Paladins and SKs duel wielding on test?

[Silverpaws]

<DIV>Is this true?  My fighter on test is only 6 atm, testing duel on the island.  I heard a rumor there that knights are duel wielding.  True or false?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Den</DIV>

[WuphonsReach]

Fighers (1-9) can dual-wield.Crusaders (Paladins/SKs) lose that ability when they complete their class quest and get to level 10.

[Silverpaws]

<DIV>Yes, this I know.  My main is just shy of 50.  You didnt read my question.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are SKs and Paladins [20+] able to duel wield on test?  Someone said something about it, and I wanted to know if it was true.</DIV>

[HanktheDwarf]

Why would we have it (1-9), lose it (10-19), and get it back again (20-50)?  Just like he said, we lose it when we become a crusader.  I checked. <div></div>

[Saint56]

lol cant even remember when i dual wielded

[Rylight]

<P>yeah me either, even at the lower lvl's of fighter and crusader I dont think I ever duel wielded</P> <P> </P>

[Hamen]

<P>when I played fighter dual wield wasn't in my skill list, course you can't see that now with the new skill list, until I was level 10 brawler or warrior.</P> <P>The only class I have had that can start dual wielding is scout.</P>

[HanktheDwarf]

Heh.  I was level 1-9 all of 10 minutes so I can't even remember if I had dual wield. <div></div>

[depgates]

<P>This is insane. Can anyone tell me, with any degree of logic, why Crusaders cannot dual wield? I have heard many discussions on this topic, but most are biased whine sessions. I am looking for actual reasoning.</P> <P>Let me first say that yes, my main toon is a Paladin (4<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> so I am approaching this from a certain point of view. Second, let me add that I am not looking for a 50 post whine session on this simple topic, just earnest answers and opinions.</P> <P>Looking at 'tank' fighters as a whole, they all have little subtle differences that make them somewhat unique. This is good of course. If there were no differences you could just call all of us a darn Guardian and be done with it. (the following information is based on my opinion and sometimes limited knowledge on the different classes, if I am wrong on any of it please let me know)<BR>- Guardians are the major mitigation class, designed for mitigation, taunting, and protection, but not the ideal dps class. They can use ranged weapons, dual wield, and have nice buffs / shieldings. They get heavy armor as opposed to advanced avoidance.<BR>- Berzerkers are the dps tanks. They can stand alone quite nicely as 'main tanks' as they are also designed for mitigation (just not as well suited as Guardians), but they can let their weapons do all of their taunting. They can use ranged weapons, dual wield, and have nice high dps attacks. They get heavy armor as opposed to advanced avoidance.<BR>- Bruisers / Monks are the dps fighters. I do not know as much about these classes, so I may be mis-speaking a bit. This class can tank, but that is not their primary function. Their primary ability is to jump in a fight and kick the crap out of the opponent. I am not certain if they use ranged weapons or not (surely they have some type of ranged attack), but they can dual wield. They get advanced avoidance as opposed to heavy armor mitigation.<BR>- Paladins / Shadowknights are the utility class fighters. They get heavy armor mitigation and taunting (inferior to Guardians, but adequate), dps in the form of weapon attacks and divine magic (inferior dps to Zerkers and Monk / Bruiser classes), but they also get a good number of buffs and heals which compensates. They cannot use ranged weapons, but do have ranged magic attacks used for pulling mobs. They do not dual wield, and they do get heavy armor as opposed to advanced avoidance.</P> <P>Looking at things from this perspective, I see a fairly well balanced group with one exception. Paladins and Shadowknights are the only class (Crusader) that cannot use dual wield. Can ANYONE give me a good explanation for this? Based solely on general characterizations, that is the one thing that sets Crusaders apart from all the other fighters. It is a completely unnecessary omission. This doesn't have anything to do with weapon type, it is not a big deal which classes can use axe, sword, or dagger, etc. Dual wielding is a necessary skill set for any fighter, especially at the higher levels. There are some really nice proc'ing weapons available at the higher levels that are dual wield. Crusaders can only use these at the expense of decent dps, unlike all other fighters who can use these in a dual wield configuration and keep dps up where it should be.</P> <P>I have given up on the hope of ever being able to take a beating like a Guardian, or deal out the damage of a Zerker. I know I will never have the avoidance and striking power of the Monk / Bruiser classes (or the safe fall ... what is up with that, lol). I know my role is a total group support role, with backup taunts, backup heals, resurrection, buffs, and assisting dps. I have also come to accept the painful reality that I will forever suck at solo encounters (which is not so bad since I can at least heal myself while running away crying like a little girl from a solo mob), but for heaven's sake let Crusaders dual wield!!! It is only appropriate that they do so.</P> <P>Is there anyone who would argue against this point? If so, please give me some justification rather than idle, incoherent, fully biased rhetoric. Either help me understand why Crusaders should be deficient in this area ... or let us petition to change it. Unless of course the origin of the thread is correct in which case I shall be looking forward to the addition of dual wielding to the Crusader class and I withdraw my objections. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Thanks,<BR>Kodie Meatshield<BR>Paladin (4<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR>Oasis Server<BR></P> <P><BR></P>

[Aldelbert]

Shadow Knights and Paladins have never traditionally been able to duel wield weapons *ever*.  This dates back to D&D and pretty much every other [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] RPG ever.  I doubt they'll be duel wielding anytime soon. <div></div>

[Margen]

<P>The issue of Duel wielding is very low on my concern list, sure it looks cool but so does using a big honking 2 handed sword LOL, and the DPS is simular.  </P> <P>I have a number of balance issues with my class, underpowered spells (lifetaps anyone hehe), poor taunting tools etc.  But duel wielding isn't really one of them.</P> <P>Blackoath 40th Troll Shadow Knight</P>

[Picknose]

<P>Simple Answer: NO Paladins and SKs do not Dual Wield on Test Server.</P> <P> </P> <P>I am a 40 Paladin and tried it today just to answer your question.</P> <P> </P> <P>BB</P> <P> </P>

[lichmeister]

<span><blockquote><hr>Aldelbert wrote:Shadow Knights and Paladins have never traditionally been able to duel wield weapons *ever*.  This dates back to D&D and pretty much every other [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] RPG ever.  I doubt they'll be duel wielding anytime soon. <div></div><hr></blockquote>hmmm ive been playing d&d for longer than some eq junkies have been alive. not bragging here... i dont think im actually proud of the fact... just stating it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> went and looked through my 1st edition manual and rustled up arcana to compare the cavalier as well (some could argue that the cavalier is more of a pally than the pally) and can find no reference to being restricted from using dual wield styles. There is a mention that both cavaliers, while not outright <i>disallowed</i>, prefer to avoid use of bows and other missile weapons. As far as i can see, there is only 1 class that discusses dual-wielding in their class description: Ranger. They mention that rangers may lessen their offhand weapon penalties by wearing light armour or less while dual-wielding. In essence they get a number of skills (traits in 3rd ed) for free as long as they ar unencumbered. Skills other classes are obligated to pick up if they want to dual-wield effectively. I remember fondly my cavalier Zexidus, who eschewed the shield as a cowards implement. Instead he chose to take the extra hit for the satisfaction of sticking an extra blade into the guts of his enemies. He was the steroetypical SK before i even heard of such a thing and noone ever said they thought his distaste for shields was un-cavalierish, though they may have been afraid id skewer them next too, maybe. Now within the realm of Norrath, pallies without dual wield doesnt cause me to lose any sleep... i guess if our taunts worked well enough for us to be grade a tanks, you would likely never notice that you couldnt dual-wield. I had to upgrade all my taunts to adept3 and they still dont work consistently. If we are to be relegated to the realm of 2nd tank, then a 2nd weapon would be quaint... i dont really care... i LIKE my big phat shiny halberd! SK's on the other hand fill a different set of sabatons in a party... their tactics would favour an offhand attack methinks... yet again though i think they are a cool enough class as is that i just cant lose any sleep over it... </span><div></div>

[ke'la]

