Agi loss from protect is kinda harsh
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:25 pm
Thinking about this a bit. Unless it's changed you lose 15% agi from /protecting (and 5% MR but that's not huge).
If I wanted a dwarf guardian I'd have 19 agi. 16.15 (not sure how rounding works here) when guarding. Against a 22 agi character the dwarf would be getting hit 52% of the time, and would have a 23% hit rate when attacking back.
A halfling guardian will go down to 19.85 agi. That's still pretty low but it's not terrible. Problem is I don't think we want only 22agi+ races for guardians. Maybe I like dwarves, or maybe I want a human guardian. The way it stands that penalty is overly harsh imo, especially because paladins are really only there to /protect someone.
If we insist on a penalty to agi I think closer to 5-7% is more fair. Using the dwarf as an example...would anyone -ever- roll a character with 16 agi? I think not, and imo anyone making a guardian with less than 22 agi is playing a subpar character.
Anyone have some thoughts on this?
Characters of equal agi are starting at a 35% hit rate, for reference.
If I wanted a dwarf guardian I'd have 19 agi. 16.15 (not sure how rounding works here) when guarding. Against a 22 agi character the dwarf would be getting hit 52% of the time, and would have a 23% hit rate when attacking back.
A halfling guardian will go down to 19.85 agi. That's still pretty low but it's not terrible. Problem is I don't think we want only 22agi+ races for guardians. Maybe I like dwarves, or maybe I want a human guardian. The way it stands that penalty is overly harsh imo, especially because paladins are really only there to /protect someone.
If we insist on a penalty to agi I think closer to 5-7% is more fair. Using the dwarf as an example...would anyone -ever- roll a character with 16 agi? I think not, and imo anyone making a guardian with less than 22 agi is playing a subpar character.
Anyone have some thoughts on this?
Characters of equal agi are starting at a 35% hit rate, for reference.