Proof that SOE is totally in love with Necros...

[Kain3]

<p>So everyone knows that Bertox is the new Noxious god that we got tossed so Necros/Warlocks could have one that compared Solusek, who is obviously designed for Wiz/Conj.</p><p>Having said that, here's the 5th level blessing, Touch of Decay:</p><p>"Increases the damage of all DISEASE based spells by 50% for 10 minutes."</p><p>Please, someone tell me that it's a typo and it really means Noxious.  I mean, since we do poison damage, only buffing disease spells makes this blessing totally useless.</p><p>When I first read it my only thought was that the president of SOE has to play a Necro... and his ex-wife plays a warlock.</p>

[Eveningdress]

<p>Agree...I think sooooooooooo too!!!</p>

[XeroXs84]

Is Bertox evil only or Neutral?

[Araxes]

Evil.Like, the most evil.heheAnd still the best choice for warlocks by far, regardless of the disease buff.

[XeroXs84]

<cite>Araxes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Evil.Like, the most evil.heheAnd still the best choice for warlocks by far, regardless of the disease buff.</blockquote>guess my goodie warlock has to stick with someone else then.

[Oakleafe]

What's that old saying about it being better to be considered a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />Bertoxxulous is the disease god, the plaguebringer.  Always was and always has been.  He is not some sneaky poisoner! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />It's nothing to do with SoE loving necromancers nor about anyone not liking warlocks.  It's just about a God being what He is. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[Hellswrath]

Seriously, man.  Back off on the smilies.  These are the Warlock stomping grounds and they hurt my eyes.That being said, I have to agree that lore keeps Bertox as disease only.  And it isn't like wizzies get heat and cold with Sol Ro.  So it isn't entirely unfair.  It just benefits Necros more than us.

[Kain3]

<p>Aw c'mon.  It's not like this is a game based on pre-existing books or movies or something.  The lore falls in the framework of the game, not the other way around.</p><p>I realize that Bertox was around in EQ1 before "Disease" or "Poison" damage became types... but seriously, how hard is to make the damage type Noxious instead of just Disease?  It still fits with the flavor of the god and doesn't show rampant favoritism.</p><p>Yeah, Sol Ro buffs heat and not cold.  But, Wizzies & Conjurors can do BOTH heat and cold, so still get some benefit.  </p><p>When you examine their evil counterparts, Warlocks & Necros, the damage is split in two.  Necros = Disease; Warlocks = Poison.  Which means we get screwed at the high end.</p><p>But, this touches on another of my old gripes... The fact that Wizzies and Conj cover the gamut of "Elemental" damage, but we don't do "Noxious" damage, just Posion.</p><p>Ah well, if I hadn't gotten used to bending over and taking it, I'd have betrayed to a wizard a long time ago <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[zaneluke]

<cite>Fizzie@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Araxes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Evil.Like, the most evil.heheAnd still the best choice for warlocks by far, regardless of the disease buff.</blockquote>guess my goodie warlock has to stick with someone else then.</blockquote>Agood warlock? I just call you all wizards that went through an idenity crisis.

[Soul Sapp]

If I remember correctly wasnt Bert in Plane of Disease in EQ1 <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Swifthand]

<p>Do you think it's possible the Devs may have thrown you guys a bone? Meaning, perhaps Warlocks will get a specific disease line type of ancient spells from 71-80? </p>

[Swifthand]

<cite>Soul Sapper wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I remember correctly wasnt Bert in Plane of Disease in EQ1 <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Yes and no.. Bertox was connected to the Plane of Disease zone, but his lair was in the "Crypt of Decay"

[Aranieq]

Disease spells:Aura of Nihility Void AbsolutionWar Pyreso we at least have 3 that are in most every rotation.  The statement that we have NO disease is not acurate, just poison the meat of our noxious damage.  Not like with Sol Ro and we can't even use most of it.Wizards are more heat and less cold, conjy more cold than heat similar to the necro/warlock split as I understand them.  I'm not saying it's the exact ratios as necro/warlock.. but there's no "favoritism" in it.  they are similarly balanced in this example, even if not exactly equal. I do think we could benefit from a boon to even out that little imbalance.. but I wouldn't scream favoritism for sure.

