Stalker class idea, A Vampire.

For The Firking Asswholes Who Have Flamed Him.. Have U Read His Story?!?!?!?! 2 Words..............pure Genious!

Whoa! Slow down there. Christianity isn't a myth. Vampires aren't mentioned in the bible. Dracula isn't an historical event. Oh I see. You swap them around...Wait. That still doesn't work. Dracula isn't a myth either. It's a novel. For it to be a myth it has to not have a known author.

Asside from these minor mistakes, I really like the class idea. All I would really like to know is, what is it's target. You know, like mesmers are best against eles, and monks best against necros...That sort of thing. Who is it's target. I think it should be warriors. Warriors need to be targeted and I think this is he thing to beat it.

I like Vampires. Anyway, Necromancers already have the Blood skills, is not easy make an all new Bloodline skills, but YES, is possible. Dervish has Earth and Air skills very different to Elementalists.

Dervish and Paragon are "angelical" classes, next chapter they must add the "devil" ones; Vampires, Werewolfs, Demons. We need more devil classes, not only the Necromancer. Well, Assassin is devil too.

I ment to say Mythos around Dracula, he was a real person, but he wasn't a real vampire, and the Mythos surrounding vampires and their relation to Christianity.

Personally, I find the whole concept of Vampires weakness to christian artifacts pathetic. The Bible makes no mention of Vampires or their significance, thus their very exsistance would nearly be a contridiction to the bible, so how can Vampires be weak to Christian artifacts if their very exsistance controdicts Christianities volidity? Things like this are the reason I perfer Vampiric stories with original plots and origins which don't involve inaccurate interactions between Vampires and Christianity.

As for the classes target, I like to believe that any good class has skills to counter any build, classes can be set up different ways with different skills to overcome nearly any other class. I do believe there is a semi circle of power in class setup, but with new classes coming all the time, they are more like conjointed rings. For instance, Mesmer is good at countering and interrupting enemies of any sort, whether it be any caster or any attacker. Elementist is good at overcoming groups, by dealing high damage on entire groups making it difficult to compensate (with healing), or Deal continuous spiking to a target to make it difficult at best too keep just that single target alive.

This is my idea of the original circle. Necromancer > Ranger because Necro has curses which are effective on more than one target, can slow their already slow attack, and because Ranger is the only other class who can bring an extra body to the field which will become fodder for Necromancers Death and Soul Reaping. Ranger > Elementist, because he can deal damage at full range, has extreme armor vs elemental damage, and has interrupts good enough to interrupt elementist very slow spells. Elementist is really the weakest in terms of superiority over any single class, but the most likely is Warrior, because he can nearly immobilize him wile bombarding him from perfect safety. Warrior > Mesmer, although mesmer has plenty of counters for everything because it is a counter class, interrupts go mostly unused against melee skills, and warrior can still fight well even if his energy is removed. Mesmer can easily beat Warrior if he is equip with certain hexes, but they are often geared toward casters, and a Warrior has plenty of extra skill slots to counter hexes if he is focusing on Mesmers, he definetly doesn't need to worry as much about defense. Mesmer is definetly > Monk, healing skills are fast, and no normal interrupter will catch a 1/4 or 1/2 cast spell. But Mesmer can slow down casting speed, punish casters for spamming spells, interrupt their spells, and attack their energy, Mesmer has skills to counter better than other classes because he lacks most anything else, but he is nearly required to counter good monk. Monk is simply > Necro, with skills geared toward overcoming Necromancer curses, Double damage vs undead creatures on Fire and Smiting damage skills, and the general ability to prevent deaths which overturns Necromancers talent to exploit it. As I said, any good class will have skills to counter most if not all other classes, there is one skill option or another, but this is my example of which ones are better in general vs eachother.

Now where does Stalker fit? Well if we look at Assassin as a guideline (and I will confess that I am dissapointed with Assassin), they deal Melee damage along with debuff/disabling skills simular to Mesmer and Necromancer. Assassin is in my opinion 50% Warrior, 20% Mesmer, 10% Necro and 20% Original. Their melee attack is different because energy based skills can be used immediately, and in quick succession, which is why they implemented the combo system to make it more difficult to spam your attacks. It lacks defense and instead has (not enough) shadowsteping (related to necro) and a variety of hexs (like Mesmer and Necro).

With my Stalker idea, we have basicly a Reverse Mesmer. Most of Mesmers skills revolve around disabling, interrupting, and depleating energy or adrenaline to prevent the enemy from doing damage, they have only a few skills which are crafted to punish a specific target for executing certain actions. Instead Stalker is geared toward overcoming the ability of an enemy, If he is good at hexing, the Stalker manipulates the hexer, if the enemy is good at attacking, the Stalker can morph and trade away casting capabilities for indominable physical power, if the Stalker is being hounded by spell attacks (particularly elemental) than he can setup wide area effects which weaken elemental damage and punish any enemies casting in the area, if the enemy is great at escaping, the enemy can capture them and hold them down til his team can overcome the target, and with that same ability, if the enemy can spike you to death in an instant, the Stalker can hold the life of an enemy hostage in order to create collateral damage on the enemy if they try to kill him.

If we examine the new expansion proffesions what we will see is that we have a new kind of melee attacker, a new kind of support and location based offense/defense, a new ranged attack and group supporter, and a new group damager. What we lack is a new type of counter class (Stalker). Although Ritualist technically revolves around summoning units to defend an area, we are somewhat lacking a good Familiar class which can bring a creature aboard to fight, like a bonified Summoner type class, but with Ranger, Necromancer, and Ritualist all bringing familiars to the table, I think that is a concern for chapter 5. In actuallity, a good way to invent a new kind of Pet class to the game without overflowing the summoning (multiple Minion) department would be a Mount Riding class, with a Mount which is simular to a pet rather than summoning Nature Rituals, Binding Rituals or several Minions, you have an alternative to Beast Mastery, that includes a riden "pet" and grants defensive capabilities rather than offensive addition. This is also probably the next most significant class missing from the game, an alternative Tank class. We are still lacking a good armored frontlinesmen alternative for Warrior, and personally, I would like to see something that is made to go in first and takes reduced damage from melee based on a mount skill.

Nice idea and all. But I'm tired of see'n toucher builds & this will only encourage an expansion of that build......

This class doesn't use touch spells, it uses a unique version of touch immobility. Seeing as the only real "toucher" build in the game is a hybrid class, there really isn't a "toucher" class in the game. Although most of the mechanics are melee attacks and spells.

I would have to say this isn't a "toucher" class, it is a "Grabber" class, they are just more peverted than Rangers pretending to be vampiric :P

OK, all funnyness aside, the actual feeding skills don't deal alot of "touch" damage, they deal primarily immobility with some health degeneration/regeneration effects, and life stealing damage counter. The actual Damage delt during a Feeding is DoT, meaning they cannot spam 3 spells in 2 seconds, but lose all function to Feed small amounts per second.

In actuallity, the Feeding concept is an incredibly unique alteration to any touch attack, with a primary focus on immobility, and a very different approach and threat. DoT is nothing on one enemy, and the traded defense against any allied spiking means that this cannot be stacked with any other attacks aside from previously applied hexes and condition. As such, a very unique role which remotely closest comparison is a hybrid of a few of one classes skills use by another class is more than original, and far from repeatative. It is about like comparing Ranged attacks with Projectile spells, except more difference.

Your poorly associated dislike of touch builds has almost nothing to do with this class, and as such, your disapproval is invalid.

Final point, these are Feeding skills, you can't use touch spell wile feeding, and no one on your team can do anything to your target wile feeding. 0 spiking, 0 touch spells, and incredibly original makes this more than acceptable, even on your scale. So perhaps you should spend more time thinking about how it actually works instead of making poor associations.

Everyone's entitled to their disapproval ;P This is the internet afterall.

You're gonna have to agree that just the title alone is gonna draw comparisons to the touch ranger build.

You can dissaprove anything you want. "I hereby dissapprove of Milk!"

But it doesn't matter if you dissapprove, no matter how much you don't like milk, some people do, and unless there is something wrong with milk for those who would like it, than they should have milk no matter how much you dislike it.

Now if you said you didn't like cigarette smoke, and even though you didn't choose to use it, it was hazardous for you if others used it around you, than it would be a valid dissapproval, because their use is harming you.

Likewise, you don't have to like the idea, there are plenty of people who do. And no matter how much you don't like it, if some people like it, and it works, and it is original, it is good enough for the game, and your dissaproval isn't significant.

Even worse than that, if you dissaprove of something for a reason that does not apply to said something, than your dissaproval is invalid. This is because your dissaproving of something that isn't involved with the subject, your just misassociating it.

That is just like saying all Muslems should be executed because you think extremist should be killed. Not all Muslems are extremists, thus they should not be killed, and just because you want to kill all extremist doesn't mean you want to kill all Muslems, you just haven't recognized the difference. Which is exactly what my response was too, an invalid and undeveloped dissaproval.

