05-13-2003, 04:29 PM
Why not a Might Merc versus a Defiance merc? I understand why one would choose a Holy Freeze merc, in Hell particularly, but I am curious as to why you suggest Defiance versus Might for the two-handed weapon wielding Paladin. With a fast enough weapon, per your advice, and Fanatacism out the wazoo, would not killing speed be faster by using Might due to the massive damage increase? Also, faster reduction of LEB's on a swing count basis. My polearm using Paladin, who is now RIP due to not having played much in the past few months, used a Might merc. It worked out pretty well in Hell, and sure enough, I ended up maxing Vengeance when all was said and done.
Merely having the merc allows one to use position to avoid quite a few hits while you are dealing out loads of damage.
What does the Defiant merc give that makes defense better than offense when you are not using a shield in the first place? As I am currently nursing a two handed sword Paladin along with a Defiant Merc who I intendt to keep forever, I am curious. The mlvl-clvl curve in Hell difficulty still, IMO, trumps Defiance insofar as Monster To Hit % in later acts.
Merely having the merc allows one to use position to avoid quite a few hits while you are dealing out loads of damage.
What does the Defiant merc give that makes defense better than offense when you are not using a shield in the first place? As I am currently nursing a two handed sword Paladin along with a Defiant Merc who I intendt to keep forever, I am curious. The mlvl-clvl curve in Hell difficulty still, IMO, trumps Defiance insofar as Monster To Hit % in later acts.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete