Life tap weapon proc (Idea)

[Quilli]

<DIV>I was thinking about our weapon proc con buff.  What if they added a lifetap componet to it that had a great chance of going off everytime we hit. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If this was added to our conc buff then in combination with our other lifetaps we might actually be able to heal ourselves enough.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So when people are choosing a tank, they might go  Well if we choose a SK at the very least they can handle their own health in a do or die situation.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That way people might view the Paladin as an emergency group healer, and us as our own (self) tank healer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In theory we might be able to heal ourselves more than a Pally could themselves, but we are limited to only ourselves where as they can help the entire group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On a raid people might say "If we make the Sk mt our healers don't have to go heal crazy and save their power for other stuff".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thus it becomes a tactiacal game of choie on which tank to use in a group.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do you want the tank that is not going to get hit.</DIV> <DIV>Do you want the tank that absorbs damage like a beast.</DIV> <DIV>Do you want the tank that can heal the entire group.</DIV> <DIV>Do you want the tank that can DPS.</DIV> <DIV>Do you want the tank that can heal itself like a beast.</DIV> <DIV>(sure there are a few more I forgot)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This might even change the dynamic of always taking a second healer over anything else, or always taking DPS over anything else.  It might just give us choices as groups...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[LobaLobaLo]

<DIV>One thing that you're failing to account for is that lifetaps are two-sided.  What give you life takes life away from the mob.</DIV>

[Quilli]

<P>I do agree with that. </P> <P> </P> <P>But Paladians have the ability to heal everyone in group, we have only ourselves.</P> <P> </P> <P>As is our life taps are not really worth the power.  By this I mean in a situation where I need lifetaps to live I am probably going to have to run anyway.  Otherwise I use more power efficent spells.</P> <P> </P> <P>But if we had a proc that say had a 50% chance each swing to do the same heal as faithful swing, then we might have something.  Because then even with no power left we could still heal ourselves if we get a good swing in.  Not by much, but enough where someone might see that as an advantage to take a SK.</P> <P> </P> <P>Someone a long time ago ran some good loged numbers on this so perhaps someone more tech inclined could post on it!</P> <P> </P> <P>But still a very valid point, but the numbers are sqwed in favor of our oponet for the power used to heal ourselves as is.</P> <P> </P> <P>P.S.  I can't spell sorry <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[LobaLobaLo]

<P>I think you're on the right track.</P> <P>It would make sense that for variety among tanks:</P> <P> </P> <P>* guardians are the tanks that are just monstrous meatshields -- they get the job done with their mitigation and hps and taunts</P> <P>* paladins are the tanks that can heal -- they get the job done by stunning and healing themselves, both causing aggro</P> <P>* SKs are the tanks that shift hp and/or power -- they get the job done by siphoning life/power (power siphon is a really good unutilized idea in eq2 btw), both causing aggro</P> <P>* i'm omitting the berserker class because I'm not sure what that tank is supposed to be.  The don't fit the historical description of the berserker, that's for sure.  I think SOE just thinks that the class title berserker is "cool", but can't figure out what to do with it.</P> <P> </P> <P>I think that the game designers kinda think along these lines, but the implementation isn't so good.  Hopefully that's something that they will fix in time.</P> <P> </P>

[vwlsskng]

<DIV>Did you play EQ1? There were tons of SK weapons with a lifetap proc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's only a matter of time . . .</DIV>