Several good class ideas have been compared to a Ranger with some secondary. Assassin and Paragon are prime examples of how you can use simular mechanics and still have a totaly original class, and Ritualist is a perfect example of how you can use a title which is the same as certain skills and even enemy titles used by another class. Char Rangers are called Stalkers!, Oh my god, we can't have that, anymore than we can't have Ritualist because Necromancer has Blood Ritual skills and White Mantle Necromancers are called Ritualists!. Pointless issue.

Go rent "Thank You for Smoking". and Learn something about debate.

I think you need to clarify your post a little.

Bullet Points REALLY help people who only skim and dont read the whole thing.

Short, concise sentences.

Personally i like this idea, i just dont know how such a class would look like. Your writing is good, but you need to cut the fat.

Like your response to mine, it didnt need to be that long

Im not interested in what lazy people think. Lazy people are going to find fabricate dislikes no matter how much or little I write on the topic. Dilegent, Intelegent, Mature people will recognize the idea and appreciate it even if they don't like it for its stability and developement. And I just hope those are the kind of professionals working at Anet.

i would rather have a more rogue like stalker from ro: http://iro.ragnarokonline.com/game/jobstalker.asp
BTW i'm Back but not for long i play hacked ros now much more fun for me but i will come back someday.... maybe when nightfall comes

sounds cool in NF i've been seeing floggers i think that wold be a cool class you could use like whips and stuff

i liked the idea of seduction, but wouldn't they just be like necros???

Would you read the OP again Viskey. I don't care to badger people for overlooking the concept, but if you recognize the abilities and gameplay involved in playing a Stalker, you wouldn't have a single relation between Necromancer and Stalker outside of nomial simularities.

i think it's a nice idea

We have necros for this.

You can't read can you Pwny? Necros can't Capture units, Transform into other creatures, Create Environmental Barriers, nor manipulate and punish foes for hexing..... or Self Ressurect. Not a single capability here is more than remotely related to Necromancer, and this class involves twice as many original techniques as any other class, but.... you can't read.

Yes I mean you, if you assume that this is anything like necro, you are a moron, just check yourself off as a moron if you did. Perhaps reading an idea may give you a real perspective of the concept next time. At least mature yet lazy people have the intellegence to ask how it is different than a necro (even though it is already detailed), instead of making ignorant claims that it is a necro.

Sorry to res this thread buut ~

Its just limited to a Necromancer.
Enviromental Barriers...hmm ever heard of wards?

You called it a VAMPIRE, and from what i recall necromancers are THE vampiric class, period.

Punishing foes for hexing...hmm oh yea, Smite Hex but you would'nt have possibly ever thought of that. But wait, im a MORON so what would i know

Yes you are a moron, If a new kind of AoE effect is broken than Binding Rituals are not acceptable because they provide environemental effects, and they also repeat use of spirits. Beyond that, Necromancers use Rituals, and are even know as ritualists.

a few simular capabilities are common among any new profession, and pretending the that some redeveloped abilities is the only thing this class has is ignorant. Your a moron, as I already said, there are a number of things this class can do that necromancer can not, and you were wrong, bringing up a few abilities simular to other classes doesn't make it a necro either, or an elementist or monk.

The new form of imparament and hostage taking is totaly original, and transformation abilities are more than original enough. But if we are elminating every remotely simular aspect because it is shared by another class than we can only have one energy user, one adrenaline user, and necromancer can't have curses because it rips off Mesmer.

Gee, you know who else can punish a foe for hexing? Mesmer, guess monk can't have Smite hex, because mesmer has Shatter Hex.

Simple fact is, this idea is more original than the vast majoirity of ideas no matter how far fetched and unusual their names are, and your a invalid so I woln't be reading any more of your ignorance. There are plenty of totaly new and redeveloped features about this class, and since you never bothered to read anything but the response, your an idiot.

think you a little to deep in it, you got a necro and a vampire. vampire can suck blood, and necros suck hp, vampires have funny cloths so do necros...
the only why someone is gonna buy into this vampire idea is if you merge it with the necromancers.

and their is no need for this ^ if you want to prove your point insults get you right were you started.

~this has been a GOTB lesson

@Pwny Ride and other people that bring up really really old threads
I suppurt thread necromancy when you un-dead a thread with a posetive comment/suggestion.
If all you have to say is "It's a neco", why say it?
Just let it drop off the 4th page of the forum, it must have been close anyways...

In that part BK may be right that you are a <random word of profanity>.

