Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    As the topic says, do think it should?

    It's the one defense warriors have against magic, I feel it's silly that a equip macro is needed to even make this skill usable by non-prot warriors. I don't think ANY skill should need a macro to use.
    It's very easy to tell when a warrior is going to spell reflect, since they'll pull out a shield or change stances, making it only catch the oblivious or the laggy.
    Also changing weapons makes a warrior lose alot of DPS and rage, making it rarely used when you beating on someone in group pvp and you have to keep someone debuffed.

    If they did make it so warriors didn't need a shield for it, I'd say make the animation a bit better.
    It's only a dream though, like getting rage on shielded targets.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Weapon Mastery Rank 2
    Reduces the chance for your attacks to be dodged by 2% and reduces the duration of all Disarm effects used against you by 50%. This does not stack with other Disarm duration reducing effects. In addition, you gain the ability to use Spell Reflect with a two-handed weapon.


    Perhaps?

  3. #3

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Why don't you use it to psych out people then? Like say, pull out a shield.. but don't bother casting spell reflect--just keep pounding on the target. You won't do much dmg, but they'll do even less.

    The restrictions are put there for balance purpose. The opponent should have a visual queue of when you can use the spell, and react accordingly. They shouldn't have to worry about critting themselves for 6K after you MS them for another 6K (then execute them right afterward).

  4. #4

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Theres already a visual affect to tell people when spellreflect is used, the warrior lights up like achirsmas tree with a big shield over his head not easy to miss.

    That said requireing macros etc to use abilities is not just anoying but also puts the class at a disadvantage when just about every single defensive move needs a shield in order to be performed, no other class requires anything remotly similar. The only thing that could possibly be compared is rogues needing daggers for a couple of moves (backstab and ambush, but they don't impact playstyle to the same degree nor are they requird to function).

  5. #5

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daisuke
    Weapon Mastery Rank 2
    Reduces the chance for your attacks to be dodged by 2% and reduces the duration of all Disarm effects used against you by 50%. This does not stack with other Disarm duration reducing effects. In addition, you gain the ability to use Spell Reflect with a two-handed weapon.


    Perhaps?
    I would change it to

    In addition, you gain the ability to use Spell Reflect with a two-handed weapon. However when used without a shield Spell reflect will cost 20 rage and the cooldown will be increased by 10 seconds

    Spell reflecting every 10 seconds while dpsing, and overpowering/pummeling casts would be utterly unfair to casters.

  6. #6

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Warriors have great ability to become defensive when needed. THAT BEING SAID, I don't agree you should be able to use it without effort wile still doing your normal damage.
    Stop comparing yourselves to death knights. They do lose damage going frost pres and there other defensive cooldowns have been nerfed and nerfed, still very strong but that's besides the point.
    You do have to be penalised for using abilitys like reflecting spells and taking 60%? less damage. You DON'T have to macro it, it just makes the whole process faster(fast enough).

    So to repeat, spell reflect is fine and stop attempting comparing yourselves to death knight.

  7. #7

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    To OP: NO and NO.

    You can already use macro to swap weapons and spell reflect. It's enough that you can use it in battle stance, so you don't loose rage at all. If you stand that dps is important in pvp, you're wrong.

    Anyways bad idea is bad.
    Alseria - 80 holy/disc - Stormreaver EU
    Daftknight - 80 Uh(tank)/Frost dps Stormreaver
    Aluces - 80 FF/Frost - Daggerspine EU
    Saeria - 80 Destro - Stormscale EU
    Kush - 80 Feral - Stormreaver
    Latawica - 80 Ret Stormreaver
    Thepie - 70 Sub - Daggerspine
    Kostuch - 70 Marksman Stormreaver
    Saeria - 70 prot Stormreaver
    Lolwtfomg - 70 enhance Daggerspine
    Milkywaylul - 70 feral - Maghteridon EU
    Blooddrinker - 70 demo Khadgar

    And now try to tell me i have no clue about what I am saying :<

  8. #8
    Stood in the Fire
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Donetsk
    Posts
    363

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Warriors are joke as of right now
    It is easily proved by numbers, – representation in BG’s, Arenas etc
    Just join up any BG, - AV, or go to Lake and count.
    After 4 years (since Aug. 2005) I just gave up and selected first random human class available with blind eyes – priest. I made him look like exactly like my main, leveled 80, farmed BG’s and LWG rewords.
    You know. I nearly forget what deaths are (in “World PVP and BG’s). I don’t use macros, no stance dancing.
    Things are so easy now. That’s it. After warrior any other class will be easy mode.
    Quote Originally Posted by Secret81
    I´ve heard, there will be Epic loot as normal quest rewards in Cata while you level.
    To make the quest feel more epic.

  9. #9

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    I think spell reflect should require a wand...Harry Potter wannabe ;D

  10. #10
    Deleted

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Warriors will be able to spell reflect without a shield as soon as rogues can mutilate with Swords/Maces/Axes.
    But at that time, mages wear plate, warlocks can summon 4pets at once and all dots can crit anytime and get apllied all at once, priest can mindcontrole while continue to dps without gettin interrupted..

    Think you get my point~

  11. #11

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daisuke
    Weapon Mastery Rank 2
    Reduces the chance for your attacks to be dodged by 2% and reduces the duration of all Disarm effects used against you by 50%. This does not stack with other Disarm duration reducing effects. In addition, you gain the ability to use Spell Reflect with a two-handed weapon.


    Perhaps?
    While Spell Reflect active other Abilities becomes unusable, and normal melee svings is lowered by x%

    "Abilities becomes unusable" maybe not all but some.
    The procent% should match the avg dmg, a warrior does with a 1h+shield.


    This way you could remove the need, to macro 1h and shield into a Spell Reflect macro.

    any good?

  12. #12

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    isnt spell reflect suppose to be for warrior TANKING? That people use it in pvp is their business. I dont know what your problem is but ive seen many warriors use spll reflect, very annoying but nicely timed. Usually when they see they are losing a fight they macro shield and go in defense and hope they burn u down before u burn them down (melee fights) DKs do the same with frostpresence.

    keep the shields.. bladestorm is anoying enough

  13. #13

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    think you would prolly find that if blizzard is forced to rule on this they would say that macro is closer to an exploit than a required tool and you would find some block put in the way to stop its use. for eg. a global cooldown triggered by weapon swapping andreflect going on the GCD, tree druids cant stealth, mutilate rogues dont shadowstep. etc

  14. #14

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?


  15. #15

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andyplayswow
    Yeah maybe shield bash usable with two hander to!

    Maybe Pummel castable in any stance!
    sounds like a DK
    http://eu.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Doomhammer&n=Tixwi

    http://eu.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Doomhammer&n=Mnem%C3%AEc

  16. #16

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Perhaps Blizz could do so that you can't see when someone is casting anything also? Just stand there like a fool?

    Like someone mentioned, rather have a icelance on me then a frostbolt, rather a lock running around in circles then spamming chaos bewlts.

    Played warrior for 3 years, agree that it would be awsome but it's there for a reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deos
    LOL Rogues with light bulbs.. WTF blizzard, that kinda makes so "much sense" for stealthy ninjas. Why dont you put neon strings there, ringbells all around and a spinning flashing police lighbulb projector on the head "weeeeu-weeeeu-weeeeu, rogue incoming!!", that would hit the nail srsly

  17. #17

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    @Topic

    No! That would be to op for us in PVP.

  18. #18

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Oh my god, YESSSS can't we have a 1hit kill button aswell?

    Yeah, no.
    Horrible idea, I'm not a huge fan of the amount of stance dancing we have to do, but it makes pvp a bigger challange, don't make us a faceroll-I-can-do-it-all-without-effort class, warriors are fun because we are the way we are.
    Boom!

  19. #19

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    explain how this would make sense what you you do PLAY BASEBALL WITH THE SPELL
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    If someone could transform Satan's anus into a potent powder, I would totally snort it.

  20. #20

    Re: Do you think that spell reflect should require a shield?

    Always thought that the Arms tree should've had a Spell Deflection instead of Reflection. Somethign that could be used with a 2hder and simply swatted away a spell or a hunter shot. It would relfect it back unless you had a shield on...just kinda parried it.
    When you shoop da whoop, you feel powerful and don't want to lose it, and then a guy in plate armor comes and turns your woop against the shoop, hence, making you got laz0red.

    Guild No Quarter - www.nqguild.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •