screwoff

Author Topic: Role of a beastlord.  (Read 46855 times)

Offline AbyssalMage

  • Primalist
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #105 on: September 30, 2009, 11:08:24 am »

The main point on how to focus the further beastolrds improvements is what are we supposed to do? and that changes in group or raid environment. A lot.
We can't expect to get improvements for both aspects of the game as it would imbalance the class a lot. So watching on our roles:

We need both aspects.  Not everyone is a Raider (Me) and not everyone Groups (Most Hardcore Raiders, they raid 5 days a week and need the 2 days off for real life crap).  Then there are the people who fall in the middle of the Non-raider and the Raider who do a fair amount of both.

Raid beastlord roles:

  • Dps
  • Mana feeders
  • Emergency slowers (for when a raid mob is very resistant pet slow is then usefull)
  • Oh crap, all tanks/knight's have died emergency tank (not sure if that's possible in SoD, but I had to tank a few SoF nameds  and did survive until a tank grabbed it back)

Not sure about named on Raids but can see your "oh crap" on kited mobs.  And I would have Pet Slow up 100% of the time in a Raid, Pet Snare shouldn't be needed with SK's, Necros, Rangers, and Druid's also in the raid.

Group beastlord roles:

  • Slower
  • Dps
  • Tank
  • Buffer
  • Situational CC with warder (a quite hard job with T5 mobs, but can be done)
I would switch DPS/Slower if you put them in order.  If not.... :-P

what we want to be improved?

DPS

It is evident that the main role where raid and group beastlord is going to gain the most is the dps part, and as we all know at the moment 80-90% of our dps comes from ourselves (be it melee/summoned pets/nukes/dots) and rest of our warder's.
This I find sad, that developers brought our warder's to this when they where supposed to be an important part of our class when it first came out.
In my personal opinion, in the dps department, we shall do like 80% of a monk's potential dps (note potential, as I astonishingly outparse quite a few monks) and of that our warder should be doing around 30% of that dps. In group environment this is easier to achieve, just bump warders melee capabilites, up min/max hit and crit tables; but in raids we get the survability issue; it has improved a fair bit lately but it needs a final bump so they can survive raids without us beeing constantly watching after them (thats bound to a dead warder most of times)

I was under the same assumption, but someone posted their current Raid DPS and they showed closer to a 60/40 split.  So I'm going with that until I see more parses.

Slowing

Not much space for improvement here sadly, we are stuck with mitigation and slow cap, beeing a second class slower. Resists aren't such an issue lately, haven't have had my slow resisted twice for a loooong time, but the duration can be an issue, if you are main slower and have 3-4 adds to deal with, specially with recast timer. Have the duration raised from 1.5 mins to the 3.5 ase Sha's has, keeping the resist mod, and leave it as the 65% slow it is. I would even ask for the slow aa Shamans got now, maybe with an incremented cost, that would save us a spell gem (although that may be seen as overpowering /shrug).

I wanna play where you play  :-D  I still cycle through both slow's when I don't have a Debuffing class with me.  Granted, it isn't often but at least 2-3 times a session (4-6 hours)

Tanking

So far, in the grouping perspective, having defensives maxed, and avoidance/shielding + defensive focuses (IB V + ID IV as groupable ones) allows us to tank efficiently the high end zone nameds; imho this means we are doing good on tanking department. As I said before, I managed to survive (for more than 1 minute) Clankwrench as MT(popping out shield and using all I had of course) when our tank died until a proper one grabbed it back. I'm sure high end beastlords could be MT for some raid nameds if they tried to for fun (and no, not with 12 clerics behind lol). I guess SoD's raid nameds no, but that is not what we expect aint we?

We don't go splat when we get agro.  WOOT  :-D
And no.....this isn't sarcasm.  I remember going splat way too often in GoD and OoW when I got agro as a group geared Beast. (More so at the beginning of OoW before gear filtered down in the bazaar)

Buffing

Well, this part needs some improvements, as we all know; focus/sv/se are our only real buffs we cast on other players (with the odd pet haste if no one haste pots in group) when grouping; maybe fero too if you get asked for. Raiding SE is our only buff. Much has been spoken about, making our focus cast overcap stats, fero brought as aura, etc ... in the end we are NOT a buffing class  , thats shaman's role; make them better to suit us better for group content, but either way we are never going to get any buffs that shaman's will cast better, period. Apart of Spiritual line. Even fero is by far outshined by Champion, the only plus is resists and we all know this aint worth anymore.