<DIV>As my guilds Pally can hold arrgo better then any Guardian I have grouped with, that goes to the skill of the players not the class. One reason that Pally's can't duel wield is cause they can heal. Second my guilds lvl 50 Pally says his class is the best for soloing, so maybe its how your playing your class.  As for not Raid Tanks I would prefure a Pally for the very reason they can fill the 2nd hear role opening a slot for more DPS or Utility. Also a number of your CAs (the ones that require you to have a Shield equiped) have a large amount of hate attached to them.</DIV>

[Margen]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ke'la wrote:<BR> <DIV>As my guilds Pally can hold arrgo better then any Guardian I have grouped with, that goes to the skill of the players not the class. One reason that Pally's can't duel wield is cause they can heal. Second my guilds lvl 50 Pally says his class is the best for soloing, so maybe its how your playing your class.  As for not Raid Tanks I would prefure a Pally for the very reason they can fill the 2nd hear role opening a slot for more DPS or Utility. Also a number of your CAs (the ones that require you to have a Shield equiped) have a large amount of hate attached to them.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You must play with some really crappy Guardians.  If you look on either Shadow Knight or Paladin boards you will see that aggro is a problem compared to warrior based classes.  Heck the Warriors even admit it LOL.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blackoath 40th Troll Shadow Knight</DIV>

[Sav]

<span><blockquote><hr>Margen wrote:<div> <blockquote> <hr> ke'la wrote: <div></div> <div>As my guilds Pally can hold arrgo better then any Guardian I have grouped with, that goes to the skill of the players not the class. One reason that Pally's can't duel wield is cause they can heal. Second my guilds lvl 50 Pally says his class is the best for soloing, so maybe its how your playing your class.  As for not Raid Tanks I would prefure a Pally for the very reason they can fill the 2nd hear role opening a slot for more DPS or Utility. Also a number of your CAs (the ones that require you to have a Shield equiped) have a large amount of hate attached to them.</div> <hr> </blockquote>You must play with some really crappy Guardians.  If you look on either Shadow Knight or Paladin boards you will see that aggro is a problem compared to warrior based classes.  Heck the Warriors even admit it LOL.</div> <div> </div> <div>Blackoath 40th Troll Shadow Knight</div><hr> Actually, all of our guardians agree I can hold agro better than they can.  I might not be able to get agro back right away if I lose it, but it's a lot harder for me to lose it in the first place. </blockquote></span><div></div>

[eyes007]

<P>I'm also not going to lose sleep over not having dual wield but you need to read books as well as play games to truly understand why Paladins do not have dual wield. Dual Wield in the "knighthood" fact used to be having a sword/mace/axe one hand weapon in one hand, and a dagger/parry blade in the other. I try to be careful in not using a dirk as an example, mainly because piercing weapons of any sort were indeed frowned upon.In any case, the ridiculous thought is when you're wearing half a ton of armor, where the hell are you going to get the speed to successfully dual wield? I've read soooo many fantasy books and very few of those have people who wear full plated armor while using more than one weapon at a time. Look at the obvious physics, to carry that much armor you are going to build up muscle, the more muscle you build the stronger you get, the bigger you get, the SLOWER you get. If anything, no plate wearing tank should get dual wield ^...^</P> <P>Errr...Sony you didn't read that <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>There was a good point in here about using a two hander, I successfully prove day in and day out that a good two hander can outdps a Guardian or "most times" a Zerker and in fact, at the higher levels I've seen Zerkers choose two-handers more of late, not the 3.7 damage delay ones, but the 2.5 type ones. As the agility buffs are better used on a high damage weapon with average delay than those with dual wield with less delay, but thats if anyone knows about the fact that Damage delay taps out at 1.0 no matter how many agility buffs you have.</P>

[ke'la]

<div></div>Margen Wrote:You must play with some really crappy Guardians.  If you look on either Shadow Knight or Paladin boards you will see that aggro is a problem compared to warrior based classes.  Heck the Warriors even admit it LOL.<div> <hr>Quote from my origanal Post:As my guilds Pally can hold arrgo better then any Guardian I have grouped with, <font color="#ffff00">that goes to the skill of the players not the class</font>.I assumed even in my post that it was probly a crappy guardian and the Ablity to hold and get back Agroo is as much about the player as the class.</div><div></div>

[Yrield]