[BetaMaster]

<p>I say let the necros enjoy this one and maybe there will be something in the future fit just for us like this is for necros.  But until then... we aren't that bad off.</p>

[Eveningdress]

<p>Who is noxious god?</p>

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Kain3 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I realize that Bertox was around in EQ1 before "Disease" or "Poison" damage became types... but seriously, how hard is to make the damage type Noxious instead of just Disease?  It still fits with the flavor of the god and doesn't show rampant favoritism.</p></blockquote>What? EQ Live had and still has disease based damage and poison based damage, as well as heat, cold, divine, magic, etc. My boyfriend was a shaman in our heyday. He had a little of everything in his shaman arsenal.

[Oakleafe]

<cite>Eveningdress@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Who is noxious god?</p></blockquote>Reading through the Deity descriptions on EQ2i (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Gods" target="_blank">linky</a>) there is no noxious or poison god in the current known pantheon (this includes gods that have not yet returned in the EQ2 universe).So, if we use the "gods only exist if believed in" theory, why don't we invent one?First up though I think we need to deal with the argument regarding Warlocks being good or evil aligned."<span class="postbody">Agood warlock? I just call you all wizards that went through an idenity crisis.</span>"Bulldung!Wizards deal with the elements, that's their thing.  Warlocks are more nature based and deal with poisons and disease.  Both are destructive but, heck, so is everyone else!  Doesn't make us evil if what we are destroying is evil (except to those idiots who keep saying "two wrongs don't make a right"<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" />.The traditional wizard, to me, is the staff wielding, fireball throwing long bearded old man.  Whereas warlocks are the male equivalent of witches, where witches are dealing with the manipulation of natural things (plus warts and curses!).  Whether they are a white witch/warlock or a black witch/warlock is a choice through actions and deeds, not a pre-requisite of being a witch/warlock.I'd stick with wizard and warlocks being neutral, and therefore able to choose their own alignments.Having warlocks as neutral gives us better opportunities to play here.  It means we can invent 3 gods (good, evil and neutral) instead of just one evil one. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />Just to start the ball rolling, I'd suggest:Good - Plant/nature based?  A toadstool/shroom?  Taking the view that, yes there are deadly poisonous toadstools/mushrooms but also that there's generally fair warning with the fungi colours.  Also, there are "shrooms" already in the game so not too much extra work of the art guys/gals.Evil - Serpent based.  The poison's number one objective is to kill.  Serpents may have bad press, but let's face it they have generally been connected with evil over the centuries so why stop now?!  I'd probably go for a spitting cobra as the base design, as cobras are already in-game and spitting ones bring in a neat ranged attack.Neutral - Toad-based.  i.e. Poison is a means of defense.  It adds to my personal theory that what we have roaming EQ2 are Toadloks, not Frogloks.  Frogs are largely water based, whereas toads can survive for far longer away from water/liquid (I am aware there are exceptions, but there are very few).  I think they call themselves Frogloks because they have airs above their station!  Anyway, following the thoughts above, we already have toads (frogloks) in-game so they lend themselves to the design of a new god without stretching the devs and artists too much.Maybe we shouldn't try for full status gods, but maybe demi-gods or whatever the lower deity life forms are called.  This would account for why they are not already known in the EQ2 pantheon.As soon as I get <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMzaiCS1jrM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Captain Beaky's tune</a> to stop going around in my brain I'll try and come back and expand on the new warlock based deity additions! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[Wildmage]

