New Names/New Uniques

[Mick]

I've never even contemplated trying an LAW and that variant hasn't really stuck in my mind so no, I didn't consider what the attribute pattern would mean to LAWs. I've never played Warrior much so LAW didn't have much appeal for me.

But having just considered 'Excalibur' for LAWs now, you're right.

Mick.

[Sheep]

I want a staff that has blocking abilities. Am I the only one who thinks that Matt could kick Rand's butt to high Heaven? (Wheel of Time. Read it!!!)

Gnollripper! Hydrajulienner! Dragon Scale Armor!

[Daemon]

I've never even contemplated trying an LAW and that variant hasn't really stuck in my mind

LAW a variant? If anything, High AC is the variant, LAW is the natural way a warrior would fight, using blocking skills and geographic strategy. As far as I am concerned, high AC just represents unskilled foes unable to correctly strike the warrior, totaly missing him...

But then again, that's just my point of view :lol:

[Draconis]

It doesn't matter how you play it, niether are variants. If you go by the "DSF/LL/RBD" version of a variant, both are just a "role" I believe.

Personally I never liked being low ac. That could be because I don't like blocking every attack and being weak and sucky..or coz I have a good setup with near perfect ac and perfect block...:)

[Rhydderch Hael]

Actually, AC is meant to imply that the enemy, having struck the hero, is unable to penetrate his armor and inflict any sort of harm. When a Skeleton Captain is whiffing away at a Level 30 Warrior sporting 200 AC, it isn't that the Skeleton is missing everytime it swings, but rather that it cannot hit hard enough or skilled enough to get through the Warrior's plate armor.

Higher ToHit% is higher armor-piercing ability. How much damage you can inflict once the armor is compromised is another matter entirely.

[Mick]

Daemon: I see your rationale, but I'm of the 'discretion is the better part of valour' school of thought. Even though many here might maintain that a Rogue need not get hit, I get hit; thus good AC is important for me. Presumably as a Warrior I'd get hit a lot more.

Draconis: I'll bite. What's the DSF/LL/RBD difference between a role and a variant?

Mick.

[LemmingofGlory]

I'll bite. What's the DSF/LL/RBD difference between a role and a variant?

Style
Describes the way a character plays.

High AC is generally "tank." Low AC is Artillery (if Mage) or LAW (if Warrior); don't know of any designation for rogue. Other designations may be used depending on character's weapon, e.g. "axe warrior" or "bow rogue" or "s/s rogue" or Claudio's "CAT rogue." Mages that use melee combat as their main source of kill-power may be called "Battle Mages" (as opposed to the variant "Muscle Mage").

All characters have a particular style.

Role
If a character is roleplayed, the role is the character's personality. There's not much roleplaying in Diablo, so most characters simply carry the their player's personality.

Roles are optional and seldom used.

Variant
A set of rules connected by an overall concept. For example, the Barbarian (BAR) is a muscle-bound brute not sophisticated enough to understand magic. The rules illustrate this by disallowing anything magical: shrines, blue items, yellow items, and spells (not that he can read anyway).

Variants sometimes have a role associated with them. Again using the BAR, players were encouraged to use "BAR speak" which, in essence, meant talking very primitively. Example phrases:
"Me am fine"
"Much bad juju!"
"Og hate jujuwitches!"
"Him bad!"

Even for variants, however, roles are optional. It sure is a lot of fun, though, when you've got a group RPing their variants together. ;)

[o: *LEMMING* :o]

[Rhydderch Hael]

LAW a variant? If anything, High AC is the variant, LAW is the natural way a warrior would fight, using blocking skills and geographic strategy. As far as I am concerned, high AC just represents unskilled foes unable to correctly strike the warrior, totaly missing him...

But then again, that's just my point of view  :lol:

In infantryman going up against other infantrymen makes use of cover and slow, careful tactics by which he engages the enemy. But he is limited by time and can be outnumbered. Same as a Low Armor Warrior.

A tanker--on the other hand--is covered by armor, and he can roll up to a spot and start engaging a large number of infantry, shrugging off hits until the opposition is despatched. Though it takes a heck of a lot of requisition forms to get a tanker to his tank in the first place.

Who is to say that one is more unnatural or out-of-place than the other?

[NiteFox]

No amount of armour is going to save you if you're attacked from all angles for any period of time. Eventually, it will break. And the amount of armour needed to protect for any great length of time will result in a warrior with the mobilty of a broken dumpster :)

Still, those who think it would be best to be the infrantyman would reconsider, given that it's statistically feasible to be one of the first soldiers on the scene. In other words, one of those who get there long before the armour breaks.

Of course, it might suck to be one of the later ones too, considering you're likely to be tired after climbing uphill a pile of dead bodies :P

[Rhydderch Hael]

The analogy still holds: the armor only protects you for a time, but all that while you are meting out destruction as quickly and as upfront as possible. The high AC warrior moves through a dungeon faster than a LAW.

And historically, when white harness (full suit of plate armor) came into play on the battlefield, the landsknight could forgo the defenses of a shield and rely upon polearm/greatsword alone. With added body armor protection, the warrior is not saddled with defensive tactics and implements such as a shield (hence no "block-locking" in a Diablo sense) and bring more focus to offense.

[Mick]

Thanks for the outline wrt style/role/variant. I don't fully understand the distinctions but at least I now have some idea.

Mick.