Unknown2008-07-04 20:36:45
Yay happy endings.
Xiel2008-07-04 20:36:48
The equilibrium bonus seems to only be applied to skills which require you to use the PERFORM syntax...so no. Would've been funky though if it did allow for syntaxes which had PLAY in them.
Unknown2008-07-04 20:43:32
Edit2: I'm clearly hallucinating.
Xiel2008-07-04 20:45:01
Still happy with the change.Estarra2008-07-04 20:45:45
QUOTE(Aison @ Jul 4 2008, 01:33 PM) 528758
With this new ability, then, will it be possible for a bard to minorsecond with this 'quickening', thus allowing them to accumulate about, let's say, ~6k worth of damage?
Heh, I thought for a moment that was true (maybe it should be) but it will still allow faster performance for many targeted abilities of bards. Note however, you can see a bard when they encore quicken and see when it ends, so you know when to shield against it. (Quickened guardians can take out shields at a faster rate, unlike bards.)
Unknown2008-07-04 20:46:34
QUOTE(Estarra @ Jul 4 2008, 01:45 PM) 528775
(maybe it should be)
Absolutely not
word cannot describe the terror that would be. no no no
Unknown2008-07-04 20:48:18
I think it would only be fine if warriors also got rushing.
On a more serious note, if any class needs faster eq, it's not bards.
On a more serious note, if any class needs faster eq, it's not bards.
Ardmore2008-07-04 21:25:08
Make it not affect refraining please. If it only affects the first time you play a stanza it's balance for all bard specs.
Kante2008-07-05 05:38:11
QUOTE(Visaeris Maeloch @ Jul 4 2008, 04:46 PM) 528776
Absolutely not
word cannot describe the terror that would be. no no no
word cannot describe the terror that would be. no no no
Agreed.
QUOTE(Sojiro @ Jul 4 2008, 04:48 PM) 528777
I think it would only be fine if warriors also got rushing.
On a more serious note, if any class needs faster eq, it's not bards.
On a more serious note, if any class needs faster eq, it's not bards.
And another buff to warriors? No thanks.
Unknown2008-07-05 06:14:25
I seem to have misplaced the sarcasm tags.
Kante2008-07-05 15:58:47
QUOTE(Sojiro @ Jul 5 2008, 02:14 AM) 528992
I seem to have misplaced the sarcasm tags.
My apologies.
