Weapon Spells?
Kanyatta
Ok, here's my beef, I'm kind of calling for a nerf, but in an indifferent way. Basically, the Ritualist "Weapon Spells" can be used on someone when they don't have a weapon held (i.e. Vengeful Was Khanei farming, you use Vengeful Weapon on yourself while holding an urn --- or, in GvG, when a Rt is holding the flag and uses Weapon of Warding on themselves, while not having a weapon, but a flag.
Basically, rename the Weapon Spells to straight up Enchants or something, or else make them use the functionality they're supposed to.
Basically, rename the Weapon Spells to straight up Enchants or something, or else make them use the functionality they're supposed to.
xvix83
unsigned.
if weapon spells are changed to enchants, rits would be useless...(besides spirits anyways)..rits have been nurfed too much already..
if weapon spells are changed to enchants, rits would be useless...(besides spirits anyways)..rits have been nurfed too much already..
Biostem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanyatta
Ok, here's my beef, I'm kind of calling for a nerf, but in an indifferent way. Basically, the Ritualist "Weapon Spells" can be used on someone when they don't have a weapon held (i.e. Vengeful Was Khanei farming, you use Vengeful Weapon on yourself while holding an urn --- or, in GvG, when a Rt is holding the flag and uses Weapon of Warding on themselves, while not having a weapon, but a flag.
Basically, rename the Weapon Spells to straight up Enchants or something, or else make them use the functionality they're supposed to. |
doudou_steve
/unsigned you can only have 1 weapon spell one you, instead of thousands of enchantments
HawkofStorms
/signed for the first suggestion
Weapon spells should require that you hold a weapon. I mean... that just makes sense.
Weapon spells should require that you hold a weapon. I mean... that just makes sense.
MithranArkanere
The requirement of having to hold a weapon is logical.
That would prevent all item spell+weapon spell combinations, though.
That would prevent all item spell+weapon spell combinations, though.
You can't see me
Weapons spells are not enchantments, and never will/should be.
On the weapon requirement part, I really never saw someone that wasn't weilding a weapon aside from towns/outposts, but I suppose it's logical, even if it does prevent item spell/weapon spell combinations.
On the weapon requirement part, I really never saw someone that wasn't weilding a weapon aside from towns/outposts, but I suppose it's logical, even if it does prevent item spell/weapon spell combinations.
Kanyatta
The whole enchant thing would be a big nerf, in retrospect, so, I'll take that back, I was just thinking out loud kind of. But, it just seems logical to me that a GvG Flag should be a "Weapon" of Warding.
To the person that suggested it, I've been thinking since the Factions PvP Test Weekend, "Why isn't there anything to remove a Weapon Spell?" Not really part of this thread, but, I just don't understand why there aren't any. Like, a Mesmer could have "Shatter Weapon", just like "Shatter Enchantment", but removing a Weapon Spell instead of an Enchantment.
To the person that suggested it, I've been thinking since the Factions PvP Test Weekend, "Why isn't there anything to remove a Weapon Spell?" Not really part of this thread, but, I just don't understand why there aren't any. Like, a Mesmer could have "Shatter Weapon", just like "Shatter Enchantment", but removing a Weapon Spell instead of an Enchantment.
Giga Strike
thats funny, i was just wondering how ppl could get benefits from a weapon spell if they aren't even holding a weapon.
/signed for the first part
/signed for the first part
ShadowsRequiem
Flags can be used as a weapon :P not in game but really anything can be. Ever seen 3 Stooges? I'll smash a urn on your head ^^
Weapons spells are okay now, with enchantments you have to power of stacking them with weapon spells its one or the other.
Weapons spells are okay now, with enchantments you have to power of stacking them with weapon spells its one or the other.
Shayne Hawke
I'm not convinced on this idea, purely because I see some weapon spells as more of a protective kind of buff rather than something offensive. I admit that it's odd to be buffed with a weapon spell while not wielding a weapon, but at the same time, I don't believe we opportunity to be shielded by other weapon spells should be taken away.
Kanyatta
You don't see Weapon Spells as being offensive?
Warmongers, and Splinter Wep are some of the best Rit spells there are. Weapon of Fury isn't bad either.
Warmongers, and Splinter Wep are some of the best Rit spells there are. Weapon of Fury isn't bad either.
