Sk vs. Pallies

[Vanax]

Ok, whether this means anything to anyone or not, it matters little to me, but i really got to get something off my chest...In darn near EVERY post about aggro etc and mitigation...most warriors compare themselves to paladins, and not so much SK...

Now, before I retired my warrior I was elemental flagged...had only 1 raex item, but dual wielded a BF, and BoC. My SK before I retired him to play on stromm was elemental flagged but had like 1 PoP item...he was stuck with VT, Emp gear...even still having old kael stuff like BoS and BoE.

Now with well placed AA (120) compared to 215 with my warr...I would have to say that its really gay how easily sk's can grab aggro...i remember using clingind darkness once...then terror spell and NOBODY could get the thing off me...not even pallies chain stunnin...

But for those who feel that SK have a distinct HP disadvantage...try playing with an elemental flagged one who knows what they are doin...I used to go half a fight without a single heal becuase i had emp sword which procced ALL the time for about 120 hp tap, critted up to 400...and could tap 600 normal, 900 decent crit and 1900!!! on a nice crit...

Now I love SK, and Im back playing a warrior on stromm merely cuz of my roots...But I would think that people may want to start looking into balancing our effectiveness more to a SK then a Paladin...cuz i guarantee you...a pally and SK of equal level/gear/AA...the SK will aways come out on top in a group situation...

Now i dont want to start flame fest 2003 or anything here...im really just trying to point out some things for those who are able to understand class balance and really have solid suggestions on how to fix it...becuase honestly...it used to make me sad how easy playing a SK at 65 was...

[Brutul]

Partly I think people focus on paladins is because there are a lot more of them than SKs. Top guild on Tarew Marr has 8 paladins but only 2 shadowknights, and that's not all that unusual. Also SKs tend to solo more, so they don't compete with us as much for group spots. Finally, the paladins are here arguing with us, where the SKs aren't posting here very much.

[Vanax]

good point I never really considered that...plus I guess pallies whine more...However, I did want to mainly bring it up so that people understood that in a grp situation, SK imho have a bit of an upper hand for xp grinding...even though pallies can heal....SK can too...almost as well...and still do more dmg with spear line etc just seems far more unbalanced than pally and SK aggro lock....

[Hyardgune]

Paladins and warriors are a dime a dozen, plus a bunch of folks here are obsessed with stuns.

SKs are pure nasty and come loaded with a set of taps/snares/nukes/dots to go with their % hate builders (Voice line) and direct +hate (Terror line) spells. A good SK can essentially build and dump aggro at will. Because there are so few of them (comparitively) and they don't come with stuns or heals they tend to get ignored in the 85,391 threads we have on aggro.

[Rumblingdeth]

I am the only one (mostly) who mentions SKs. I play them also, and the SKs are liars saying an SK don't often have a hp advantage over warriors. I play Troll (CT) or Ogre (RZ) Sks wearing cultural armor, and 80% of warriors equal in level have LESS hps than they do! Dwarves can't even worship RZ, and the minute you take two advantages, large race, and cultural armor, non-large race/agnostic warriors have a problem hp wise until they are almost full elemental.

[Beornegar]

Also, as has been pointed out in a couple of other posts elsewhere on this board, in many cases SK's are more than willing to cooperate with warriors to manage aggro and make sure the warrior has it, and many of them do it quite well. Whereas, also in many cases, pally's have a chip on their shoulder and turn aggro into a pissing contest to prove how good a tank they are and how easily they can out aggro the warrior. And, while I don't necessarily believe this myself, pally's are percieved by many as having more to offer a group in the way of utility than SK's, thus are seen as being greater competitors for the much contested "single tank group" tank spot.....And pally's tend to be more vocal about the "my spells are crap, they're not worth giving up all the stuff warriors get" argument that by now everyone with half a brain who actually plays this game knows is complete and total bullshit. :)

[Mofu-Troll]

I play alot with a 65 SK (im 65 war) , its almost silly the difference between us . When not raiding he will just go solo , he can split pull then snare / aggro kite with a 40-50 dps pet, or take a group and be nearly as effective at tankin as me , while adding FD pulling ability to the group as well as snap aggro, and some decent group buffs also (zeefers , att buff) as well as snareing runners. With his pet / dots / nukes and all the procs and critical procs, his DPS FAR outdoes mine , not to mention hes also healing himself has he is tanking(lifetap weapon) . If things get rough he can FD or drop a 8k harmtouch on the mob. Meanwhile im LFG for ofter an hour till i give up. The real kicker is the soloing for me , he gets about the same exp soloing as grouping.

As a warrior i really find myself wondering what i got for giveing up all that. The best i can figure is about 10% better tanking ability, prob less.

Mofu

[ketel kaotic]

palidan better

[Mathas]

This is more than a little long, sorry :p
______________

Rumblingdeth,

As I've said in nearly every thread you've tried to argue in, compare apples to apples. An ogre warrior in cultural armor will have more hp than an ogre shadowknight in cultural armor, provided they have no major aa differences and similar quality gear in non-armor slots, and that you are comparing the same set of cultural armor.

I don't know why you keep comparing gnome warriors to ogre shadowknights, other than that such comparions almost proves your point(I use that word loosely, as I'm not sure you actually have one)... though if you read back to that last thread where you posted magelo links, the gnome warrior still had a 50hp lead over the ogre shadowknight. What on earth are you trying to get at? Btw, maybe take a look at this thread (http://forums.shadowknight.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2006) - of all the people that both read SK.org and responded to that poll, less than one third of them play a large race... everyone else is either a mid-sized race, or the smaller races you keep using as your example warriors. Apples to apples.

And please, do us all a favor. If you want to debate in this thread, stick to facts and logic; not assumptions, WoW ads, misleading comparisons, totally unrelated stories about your roommate eBaying, or any of the other odd things you seem to have a tendancy to post. Oh, and maybe also stop the stupid generalizations like "all SKs are liars" or "all SKs love seeing warriors suck" unless you have some proof. It is not all SKs, or all paladins, or all knights... while I'm sure some of them do, they are hardly our chosen class representatives. There are some pretty retarded warriors out there, but no one assumes all warriors are exactly like the less intelligent ones. Do knights the same courtesy, please.
______________

To the original poster,
In darn near EVERY post about aggro etc and mitigation...most warriors compare themselves to paladins, and not so much SK...
Part of the problem could be that quite a few people don't really understand shadowknights and our new spells, aren't aware of what we can/can't do, and don't want to make assumptions unless they do understand. Paladins, however, seem to be kinda vocal... and it's pretty obvious when someone heals you what the spell does. You wouldn't believe how often I've heard "what is foriegn essence filling my mind?" despite that spell being live since PoP opened months ago. Lots of people are suprised when they ask roughly how much damage I can do in full-burn mode, because before PoP, SKs weren't as good as they are now. Not everyone realizes how much has changed.

Also, part of it could be that, like Beornegar and others have said, SKs might be more willing to cooperate as far as aggro is concerned. It's hard for me to say that with any certainty, as I only see my own personal SK-side of the argument, and I can't really speak for SKs as a whole. I also rarely see the paladin/warrior group interaction, since I don't play either of those classes at a level higher than 26. I do know that I am 100% willing to let anyone tank over me, regardless of class, provided they can do it better. I say that because I do have all my defensive aa's and a few pieces of elemental gear; I also realize most people don't have those advantages, and that that can skew the relative tanking abilities between me and an average warrior. If a warrior is anywhere close to my hp/ac, I wouldn't have a problem with letting them tank. I'd do my best to get all the aggro on me, let slow land, and the second the warrior taunts successfully, I lose all my aggro. (I say all that hypothetically, since I don't do pickup groups. 90% of my time is raiding, 9% of the remainder is duoing with a shaman)

On the other hand, the few paladins I've grouped with more than once in the past few months have been a bit... hmm... overzealous with aggro. One of them was a better tank than me, so I didn't care. Better gear, better aa's, and he enjoyed tanking. No problem there. One of them, frankly, sucked. He had about a thousand hp less, no defensive aa's, and he had no comprehension of positioning... but he loved to chain-stun and taunt(in Seru, mobs acknowledge a successful taunt, so I know for a fact he was taunting). I finally had to let him die after repeated requests to stop taunting/stunning before he got the idea. I'm afraid it's examples like that that might be sticking in many minds about paladins. While I realize full well not all paladins are like that, and probably even most aren't, people don't complain when someone's doing a job right... they only complain about the bad apples. And since there are seemingly more higher-level paladins than SKs, the chance for a bad apple to show up is a bit higher.

Also, another thing to consider is how much aa's do for shadowknights(and I'm sure paladins and warriors, but I'm speaking of what I know). Like in your example... I'll outline some of that stuff, not so much for you, but for the people who aren't as familiar with shadowknights.

Lifetaps critting for 1900? That is possible... with Spell Casting Fury 3(12 points), Theft of Life 3(6 points, and requirement of level 65 for third level), an improved damage IV or better focus item, and a level 65 rune spell. It also requires the crit roll to check successfully twice - once for damage crit, and once for exceptional heal. While it is possible, it's not common, and your average Joe Blow SK might not be able to do it. I can't until I have better luck with runes, and I'm probably geared and aa'd a bit better than your average SK.
HT? To get the big 7200 everyone talks about you need SCF3 again(12 points), Improved Harm Touch(6 points), and Unholy Touch 3(12 more points, and required level 65 for third level). It also requires the use of our discipline(which is then gone for ~60 minutes at level 65)
Those things are impressive, and powerful... but not everyone can do it. Most probably can't, to be honest... and balancing against the 120+aa/elemental knight might not be the smartest thing to do.

One reason it's possible SKs aren't mentioned as much as paladins on the mitigation side is the ability to stun. Yeah, I know paladins love hearing people use that as much as warriors love people using /defensive in arguments, but it's true. If a paladin is able to stun a mob for 15 seconds out of each fight, that's fifteen seconds less damage the mob is going to do. Shadowknights don't have an option like that. While shadowknights can heal themselves adequately to reduce damage taken, paladins can do it better and more efficiently. If some warriors are feeling inferior in a group setting, it would be natural for them to use the defensively-stronger of the two hybrids to compare to. While shadowknights do have other tools to help them tank better, it's the perception that matters in this case. If paladins are percieved to be more defensive than shadowknights, they would be the basis of comparison for most posters.

Another reason SKs might not be mentioned as much in the aggro threads is that we seem designed to manipulate aggro. That's of course an assumption, but it's not a bad one. We have spells that do absolutely nothing but generate aggro. We have spells that do damage and generate high aggro. We have spells that enchance someone ELSE's aggro. We have ways to get rid of aggro when we don't want it, or lose our aggro at the drop of a hat when someone else(like a warrior) gets on top of the hate list. Some people might not comment as much on SK aggro because they feel it's that way by design. I happen to be one of them, but it's hard to say what was or was not intended unless you're a dev.

Combine all of those issues and probably some I haven't thought of, and that could be why most posts compare warrior/pal, rather than warrior/pal/sk.

Or I could be totally wrong and wasted five minutes of your time for reading this :p

[Vanax]

I guess i just used those examples merely because I have been on both sides of the coin...And yes, My 120 AA for my SK were spread over SCF 3 and ToL 3, however I did not have any ID items...its merely critting the cast, then exceptionally healing the tap.../shrug. My HT yes, with the bad aura I think my highest crit was in the 8.7k range but that was about 1 in a million other 7.2k ones...however...lets not stray from the fact that with self buffing proc spells (similar to what a ranger gets except sk ones are taps) i was tapping about ever 5 or 6 seconds...not to mention the spells i cast, plus my dps of my weapon...

Without ANY spells cast i usually peaked at about 125 or so dps with minimul AA into offensive meelee skills. However when i used to use my spear line and taps...i peaked at or around 170 in grps all the time...i dont have logs handy, but i used to parse it all the time. Paladins have solid stuns which cause aggro...yay...imho they are still pansies and i have yet to meet a paladin I liked...that merely revolves around the fact that all of em (in my experience) were greedy and knew jack crap about their class other than "hey i own aggro"

The only thing that saddened me about playing my SK honeslty was aggro...when im a warrior im in the mentality of...i could give a crap what my dps is...im not here for dmg, im here to tank.../shrug However, I can name HUNDREDS of fights were BOTH my bloodfrenzy in primary and BoC in offhand just sat there doing crap...ive seen fights where they proc maybe once...and others where u cant stop them...its all random...my SK could probably hold aggro over damn near anyone i knew...i mean...with voice...terror...spears...and snares...its not even a competition...

So yeah, SK can solo and there are fewer of them...cuz in all honesty they dont come into their own until the 50s...but at 50 - 65 i would be hard pressed to find a tank more efficient than a SK who knew their spells...

As I said, just my observation...but when comparing to pallies...remember this...never once when i used to fight pallies for aggro...did i a)go OOM with an ench in the grp...and b)EVER lose aggro to one.../shrug

[Mathas]

however I did not have any ID items
Then your numbers are exaggerated, unless you were grouped with a bard singing Rizlona's :)

Touch of Innoruuk does 450 damage... SCF3 would cause the damage to crit for 900, ToL would then exceptionally heal for 1800. The only way to get 1900 would be through bard or focus item. Same for HT breaking 7200... not once will you EVER do more without some way to focus your damage. Highest I've seen personally was 8400ish, with mage bracer and Rizlona's. It would take a very good focus item to hit 8.7k. 9k would take a Fury of Bertoxxulous item, which I doubt more than 1-2 of exist game-wide, let alone per server in the hands of an "average" elemental SK. I doubt that was more than rumor :)

As for the rest, I'm not saying SKs don't do good damage... we do. I tried to answer why most posters compare war/pal, rather than war/pal/sk.

Edit: stuck the red comment in, because it doesn't really justify it's own reply

[Vanax]

you are most likely right about the bard thing...my best friend played a bard so we were constantly grouping...as for the HT...i dunno how the numbers and stuff are generated honestly...but i never wore a mage anything...but did have bards around a lot.../shrug...ive heard of SK touching in the 9k, but i wouldnt really know how.../shrug

[Mofu-Troll]

I find it very hard to make an argument to play a warrior over a shadowknight.

Mofu

[Kaesorn]

Paladins are a mainly defensive tank. Shadowknights are an offensive tank.

Paladins can only go up on the agro list.(Not counting dying) Shadowknights can go up or down, at almost any time, provided acceptable mana supply.

Paladin's abilities are designed to prolong the life of the group members...Shadowknight's abilities are almost designed only to end the life of the enemy.

Which one has more in common to a warrior?


SKs are hard to play completely well...we do many things, but most people really only become good at one aspect of the class, maybe two. Shadowknights don't come into their power until the high levels. However since most SKs have realized this damage aspect of their class, as well as their agro control (I say control rather than abilities due to being able to lose it even faster, whereas paladins have agro abilities), many enjoy being able to do a job other than tank, and are willing to allow others to do it. (Paladins...well lets just say many of them play their character as a warrior with stuns.)

Yes, if they choose to be an ogre or a troll, they'll have a good amount of hp...however that's simply because of higher base stamina, where warriors get even more hp per stamina than SKs, as well as getting more hp per level (yeah, it's not too much of a difference, but it's there). Whenever that stamina finally gets capped for both...a warrior will still have more hp.

Not all SKs play ogres or trolls...a good many of us play humans, dark elves, and even the most hate-inducing race of them all...the gnomes.

And Mofu? I find it very hard to make an argument to play a warrior over anything other than a cleric. It takes a certain type of person to want to play a warrior nowadays, knowing how things go.

[Phantron]

SKs are not compared often because it's quite a sighting to see one at all let alone being in the same group (or competing for a spot).

If you have a SK doing significant damage with his mana then he's not doing enough to help the group (unless he doesn't have Aura of Hate). Why would anyone pick a SK for the DPS he brings as opposed to the free group Avatar he can cast instead (Aura of Hate) and the extra FT10 with Zevfeer's Bite is beyond me. SK do a ton of damage... but they're not the ones doing it.

[Grendonbb]

I think SKs get mentioned a lot less in these threads because they have a lot more agro control capabilities. I seldom have trouble with keeping agro while a SK is in the group... because not only can they avoid casting certain spells, but they can also buff MY agro, which makes a huge difference.

Pallies on the other hand cannot increase a warrior's agro, and as a whole, they seem to think being able to take agro from warriors is like having a large member.

All in all, both are broken, but at least SKs are able to control better, and don't seem to have the ego that pallies do. Course, this is a blanket statement =p theres a lot of really great pallies, and a lotta SKs that are the suck. That's just how I see it.

[Aeka]

An interesting post popped up on PON about this topic from a Cleric. If forming a group and a Warrior, a Paladin, and a SK were LFG, they would pick the SK.

