7 replies to this topic

[Sourcream]

If you Equipt a Two handed weapon you should not be able to wear a shield with that weapon.

I.E. Halberds and Bows and Certain Swords.

With bows you should only be able to Equipt Bracers
Because honestly how can you shoot a bow with a shield
in your Right hand and a bow in your left?
This would improve Reality and balance gameplay a bit.

Halberds you shouldnt be able to use a shield at all
because the weapon is soo heavy that you wouldnt want a shield.

Comments?

Edited by Sourcream, 06 April 2007 - 12:45 PM.

[joanna]

mages and druids blasting the crap out of everyone, zerks rounding anything, 19-strong thief parties jumping parties/bosses, clerics and pallies basically owning the 1-alt verson with thier quick levelling, pacifists so strong they are banned from nm1a...

And you say the classes that needs to be weakened are rangers and fighters?

Edited by joanna, 06 April 2007 - 02:52 PM.

[PureMourning]

Joanna, why are you constantly posting with negativity? Yes, you may have a valid point, but at the same time what Sourcream said is, in fact, common sense.

Instead of pointing out the unnesessary, why not brainstorm how to make his idea work along with what you said.

[Redheart]

Ok dude.....Joanna is right Rangers and Fighters need their armor
and if you suggest they lose the shields,
then they need something to replace that armor
Perhaps a higher Armor count on their other equipment.

Joanna was not being negative, he was stating the obvious.

[joanna]

The rangers and shields argument has been going on almost as long as NM. The problem is NM has no way of distinguishing between someone fighting up close and personal, and someone stood a distance behind shooting with a bow. The archer should be protected from attacks because the enemy simply cannot hit him. As in NM this is impossible and all crits are assumed to be at the same distance, the extra armour from the shield kinda compensates for that

What im saying is, if you want to suggest removing shields from ranger, partner the suggestion with one that gives the ranger equal or ,even better, greater protection ***throughout the whole range of levels*** (in the form of natural AC reaching 20 or greater at arch, dodge chance, reduced chance to hit, ect ect ect)

As for negativity, isnt reducing the armour of the class with the 2nd lowest attainable ac in game (not counting zerks coz they have extra hp instead of ac) even further, 'negativity'?

[Crane]

Assuming no spells, Rangers have the third highest armour, coming after Fighters and Paladins.

I argued to having the Shield of Faith and Elven Bracers being the highest AC for Rangers if their shields were removed, but since that was met largely with opposition, I later created bracers with 20 AC, namely Runic Bracers and Glowing Bracers.

I can be awkward because I think about realism rather than game-play issues, like how can they hold a heavy Spiked Shield while using a bow? (The same argument was my reasoning for not letting Rangers use the Sentinel Shield)

[joanna]

Assuming no spells, Rangers have the third highest armour, coming after Fighters and Paladins.

I argued to having the Shield of Faith and Elven Bracers being the highest AC for Rangers if their shields were removed, but since that was met largely with opposition, I later created bracers with 20 AC, namely Runic Bracers and Glowing Bracers.

I can be awkward because I think about realism rather than game-play issues, like how can they hold a heavy Spiked Shield while using a bow? (The same argument was my reasoning for not letting Rangers use the Sentinel Shield)

Since clerics, druids and mages are *spellcasting* classes, then it is safe to assume spells *ARE* included as part of any discussion on thier AC... Otherwise you might as well say mages are by far the weakest damage causing class, coz you assume no spells

As for ac...

Druids have highest, decent druid can get 210-ish
Mages 2nd, can get 180-ish
Clerics 3rd, 170-ish
Fighters and pacifists equal 4th, 110-ish
Palladins 6th, around 95-100
Rangers 7th, averaging around 90
Theives 8th, with around 70ac
Zerkers dont count, since they sub hp for ac

anyway, i say again, rangers no NOT need nerfing, they need improving. If the 20ac spike shield is denied to them, they need something 22-25 ac to replace it. Call it bracers if you want.

As for Glowing Bracers/Elven Bracers, they mean naff all to level 1-24 rangers, and probably the biggest prob with rangers is thier weakness in lower levels

If you want to stop rangers having shields, then since even *with* the shields they are underpowered, make up bracer-type items equal to all the current shields, and make them availiable in common shops (NOT cloud city) for equal price, and with AC values exceeding the current items

Remember they currently have 5 stam (zerks have 6) with a base 22 weapon as the standard AND best weapon (zerks have b25 as standard, b29 as best)

Then there is fighters... well if you look at the pic for the spiked shield you can see it is a round-shield and not a tower-shield... warriors that were strong and skilled enough could easily hold one in addition to a polearm

Shield of Faith is nowhere near powerful enough to compensate for the lack of active defenses of the Ranger, btw

[Gaddy]

This has been mentioned several times.
It comes down to this-
Does common sense really apply in an entirely fantasy based game?
Does it help to balance the game?

There are several opinions as answers to those questions.
However, they cannot be posted here because I locked the post...