PDA

View Full Version : Paladin Weapon Choices


Valian1
01-26-2005, 09:47 AM
<DIV>Im a Paladin on Unrest and noticed something a long time ago, mostly everyone is using sword and shield, not just paladins. But also the majority of paladins on Unrest are sword and shield, I myself am a great sword user. I was just wondering, what do you guys think is more useful in the long run, thanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   Valian - Lv.30 Paladin - Unrest</DIV>

Lairdragna
01-26-2005, 10:07 AM
We're not there to dish damage, we are there to hold aggro and take a beating... To that end an extra 200-300 or more AC is more valuable than a few extra points in melee damage.

Morsaki
01-26-2005, 11:04 AM
<DIV>Well, at level 45+ you'll be able to efficiently tank with just a 2 hander, and with our current dps and the only Glittering Claymore in the game to my knowledge, I can usually pull 200+ DPS per encounter with my usual group set up, there have been times where I've out dps'ed two scouts' dps put together and still held aggro the entire time just fine. Paladins become very powerful and extremely useful in tight situations past 40.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Morsakin</DIV> <DIV>49 Paladin - 66% in!</DIV> <DIV>Unrest Server</DIV>

Deathspell
01-26-2005, 05:32 PM
OK, I'm only Lvl20 Paladin, but this is how I see it:Paladins are not -real- tanks.We can tank and take some damage, but in essence being a tank is a job for Guardians.What else would be the Guardians main purpose otherwise?Btw, paladins also get spells which require a two-handed weapon, so you don't have a shield.I'd say a shield would be very useful for a tank, e.g. Guardians, no?

Darki
01-26-2005, 06:07 PM
<blockquote><hr>Deathspell wrote:OK, I'm only Lvl20 Paladin, but this is how I see it:Paladins are not -real- tanks.We can tank and take some damage, but in essence being a tank is a job for Guardians.What else would be the Guardians main purpose otherwise?Btw, paladins also get spells which require a two-handed weapon, so you don't have a shield.I'd say a shield would be very useful for a tank, e.g. Guardians, no?<hr></blockquote>Bah, Paladin's can tank just fine. The only reason a Guardian is going to tank for me is if he is higher level than I.Paladin's also get powers that require a shield, so what's your point?

Deathspell
01-26-2005, 06:50 PM
yup, they can tank "just fine", that's what I meant with "Paladins can tank if needed and take damage".Paladins can do just fine, but my point is that Guardians are more suited for being MT.I'm not saying this to crap on Paladins, I've a Paladin myself.

Tepic_Snowm
01-26-2005, 07:37 PM
<DIV>I hear more people complaining about guardians tanking poorly than pallys though :smileysurprised:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Probably just a few bad people playing guards.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

SunT
01-26-2005, 08:04 PM
<DIV>I am only 25 atm, but I always use a shield sword combo.  I played around with both scenarios but think the dps is nearly as good with the 1H and the AC, stat trade off puts 1H over the top..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First at a 1.2 delay hitting for average 25 vs a 2.0 delay hitting average 50 is pretty close.  Add to that the increased number of attacks which gives an increased chance of Procing your Glorious weapon, which is hitting from 30 to 50 atm as far as I can tell.  And I think you are higher in dps.  Also, if you miss with 2H, you sit and take damage, If you miss with a fast 1H, you are swinging again.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Last, I think one of our best abilities is the stun.  I play with a shammy, and when he gets a resist on haze, he hits a hotkey to tell me, I Charge and stun.  This takes about 5 of the 8 sec reset on slow away from the unslowed mob.  So even unslowed he has little chance to hit me.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And whoever said we can't tank has not played a Pally.  </DIV>

Vanion Vilesilenc
01-26-2005, 08:06 PM
<DIV>I dont hink Guardians tank any better than paladins,</DIV>

Troillus
01-26-2005, 08:12 PM
<DIV>I carry a few weapons on me for the occasion, When i solo (usually green ^^ group mobs) i use a two hander and when i'm not playing MT. and when i group i carry a shield and a one hander.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>just my personal preferance</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Troillus 24 paladin </DIV> <DIV>tox</DIV>

Miracole
01-26-2005, 08:34 PM
agreed. i think all fighter sub-classes make great tank if well-equipped and well-played. berserkers can hold great aggro too while deflecting damage while tanking. and monks do fine with blue or even while double arrow mobs. but pallies and guardians are definitely my top choice for MT.

Bodhidar
01-26-2005, 08:43 PM
I personally use a mace and shield when MT and two hander when doing more DPS/healing role (currently level 22).That way I can keep my skills up on both crushing and slashing. I have a mace that's blue to me right now and I'm just waiting to hit 24 to equip Starfall (nice 1-hander crushing weapon from TS).On the tanking side. I find that between all of the tank classes (Guardian, Paladin, Monk, Berserker, and their evil counterparts) they all tank equally well given fairly equal equipment, skills and abilities.I find that I can outtank one of my guild mates that is a level 22 Guardian mainly because I'm able to keep aggro, especially on group mobs (that could be because his aggro skills are lover level them mine, my single target aggro skill is Adept I and my group is App III).

Deathspell
01-26-2005, 08:56 PM
>>(that could be because his aggro skills are lover level them mine, my single target aggro skill is Adept I and my group is App III).No, that's a stone cold fact and it also depends on how much damage one inflicts to a mob.

Miracole
01-26-2005, 09:28 PM
<blockquote><hr>Deathspell wrote:>>(that could be because his aggro skills are lover level them mine, my single target aggro skill is Adept I and my group is App III).No, that's a stone cold fact and it also depends on how much damage one inflicts to a mob.<hr></blockquote>he's right. doing 300 damage with oath strike will definitely get the mob's attention <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />hehhehe, lover level... i really thought you were talking about something else <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />haha.

Belash
01-27-2005, 02:26 AM
<DIV>I like the look and feel of the 2-handed weapon.  But, I agree with what others have posted: in groups I use a shield.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, if I group with a Guardian, I will let the Guardian tank mainly because that is their main strength.  I can tank just fine, hold aggro, take hits, etc.  But, I will let a Guardian do their thing.  I think the same would hold if a druid/mystic groups with a cleric.  Let the cleric be the primary healer as that is their thing.  Let the enchanter be the primary crowd control as that is their thing.</DIV>

Jasazick
01-27-2005, 02:47 AM
<DIV>Right now (just dinged 23) I am using Berik and a basic kite shield (will upgrade the shield soon, just need money!)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My dps seems pretty good with 1hs, but once I outgrow the Berik I will probably make sure I have a solid 2hs AND 1hs and switch between both of them depending on the situation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Keldar Veneratio</DIV> <DIV> Unrest</DIV>

Korpo
01-27-2005, 03:21 AM
I use a sword/shield generally because then you get two items to give you bonus stats, as opposed to one. On top of that, a good shield can have more AC than your breastplate and can easily increase the level of baddies you can take on by a few levels. It also gives you the ability to use the shield bash line of arts to stun and the aegis of hope line to shield another player. I also carry a 2H sword for when I'm in a group trying to kill a large number of easy baddies, as I can pump out more damage without too much risk of getting hit, and so not really needing a shield.Still, I tend to use the sword/shield combo whether I'm tanking or not because if I'm tanking, I need all the AC I can get, and if I'm not, I like the ability to stun and ward the tank.As for paladins not being able to tank, it's an urban legend. They aren't any better or worse than a guardian if both are played by skilled players. Both have plenty of kinds of taunts, group damage buffs, hate transfer buffs, heavy armor, and good damage output. Paladins don't have the ability to use tower shields, but there are plenty of good kite shields out there with similar stats. Whatever advantages that a guardian does have over a paladin are balanced by the fact that the paladin can heal themselves and/or others in an emergency.

Hawkt
01-27-2005, 07:13 AM
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Deathspell wrote:<BR><BR>Paladins can do just fine, but my point is that Guardians are more suited for being MT.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Paladins make fine Main Tanks. We also make great second tanks.  Guardians make fine main tanks. So do SK's, and Zerkers, and Monks, and Bruisers</DIV>

Ma
01-27-2005, 01:55 PM
<DIV>Yesterday in Everfrost i was main tank when we killed Snowleopards, they are lvl 45-47 and i was doing this without a problem at 39, so paladins are Imo GREAT tanks <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

ghosthamm
02-02-2005, 11:10 PM
<DIV>palladins can tank as well as guardians.... thats why i rerolled my 27 guardian.  I was useless if i wasnt MT, if another fighter was in the group and was a higher lvl than me..they would tank...and what would i do, pretty much take up a group slot with nothing to add.  As a palladin, you can be main tank, and if your not u can heal and do decent damage, suxors to the horse they can take it or nerf it. Playing a paladin is so much more rewarding and im glad i rerolled, my only regret is not starting off as 1 :smileymad:</DIV>

Warg
02-03-2005, 12:09 AM
<DIV>33 paladin, i can hold agro and tank just fine. i do the common 1hs / shield combo. but from what im seeing that eventually this is going to dwindle down to being like eq1. as the mobs get stronger and we get more levels added. the chances for riposte will increase on the npcs. for the time being 1hs / shield will be the best way to go. but eventually it'll be 2hs > 1hs / shield combo on harder mobs and boss encounters. remember with a sword that is faster, the more chances you'll be openned up to recieving dmg. a strudy 2h weapon will do decent dps and soften the load on healers having to heal more often due to riposte dmg. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>then again we're not at that point yet...so maybe we might get lucky and sony changed it for EQ2 so you can duo wield and not take as much riposte dmg, i mean cmon look at the ghoulbane....things change /snickers</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>~nytefire</DIV> <DIV>33 ratonga paladin of Blackburrow</DIV>

Alluin
02-03-2005, 12:12 AM
Normally tend to use a 2h for soloing, I hit 30 a few days ago and tried sloing in EL some more.I had a pristine forged feyiron greathammer against a sand snapper, it took a lot of healing on my part to keep alive (was down in very low reds at one point) and ended the fight at about 10% power, 20% health.Then I decided to try my 1h/shield combo, The Skullsprainer, and Sheer Bone Kite Shield. The fight took marginally longer, but I hardly got hit at all, I didn't have to heal and I ended on 60% health 30% power.The 2h is going in the bin <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Even without knights stance on I took far less damage, combat arts still did the same amount and I spam them when soloing anyway. The 2h didn't increase dps by much since most of it was coming from arts.Reckon with knights stance on I'd take even less damage, since the art only lowers your chance to hit, not damage

anterys
02-03-2005, 01:49 AM
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Deathspell wrote:<BR>yup, they can tank "just fine", that's what I meant with "Paladins can tank if needed and take damage".<BR><BR>Paladins can do just fine, but my point is that Guardians are more suited for being MT.<BR><BR>I'm not saying this to crap on Paladins, I've a Paladin myself.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>This is an EQ1 myth that we need to dispell.  The overarching one is that members of one subclass are better than others in that same subclass at doing x.  If you took the best Paladin, Guardian, Berzerker, Monk, Bruiser, and SK in the game right now you would be very hard-pressed to pick one as your MT.  It is all situational.  It depends on so many things like the mob and, the healer types in the group.</P> <P>Stop spreading these falshoods.  This is not EQ1.</FONT></P>

Seomon
02-03-2005, 06:10 AM
I use a mace-n-board right now at lvl 41. When I'm not the main tank, I'll pull out a 2H and smack away at the mobs, since it'll give you a tad bit more DPS.As for the Guardians being better tanks... yeah right. The ONLY time I'll stand back and let a guardian tank is: 1) They have around the same AC as me. If so, I'll throw my +AC buffs on him and let him go at it. 2) They're higher level than me. 5 more Defense points and con is a big difference.Why people want to say that a Guardian is a better tank than us I have no idea. They have a few more group buffs than we do, can get their AC a little higher if our gear is the exact same at the same level, but other than that they have no better Block/Parry/Dmg Mitigation than we do. To deal with the lower AC that we might have, we get heals/wards. There ya go, makes up for the little higher AC that they can have. With the same AC as a Guardian, you'll be taking the exact same damage as a Guardian, and groups would be better off picking a Paladin in that situation just based on our heals, IMO. We're both Defensive-style tanks, so arguing who's the better tank is re-tarded.Edit: re-tarded isn't a bad word, why's it edited out?<p>Message Edited by Seomon on <span class=date_text>02-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:12 PM</span>