One issue (or feature ^_^) that has been around since game inception is that Paladins derive many spells from Clerics. The moment a Cleric joins the group 90% of their spells are rendered ineffective. What is left are offensive stuff (stuns, roots, and undead nukes) and healing. Group heals are nice and efficient but not optimal for exp groups since to max efficiency you need to have everyone hurt. Exp groups are about focusing damage on a few. The Clensing line of spells is and always will be depricated by the Cleric Remedy line. I can't tell you how many times I bounce Supernal Clensing because a Cleric was just plain faster. ^_^

On the other hand, SKs bring with them an entirely different skill set and damage potential. The more spells a Paladin uses the more DPS they drop. The more spells a SK uses the higher their DPS climbs. As long as a Necro isn't in the group (which appear to be even more rare than SKs!) they can field their entire spell book. It has been said that going full bore, an SK can out damage Warriors easily. Experienced SKs will even pull out their pet because they realize with the new agro rules on pets its even more in their favor to use!

I've chated with the guild SKs on why there are so few out in the game. It is because they are somewhat hard to play and the mid-years of Kunark and Velious where extremely brutal to them which culled out some fine players. It really seems like the path less choosen...

Its very compelling but I can definately see that SKs are more compelling for a Cleric to take in over a Paladin. Oh well...can't be loved all of the time. ^_-

[lunaticfringesk]

"Why would anyone pick a SK for the DPS he brings as opposed to the free group Avatar he can cast instead (Aura of Hate) and the extra FT10 with Zevfeer's Bite is beyond me. SK do a ton of damage... but they're not the ones doing it."


Sorry Phantron, if I am understanding you correctly, I disagree.

SHD *are* the ones doing the DPS most of the time. AoH is seldom even in my spell lineup (that is another story however) and Zev's bite is rendered useless (due to resists) far more often then I would like to see it (say, for instance, CoD).

Spell lineups change based on several things, including zone, group makeup and whether I am MT or not (which I overwhelming am). In those situations where I am not MT, I can go all out and really lay down some respectable DPS that *I* am doing. =)

Luna

[thundersam]

If id chose again, id take sk over warrior any day, its sad, buts just the way it is. Unless they give us some HUGE bones it will stay taht way too.

[Eoden]

I find it very hard to make an argument to play a warrior over a shadowknight.

I can think of a reason: /disc defensive

That said I play to raid and tanking big boss mobs are the highlight of the game to me. When I get time off to XP (which hasn't happened for over a month now) I have an alt to fall back on if there are no guild groups going.

Just want to clear up another point too - nothing to major, but if we're gonna go over the numbers atleast get them right: Zevfeers = 200hps 100mana every 2 mins (20 ticks). 100mana/20ticks = 5mana/tick or FT5 (not 10mana/tick as has been said). Yeah if you're a caster grouped with an SK this spell rocks, but its not more mana regen than 9 or whatever else has been said previously / in other threads.

As for preferred tank: when Im playing my enchanter and looking for an XP group tank there is no black and white XXXX will be the best tank. If you have a druid healing then grabbing a paladin gives you the luxury of 90% rez and some extra healing. Alternatively SK's utility with snare and FD pulling will sometimes be very desirable. The players rep is another huge thing- a well equiped warrior who knows who to play makes a great tank, same goes for pallys and SKs, the advantage does go to knights here however as a poorly equiped warrior or a taunt button mashing warrior will be a terrible tank where even the worst equiped SK or Paladin will allow mobs to be slowed on inc which means that HP/AC/Mitigation etc are not a huge factor in most places.

My girlfriend plays an SK so Im probably biased (and some bad experiences with french people playing ugly dorf paladins doesnt help this at all) as well as better aware of an SK's abilities than some, so I'd go SK as my favorite any situation group tank.

[Kellaen]

From a ranger point of view i'd rather have a sk anyday over a pal. Group atk taps and zeevers are only two of the reasons.

[Mathas]

Originally posted by Eoden
Just want to clear up another point too - nothing to major, but if we're gonna go over the numbers atleast get them right: Zevfeers = 200hps 100mana every 2 mins (20 ticks). 100mana/20ticks = 5mana/tick or FT5 (not 10mana/tick as has been said).

Incorrect (http://lucy.fnord.net/spell.html?id=3408&source=Live).

Zevfeer's, when chain-cast with no resists, is ~10 mana per tick.

[Gnomb]

/disc defensive is about the last reason i play a warrior.
I can probably count the occurences i used it outside raid on 2 hands and that was mostly for novelty after i got it.
As long as the mob doesnt hit for 800+ a shot and fast I prefer evasive due to the faster refresh (although not much) and the fact that my own dps doesnt suffer as much.
In pickup groups(when playing my cleric) i personally prefer SK over paladin as he can fill 2 roles easily (if well played) and help me with mana regen if no chanter is available.

[lunaticfringesk]

"In pickup groups(when playing my cleric) i personally prefer SK over paladin as he can fill 2 roles easily (if well played) and help me with mana regen if no chanter is available."


I agree with you, if you are in a zone that Zev's bite isnt perma resisted, but a SHD playing that role (assuming that he doesnt have crack from a chanter somewhere) is really only feasible if they have Pact of Hate (lvl 64 spell--15 mana regen for 32 HP per tick if memory serves) (deathly temptation, lvl 58 spell of similar nature, really wont cut it).

A SHD without PoH is going to LOM himself pretty fast also if he doesnt have a good form of mana regen.

Luna

[Naubi Fionn]

To keep pact of hate up you just need any class with a regen spell in your group, and druids are pretty common.

Also sk get a spell that lets them proc 100 mana (and 150dmg), with avatar or good dex this gives pretty high mana regen.

[Gimmel]

Dex doesn't affect proc rates from imbue proc buff spells. It's pretty fixed as far as average procs/min.

[Naubi Fionn]

cool :)

[Graal the Dorf]

I think the reason people see paladins ganking aggro more than SKs is because SKs have other roles that they can fill well besides tank while a paladin doesn't. It is likely insecurity, more than anything else.

If a paladin isn't tanking, he adds the second lowest melee DPS in the game, emergency heals, and ghetto crowd control. If a SK isn't tanking, he adds +ATK taps, mana regen, snare, FD pulling, and excellent DPS (check out the parses at http://pub147.ezboard.com/fmonklybusiness43508frm1.showMessage?topicID=39920 .topic).

They can't do all of that at the same time of course, but they are much more flexible than paladins are. Paladins are very similar to warriors - we tank, and that's about it. We can add other things to a group, but usually (not always) they are less usefull than adding a warrior to a group simply for DPS.

[kiztent]

Originally posted by Graal the Dorf
excellent DPS (check out the parses at http://pub147.ezboard.com/fmonklybusiness43508frm1.showMessage?topicID=39920 .topic).

Just a minor point, because I was looking at these numbers and scratching my head. The damage includes a harm touch. So on a 2 minute boss fight, a SK with a 7k harm touch (fully AAed harm touches can run up to 8500HP) barely outdamages a monk. That, um, about 58DPS advantage monk.

Of course SKs do get the big harm touch every hour.

[Bunnie Burner]

Personally, if I were a non tank looking for a tank for my group.

I'd start by looking for a 63-65 sk...
if not, then a 63-65 paladin...

and if still none of them are up...

id find a 65 warrior, and ask what sort of weapons he's wielding.
sososo sad....

ps.

I'd choose a SK over a paladin because:

1)I hate the attitudes of paladins :p, they have a lot of ego /shrug

2)I prefer DPS over Keep-the-group alive

3)he can pull like a monk

4)he got snare

[lunaticfringesk]

"If a paladin isn't tanking, he adds the second lowest melee DPS in the game,"


Not a slam at all, but what melee class is lower then a PAL? I thought they were the lowest melee DPS class out there.


"Of course SKs do get the big harm touch every hour"

Well, with AAs you get a 5kish HT every ~35 min. SHD must /disc to get the *big* one, which runs in the 7k-8k range (getting over 8k is very challenging). The /disc is ~ every hour (I think its 72 min, if memory serves). Just an FYI

Luna

[Glatius2]

"If a paladin isn't tanking, he adds the second lowest melee DPS in the game,"

Maybe they're thinking of the pure casters or priests other than clerics chimming in with some melee damage? They can melee after all, even if it's not worth while. And it's only the summoned hammer that makes the Cleric melee contribution worth having.

[kiztent]

Originally posted by Glatius2
Maybe they're thinking of the pure casters or priests other than clerics chimming in with some melee damage? They can melee after all, even if it's not worth while. And it's only the summoned hammer that makes the Cleric melee contribution worth having.

Bards.

[kiztent]

Originally posted by lunaticfringesk
"Of course SKs do get the big harm touch every hour"

Well, with AAs you get a 5kish HT every ~35 min. SHD must /disc to get the *big* one, which runs in the 7k-8k range (getting over 8k is very challenging). The /disc is ~ every hour (I think its 72 min, if memory serves). Just an FYI

Luna

Unholy aura is in fact on a 72 minute timer.