When "were we not a buffing class?"  :?  :-o
Look at your spell book again.  From 1-65 we had EVERY buff Shamen had at a lower version except Agility.  We even had their "Frenzy" line.  Gear inflation is the only reason our buffs became obsolete.  And the fact that we haven't requested upgrades, and Shamen think they deserve a monopoly on Buffs like Mages want a monopoly on Pets.

To further expel the argument from others...
-->Rangers aren't a "buffing class" yet in groups they have buff's to replace a Druid's buffs if someone wanted them.  They have Skin, DS, and a Regen line just like Druids.
-->Paladin's aren't a "buffing class" yet in groups they have cleric's "Aego" line along with symbol.
-->SK's aren't a "buffing class" in any sense of the word.  Yet....They have upgraded versions of Necro's self buff's plus upgraded versions of Necro's theft spells.

I'm not argueing that these buffs aren't inferior to their parent classes (with the exception of SK's) but they continue to recieve them and smart players use them when the "parent" classes buffs fade.  My point is we don't recieve ANYTHING from our parent class past 65 in the line of buffs.  Also note that Rangers have additional "buff" spell lines unique to them that althogh aren't beneficial in a Raid format are quite useful in a group format.  So get off the bandwagon that we aren't a buffing class, we know that, but we also aren't a pure DPS class either.

BTW, go tell a Ranger he's a buffing class, I wonder what they would say?  :?

CC

So far we can make the pet work as an offtank in some situations/zones but they have lost a lot of beeing a CC offtank as they have fallen well behind in their defensive capabilities. Either beef up their defense a fair bit (warder's need it anyway) or become "imaginative". A hobble-like aa or buff proc that could proc a small duration root (1 minute, and not breakable by pet) or a small duration (2-3 ticks) recursive mezz proc (of course exclusive, either hobble,root or mezz) could add a lot of utility for us in groups and raids.


Another imaginative proposals that come to mind:


Selective warder buffs/stances: have a range of buffs (maybe instead of actual pet haste, replacing it) / aas we cast on our warder that affect him (and why not the group) in specific ways:

  • Melee DPS buff "warder's rage": the warder becomes more fragile but deals more melee damage; the group gets some kind of dps increment type aura (like increasing min damage done by x%, or +X to crits; whatever that would stack with          existing auras). Dps the pet does could be in the 60-70% of mage's air pet for example.
  • Caster DPS buff "warder's fury": the warder becomes more fragile but procs like mad (any proc it has); the group gets an aura that powers up damage/crit chance of spells or adds Spell Damage or the like (altho this doesnt add much it seems)
  • Defensive buff "warder's prescience": the warder does sustantially less damage but gains a great boost on defensive       capabilities; additionally the group gets hit by a defensive aura (increasing dodge or block) or a group rune recourse          off the pets proc (like absorving 500 damage).
  • Healers buff "warder's careness": the warder deals no damage but procs lifetap-like procs with group-healing recourse (proc hitting for 500DD lifetap and healing 500 to group); the group gets a heal powering aura allowing healing spells to be cost less and get increased crit chance.



I'm aware that such implementations would take quite some work and some interfere with other classes (bards/enchanters/zerkers) but it would add a lot of utility for us and maybe desiderability both in group and raid scenarios.


AA's proposed by Umlat look awesome, specially the crit chance of paragon lines and the ones increasing our Moon's spell (our biggest source of spell dps atm); maybe that "Pack Leader" aa could affect not only to the Moon's line, but to any spell/aa/proc that has a set number of pets summoned. I'd love to see group BA have increased tiers, and become, in the end ranks, a valuable aa like Ranger's forest line, aa cost is secondary, if it were as good as GoF aa line id spend 12 aa a rank with closed eyes.

Anyway those are me two copper, one likes to dream :D

Yeah, some of those are stepping on other classes toes but hey....we need to "jolt" the community
Grimwar
81 Beastlord
Theris-Thule...errr....Prexus

Thorgador

  • Guest
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #106 on: September 30, 2009, 01:16:23 pm »
Quote from: Gamgan
Slowing is slowly being phased out of the game.  I would not be surprised if we'd see further mitigation abilities to slow from NPCs in the near future.  Asking for any kind of improvements to our slowing ability is barking up the wrong tree.

Even if we want this or not it will be held against us for balancing as it has allways been done, we are still capable of slowing, and is part of our "balance". I'd rather make it valuable again than let it slide out of utility whilst been counted as one of our strengths when balancing classes.

