Dreadful wrath awesome

[VeinTro]

<DIV>I dinged 40 last night and had the app 4 version in my inventory.  Another 40 sk from my guild was tanking.  I noticed that i was pullin agro from him.  We did an experiment.  He cast Disease cloud, insatiable hunger, consuming vitae, scream of terror.  Then i cast Dreadful wrath and i pulled agro from him.  Yeah, a truely agro pullin taunt.</DIV>

[megatra]

<DIV>First of all Dreadful Wrath isn't a taunt. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second, if you were pulling aggro from him, tell him to please upgrade his Apprentice 1 taunts lol. There is no way 1 Dreadful Wrath would pull aggro from even just 1 Disease Cloud. It's good and keep aggro yes, but let's not exaggerate here.</DIV>

[VeinTro]

I think you need to try it.  You may be pleasanly suprized.  Debuff spells that others have arent teechnically taunts either.  This is a debuff and mobs hate it.  This account of the experiment was no exaggeration.

[megatra]

I think I've tried it plenty. I am level 50 and I have it at adept 3 quality, hits on average around 500 dmg. lol... Whether in a single group of raid group I chain cast it and have never pulled aggro with it. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Then again it all has to do with whoever is MTing.</DIV><p>Message Edited by megatraum on <span class=date_text>05-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:44 AM</span>

[VeinTro]

<DIV>Could it be that at lvl 50  a lvl 40 spell would not be as effective agaist a Pally's or Guardians taunts?  The experiment may only be valid at low 40's since this is where we have tested it at.</DIV>

[VeinTro]

<DIV>Just to be sure we are talking about the same spell.  You cant chain cast Dreadful wrath.  Once you cast it on a mob, you cant cast it again on the same mob, at least not for a significant time.</DIV>

[megatra]

Technically your skills aren't most effective until they are white (mastered). So the farther you get from white (whether it be orange or green) the less effective and more resisted they will be. Currently at 50 my DW is white, which makes it most effective. Since I have turned 50 I have never seen it resisted. Even before I don't recall seeing it resisted. Maybe it's just unresistable lol. Sounds like SK taunts at your level are out of proportion with attacks, which isn't very surprising as we are supposed to be more offensive DPS than tanks.

[far]

<DIV>Dreadful wrath can be recast every 10 seconds by the highest level sk attacking a specific mob. However due to the snare effect (on less then epic mobs) The effect can only be overwritten by the same spell level or higher (read as caster can overwrite it or if someone is higher level or has a higher level version of the spell)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So here is what seems to have happened, the other sk pulled with something like anger or baleful adding approx 200 pts of aggro (assuming aggro is 1 damage to 1 aggro conversion).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When the mob is incoming to camp vein casts wrath (360-500 damage adept iii level 50) so he gets 300ish aggro from damage + aggro from snare (lets say 50?)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Veins aggro when mob is in camp is 350+ compared to the 200 held by initial tank, aggro temparily is switched to vein, the mt casts dreadful wrath overwriting veins snare component, vein can no longer wrath on said mob happy tankiness aggro is restored.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I tend to back up megas assertation that dreadful wrath is pretty low on aggro and i cast it every time it is up, and have only ever pulled aggro once during a raid (over 100+ x4 mobs killed) and I was trying some new adept iiis out at the time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As stated by others against epic encounters x3 + the snare doesnt stick, so as many sks as are in raid can land wrath.. only 2 sks in my guild and im the only one with adept iii so didnt affect me any but the other sk very happy.</DIV>

[VeinTro]

That is really good to know that the snare doesnt stick on epics.  I may not have chain cast it, thinking I could only cast it once.  Just for clairification.  Just the snare doesnt stick but the damage gets though right?

[Zoradan]

<P>Yes damage gets thrue, it's our best dps to power consumption spell (ya ya save HT).</P> <P> </P> <P>As was said the higher lvl sk in a group will over wright another, however if two same lvl sk's are in the group the one with the better spell, app III vs Adept I will over wright. Not sure of same lvl same spell tho...</P>

[Draq]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zoradan wrote:<BR> <P>As was said the higher lvl sk in a group will over wright another, however if two same lvl sk's are in the group the one with the better spell, app III vs Adept I will over wright. <U>Not sure of same lvl same spell tho...</U></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>If both have let's say Adept 3 DW at lvl 50, both SKs can cast it every 10sec thus overwriting the snare effect from the other SK. Same lvl versions don't interfer with each other.</DIV>

[Diern]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> megatraum wrote:<BR> which isn't very surprising as we are supposed to be more offensive DPS than tanks.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Can I please have some of that crack pipe your smoking?</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknights are TANKS first and foremost.</DIV>

