Harm Touch should have been a lifetap

[Nirgon]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The thing people should remember when looking at Everuqest class design is Everquest was heavily inspired by Dungeons and Dragons 1.0 and 2.0. A "Shadowknight" in D&D was a character with 10 levels into Warrior, and 5 levels in to Wizard, with a focus on using necromancy spells. This means the "Shadowknight" had the same spell set as a Wizard, but having less levels into Wizard means you can't use the higher level spells. A character who leveled multiple classes in D&D also got an experience penalty.

As you can see, they basically just took the exact same idea, and simplified it a bit so you only had specific class combinations to chose from. They also simplified the range of spells you could choose from. A Shadowknight is a Warrior/Wizard, with more levels into Warrior and a focus on necromancy spells. A Paladin is a Warrior/Cleric, with more levels into Warrior. A Ranger was already defined as a specific class in D&D, but it is still basically a Warrior/Druid, with more levels into Warrior. The reason why rangers got their own class was because rangers in D&D and Everquest have a focus on using Bows, not just melee combat.

Everquest was made when video game design was still a lot less evovled. We take for granted all the stuff we know now, that the Devs didn't know back then.

Edit: Paladins were their own class as well in D&D 2.0, but they were basically a Warrior/Cleric. Shadowknights did not exist in D&D 1.0 or 2.0, so that is why I assume they decided to apply the hybrid penatly to Paladins and Rangers as well. Shadowknights kind of appeared in D&D 3.0 as the Blackguard prestige class, but that came out after Everquest had already launched.

And this is still better than the trash they put out today

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Snaggles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Besides a few tricks the main thing a paladin really has over a SK is hp recovery. Celestial Cleansing is so good. Sanctuation is nice but Leechcurse works in any situation; LoH is better than HT. Balanced fairly well, imho.

Leechcurse is actually very decent when hasted. I underestimated it. After testing, SK went from 65% HP to just shy of 95%, with all other tap procs being resisted in that time. Much better than the amplification to Harm Touch and should help avoid low HP aggro versus AE/ramp damage.

[San'Drax]

I always wished SKs focused on stealing attributes. A slow tap that hasted you (like 10%), or a resist tap that lowers theirs and buffs yours. Etc. Would be fun to balance your spell slots for encounters

[Benanov]

A *lot* of this was addressed later in the timeline.

Leech Touch is an AA that does what you think it does. It's an absolute lifesaver.

There are additional proc spells ala Vampiric Embrace. One of them allows you to regain mana instead of HP.

A resist tap that lowers theirs and buffs yours? How about it buffs your entire group instead? SKs also get group heal taps, high-taunt DD spells, hate-increasing buffs, and the like.

Unfortunately they're all *later* in the timeline and we will never see them here.

[Midoo]

ranger death music should have been this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0

[Snortles Chortles]

Originally Posted by Nirgon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And this is still better than the trash they put out today

[wagorf]

rogues should not be chain armor (post kunark)

[DMN]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shadowknights did not exist in D&D 1.0 or 2.0,

They were called anti-paladins. they ahd the reverse of many paladin abilities/spells (cause light wounds instead of cure; a lay on hands that causes damage instead of heals) and worship evil gods. /usualymore of an NPC than a PC but I'm sure plenty of GMs allowed them as PCs.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Nirgon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And this is still better than the trash they put out today

Lol very true.

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They were called anti-paladins. they ahd the reverse of many paladin abilities/spells (cause light wounds instead of cure; a lay on hands that causes damage instead of heals) and worship evil gods. /usualymore of an NPC than a PC but I'm sure plenty of GMs allowed them as PCs.

Ah that is good to know! My knowledge of 1.0 and 2.0 has certainly rusted over the years, but that makes complete sense. It would be pretty simple to homebrew that class, even though it wasn't an official PC class as far as I recall.

[pivo]

[deleted] - wrong thread