Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4580009" data-attributes="member: 51942">I've got to agree.&nbsp; Most &quot;rules&quot; discussions seem to stem from the fact that they somehow want to &quot;fix&quot; the tempest.&nbsp; I've not seen much true confusion at all.&nbsp; A double-bladed sword, as described in the AV, is simultaneously and on both ends a heavy blade, a light blade, and off-hand.Given the amount of discussion, a clarification would be nice nevertheless - but unless they actually want to change the mechanics, an update/errata is unnecessary.(And on the matter of a rules-change, I'm ambivalent.&nbsp; The current rules are not game breaking, and I'm not such imperfect balance is a good enough reason for yet another rules change, if imperfect balance is really an issue.&nbsp; Certainly if they &quot;fix&quot; this problem it'll simply make other builds that much more attractive, but whether that's really that much better a situation...).&nbsp; In the interest of honesty, I'm currenly playing a non-tempest non-battle rager shield fighter, and have no intent to convert him to either rager or tempest.&nbsp; If I had to choose, however, I'd pick the rager over tempest in a heartbeat - I just don't think that a cross between a defender/striker is all that special.&nbsp; Tempest damage output is great for a defender, but mediocre for a striker, and he's outright poor in terms of status effects and mobility, so it's still just a secondary striker.&nbsp; I think a tempest with a double-blade is an attractive compromise between a striker and a defender - if that's what you're looking for - but that that compromise isn't somehow problematic, au contrair, it's a nice alternative build to flesh out player options.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4580009, member: 51942"] I've got to agree. Most "rules" discussions seem to stem from the fact that they somehow want to "fix" the tempest. I've not seen much true confusion at all. A double-bladed sword, as described in the AV, is simultaneously and on both ends a heavy blade, a light blade, and off-hand. Given the amount of discussion, a clarification would be nice nevertheless - but unless they actually want to change the mechanics, an update/errata is unnecessary. (And on the matter of a rules-change, I'm ambivalent. The current rules are [I]not[/I] game breaking, and I'm not such imperfect balance is a good enough reason for yet another rules change, if imperfect balance is really an issue. Certainly if they "fix" this problem it'll simply make other builds that much more attractive, but whether that's really that much better a situation...). In the interest of honesty, I'm currenly playing a non-tempest non-battle rager shield fighter, and have no intent to convert him to either rager or tempest. If I had to choose, however, I'd pick the rager over tempest in a heartbeat - I just don't think that a cross between a defender/striker is all that special. Tempest damage output is great for a defender, but mediocre for a striker, and he's outright poor in terms of status effects and mobility, so it's still just a secondary striker. I think a tempest with a double-blade is an attractive compromise between a striker and a defender - if that's what you're looking for - but that that compromise isn't somehow problematic, au contrair, it's a nice alternative build to flesh out player options. [/QUOTE]

Verification