Oathbound Protector

[Khael]

Maybe this has been brought up before, since it's been like this for quite some time, but anyway... Has there ever been a formal complaint made against the duration of OP (and predecessor) vs it's parent buff (Aegolism and upgrades)? I mean, our buff lasts for 60 minutes, theirs for 150, unfocused. It's not that big of an issue if you find yourself regularly grouping with a cleric or druid (can use group symbol), but buffing 6 people every 72 mins (focused) or so when your regular healer is a shaman is getting painful. Very painful. Especially since it takes ages to cast.

[Tirian Trueblade]

I'd personally like to see a stacking change in addition to the duration issue. Since SoF I seem to have more issues with Clerics and Druids overwriting my OP with their spells, which is a pain if I don't notice until I'm mid-fight and and then can't cast OP mid fight or get Tena/Teme. I bring this up because I don't remember it being an issue with Sworn Protector and the pre-SoF Cleric/Druid spells.

I also never understood why we got the actual Cleric spells in the early years of EQ, and then were switched to unique (but very similar) lines later on. That's really a minor issue, but it would simplify things to put us back on the old system

I'd need to do some checking, but I seem to remember some kind of Aego-line group buff we had around LDoN. Not that it's a huge concern as most people want Druid + Symbol + AC, but I never thought it was out of balance for us to have the same spells Clerics do - just one rank lower.

The last two items are just Pie In The Sky really and probably aren't worth the effort to campaign for, but I'd love to see the stacking changed if we're going to bring up OP's duration.

[dindaur]

that'd be nice to see the paladin version of ten not getting overwritten by the cleric version of it. ranks of course take precedance.

[Rihard]

One easy solution to druid buffs overwriting it is to just buff-block the druid buffs. There's really no need for us to be using druid buffs

If cleric symbol is overwriting Oathbound Protector, then there's something wrong, because it should be blocking it.

Oathbound Protector (Rk1) has:
Stacking: Block new spell if slot 3 is effect 'Max Hitpoints' and < 2014

Kaerra's Mark (Rk3) has:
3: Increase Max Hitpoints by 1989

Even Oathbound Protector Rk. I *should* be blocking Kaerra's Mark Rk. III... is it not working like that?

[Khael]

Actually, I think the problem lies with , not symbol. But I could care less about that, considering that there has to be a cleric there to cast it, and he's most likely going to give me Temerity anyway. I've never had a problem with Ironwood since they made our Amor block it back in the day, so not sure what that's about.

[Fenier]

Druid spells do not stack, or overwrite for that matter, Paladin self buffs.

They will however block a Paladin self buff from landing.

If you notice half way through a fight you have Ironwood and not Tem, it's your fault for not checking your buffs prior, since a Druid can't overwrite Tem, Oathbound, etc with Ironwood.

[dindaur]

[Saintsaens]

My question about Oathbound Protector is, where the heck does it come from? There's no way I'm paying 169k (which is the price on Tribunal's overpriced bazaar) for it... I mean besides being completely random drop in Crystallos.

[dindaur]

i believe it's vendorable... unless someone gave me the scroll and i forgot about it.

[Luthair]

[Khael]

So, I'm taking the lack of response as a "no, that's never been done" then? I was expecting one of the oldtimers or Hulk to chip in with some story about how it was attempted back in the day but we never got anywhere with it. Perhaps we should bring it to the attention of the devs then?

[dindaur]

i think we more or less just accepted it back in the day

[Hulkling]

[Khael]

Great!

[Hulkling]

Oathbound Protector is 1004 mana, and Tenacity is 1560 mana. Thats quite a difference. So lemme ask you this, as a bargaining chip, would raising the mana cost on Oathbound be acceptable?

[Galelor]

[Khael]

[dindaur]

[Cellan]

Just give me equal AC as Tenacity per rank on Oathbound Protector and I am happy.

[Hulkling]

[dindaur]

[Hulkling]

they said no to the duration increase. I'm not exactly a happy camper about that.

[Galelor]

[dindaur]

i'm not surprised, it has been a fixture for years, they could easily say no because of the long tradition. but, i think it was a good suggestion and idea.

[Khael]

Is there any possibility for getting a group version then (with equally short duration)? Hand of the Protector or whatever. Just something to relieve the tediousness of buffing the whole group in situations where a shaman is your main healer. Maybe not in this expansion, but the next?

[dindaur]

if prathun is dead set against changes to paladin aego we are out of luck

[Khael]

It just seems to me like it's too tedious a change for too small an impact, and that's the reason for the 'no'. That's why I'm suggesting changing something bigger, and doing it while they're developing an expansion, when they have more time for stuff like that.

[Luthair]

[dindaur]

i imagine the % base is easy to tweak, whereas a new base would require more work.

however, if we wanted a change, what new base values would we be looking for?

[Cellan]

[Zorbee]

Please for god's sake, someone in beta beg them everyday just to give us the parent buff.

Have the exact same name, same duration, same stats, just have a different scroll that is paladin only (that way it still takes the harder route to actually obtain the spell).

Although there is precedence for going backwards to get spells for you higher level (see heroic bond, or beastlords/shamans IoS).