Yes I know by posting this I am bumping the thread, and thusly not practicing what I preach, but as saying this will have the same effect as spamming "Stop Spamming!!11!eleven" I guess GW has a large croud of people that would act exactly the same way

Ooohhh, Better name for "Frozen Fire" why not "Blue Fire" or "Ice Flame"^^.

I came. I saw. I read.

The whole thing that needs to be changed is the Seduction line. Not because of it being offensive or anything. But because of the fact that it's abusable.

If you make hexes that work on a gender-specific basis, you'd better... well... not do that at all. Why?

Arena Net never wanted to truly promote your character being created perfectly with perfect weapons and whatnot type of elitism. But that's what this would do. It would cause unbelievable gender discrimination. One week, it'd be "GLF girlz" because the vast majority is male. The next week, EVERYONE will have made female characters to replace their males since males are so popular, so it'd go to "GLF boyz".

Come on. We don't want this. Plus, some of the problems have been addressed in this thread already; for instance, how do you seduce an aatxe?

Another thing is the obvious too-much-like-necromancer bit. Think about it this way: Almost all new classes are similar to a class combination from before. I.E. Ritualist is N/Mo, Dervish is W/Mo, Paragon is also some kind of crazy W/Mo, and Assassins are probably... W/R?

We let Ritualist slide even though it's close to necromancer. One necromancer look-alike is enough. Besides, women already have "seductive" enough armor. Have you seen female 15k bonelace?

Ultimately, it's a good idea; if you can somehow squeeze out a few of the very close necromancer ties, that is.

Until then, "OMG N/R WANABE LOL"

This isn't WoW, I don't like it.

The seduction magics involve a alternating effects, if the perfered gender for the spell isn't fulfilled for the spell, it defects to a generic alternate effect which is simularly usefull and effective.

I think it is significantly enriching because most of the time people attack enemy foes based on class significance and enemy stability. By adding a gender oriented feature it creates opportunities to capitolize on gender vulnerability. Perhaps this seems unorthodox, but the same situations exsist with having a different race as a character like Zhed. Because supposedly Disease only spreads to like creatures, and if you had a party full of different species, disease wouldn't spread through your team.

Whether that is acceptable or not is debatable, it could work, but I could also change it. I'm don't promote same sex seduction or homosexual themes, but seduction magic could be developed to work on any foe......... and just be developed with original features.

And yeah, fools will always assume something is covered by another class without reading the idea, but beside the fact that the identity is a vampire, there is absolutely nothing related to necromancer at all. Necromancer has several vampiric skills, they don't work remotely simular to Stalker skills, and they arn't the only vampiric features in the game. The appearance is vastly different, Necromancers look like corpse brides and liches, Stalkers look like ecentric nobility and mystic figures.

Assuming that Necromancer is the only resource for Vampiric abilities is like saying that nobody but elementist can use fire magic, well fire magic is covered by Elementist, Dervish can't use any elemental magic......... and we can remove deadly swarm too. I really have no sympathy for nomial stigmatism.

When you can explain to me how a necromancer can pull of any single ability stalker offers or how any armor offered to necromancer is going to appear even remotely like the Stalkers I've designed, I might actually redevelope the idea to working standards. But I already did so much work that this idea is beyond so many ignroant and bias claims...........

I appreciate that you read the idea, proof that someone who actually knows what the idea is can't really disapprove. I challenge you to try something further. Imagine using this character in the game and how the features would operate wile playing, than tell me again how much it matters that someone beforehand thought it was a necromancer, just like all the people who had nothing to say about Assassin being a W/R after it was available.

A few problems I see with this class:

1. Seduction is just bad. In pvp, it causes one gender to be better than another, depending on which one is most prevalent. If more female characters are being played, people will have to bring male Stalkers. Having to take this factor in to consideration when creating a character would simply irritate me. I simply don't think the idea would be fun at all.

Keep gender cosmetic please. Focusing on the hex manipulation and the defensive support skills is fine, just please none of this opposite gender crap.

2. Vampirism attribute seems broken for pvp. People are going to use it as a snare, but unlike Shadow Prison, ice hexes, or Cripple, you can't remove it. The only thing you can do is use a stance canceling skill, and other than all the dervishes running wild blow, these are not commonly used. If they don't have a stance canceling ability, the stalker can just snare the flag runner in gvg or the relic runner in HA virtually forever.

In fact, it being a stance makes it even more imbalanced than just being hard to remove. Stances have instant cast times, which makes them uninteruptable. At least with Water Eles, you can use holy veil to remove the snare or a ranger with savage and distracting shots to interupt the snare.