<cite>Oakleafe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eveningdress@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Who is noxious god?</p></blockquote>Reading through the Deity descriptions on EQ2i (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Gods" target="_blank">linky</a>) there is no noxious or poison god in the current known pantheon (this includes gods that have not yet returned in the EQ2 universe).So, if we use the "gods only exist if believed in" theory, why don't we invent one?First up though I think we need to deal with the argument regarding Warlocks being good or evil aligned."<span class="postbody">Agood warlock? I just call you all wizards that went through an idenity crisis.</span>"Bulldung!Wizards deal with the elements, that's their thing.  Warlocks are more nature based and deal with poisons and disease.  Both are destructive but, heck, so is everyone else!  Doesn't make us evil if what we are destroying is evil (except to those idiots who keep saying "two wrongs don't make a right"<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" />.  <span style="color: #6699cc;">I have to dissagree Warlocks are anything but natural look at the spell nameds and descriptions our "Poison and "Disease" effects are the result of radiation, and tapping unnatural energies from another realm, given the look of our dumbfire pets I'd say a dimension related to where the shadowmen, nighbloods, and succubi originate.</span>The traditional wizard, to me, is the staff wielding, fireball throwing long bearded old man.  Whereas warlocks are the male equivalent of witches, where witches are dealing with the manipulation of natural things (plus warts and curses!).  Whether they are a white witch/warlock or a black witch/warlock is a choice through actions and deeds, not a pre-requisite of being a witch/warlock.  <span style="color: #6699cc;">See above.</span>I'd stick with wizard and warlocks being neutral, and therefore able to choose their own alignments.Having warlocks as neutral gives us better opportunities to play here.  It means we can invent 3 gods (good, evil and neutral) instead of just one evil one. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />Just to start the ball rolling, I'd suggest:Good - Plant/nature based?  A toadstool/shroom?  Taking the view that, yes there are deadly poisonous toadstools/mushrooms but also that there's generally fair warning with the fungi colours.  Also, there are "shrooms" already in the game so not too much extra work of the art guys/gals.Evil - Serpent based.  The poison's number one objective is to kill.  Serpents may have bad press, but let's face it they have generally been connected with evil over the centuries so why stop now?!  I'd probably go for a spitting cobra as the base design, as cobras are already in-game and spitting ones bring in a neat ranged attack.Neutral - Toad-based.  i.e. Poison is a means of defense.  It adds to my personal theory that what we have roaming EQ2 are Toadloks, not Frogloks.  Frogs are largely water based, whereas toads can survive for far longer away from water/liquid (I am aware there are exceptions, but there are very few).  I think they call themselves Frogloks because they have airs above their station!  Anyway, following the thoughts above, we already have toads (frogloks) in-game so they lend themselves to the design of a new god without stretching the devs and artists too much.Maybe we shouldn't try for full status gods, but maybe demi-gods or whatever the lower deity life forms are called.  This would account for why they are not already known in the EQ2 pantheon.As soon as I get <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMzaiCS1jrM" target="_blank">Captain Beaky's tune</a> to stop going around in my brain I'll try and come back and expand on the new warlock based deity additions! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Pretty much your going waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off track with what Warlocks are all about in EQ2.  your concepts are truer to priest classes , warlocks are mages not priests.

[Araxes]

<cite>Fizzie@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>guess my goodie warlock has to stick with someone else then.</blockquote>Well who the hell makes a goodie warlock anyway, Fizzie?  I mean really!  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Dummie.  :B

[Gutrot]

<cite>Kain3 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Aw c'mon.  It's not like this is a game based on pre-existing books or movies or something.  The lore falls in the framework of the game, not the other way around.</p><p>I realize that Bertox was around in EQ1 before "Disease" or "Poison" damage became types... but seriously, how hard is to make the damage type Noxious instead of just Disease?  It still fits with the flavor of the god and doesn't show rampant favoritism.</p><p>Yeah, Sol Ro buffs heat and not cold.  But, Wizzies & Conjurors can do BOTH heat and cold, so still get some benefit.  </p><p>When you examine their evil counterparts, Warlocks & Necros, the damage is split in two.  Necros = Disease; Warlocks = Poison.  Which means we get screwed at the high end.</p><p>But, this touches on another of my old gripes... The fact that Wizzies and Conj cover the gamut of "Elemental" damage, but we don't do "Noxious" damage, just Posion.</p><p>Ah well, if I hadn't gotten used to bending over and taking it, I'd have betrayed to a wizard a long time ago <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>Been a while since I played EQ1, but as far as I can remember there was always disease and poison damage types (Necro's, Shaman and Shadowknights spring to mind as classes that had spells of both types).  So its pretty spot on with the lore (which had been set out previously)

[yopaljeff]

lore or not, the game needs to be balanced. if wizys, conj, and necros are being hooked up with fitting miracles and blessings then it is only fair to give the warlock something equivalent. and for the love of god make it neutral. i play on a role-play server and don't want to be evil. if poison and disease was inherently evil then warlocks would not be able to be good.