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

[Coyopa]

Definitely a good question. My inclination is that, for some reason, it's more complicated than that.

I don't know. In the end, the changes to crit ranges are all mathematics. So, at some point, there has to be an equation and that means you can change the order of operations. Maybe they just couldn't be bothered to actually find that part of the code and straighten it out.

[Coyopa]

And they still suck.

That could be. My paladin is a s&b with shield mastery, currently using warhammers (because I always wanted to use them). Of course, now that warhammers are going to suck more than they already do, I'm going to be changing weapons. Not sure what to, though. I rarely really play my paladin because my 28th level 18/2 bard/rogue, my 26th level rogue, and my TR's are taking up all my time.

[Grailhawk]

OK. What I can't understand, as a programmer, is why it was impossible fix the order of operations (the order in which crit range effects were applied). Clearly, they are currently (on live) being applied using this kind of an equation:

(baseWeapon + enhancements + destinies + whateverElseNotAFeat) * 2

I can't understand why it is so hard to change the equation to this:

(baseWeapon*2) + enhancements + destinies + whateverElseNotAFeat

If they'd done that, the problem would have been solved. Yet, for some reason, they seem to have been incapable of ever making this change, while at the same time being able to completely gut that code and replace it.

Definitely a good question. My inclination is that, for some reason, it's more complicated than that.

I don't know. In the end, the changes to crit ranges are all mathematics. So, at some point, there has to be an equation and that means you can change the order of operations. Maybe they just couldn't be bothered to actually find that part of the code and straighten it out.

I think its something like

obj Weapon {
    threat = 0.30%
    
    void increaseThreat(number){
        threat += number; 
    } 
    
    getThreat(){
        return threat 
    }
}

obj Character{

    mainHand = new Weapon();
    
    feats = [...,Improved Crtical,...]
    
    onLoad(){
        ApplyEnhancments()
        ApplyFeats(feats);
    }
} 

ApplyFeats(){
    forEach(feat){
        feat.applyeffect(){
            ImprovedCritcalFeat.applyEffect{
                this.character.mainHand.getThreat = improvedCrticalGetThreat; // function is changed  
            }
        }
    }
}

That's one option for coding this with out actually having the equation you are talking about. 

Now this is really simple example it can be changed with out consequence and only effect the base weapon threat but if its not this simple this kind of code can create a life cycle issue where there is no easy way to get to the pre enchantment applied threat range.

[Paleus]

That could be. My paladin is a s&b with shield mastery, currently using warhammers (because I always wanted to use them). Of course, now that warhammers are going to suck more than they already do, I'm going to be changing weapons. Not sure what to, though. I rarely really play my paladin because my 28th level 18/2 bard/rogue, my 26th level rogue, and my TR's are taking up all my time.

Me personally, I'll probably continue being a sub-optimal build/gear that, while described by some as useless will still undoubtedly manage to somehow blow through most content trivially.

Seriously, I often see these build A to build B comparisons of A does 5% more awesomeness than B so A is now useless, when at the end of the day both A and B still curb-stomp the mobs and this is a PvE not PvP game. Does anyone think that content is balanced to make the game hard against hypothetical build B?

So yeah, totes suxxors that someone's (OP not person I'm replying to) Paladin feels less optimal to them than a hypothetical ranger. But at the end of the day it's hard for me to care about whether class A of dps+damage mitigation is better than Class B of dps+damage mitigation since that's tacitly accepting the premise of the conversation is just about that what skin of dps+damage mitigation I should play.

[Coyopa]

I think its something like

obj Weapon {
    threat = 0.30%
    
    void increaseThreat(number){
        threat += number; 
    } 
    
    getThreat(){
        return threat 
    }
}

obj Character{

    mainHand = new Weapon();
    
    feats = [...,Improved Crtical,...]
    
    onLoad(){
        ApplyEnhancments()
        ApplyFeats(feats);
    }
} 

ApplyFeats(){
    forEach(feat){
        feat.applyeffect(){
            ImprovedCritcalFeat.applyEffect{
                this.character.mainHand.getThreat = improvedCrticalGetThreat; // function is changed  
            }
        }
    }
}

That's one option for coding this with out actually having the equation you are talking about.

Now this is really simple example it can be changed with out consequence and only effect the base weapon threat but if its not this simple this kind of code can create a life cycle issue where there is no easy way to get to the pre enchantment applied threat range.

True. Still, there's an order of operations in there somewhere and the fact they were never able to correct it just speaks volumes about their competence. I've had to correct garbage like that. Yeah, it can take some serious time. However, if you've got a serious bug, then you invest the time required to fix it - and they've had years to fix this serious bug.

[Walking_Ride]

Me personally, I'll probably continue being a sub-optimal build/gear that, while described by some as useless will still undoubtedly manage to somehow blow through most content trivially.

Seriously, I often see these build A to build B comparisons of A does 5% more awesomeness than B so A is now useless, when at the end of the day both A and B still curb-stomp the mobs and this is a PvE not PvP game. Does anyone think that content is balanced to make the game hard against hypothetical build B?

So yeah, totes suxxors that someone's (OP not person I'm replying to) Paladin feels less optimal to them than a hypothetical ranger. But at the end of the day it's hard for me to care about whether class A of dps+damage mitigation is better than Class B of dps+damage mitigation since that's tacitly accepting the premise of the conversation is just about that what skin of dps+damage mitigation I should play.

The problem is that it is more than 5%. More like 40-60% dps compared to build A (paladin) using the exact same fighting style. This is a serious matter.

[bartharok]

The problem is that it is more than 5%. More like 40-60% dps compared to build A (paladin) using the exact same fighting style. This is a serious matter.

As is my s&b ranger lagging behind pallies using the exact same fighting style (not to mention that pesky sorc)

[Grailhawk]

True. Still, there's an order of operations in there somewhere and the fact they were never able to correct it just speaks volumes about their competence. I've had to correct garbage like that. Yeah, it can take some serious time. However, if you've got a serious bug, then you invest the time required to fix it - and they've had years to fix this serious bug.

But its not a bug it was working as intended. IC wasn't bugged. The enhancements were what was bugged but they aren't changing them.

What changed was in U14 or U19 the way enhancements are applied to characters is now different from before. I'm fairly sure it used to be every enhancement was its own script/function/code and now enhancements can be loaded in applied from an xml/html/file that takes less education to work with.

The language they used when they added destinies at least seams to imply that to me.

I'm also not convinced they couldn't fix it might even have take the same amount of work, the fix they have presented has long term simplicity in it that means they aren't going to run into some odd doubling effect on some odd ball effect down the road. Given the age of this game that kind of maintenance improvement could have easily convinced a lot of people to go that route.

[Coyopa]

But its not a bug it was working as intended. IC wasn't bugged. The enhancements were what was bugged but they aren't changing them.

Well, technically it is a bug since it isn't working as intended. I take the view that bugs like this are always present in your code, and sometimes the conditions required to expose them simply do not yet exist. This makes it look like the code is working as intended and, for a time, it does. Then the code changes and the problem with your logic gets exposed. I've had bugs like this where I wrote the code and it worked fine. Later, I wrote a little more code that interacted with the old code, it exposed the flaw in my original logic, and then when I fixed it I've wondered why I thought about the original solution in such a way as to have made the bug possible in the first place.

What changed was in U14 or U19 the way enhancements are applied to characters is now different from before. I'm fairly sure it used to be every enhancement was its own script/function/code and now enhancements can be loaded in applied from an xml/html/file that takes less education to work with.

The language they used when they added destinies at least seams to imply that to me.

I've been wondering about this because the language seems to indicate that. Then I'm forced to doubt they implemented that level of code re-use because of how difficult it still is to change things.

I'm also not convinced they couldn't fix it might even have take the same amount of work, the fix they have presented has long term simplicity in it that means they aren't going to run into some odd doubling effect on some odd ball effect down the road. Given the age of this game that kind of maintenance improvement could have easily convinced a lot of people to go that route.

I can see this being an effective argument for the change they're making to the IC feats. At the same time, if they put a few actual, worthwhile comments in their code that details the importance of certain parts of the logic, then they would have a lot less to worry about. Instead, the comments they put in their code are - at least in part - completely worthless and have nothing at all to do with the code, the game, or any work they're doing for Turbine. (There are places around the Internet where the .dat files have been decompiled and posted.)

[Basura_Grande]

This nerf is excessive, TWFing pallies will still be behind tempest rangers by a large margin. It's just not needed.

If the devs are still worried about 14/6 and 15/5 splash build simply put something in one of the KoTC Tier 5s that allows Holy Sword to work on the off-hand weapon.

[Lorianna]

The problem is that it is more than 5%. More like 40-60% dps compared to build A (paladin) using the exact same fighting style. This is a serious matter.

What makes it "a serious matter?'

So rangers, who are geared more towards dual wielding (and always have been) are better at dual wielding than a class who gets no inherent bonuses in that regard. And this is ... shocking?

It's interesting that you're so consumed by this apparent rage at the idea of a dual-wielding ranger being superior "with the exact same fighting style", and yet ... what about a sword-and-board ranger vs paladin? The paladin is VASTLY superior. Not 50-60%, but more like 200% or more.

Where's your outrage for THAT?

Or is it simply that the build you're using, which focused on exploiting holy sword, isn't as viable anymore, so now you're throwing a massive hissy fit about it?

Rangers are better at dual wielding. Paladins are better at sword-and-board (and two-handed).

Not every class needs to be equally viable with the same weapon style. Otherwise we'd all just play fighters.

[Walking_Ride]

This nerf is excessive, TWFing pallies will still be behind tempest rangers by a large margin. It's just not needed.

If the devs are still worried about 14/6 and 15/5 splash build simply put something in one of the KoTC Tier 5s that allows Holy Sword to work on the off-hand weapon.

They won't. Because coding is hard, i guess...

IMO they are not aware that rangers were out performing paladins even before including the limitation to holy sword.

[Walking_Ride]

What makes it "a serious matter?'

So rangers, who are geared more towards dual wielding (and always have been) are better at dual wielding than a class who gets no inherent bonuses in that regard. And this is ... shocking?

It's interesting that you're so consumed by this apparent rage at the idea of a dual-wielding ranger being superior "with the exact same fighting style", and yet ... what about a sword-and-board ranger vs paladin? The paladin is VASTLY superior. Not 50-60%, but more like 200% or more.

Where's your outrage for THAT?

Or is it simply that the build you're using, which focused on exploiting holy sword, isn't as viable anymore, so now you're throwing a massive hissy fit about it?

Rangers are better at dual wielding. Paladins are better at sword-and-board (and two-handed).

Not every class needs to be equally viable with the same weapon style. Otherwise we'd all just play fighters.

Every melee class, even fighters especially RANGERS have crit enhancements affecting both weapons equipped.

Why is is that only paladins are not allowed to be two weapon fighting without being severly crippled like a beat up dog ?

[Gremmlynn]

Every melee class, even fighters especially RANGERS have crit enhancements affecting both weapons equipped.

Why is is that only paladins are not allowed to be two weapon fighting without being severly crippled like a beat up dog ?

The answer to this might be in the question: Why are you playing a paladin rather than a fighter?

[Walking_Ride]

The answer to this might be in the question: Why are you playing a paladin rather than a fighter?

Uhm, because i enjoy playing a paladin ? I played paladins even when they were gimps and excluded from raid groups.

Is that too much to ask for ?

[Enoach]

OK. What I can't understand, as a programmer, is why it was impossible fix the order of operations (the order in which crit range effects were applied). Clearly, they are currently (on live) being applied using this kind of an equation:

(baseWeapon + enhancements + destinies + whateverElseNotAFeat) * 2

I can't understand why it is so hard to change the equation to this:

(baseWeapon*2) + enhancements + destinies + whateverElseNotAFeat

If they'd done that, the problem would have been solved. Yet, for some reason, they seem to have been incapable of ever making this change, while at the same time being able to completely gut that code and replace it.

Definitely a good question. My inclination is that, for some reason, it's more complicated than that.

I think the answer resides with Turbine admitting that they knew that this would effect the "special" weapons. I imagine it is because they decided the bonus critical range needed to be categorized the same way as the enhancements/buffs is the reason why they could not simply change the order of application.

-----------------
Now yes the changes will remove the extra critical range that HS provided, it will also remove the expanded range of an off hand weapon. The removal of MRR from Armor will also reduce the defense against spell damage.

However, Paladin's by nature have the highest saves all around. Most classes have a Strong, Weak and a mid level save that they have to deal with. With the change to Divine Grace the benefits of 2 levels of paladin for saves will be reduced to a Maximum of 8 (Charisma of 26). This is important as the paladin save will already reduce damage of most spells to 1/2 or 0 (depending on if it is save for 1/2 or not).

Next Paladin's still have Holy smite (and improved) as well as the KoTC Cleaves. These ability can still proc on both main and offhand or on multiple targets. Divine Might which is a universal strength increase that is limited only by Charisma modifier.

Ultimately I think each person that is effected by the loss of MRR from Armor and the loss of critical range needs to first evaluate in action and not just on paper how this effects your build. You might find that the change is so significant that you can't bear it, or you may find it makes very little difference.

[Chai]

Id like my twf sorcerer to be made the king of dps.

It actually was, from 2006 - 2012 or so, but not because of twf.

[Enoach]

Uhm, because i enjoy playing a paladin ? I played paladins even when they were gimps and excluded from raid groups.

Is that too much to ask for ?

I must have been running in different group than you. I've been playing a paladin since fall of '06 and was never excluded from a raid group, even those of the power gammer side. Even being a better choice for tanking VoD during the days of the WF fighter.

I also enjoy playing my paladin and over the years have gone from a TWF, S&B Bastard Sword, to S&B Khopesh and now finally settled on long swords (one of the gimpiest weapons according to forum)

These changes will play out. But lets get past the vacuum paper numbers and see how this effects our builds.