KD ending the effect helps. They are more common than stance breaking skills. Most are conditional or expensive though, and still don't do much to help balance the feeding mechanic.

Actually, stance breaking and knockdown are available to a vast majority of the classes in the game. Their popularity is understated because of a lack in neccessity, if neccessary, Assassins, Warriors, and Paragons could break the stance readily with their skills, and Warrior, Elementist, Assassin, Monk, Mesmer and even Ritualist have knockdown skills. And whats more, there are also Knockdown counters effective to defend against Feeding as well, making the wealth of defensive options more than extremely prevalent to meet the task.

As if Knockdown skills arn't bread and butter features of PvP which are used regularly and profusely, they are certainly common enough to meet the threat of a Feeder.

In comparison to a knockdown, a foe can be Disabled completely, immobilized and incure additional knockdown triggered damage wile being vulnerable to enemy attack in general for 2-4 seconds, including melee and distance application.

In a Feeding situation it requires melee, like all melee capabilities it doesn't require a casting time because it already cost the difficulty of approaching your foe, and touch spells actually work as you foe moves away from you, they only require you to touch your foe to start the spell. Feeding last from 5 to 10 seconds, but doesn't disable many of the foes skills, also immobilizes the feeder, and prevents allies from attacking the foe. It has better immobility, less disability, and no spike application.

There are plenty of opportunities to combat this feature, and as if features like shouts and chants are being covered properly by counters, this one already has dozens, literally dozens of counters already available in the game.

It is a superbly balanced equation which you will realize if you study it a little better, a very powerful feature with very prevalent weaknesses, beside that, additional features can be added to exsisting and its partner class to combat the abilities available to the Stalker. The increased significance of stance breaking techniques is only an improvement, making obscure counters more common and balacing exsisting options.

The seduction attribute, it offers abilities to impare foes of opposite and same sex, it just does it in different ways. Heads the foe attacks 50% slower, Tails the foe Misses 50% more, read the idea a little closer until you fully understand it. Situational weakness is less relavent than AoE effectiveness, it would be plenty effective, but the effects may not be intended.

There are only three attacks that end stances. That's it. Just three. Wild Blow, Wild throw, and Wild Strike. I've seen wild throw on some paragons, and I've seen wild blow on dervishes. They're not too commonly seen, nor do I think people should be forced to have to bring them to counter an overly powerful mechanic.

Knockdowns are usually conditional. Right now, the only Knockdown skill I'd consider myself guaranteed to see in GvG is bull's strike. It's a nice KD skill, but it's useless to combat feeding. The only options I see for KDing a guy feeding is Hammer warriors (who are going to be spending a lot of adrenaline AND are going to be hurting their ally a lot to do it), shock (probably on a warrior), or gale. Gale isn't run as much as it used to be.

5-10 seconds just says I was right. That's too long, espcially if you chain a couple of them together. Unless they have a high recharge time too, a Feeder could single-handedly stop their runner from capping, probably with only two skills, indefinately. If the other team doesn't have a hammer warrior to camp you the whole game (the brought a dragon slash and an eviscerate warrior instead), they're not going to do much about it.

The way to balance it would be to make the feeder vulnerable. If he gets to bold with his feeding, you should be able to just spike him down. Killing someone can counter anything, but +armor and transfering damage to the ally makes killing him during his feeding nearly impossible. Get rid of the damage transfer and make the feeding armor just a normal inscription of +10 armor while feeding. That would make it still very very good for mitigating damage from overextending warriors, but not quite as broken.

Are you implying that 50% missing = 50% slower? Slowing attack caps at 50% while % chance to miss stacks with other blinding effects as well as chance to block. I'd prefer chance to miss over 50% slower almost any day, particularily when I'm running a necro with faintheartedness anyway in most hex builds.

The point is, as long as you give different effects to different genders, one will always be preferable, and the other will be weaker. Therefor, depending on what people are playing, one gender will be better than the other. I do not think this should happen, nor do I think it will. Gender has always been intended to be merely cosmetic in GW. It has never been and never should be a part of game mechanics.

Your obviously too new to understand how real balance works, so I'm not going to bother explaining it to you after this. You may as well say that Shouts are too strong because nobody runs Vocal Minority. As long as the counter exsists it is not overpowered, the commonplaceness of a skill is based on need, and if there is a need than it is used more, the fact that it isn't used often because there isn't a need says 2 things, there should be real reasons to bring it to balance the game, and it is a players build option, not a weakness.

