In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.
Discussion in 'UO Spellcaster' started by gramarye, Jul 14, 2009.
...someone must be able either to confirm or deny - SDI bonus using regs?
eh? regs/lrc no difference in casting ability. Spell damage is affected by eval skill, inscription skill, intelligence and items.
As I thought. Just... in the thread below - LRC versus Regs.
small damage bonus for burning regs. You can confirm this in the large number of high end pvp duelists who use regs as a means of gaining an extra edge.
nah most "high end duelists" have a dueling suit that isn't 100lrc so they can crazy on the other other stats.
Given how often stratics updates their UO content, just because it is on a webpage doesn't make it fact
If a dev makes a post post it, then I'd almost take it as truth
Maybe a better place to search would be UOs website
Kind of sad of you to say that to the person who has been updating all the content on a daily basis....so "given how often" would be...daily....
Also, what you read on stratics forums was never tossed around as an idea by the dev team. So...it would not be anywhere on the UO website.
What is sad is you are debating that not everything on stratics is up to date and not even remotely close. And the "updating content" is something that has only recently come about.
I applaud the person updating information here but it still doesn't change that a lot of stuff is VERY out of date A prime example would be factions... seems somethings are not there(I just picked this example because I was recently looking for info on faction items)
Stratics is doing the best they can and I don't fault them especially when publishes come out. Stratics is a good source of info but can't be relied upon to be 100% fact.
I never claimed I read it here... just that UOStratics isn't the end all and be all of UO. And that I'd take information given on UO's website or posted on the forums BY A DEV as gospel over most things on the Stratics website. If it isn't by either of those two sources, it is all conjecture by players so it may or may not be true.
Also, searching UOs website is a very inexact science... more often than not, I have failed to find something there. And the same goes for Stratics forums although the Stratics issue is based on word size limit and some wonderful spelling errors
This was suppose to have been put in the last PvP publish. Either Pub 42 or 43. It was implemented on test center. It is not in the the Publish release notes.
Now stating this. This does not mean it is not currently implemented. The fact is there are many changes and additions often omitted , overlooked and published.
However what happens is that most players take the Publish release notes on blind faith and adjust their characters accordingly.
Here are a few examples
Now this first one is a bug, but please bear with me.
Publish 18 - UO:R Parry - You will now be able to block blows with weapons at 50% of your parry skill.
Now nobody really noticed this till the time SE was released. At the time if you were a samurai, you couldn't block or evade. This issue was fixed right before ML.
The 80 dex requirement for parry posted in Publish 25. Between SE and ML this requirement was silently taken out to balance out the mess with the machine gun archers, however MRTact I believe re enabled it sometime after ML.
So with that, the only sure way is to test it.
As posted by others in this thread of Duelist using Regs and using a suit to max out properties, the logic isn't there.
As a duelist most would have 100-120 med, 100-150 Int, a hat of the Magi, and a few MR in their suit. SDI isn't much of the issue. It is easily maxed out for PvP. When you duel you are using low end spells to disrupt and damage. So there might be something to this if people are using regs in duels.
I doubt it was ever implemented. You would be able to find alot of posts about an SDI increase if it was. If anyone wants to test it out, let me know (I can bring a target).