[Walking_Ride]

I think the answer resides with Turbine admitting that they knew that this would effect the "special" weapons. I imagine it is because they decided the bonus critical range needed to be categorized the same way as the enhancements/buffs is the reason why they could not simply change the order of application.

-----------------
Now yes the changes will remove the extra critical range that HS provided, it will also remove the expanded range of an off hand weapon. The removal of MRR from Armor will also reduce the defense against spell damage.

However, Paladin's by nature have the highest saves all around. Most classes have a Strong, Weak and a mid level save that they have to deal with. With the change to Divine Grace the benefits of 2 levels of paladin for saves will be reduced to a Maximum of 8 (Charisma of 26). This is important as the paladin save will already reduce damage of most spells to 1/2 or 0 (depending on if it is save for 1/2 or not).

Next Paladin's still have Holy smite (and improved) as well as the KoTC Cleaves. These ability can still proc on both main and offhand or on multiple targets. Divine Might which is a universal strength increase that is limited only by Charisma modifier.

Ultimately I think each person that is effected by the loss of MRR from Armor and the loss of critical range needs to first evaluate in action and not just on paper how this effects your build. You might find that the change is so significant that you can't bear it, or you may find it makes very little difference.

1. Rangers can splash 2 paladin. Problem solved. Hell, rangers can even splash 8 paladin lvl's, since they benefit from their tier 4's crit multiplier/threat range at lvl 12.

2. Paladins have exalted smite (which got hit by the nerf because ic will no longer double threat ranges) but rangers get :

Exposing Strike: Melee Attack: Performs a melee attack with +2[W], a +4 bonus to-hit, +1 to critical threat range, and +1 to Critical Damage Multiplier. On Damage: The target will become momentarily confused and rendered vulnerable to sneak attacks for four seconds as if affected by the bluff skill. (Cooldown 6 seconds)

3. Divine might ? Rangers will take know the angels from harper instead.

4. Rangers also get the following :

Mark of the Hunted: Activate: Expend a use of Animal Empathy. Your currently selected enemy receives -25% Fortification, -10 Armor Class, -10 Spell Resistance, and suffers a -4 penalty to all ability scores for 3 minutes. This effect also works on bosses and Raid bosses.
Passive: Your attacks bypass an additional 10% Fortification. You also gain +2 Damage when attacking Favored Enemies.
Passive: +10 Positive Spell Power

And another 10% fortification bypass from advancing sneack attacks.

Advanced Sneak Attack: +1 Sneak Attack Die. +10 Positive Spell Power. You gain a +1 Competence Bonus to Critical Threat Range with your equipped weapons. (This does not apply to Shields or Unarmed). Your attacks now bypass 10% fortification.

Deflect Arrows: You gain the benefits of the Deflect Arrows feat while dual wielding, knocking aside one incoming projectile that would have struck you every 6 seconds. +1 Competence Bonus to Critical Damage Multiplier while dual wielding weapons.

Deflect arrow feat without being a monk. With improved defense they can deflect arrows every 2 sec. Arrows in toee HIT HARD.

Whirlwind: +5% Melee Doublestrike when dual wielding, +5 Incorporeality (stacking), +10% stacking chance to make off-hand attacks when dual wielding

Dervish: +4 Dexterity. +25% chance to doublestrike with your off-hand while dual wielding. While wearing light or no armor: +10 Melee Power, Physical Resistance Rating, and Magical Resistance Rating.


Total gain for rangers compared to paladins :

Fortification bypass : 10 + 10 + 25% = 45% more than paladins.

Doublestrike : Dervish (25%) offhand + 10% offhand + 5% mainhand = 40% - 10 % zeal paladin spell = 30% more than paladins.

Oh yea paladins will loose on exalted smite/divine sacrifice if they choose to take killer from deepwood stalker. While rangers keep exposing strike.

So another +20% doublestrike for a total of 30% + 20 % = 50 % more than pali

+5 Incorporeality (stacking) + deflect arrows every 2 sec.

Oh, yes especially this too. For rangers off hand weapons are affected by +1 critical threat range and +1 critical multiplier which translates to ~ 26 % dps.

...

You must be out of your mind if you think of this as little imo.

[Gremmlynn]

Uhm, because i enjoy playing a paladin ? I played paladins even when they were gimps and excluded from raid groups.

Is that too much to ask for ?

So it has nothing to do with LoH, saves, spells and other things that put them ahead of fighters in other areas. If so, then those things you don't play paladins for is likely the answer to your question.

FYI, I have always played paladins too, so am not really bothered by the changes due to their still being much better than they were when I chose to play them back then.