[far]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Diernes wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> megatraum wrote:<BR> which isn't very surprising as we are supposed to be more offensive DPS than tanks.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Can I please have some of that crack pipe your smoking?</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknights are TANKS first and foremost.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Please go read moorgards definition of the future of tankage. Yes we still get to keep heavy armor, but its more of a ceremonial gesture (like our horses) than having the rank and respect of a 'knight'. I bet you think we get to use lances too right?</DIV>

[Zoradan]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Draq wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>If both have let's say Adept 3 DW at lvl 50, both SKs can cast it every 10sec thus overwriting the snare effect from the other SK. Same lvl versions don't interfer with each other.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Hey Draq thanks that very good to know.</DIV>

[Exmortis_MT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Diernes wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> megatraum wrote:<BR> which isn't very surprising as we are supposed to be more offensive DPS than tanks.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Can I please have some of that crack pipe your smoking?</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknights are TANKS first and foremost.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>we are more of a tank then say a bruier, less so then a paladin or a guardian.  Zerkers and SKs are about the same, mid level DPS in the fighter line, and mid line Damage midigation.  Not that im complaining but thats where we stand.</P> <P> </P>

[SonnyA]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> farbe wrote:<BR><BR><BR> <DIV>Please go read moorgards definition of the future of tankage. Yes we still get to keep heavy armor, but its more of a ceremonial gesture (like our horses) than having the rank and respect of a 'knight'. I bet you think we get to use lances too right?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I've been looking for this, but I'm unable to find it. Do you have a link to Moorgards definition of the future of tankage?</DIV>

[megatra]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SonnyA wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> farbe wrote:<BR><BR><BR> <DIV>Please go read moorgards definition of the future of tankage. Yes we still get to keep heavy armor, but its more of a ceremonial gesture (like our horses) than having the rank and respect of a 'knight'. I bet you think we get to use lances too right?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I've been looking for this, but I'm unable to find it. Do you have a link to Moorgards definition of the future of tankage?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>You don't really have to read it.... by the time you level to 50 you will have seen all you can do and you will see what we are good at. And that is dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just because we wear plate doesn't make us tanks. The way I see it, plate armor is just a bonus for me when I accidentally pull aggro from the MT in a raid. The chances of me doing down is less than a scout or a mage with their paper armor. :smileyhappy:<BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by megatraum on <span class=date_text>06-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:10 PM</span>

[Margen]

<P>Aren't they calling for us to get a major DPS nerf though, I know they said they where looking at it and the scouts are screaming for it.  So if that does happen, then the question becomes where does that leave us?</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath 36th troll Shadow Knight</P>

[SonnyA]

<P>I really hope they make us a TANK class and not a DPS class. I don't mind having my dps adjusted, as long as they up mitigation or aggro management.</P> <P>That's why I'm curious about  any official word (from Moorgaard) of our future.</P>

[Exmortis_MT]

<DIV>Expect SKs to remain as is.  We are a good secondary tank, if you dont have a guardian we can do for XP, at 50 I can tank Nek2.0 with 2 healers, I can Tank BoF, MM Icespire etc.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am always in the top 7 for DPS on raids, yes you heard me, top 7, and many have better weapons.  I usually out do our rogues on raids, due to the fact on long fights my better hit ratio and harder hits add up fast, especially with a 2 handed weapon and a haste.  IE on our saturday Zalak raid I placed 4th out of 24.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Way I see it is best SKs can hope for is all of our broken or needtweak spells to get fixed.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not over upset we cant tank named, guardians only do one thing well, and they is tank.  Everyone complains there is no deversity in the classes, but then everyone wants every other classes abilities, well it doesnt work like that.  If we get better tankage, then we will lose DPS, cant have it both ways.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shadowknights represent flexibility, yuo cant be a jack of all trades, and still be a master of anything.</DIV>

