Sword Oath Idea

[Archaell]

I like the idea of dual wield swords it could add uniqueness to the class depending on how its handled. I like it, but i also don't the sight of a dual wielding paladin doesn't seem right.

Paladin really does not seem like dual wielding type - gladiator maybe, but paladin nope.

Imho, putting shield on your back while in sword oath would be great even without the additional sword in hand. Of course block would have to be removed (or moved to rear - that would be interesting.) Imagine all the possibilities, like punch in the face instead of shield bash ^^. My personal vision of interesting paladin is stance dancing. Using only sword in sword oath and only shield in shield oath, while providing some kind of mid ground without oaths on.

[Rustangel]

>Dual wielding PLD

[Syzygian]

This is way too OP unless you're talking about giving something like this to ALL of the tanks, which would be awesome, and solve a lot of the STR vs. VIT crap that permeates this game's tanking meta's mentality. I would absolutely love it if all the tanks got an ability that did this, and could keep their tanking and dps stances/buffs along the side. Then you could simply stack VIT like logic would suggest that you should, and toggle the "tank cleric" stance as appropriate. This would also make things like tanking outside of tank stance far more viable as you could keep the VIT stance on and switch to Sword/Defiance/Grit-off, or keep the tanking stance on but toggle to your STR stance.

TLDR awesome idea, but should be an option for all the tanks. Giving it to just one would make that one crazy-overpowered.

[Shurrikhan]

TLDR awesome idea, but should be an option for all the tanks. Giving it to just one would make that one crazy-overpowered.

You say that, but given the aesthetics of dual-wielding on a PLD already... now imagine dual-wielded Greataxes and Claymores... Additionally, it is only at an aesthetic at core. Its actual strength is a separate issue. For instance, in almost any MMO, offhand damage is inferior and accuracy requirements higher on the offhand than main-hand. When you consider normal Sword Oath on a 1.7s blade, that would be 50 extra potency on each AA, each hitting for 100 potency x speed/3.0 (= 57 potency), which is already close to double AA dps.

[Noxifer]

TLDR awesome idea, but should be an option for all the tanks. Giving it to just one would make that one crazy-overpowered.

You say that, but given the aesthetics of dual-wielding on a PLD already... now imagine dual-wielded Greataxes and Claymores... Additionally, it is only at an aesthetic at core.

Um... I don't think Syzygian was responding to the "temporary dual wield" idea, but rather to the whole "make dps stance switch vitality and strength, like cleric stance does with mind and int".

(To further draw from cleric stance, there could be a penalty to defence, similar to the penalty to healing while in cleric stance -- especially since tanks would be able to go "stance-less" to avoid defence penalty. But it might also require adjusting the whole damage penalty on tank stance, since the difference of going from tank stance to dps stance would be not only +20/25% (WAR has higher damage penalty in tank stance than PLD & DRK) but also the increased boost of switching VIT/STR. I dunno. It might include removing the damage penalty AND lower over-all damage instead. Which would kind of defeat the purpose ^^; )

[Violette]

Um... I don't think Syzygian was responding to the "temporary dual wield" idea, but rather to the whole "make dps stance switch vitality and strength, like cleric stance does with mind and int".

(To further draw from cleric stance, there could be a penalty to defence, similar to the penalty to healing while in cleric stance -- especially since tanks would be able to go "stance-less" to avoid defence penalty. But it might also require adjusting the whole damage penalty on tank stance, since the difference of going from tank stance to dps stance would be not only +20/25% (WAR has higher damage penalty in tank stance than PLD & DRK) but also the increased boost of switching VIT/STR. I dunno. It might include removing the damage penalty AND lower over-all damage instead. Which would kind of defeat the purpose ^^; )

As a Dark Knight I am 1000% ok with dual wielding Deathbringers.

[brightsuzaku]

I've nothing really to add to fix Sword Oath, aside from the fact that yes, it is indeed really underwhelming as is. I just want to say that I am a big fan of dual-shielding, and it's stupid, but you can't take my dreams from me~~~~~

Also, nice to see WKC get mentioned!
Still angry at Rhitahtyn sas Arvina and his dual gunshields. I can dream.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

The main problem with this idea is that in order to optimize Sword Oath, you would need to stack VIT, which would minimize your damage in Shield Oath.

Tanks don't have two distinct modes (healing and attacking) like healers do; tanks are always attacking.

[Archaell]

Tanks don't have two distinct modes (healing and attacking) like healers do; tanks are always attacking.

Maybe that's the whole problem. Paladin is supposed to be defensive tank, yet tanks are always attacking. If the war has "dps" utility, the paladin should have been designed to get "no-dps" utility, like building up initial enmity and then using skills to modify it, instead of doing dmg. Of course that way the damage would be even worse, and so it would be required to provide party wide dps buffs to compensate for it. Something like debuff that increases damage while being the wall, yet giving paladin enmity of other party members generated by such ability.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

Maybe that's the whole problem. Paladin is supposed to be defensive tank, yet tanks are always attacking.

Maybe, but I don't see SE changing their tune in regards to that any time soon.