Now if the issue was something like Vocal Minority isn't frequent enough to truely shutdown shout builds than we would have a significant issue, but that isn't the kind of issue we have with feeding. The counters are plenty available and that is all that is neccessary.

Now I am really done listening to a newb try to tell me how it would work, your not a fraction as experienced as me, so when you get some sense you can start asking me how it works instead of assuming you know better.

how do you seduce an aatxe?



VERY carefully!!!!!!!!!









(at a quick glance no one else posted, I just HAD to)

/unsigned btw, atleast in it's current form. needs all unique abilities, Necro has blood magic and cold damage shut down pretty tight.
In addition, any sort of fan fiction tends to make me throw up a little in my mouth.
Sure, you've got your .5% success stories, the rest are rubbish, no offense to OP, didn't even read.

Shouts aren't as powerful as imobolizing a character for 5-10 seconds. You usually don't even need to counter shouts with vocal because they just aren't as gamebreaking. If you don't have stance breakers or unconditional knockdowns to use on the Feeder every 10 seconds or so, you are going to lose.

Water snares can do similar things, but you always use hex removal, interupts, KDs, or you can pressure him so he has to kite instead of camping your runner to keep your runner clean (or get killed). Feeders? 3 stance skills, KDs, that's it. Again, because damage is going to go to your runner if you try to pressure the feeder, that's not an option.

And if the existence of counters are enough, then why was the SF/Glowing combo nerfed when you can just bring frigid armor? Why were paragon shouts nerfed anyway awhile back if we could have all just brough vocal minority?

Nice to see you're using my post count as an arguement now though. Never mind the fact that I've been playing this game just as long as you have. Resorting to calling me a newb and refusing to adress an arguement does little to strengthen your position.

2 skills arn't a general counter to a skill type, they are a particular counter to a single condition.

If you faced a foe with SS and BackFire your team would surely lose, unless you brang hex removal. Stance breaking, and even moreso, feed breaking is universal enough to be available if neccessary, it isn't a feature available to one class, it is available to nearly every class.

If I said hexes were to powerful because nobody used hex removal would that be a valid argument? No, there is plenty of hex removal in the game, whether or not people accept it as a significant part of their build is completely up to them. Likewise, Feeding has plenty of counters, and it is no more obscure than hex removal.

And my experience has nothing to do with posting, it is based on my accomplishement as a writer and proving innumberable times that I know what is possible and others don't, I will bring the shinobi thread up again if you doubt me.

Please stop referencing that damn shinobi thread. You predicted that the guys who helped design Diablo 2, would put an assasin into the game. Now there's a longshot. You say it like they took your idea word for word. Please tell me one idea that they took from you? I saw you suggesting that the shinobi would have great defensive techniques and well, we all that the assasin has those, right? You suggested that they would "melt" and reappear behind the guy, I suppose you think that they saw that and decided to call it shadow stepping, They had that in D2, or maybe the dual attack, D2 as well, or maybe it was the blocking with dual weapons, D2 yet again.

So stop using an "idea" you had like a year and a half ago to defend your ideas now. Chances are the creators had the idea for the assasin and the ritualist long before you ever posted that, and probably before prophecies even came out.

As for this Stalker(Vampire) idea, cool idea, I'll give you that. Does sound a lot like an amped up Touch Ranger. I like this idea better than your Dragon at least... and your Shinobi idea(despite my flaming of it) would have been better, albeit more confusing and harder to implement, than the Assasin we have. A concern I have is an obvious one, and it is that fact that since he is undead or demon, either way, the undead and demons are enemies so having a group or so of them who decide to help humans doesn't really fit. Not to mention, humans wouldn't accept help from Vampires(or Stalkers as you call them) for the simple reason that they are undead. It could be implemented, but it would be a stretch. I like the feeding idea but in order to balance it out, it would take a lot of work and involve a lot of conditional effects and ways to stop it. I wouldn't mind seeing this idea implemented in GW2(You can be a Charr so why not Undead or Demon?) but in the Guild Wars it wouldn't work because pretty much the whole game(save for maybe factions) your fighting undead and demons and to have one on your side is unbelieveable.

Again, good idea, just not for this Guild Wars atm, maybe Guild Wars 2.

*snicker*

This thread is hilarious. Give it up. BK is so in love with his idea he isn't budging on any opinions expect positive ones.

His superior brain makes him know the future, hence all our arguments are invalided.

(yes invalided is not a word)

sounds like a war necro to me