Quote:
Originally Posted by Halladar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It just seems self evident to me there should not be a hybrid xp penalty.
What are you guys looking at though? I mean why exactly do you think one is justified?
Rangers and sk's have some features that negate some frustrating parts of the game. But pallies?
I just don't get it. I really don't.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enig
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The search function for "exp penalty" "experience penalty" "experience penalties" or "exp penalties" returned 0 results (after reading through 15 different threads) that were actually answered by a dev. Maybe your googlefoo is stronger than mine... if so, could you please enlighten the ignorant?
|
Well, back when ppl cared about recreating the classic experience (this was ages ago, obv) it was decided that the hybrid XP penalty would be in to stay. And it was. And it still is.
Mind you, this was decided long enough ago that people actually believed that melee would not only be worthwhile, but would be viable enough to warrant anything other than a XP bonus and a complimentry 49DruidBot mercenary.
As for the paladin argument, Pallys can root/Crowd Control, Multiple Stuns, Have lull to pull with, have the strongest heals/buffs of *any* hybrid, can wear plate, double attack, LayOnHands (by leaps and bounds more useful than Harm Touch at later levels) and have taunt spells surpassed only by Shadow Knights.
If there's a class you really wanna rant about, it's the poor gimped bards who basically pay 40% XP to run really fast, sing a heal song, sing a mana song, wear plate armor they don't have the STR to wear, and wield a staff of writhing. Oh, they can also pull as well as Paladins.
But yeah, that XP penalty is pretty nasty, in the hours I've spent /auc'n on a paladin armor mule geared with full fine steel and a Man O War (19/41 Hammer) I haven't yet dinged to 3. It makes me chuckle.