<span><blockquote><hr>ke'la wrote:<div></div>Margen Wrote:You must play with some really crappy Guardians.  If you look on either Shadow Knight or Paladin boards you will see that aggro is a problem compared to warrior based classes.  Heck the Warriors even admit it LOL.<div> <hr>Quote from my origanal Post:As my guilds Pally can hold arrgo better then any Guardian I have grouped with, <font color="#ffff00">that goes to the skill of the players not the class</font>.I assumed even in my post that it was probly a crappy guardian and the Ablity to hold and get back Agroo is as much about the player as the class.</div><div></div><hr></blockquote>You are an illusionist ! Illusionist + paladin = uber aggro Anyone who can regen my power in combat is my best friend <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></span><div></div>

[RiotActer]

Well if we're talking lore and stuff...  Where's the undead bonus?  Are we not holy / unholy knights? <div></div>

[Iustus]

<P>I play a paladin. This is a non-issue to me.</P> <P>(1) First and foremost, I am a tank, dual wield would only concern me if it was a huge agro generation issue. Assuming that shields give the benefit they are supposed to give, then dual wield is only dps issue.</P> <P>(2) In my mind, the way that different fighter classes should be differentiated is by different amounts of dps. If not dual wielding lowers crusader dps (not clear this is true, a lot of berzerkers prefer 2h for dps), then so be it.</P> <P>(3) The other concern is availability of weapons. As long as their are enough good weapons that we can use, not being able to dual wield is not a problem. If it ever became the case that there was a dual wield weapon that was so good, everyone who could would use it, and there was no 1h or 2h equivalent, then there might be a concern.</P> <P>My concerns about paladins have primarily to do with their ability to tank. If we are a viable tank in groups and on raids, then I will be happy.</P> <P>-I</P>

[Jeridor]

<span><blockquote><hr>depgates wrote:<div></div> <p>This is insane. Can anyone tell me, with any degree of logic, why Crusaders cannot dual wield? I have heard many discussions on this topic, but most are biased whine sessions. I am looking for actual reasoning.</p><hr></blockquote> So far as I can tell, the only justification you can provide for granting dual wield is "I want it".  That's not how EQ2 works in any regard.  Why can't a healer use a round shield, let alone a kite?  Why can't certain healers use a spear, but others can?  Why can't a bard use poisons on their weapons but a predator can?  I'm sure we could devote an entire thread to these things and make a hefty list of questions. The correct answers to the above are: because healers are supposed to have horrible defense,  because healers are not all supposed to be able to use the same weapon sets to promote further differentiation between priest classes, because bards are intended to have lower damage capability to balance out with their spells and buffs.  Even if you don't agree with the reason, the devs have set each of these cases with an intent to achieve a goal.  All of these points are debatable.  We could think of reasons why each of these decisions "doesn't make sense" if we wanted to.  What your post really boils down to is, "I want it, I can't have it, and I'm going to raise cain now about it because I'm not getting what I want." BTW, your post in my view is a biased whine session in itself.  It's a matter of perspective.</span><div></div>

[Maeldir]

<P>You should be happy you do not have Dual Wield, it actually makes you different than the other fighter classes. Why does everyone wants to have what everyone else has, and yet still wants to be totally different than the rest ?</P> <P>Actually, in D&D dual wield is usually good for Rangers since they have a small bonus to it. All other classes need to have a ton of skills / traits to dual wield with the minimum penalties. Dual Wield got very popular with R.A. Salvatore's books with Drizzt Do'Urden (the dark elf dual wielding ranger).</P> <P>Paladins never used bows because it wasnt a fair way to fight. You dont shoot at an enemy who cannot defend himself properly. You could have two weapons style with a Paladin, but traditionally they used a mace + shield, and also wearing heavy plate armors added a huge penalty to your off hand weapon that no one would think about it. EQ1 didn't allow Paladins to dual wield, and SOE just kept if for EQ2 since its been around for 6+ years.</P> <P>Paladins are roughly based on the Templars from the Medieval Era who were a special order of religious knights defending the Church by fighting the infidels in Jerusalem.</P><p>Message Edited by Maeldir on <span class=date_text>07-17-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:48 PM</span>