Quote from: AbyssalMage
I wanna play where you play  grin  I still cycle through both slow's when I don't have a Debuffing class with me.  Granted, it isn't often but at least 2-3 times a session (4-6 hours)

Lol, I kind of play in SoD zones, but it's true I rarely play in Korafax lately, can't remember if there the resists where higher. Maybe I overdid the number of non-resists, maybe 1-2 per hour of game play I can get a resistant mob that needs 2-3 slows to stick.


Quote from: Gamgan
In general, I sort of agree with Umlat.  I think the beastlord and warder bond needs to be the front and center of the class.  When the beastlord thrives, the warder does well and visa versa.  I would love to see our warders become something other than a weak (and fragile) dot.

In this we agree, thats why I put out that "imaginative" buffs, to make the warder an important role of our gameplay, and even make them desired in raids, not the pocketed dot they have become over the years.


Quote from: AbyssalMage
When "were we not a buffing class?"

Well, we are a sub-par buffing class, and by saying we are not a buffing class I meant that we are not a class wich buffs are unique, where I would put shaman,cleric, druid and enchanter mainly. Other classes have buffing capabilities of course but not as main ones.

Quote from: AbyssalMage
My point is we don't recieve ANYTHING from our parent class past 65 in the line of buffs.

We are just a paled version of shamans when to buffs it comes (and can't expect to be different), that what I wanted to mean. That said, I still buff SE/SV/Focus when we lack a shaman in our raid, lesser is better then nothing anyway; if grouped then pet recourse haste could come into play.  I agree that we could very much use a Unity version for us, replacing the outdated IoS, should we get that we would have 4 buffs to supply when our parent class isn't around.

Quote from: AbyssalMage
So get off the bandwagon that we aren't a buffing class,

Maybe I expressed myself badly, I don't mean we are not a buffing class, but we are just a watered down buffing class, wich has only SE to offer to a raid (and thsi is even clicked off/blocked by a few raiders).

IF we want something special here, we should work towards unique and desired buffs we could provide, in the line of SE, and fero is the obvious target for improvement (despite the devs desidy on doing anything with this).
So, speaking about buffs (and beeing real for what it could be done by devs), I would fight for:

- Fero fix
- Beastolrd "Unity" version (IoS upgrade)
- Haste fix


Quote from: AbyssalMage
I see rangers and even monks being able to tank those mobs reasonably well, but we don't even come close to their mitigation abilities.

Well that's expected, rangers wear chain and monks are our pure melee class **, I can accept both classes outtanking me, if I can tank the best group content of the current expansion then im fine. On a raid I would never expect to be a tank, nor offtank, thats where warriors and knights work is  :-P.


« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 01:27:02 pm by Thorgador »

Offline Gamgan

  • Brute
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #107 on: September 30, 2009, 09:25:44 pm »
Quote from: Gamgan
Slowing is slowly being phased out of the game.  I would not be surprised if we'd see further mitigation abilities to slow from NPCs in the near future.  Asking for any kind of improvements to our slowing ability is barking up the wrong tree.

Even if we want this or not it will be held against us for balancing as it has allways been done, we are still capable of slowing, and is part of our "balance". I'd rather make it valuable again than let it slide out of utility whilst been counted as one of our strengths when balancing classes.

Point is, slow is very unlikely to be improved in any way shape or form while they're in the process of diminishing its usefulness in recent expansions.  It will be held against us, yes, but when asking for improvements to our class, I'd rather ask for stuff we actually have a reasonable chance of getting.  Any kind of slow upgrade is not one of those.

Quote from: AbyssalMage
I see rangers and even monks being able to tank those mobs reasonably well, but we don't even come close to their mitigation abilities.

Well that's expected, rangers wear chain and monks are our pure melee class **, I can accept both classes outtanking me, if I can tank the best group content of the current expansion then im fine. On a raid I would never expect to be a tank, nor offtank, thats where warriors and knights work is  :-P.

Think you missed the point a bit.  Monks wear leather, we wear leather, so why is there such a huge gap?  I'm pretty sure most cloth classes could tank current content with two dedicated healers in group, too.

what we want to be improved?

DPS

It is evident that the main role where raid and group beastlord is going to gain the most is the dps part, and as we all know at the moment 80-90% of our dps comes from ourselves (be it melee/summoned pets/nukes/dots) and rest of our warder's.
This I find sad, that developers brought our warder's to this when they where supposed to be an important part of our class when it first came out.
In my personal opinion, in the dps department, we shall do like 80% of a monk's potential dps (note potential, as I astonishingly outparse quite a few monks) and of that our warder should be doing around 30% of that dps. In group environment this is easier to achieve, just bump warders melee capabilites, up min/max hit and crit tables; but in raids we get the survability issue; it has improved a fair bit lately but it needs a final bump so they can survive raids without us beeing constantly watching after them (thats bound to a dead warder most of times)

I was under the same assumption, but someone posted their current Raid DPS and they showed closer to a 60/40 split.  So I'm going with that until I see more parses.

Here are some of my whole night tower clear parses from the last couple of weeks, you be the judge.  The 60/40 may hold true for group geared beastlords, but it's nowhere even close for raiders.


Combined: Lord Brekt, Rider of Discord on 27/09/2009
Damage byTotal% of TotTimeDPSScaledHitsMax hitAvg hitDmg to PCNPC DPSSpecial
Gamgan120311573.06%56272138212314299225628411103220196G
Gamgan`s warder20115030.51%5625358355749123002685301110
Gamgan`s pet11001440.28%547120119433059073325083020
My damage = 79.4%
   Melee = 58.9%
   DD = 14.8%
   DoT = 3.8%
   Kick = 1.9%
Warder dmg = 13.2%
   Melee = 10.7%
   Procs = 2.5%
Swarm pet dmg = 7.2%

Combined: Lord Brekt, Rider of Discord on 22/09/2009
Damage byTotal% of TotTimeDPSScaledHitsMax hitAvg hitDmg to PCNPC DPSSpecial
Gamgan125451953.58%5735218721861438420319872809903143G X G
Gamgan`s warder24072730.69%5734420420756823003185754512
Gamgan`s pet12438050.36%5558224217357790734712228571
My damage = 77.3%
   Melee = 53.2%
   DD = 17.9%
   DoT = 4.4%
   Kick = 1.8%
Warder dmg = 15.0%
   Melee = 9.4%
   Procs = 5.6%
Swarm pet dmg = 7.7%

Combined: Lord Brekt, Rider of Discord on 20/09/2009
Damage byTotal% of TotTimeDPSScaledHitsMax hitAvg hitDmg to PCNPC DPSSpecial
bst125307933.32%5028249224911467216698854776745155G
bst`s warder23110880.61%502846045975592300305205059
bst`s pet10037190.27%490420520028529073512608719
My damage = 79.0%
   Melee = 53.8%
   DD = 19.4%
   DoT = 4.1%
   Kick = 1.7%
Warder dmg = 14.5%
   Melee = 9.8%
   Procs = 4.7%
Swarm pet dmg = 6.4%

Offline Hzath

  • SoE Correspondent
  • Savage Lord
  • *
  • Posts: 408
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #108 on: September 30, 2009, 10:38:49 pm »
Gamgam's parses show our pets to be a lower % of overall dps than my experiences (also as a raider).

Solo lesson burn in Beza (I don't suggest solo lesson burning in Beza):

Combined: A steamwork trooper in 1504s, 4385k @2915

--- Hzath 3058k @2035 (69.75%)

Hit 44.6%
Pierce 26.8%
Dir Damage 20.8%
DoT 3.6%
Kick 2.2%
Claw 2%

--- Hzath`s pet 678k @454 (15.47%)

--- Hzath`s warder 648k @432 (14.78%)

Claw 69.4%
Dir Damage 28.7%
Bash 2%


Scryer parse from a few weeks ago

Combined: Head Scryer Oomk in 442s

--- Hzath 2214k @5270 - 71.2%

Hit 32.9%
Pierce 27%
Dir Damage 25.7%
Claw 8.1%
DoT 5%
Kick 1.3%

--- Hzath`s pet 483k @1160 - 15.7%

--- Hzath`s warder 406k @968 - 13.1%

Claw 74.1%
Dir Damage 24.5%
Bash 1.4%


In general my parses have about that breakdown.  On raids I'm typically ~ 15% warder ~15% pets ~20% nukes+dots (boosted from solo content by chanters and bards)
Beastlord Community Round Table representative.  Feel free to PM me or contact me in game (Drinal.Hzathz) about anything you think needs attention.

Offline Gamgan

  • Brute
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #109 on: October 01, 2009, 06:36:12 am »
That looks about right.  Bit over 400 dps for sustained DPS for warder, which was rougly 15% of your total dps, which are similar to my sustained parses for the tower clears.  The main difference is the damage done by Yowl pets, which I'm sure if you were to combine the full night's tower clear would drop down considerably, and the remaining difference can be explained by the effects of bard aura and such (which I very rarely get a chance to experience in recent months).

Either way, our warder's damage is roughly 15% of our total damage output, wheter burning or not.  And while the warder can reach upwards to 1k dps during burns, that's still less than the mage pet's base damage, which is pretty sad.

Offline Inphared

  • TURNCOAT!
  • Savage Lord
  • *
  • Posts: 1038
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #110 on: October 01, 2009, 12:12:29 pm »
Combined: Head Scryer Oomk on 9/30/2009 in 547sec

Total
 --- DMG: 46894255 (100%) @ 85730 dps (85730 sdps)
 --- DMG to PC: 2388862 @4367dps

Inphared
 --- DMG: 2731122 (5.82%) @ 5153 dps (4993 sdps)
 --- DMG to PC: 87890 @324dps

Inphared`s warder
 --- DMG: 483856 (1.03%) @ 920 dps (885 sdps)

Inphared`s pet
 --- DMG: 413983 (0.88%) @ 807 dps (757 sdps)
 --- DMG to PC: 5720 @5720dps


I realize I'd need more data, but I show my pet at around %18-ish of my own DPS. Not that that's any better than what I think it should be.

Offline Grbage

  • 80 Beastlord
  • Savage Lord
  • ******
  • Posts: 852
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #111 on: October 01, 2009, 02:12:28 pm »
My bst is in group gear with toppish end group weapons but not all the offensive aa's (just shy 900aa total) and using a EM3 focus for the pet I was lucky to pick up. My self parses (mainly solo) show the pet is a fairly consistant 30% of my overalll DPS. I'm sure I can push that down to 20% by finishing up my offensive aa's.

Grbage Heep
85 Beast of Torv

Offline wildwaters

  • 85 Beastlord
  • Savage Lord
  • ******
  • Posts: 429
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #112 on: October 01, 2009, 02:57:03 pm »
Think you missed the point a bit.  Monks wear leather, we wear leather, so why is there such a huge gap?  I'm pretty sure most cloth classes could tank current content with two dedicated healers in group, too.

Because Monks used their role as pullers to bitch and moan and get huge defensive upgrades for survivability.

Then they bitched and moaned because 'no one needed a puller' and used that as a reason they should have very high melee dps.

/shrug they have different caps than we do and they are the only class that gets block from the back iirc.

Offline Gamgan

  • Brute
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #113 on: October 01, 2009, 10:12:03 pm »
Combined: Head Scryer Oomk on 9/30/2009 in 547sec

Total
 --- DMG: 46894255 (100%) @ 85730 dps (85730 sdps)
 --- DMG to PC: 2388862 @4367dps

Inphared
 --- DMG: 2731122 (5.82%) @ 5153 dps (4993 sdps)
 --- DMG to PC: 87890 @324dps

Inphared`s warder
 --- DMG: 483856 (1.03%) @ 920 dps (885 sdps)

Inphared`s pet
 --- DMG: 413983 (0.88%) @ 807 dps (757 sdps)
 --- DMG to PC: 5720 @5720dps


I realize I'd need more data, but I show my pet at around %18-ish of my own DPS. Not that that's any better than what I think it should be.

18% of your dps, or 13.4% of your overall DPS to convert it into the measurement used above... We're all getting similar results for raid geared toons, be it during xping, sustained, or burst DPS.  Point is it's far from the 60/40 ratio I responded to initially, and it's more like an 85/15.  Whether or not that's enough, that's a different issue, I mostly posted the parses to corrent the 60/40 misconception.

Offline Gamgan

  • Brute
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #114 on: October 01, 2009, 10:25:31 pm »
Think you missed the point a bit.  Monks wear leather, we wear leather, so why is there such a huge gap?  I'm pretty sure most cloth classes could tank current content with two dedicated healers in group, too.

Because Monks used their role as pullers to bitch and moan and get huge defensive upgrades for survivability.

Then they bitched and moaned because 'no one needed a puller' and used that as a reason they should have very high melee dps.

/shrug they have different caps than we do and they are the only class that gets block from the back iirc.

And staff/shield block got added to the pullers arsenal as well.  The difference between monk's leather and bard's plate is supposed to be offset by the fact that block >> parry.  And when pulling, the ability to block hits coming from the back should thrump any AC softcap difference.  Even if bards do get the parry/block from behind AA (can't check atm, since my bard account is inactive :x) the effectiveness of block over parry should offset any mitigation difference between the two classes.  Then we can get into stuff like monk defensive >>>>> bard defensive for pulling and such.

So back to the initial question.  Since the rationale that pulilng is the reason for the boosted AC softcap for the monks is out, why did they get the boost?  Or more relevantly, why didn't we?

Edit:  I don't really care what the monks said about why they needed it, I'm trying to think of the justification the devs had to implementing it.  Initially I thought it may have been to offset the "avoidance tank" role being taken out with the introduction strike though mobs, which closes the gap between parry and block a bit with each new expansion.  If this is the case, it certainly should have affected us as well.  But who knows, the devs may have just caved to the monk demand.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 11:02:21 pm by Gamgan »

Offline thor

  • Savage
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #115 on: October 02, 2009, 01:45:27 pm »
Think you missed the point a bit.  Monks wear leather, we wear leather, so why is there such a huge gap?  I'm pretty sure most cloth classes could tank current content with two dedicated healers in group, too.

Because Monks used their role as pullers to bitch and moan and get huge defensive upgrades for survivability.

Then they bitched and moaned because 'no one needed a puller' and used that as a reason they should have very high melee dps.

/shrug they have different caps than we do and they are the only class that gets block from the back iirc.

And staff/shield block got added to the pullers arsenal as well.  The difference between monk's leather and bard's plate is supposed to be offset by the fact that block >> parry.  And when pulling, the ability to block hits coming from the back should thrump any AC softcap difference.  Even if bards do get the parry/block from behind AA (can't check atm, since my bard account is inactive :x) the effectiveness of block over parry should offset any mitigation difference between the two classes.  Then we can get into stuff like monk defensive >>>>> bard defensive for pulling and such.

So back to the initial question.  Since the rationale that pulilng is the reason for the boosted AC softcap for the monks is out, why did they get the boost?  Or more relevantly, why didn't we?

Edit:  I don't really care what the monks said about why they needed it, I'm trying to think of the justification the devs had to implementing it.  Initially I thought it may have been to offset the "avoidance tank" role being taken out with the introduction strike though mobs, which closes the gap between parry and block a bit with each new expansion.  If this is the case, it certainly should have affected us as well.  But who knows, the devs may have just caved to the monk demand.


Devs have Stated that Both Ranger and Monks are what they call Light Tanks so i guess this is why they keep monks Returns so high, i dont beleive there softcap is any higher then ours though. What would really be nice is what they gave Rangers it must have been to offset Monks avoidance over them. Something like what is below would be nice for us with block instead of parry


Crackling Blades Rk. II    
 
Slot    Description
1:    Add Proc: Crackling Blades Strike Rk. II

Crackling Blades Strike Rk. II    
 
Slot    Description
2:    Decrease Hitpoints by 489

Auto cast Sheltering Thunder Chance

Sheltering Thunder Chance

Slot    Description
1:    30% Chance to trigger: Sheltering Thunder

Sheltering Thunder    
 
Slot    Description
2:    Increase Chance to Parry by 9999%

Offline Grbage

  • 80 Beastlord
  • Savage Lord
  • ******
  • Posts: 852
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #116 on: October 02, 2009, 02:08:01 pm »
Every justification I've seen for monks having a higher return on AC post soft cap is to survive pulling in raids.
Grbage Heep
85 Beast of Torv

Offline Khauruk

  • Global Moderator
  • Savage Lord
  • *
  • Posts: 2120
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #117 on: October 02, 2009, 02:48:09 pm »
Rangers are where they are because SoE wanted them to be a clear 4th tank, just a bit under sk/pal.  Nothing to do w/ monks.
TURNCOAT!!!!!

Offline Camikazi

  • Wildblood
  • Arch Animist - 75 Beastlord
  • Savage Lord
  • *
  • Posts: 416
    • http://www.camikazi.us
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #118 on: October 02, 2009, 08:00:59 pm »
Rangers are where they are because SoE wanted them to be a clear 4th tank, just a bit under sk/pal.  Nothing to do w/ monks.
Except a dev said they wanted Monks and Rangers to tank about the same since they are both light tanks. They boosted Rangers so they tank as well as them, before the changes Monks outanked Rangers.




Offline thor

  • Savage
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Role of a beastlord.
« Reply #119 on: October 03, 2009, 03:20:09 am »
Rangers are where they are because SoE wanted them to be a clear 4th tank, just a bit under sk/pal.  Nothing to do w/ monks.
Except a dev said they wanted Monks and Rangers to tank about the same since they are both light tanks. They boosted Rangers so they tank as well as them, before the changes Monks outanked Rangers.
Heck i think before the changes we out tanked Rangers so it proves they will go back and boost a class up