You can't see me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke
I'm not convinced on this idea, purely because I see some weapon spells as more of a protective kind of buff rather than something offensive. I admit that it's odd to be buffed with a weapon spell while not wielding a weapon, but at the same time, I don't believe we opportunity to be shielded by other weapon spells should be taken away.
|
I'd say they're fairly offensive. Versus these "Buffs" you speak of.
[skill]vital weapon[/skill][skill]weapon of warding[/skill][skill]weapon of quickening[/skill][skill]spirit light weapon[/skill]
thedeadlyassassin
/unsigned
It'd hurt rits too much
It'd hurt rits too much
JASON626
Weapon spells should not be removable. They already can be diverted or interupted. Magebane shot rangers... cannot be blocked.
Well holding an item in my mind becomes the weapon.
Being a flag runner and holding the flag is already at a disadvantage. You have less health and less energy.
/Unsigned
I like rits as they are.
Well holding an item in my mind becomes the weapon.
Being a flag runner and holding the flag is already at a disadvantage. You have less health and less energy.
/Unsigned
I like rits as they are.
scrump
Quote:
Originally Posted by doudou_steve
/unsigned you can only have 1 weapon spell one you, instead of thousands of enchantments
|
TGgold
/unsigned
Basically, it would gimp the ritualist class far too much. Not being able to use an item and a weapon spell is ridiculous, especially for defensive ones. For offensive ones, if you're holding an item, you're not getting benefit from the spell, no?
Did you ever consider some urns are actually weapons? So, by your logic, should all offensive item spells not conflict with having a weapon spell on you.
By another strand of logic, your character always has their weapon. If you use a defensive weapon spell on somebody, maybe it's just assumed that they have the defense granted from having a weapon.
Perhaps when not holding an actual weapon, the characters hands are considered to be the weapons in effect. Maybe their brain, or wherever a character's casting abilities come from.
Just think about it.
Basically, it would gimp the ritualist class far too much. Not being able to use an item and a weapon spell is ridiculous, especially for defensive ones. For offensive ones, if you're holding an item, you're not getting benefit from the spell, no?
Did you ever consider some urns are actually weapons? So, by your logic, should all offensive item spells not conflict with having a weapon spell on you.
By another strand of logic, your character always has their weapon. If you use a defensive weapon spell on somebody, maybe it's just assumed that they have the defense granted from having a weapon.
Perhaps when not holding an actual weapon, the characters hands are considered to be the weapons in effect. Maybe their brain, or wherever a character's casting abilities come from.
Just think about it.
Cherng Butter
Could be a buff if you consider that you can stack weapon spells to work together.
TGgold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherng Butter
Could be a buff if you consider that you can stack weapon spells to work together.
|
Stackable weapon spell would be way too overpowered....
Dean Harper
just create a few spells in the necro and memser lines that can remove weapon spells. simple
=DNC=Trucker
Are we fixing something that's not broken?
I know it sounds weird to have a weapon spell with no weapon, but doesn't the Ritualist 'summon' the spirit weapon onto an ally? For instance: "Give target ally a Brutal Weapon for ..."
I know it sounds weird to have a weapon spell with no weapon, but doesn't the Ritualist 'summon' the spirit weapon onto an ally? For instance: "Give target ally a Brutal Weapon for ..."
Kanyatta
Quote:
Originally Posted by =DNC=Trucker
Are we fixing something that's not broken?
I know it sounds weird to have a weapon spell with no weapon, but doesn't the Ritualist 'summon' the spirit weapon onto an ally? For instance: "Give target ally a Brutal Weapon for ..." |
So, you're saying, if I am playing an Assassin, and the Ritualist in my party casts Warmonger's Weapon, there should be a little text box that pops up like "X Ritualist X has sent you a "Warmonger's Weapon", would you like to accept?"
shru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanyatta
So, you're saying, if I am playing an Assassin, and the Ritualist in my party casts Warmonger's Weapon, there should be a little text box that pops up like "X Ritualist X has sent you a "Warmonger's Weapon", would you like to accept?"
|
street peddler
while it does make sense logically, it serves no other purpose and would just be an unnecessary nerf.
Risus
If they fixed this, they'd have to fix too many skills, such as Sharpen Daggers. It doesn't only apply for Daggers, why does no one care? Same for weapon spells. They are easy enough to counter anyways. Either a block, or not hitting them with a physical attack.
Tarnix
I agree with the part about there is nothing to remove a weapons spell. Even if it were just on one class like mesmer or neco, and they had a skill called shatter weapon. It would mix things up a bit.