[SonnyA]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SonnyA wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> farbe wrote:<BR><BR><BR> <DIV>Please go read moorgards definition of the future of tankage. Yes we still get to keep heavy armor, but its more of a ceremonial gesture (like our horses) than having the rank and respect of a 'knight'. I bet you think we get to use lances too right?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I've been looking for this, but I'm unable to find it. Do you have a link to Moorgards definition of the future of tankage?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I found this post by Moorgaard. I this what you're referring to?</P> <P> </P> <DIV>In the current game, fighters do high DPS and tank extremely well. This isn't confined to one or two subclasses, but rather encompasses all of them. This statement will no doubt spark the "No way, my subclass is way broken compared to that other fighter subclass!" but regardless of that, my basic statement is correct.</DIV> <DIV>As I said in my post last night, one goal with the changes is to reinforce archetype roles. In the balance between fighters and scouts, this means that fighters will be able to tank better than scouts, and scouts will be able to do more damage than fighters. Again, that's painting this issue with the broadest possible strokes; obviously there is a lot of variance that will happen based on subclass.</DIV> <DIV>Keep in mind that we are adjusting the game as a whole during this process, not just the damage output of certain classes. It won't just be fighters that do less damage, but likely everyone in the game: players and NPCs alike. This will have the net effect of making fights last a bit longer, which is a good thing for those classes like enchanters and bards that excel in things like crowd control, group enhancements, etc.</DIV> <DIV>As you can see, none of these factors exist in a vacuum, which is what makes all this such an involved process. But yes, when all is said and done, scouts will end up doing more damage than fighters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Moorgard<BR>EverQuest II Community Guy <BR></DIV>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SonnyA wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SonnyA wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> farbe wrote:<BR><BR><BR> <DIV>Please go read moorgards definition of the future of tankage. Yes we still get to keep heavy armor, but its more of a ceremonial gesture (like our horses) than having the rank and respect of a 'knight'. I bet you think we get to use lances too right?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I've been looking for this, but I'm unable to find it. Do you have a link to Moorgards definition of the future of tankage?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I found this post by Moorgaard. I this what you're referring to?</P> <P> </P> <DIV>In the current game, fighters do high DPS and tank extremely well. This isn't confined to one or two subclasses, but rather encompasses all of them. This statement will no doubt spark the "No way, my subclass is way broken compared to that other fighter subclass!" but regardless of that, my basic statement is correct.</DIV> <DIV>As I said in my post last night, one goal with the changes is to reinforce archetype roles. In the balance between fighters and scouts, this means that fighters will be able to tank better than scouts, and scouts will be able to do more damage than fighters. Again, that's painting this issue with the broadest possible strokes; obviously there is a lot of variance that will happen based on subclass.</DIV> <DIV>Keep in mind that we are adjusting the game as a whole during this process, not just the damage output of certain classes. It won't just be fighters that do less damage, but likely everyone in the game: players and NPCs alike. This will have the net effect of making fights last a bit longer, which is a good thing for those classes like enchanters and bards that excel in things like crowd control, group enhancements, etc.</DIV> <DIV>As you can see, none of these factors exist in a vacuum, which is what makes all this such an involved process. But yes, when all is said and done, scouts will end up doing more damage than fighters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Moorgard<BR>EverQuest II Community Guy <BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well hope I am wrong, but that sounds like we are screwed, unless they increase our tanking ability (mitigation/taunt), don't see any place we shine.  Again hope I am wrong.</P> <P>Blackoath 37th Troll Shadow Knight</P>

[Exmortis_MT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Margen wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SonnyA wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SonnyA wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> farbe wrote:<BR><BR><BR> <DIV>Please go read moorgards definition of the future of tankage. Yes we still get to keep heavy armor, but its more of a ceremonial gesture (like our horses) than having the rank and respect of a 'knight'. I bet you think we get to use lances too right?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I've been looking for this, but I'm unable to find it. Do you have a link to Moorgards definition of the future of tankage?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I found this post by Moorgaard. I this what you're referring to?</P> <P> </P> <DIV>In the current game, fighters do high DPS and tank extremely well. This isn't confined to one or two subclasses, but rather encompasses all of them. This statement will no doubt spark the "No way, my subclass is way broken compared to that other fighter subclass!" but regardless of that, my basic statement is correct.</DIV> <DIV>As I said in my post last night, one goal with the changes is to reinforce archetype roles. In the balance between fighters and scouts, this means that fighters will be able to tank better than scouts, and scouts will be able to do more damage than fighters. Again, that's painting this issue with the broadest possible strokes; obviously there is a lot of variance that will happen based on subclass.</DIV> <DIV>Keep in mind that we are adjusting the game as a whole during this process, not just the damage output of certain classes. It won't just be fighters that do less damage, but likely everyone in the game: players and NPCs alike. This will have the net effect of making fights last a bit longer, which is a good thing for those classes like enchanters and bards that excel in things like crowd control, group enhancements, etc.</DIV> <DIV>As you can see, none of these factors exist in a vacuum, which is what makes all this such an involved process. But yes, when all is said and done, scouts will end up doing more damage than fighters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>===========================<BR>Moorgard<BR>EverQuest II Community Guy <BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well hope I am wrong, but that sounds like we are screwed, unless they increase our tanking ability (mitigation/taunt), don't see any place we shine.  Again hope I am wrong.</P> <P>Blackoath 37th Troll Shadow Knight</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>We are not screwed, its all relative.  If they reduce DSP say 25% accross the board I will still be where i am now in relation to all other classes.</P> <P> </P>