers need past lives to get there PRR to reasonable place even with the PRR in the Tempest tree especially if they want to keep light armor.

I suspect this hasn't changed even with the MRR nerf.

[Walking_Ride]

Defensively Rangers are harder to pull of it takes more work then a Paladin who slaps on Heavy armor and spends 12-24 AP in a tree.

Rangers need past lives to get there PRR to reasonable place even with the PRR in the Tempest tree especially if they want to keep light armor.

I suspect this hasn't changed even with the MRR nerf.

What do you mean harder ? Just splash 3 fighter/paladin levels.

Problem solved. Maybe for newbies it is harder but not impossible.

Rangers also get cure light/med/serious wound and fom. They also deflect arrows every 2 secound without requiring monk levelns.

EE Toee archers hit for 300-400 per arrow non crit.

Obviously with the hit to mrr you just need to be a pure ranger.

Nothing else matters now. You keep evasion, good melee power/prr/mrr/dodge basically the whole package.

Just because you are playing a ranger right now does not mean paladins should be gimp.

[Grailhawk]

So you don't care about balance because right now you are saying that every melee class > paladin.

Nonsense. Take care.

UMM no i care very much about balance.

I believe the more defense/self healing you have the less DPS you should have. (Note: that I've already said I think Rangers probably need a nerf especially now after this Paladin nerf and I have said that Barbarians need to be monitored to see if the blood strength nerf was enough.)

I also thing no one class should be the best at every thing, before this nerf Paladin really was the best THF/SWF/TWF/S&B with the easiest to get defense and self healing it was so OP its ludicrous.

After this nerf a Paladin is still the best THF/SWF and still has easy to get defense and self healing its still the best class for a new player by a mile its just now given up enough that for a vet you can weigh things and Paladin wont come out the clear winner every time. that's a win in my book.

[Grailhawk]

Just because you are playing a ranger right now does not mean paladins should be gimp.

Paladins are not gimp after these nerfs, they just aren't Two Weapon Fighters any more.

[Enoach]

So you don't care about balance because right now you are saying that every melee class > paladin.

Nonsense. Take care.

I think you are missing what others are saying because you are emotionally invested.

As I pointed out previously all the items you list a ranger already has. So even before the change to holy sword not working on offhand. Rangers had a significant advantage if they do in fact invest the way you outline.

Balance should not be made by making all classes equal in the same approach. At this time DDO has the following approaches to Melee fighting

• SWF
• THF
• TWF
• Unarmed (a form of TWF but with its own things that do/don't work with it)

Now in theory the balance for these fighting styles comes from how fast/many swings, how hard they can hit, and weapons that fit in those categories

Now, when you compare ranger TWF to any of the other styles, do rangers still come out ahead? When you compare verse certain types of foes, do rangers come out ahead?

The next thing to consider is staying power. What is the Damage mitigation for Toe-To-Toe Melee - Who takes more and who takes less as well as the power of their self healing.

Put all those together you might see a different picture

[Deadlock]

Yes because i wasted huge amount of thunderforged/toee mats crafting sets and weapons including time and efforts spent for this particular build (twf paladin) only to have it

made obsolete by this change in a matter of secounds. I did not complain when rangers got their overpowered buffs.

But this nerf to holy sword now is too much.

Those weapons are restricted to Lawful Good characters and can only be dual wielded?

How are they obsolete?

[bartharok]

Those weapons are restricted to Lawful Good characters and can only be dual wielded?

How are they obsolete?

For him they are, since he doesnt want to adapt.

[Walking_Ride]

I bet even if rangers were immortal and paladins artificers you guys would be fine. You don't care about others wasting their time and efforts on their build.

You only care about YOUR build.


I am done here wasting my time. The developers can't get it right. The community can't get it right. I will move over to another game.

For me, this game is dead.

[Deadlock]

Lay on hands is NOT unlimited.

Although with Unyielding Sentinel it can become endless.

LOH does have a far superior cast time so I would rate it above Cures.

[Grailhawk]

I bet even if rangers were immortal and paladins artificers you guys would be fine. You don't care about others wasting their time and efforts on their build.

You only care about YOUR build.

NO if rangers were immortal I would have big issue with that. Have you missed the 3 or 4 times I've said that given this nerf to Paladins I think a Ranger nerf is warranted?

I am done here wasting my time. The developers can't get it right. The community can't get it right. I will move over to another game.

For me, this game is dead.

You have said this how many time still hasn't happen yet...

[Walking_Ride]

ranger splashing gives up a huge chunk of that dps that you are so concerned with that seems like a fair trade.

like i've said a few times a twf ranger >> then a twf paladin is ok so long as a paladin has a dps option that competes with the rangers dps. If that doesn't exist a ranger or possibly twf nerf is warranted.

Not signed. And they don't.

Even if rangers splashed for more defensive abilities.
They would still be more powerful than twf paladins because their own version of holy sword is not limited to main hand weapons only.

Try again.

[Grailhawk]

Not signed. And they don't.

Even if rangers splashed for more defensive abilities.
They would still be more powerful than twf paladins because their own version of holy sword is not limited to main hand weapons only.

Try again.

I don't need to try again. I'm fine with TWF Ranger being greater then TWF Paladin its a flavor thing.

Why don't you switch your Paladin to SWF the 1.5 Stat damage and 30% alacrity should put you back to where you were related to Ranger (at least that's the going theory consensus that SWF > TWF).

[Walking_Ride]

I don't need to try again. I'm fine with TWF Ranger being greater then TWF Paladin its a flavor thing.

Why don't you switch your Paladin to SWF the 1.5 Stat damage and 30% alacrity should put you back to where you were related to Ranger (at least that's the going theory consensus that SWF > TWF).

I think this math is fail.