Ways to kill a Death Knight?

You're looking way to deep into all of this.
Simply show a Deathknight this picture, and it's all over for them.
They have been issued to all Stormwind Regiment guardsmen, your end is nigh!

I second that, way too deep. Death knight neurology is probably not required to learn in order to play one haha.

Sorayah wrote:Regarding poison, I'd just like to note that in the TFT undead campaign, Sylvanas shoots Arthas with a poisoned arrow which completely paralyzes his body, so it's been done in lore!

Arthas was not the same type of Death Knight as the player Death Knights if I recall correctly.

Indeed Anti is correct. The Player DK's are champions raised from the dead to serve. Arthas never died. Or well, at least hadn't died at the time of the TFT expansion, if he did actually die after climin the Frozen Throne is a different question.

I think Arthas died when Illidan pierced his heart. But that aside.

I will probably be hated for what I have to say, but I will say it anyway. I do not like 'DKs are lorewise OP' being used to justify not having to think about what you are doing and not to measure the risks you take....and especially not having to be creative in battle.

Examples:

1. Two DKs see a minizerg of ten lighties march through Duskwood, they attack. Because they are OP, and know they can handle it. But -can they-? Not without serious injuries, and paladins can heal, man! In the end all they achieve is getting badly, badly wounded if not destroyed and have the ten paladins withdraw. Which is all good and dandy if it has a tactical/strategic signifiance so that DKs actually gain something. But if it is just a random battle, it is pyrrhic victory to say the least.

2. A DK is fighting six lighties assaulting him from all sides. They all emote attacking him. HEY! DKs are OP, so he just emotes
/e dodges paladin1's strike, parries paladin2's sword with his runeblade, kicks rogue1 in the groin and distrups his attack, shoots laz0rs at priest1 to interrupt his holy fire and shrugs off warrior1's hammerblow with his 1337-plate.
It just leads to an entirely unsatisfactory combat. Can't you..you know...AVOID being encircled in the first place? Even picking up the priest via strangulate and throwing him at the rest of the group to knock them down while using that time to slash the lone-standing Paladin is better. I strongly disapprove of moments where OP'ness simply means standing still, throwing creativity out of the window and shrugging off all attacks with a string of /dodge /parry /armor /block /magicblock.

This I would like to illustrate further with an entirely FICTIONAL example, which shows it better than anything.

Death Knight engages a paladin and a warrior on the balcony of Purple Parlor in Dalaran. Paladin kites the knight around, and positions him on the carpet. Paladin attacks and forces DK to parry. In that moment, warrior pulls the carpet to send the DK off-balance and paladin does a sparta-kick to knock him down the tall-ass tower. Normally one would say "Oh, that's pretty awesome! Cleverly played!"
Death Knight falls over and tumbles down the tower, hitting the cobblestones below with the sound of a collapsing closet full of kettles and pans.
But wait! DKs are OP. So, the DK just emotes
Death Knight's armor is so heavy and his undead reflexes give him stability. He does not lose his balance.

To conclude: I don't like OPness when it is used as a license to not bother thinking or being creative in RP, as that leads to a less enjoyable experience.

So you like OPness when it's creative?

Vangrel Lansire wrote:So you like OPness when it's creative?

I mind OPness less when it is creative, since I don't really -care- about winning or losing. What I care about is having fun. So if I engage an OP Mage and instead of just going:
Marley the Omnipotent conjures an impregnable shield against physical attacks and releases a super-heated ray of fire that can burn through stone and metal at Gwendelyn
he goes:
Marley the Omnipotent raises his hands and speaks an incantation, attempting to transmute Gwendelyn's sword into wood as she charges him

I am more likely to go along. Since hey, that's pretty new and cool! If I win against a Boring OPer somehow, I will still feel grumpy. If I lose in a FUN fight, then I will still call it an awesome RP moment.

Muzjhath wrote:Arthas never died.

In WC3 between the Human and Undead campaign he tore out his own heart, so he did die.

I would generally avoid emote fighting in principle especially with people i don't know, but i simply wouldn't engage in any emote fight where its more than 2 vs 1. because emote spam makes it stupid in general,

emote fighting generally lacks a sense of time and place - movement happening far too fast- compared to actions and reactions. in 1 vs 1... doing combo's/repostes/feints is extremely difficult,

let alone keeping track for 5 emotes vs 1...

ugh..

Melnerag wrote:I think Arthas died when Illidan pierced his heart. But that aside.

I will probably be hated for what I have to say, but I will say it anyway. I do not like 'DKs are lorewise OP' being used to justify not having to think about what you are doing and not to measure the risks you take....and especially not having to be creative in battle.

Examples:

1. Two DKs see a minizerg of ten lighties march through Duskwood, they attack. Because they are OP, and know they can handle it. But -can they-? Not without serious injuries, and paladins can heal, man! In the end all they achieve is getting badly, badly wounded if not destroyed and have the ten paladins withdraw. Which is all good and dandy if it has a tactical/strategic signifiance so that DKs actually gain something. But if it is just a random battle, it is pyrrhic victory to say the least.

2. A DK is fighting six lighties assaulting him from all sides. They all emote attacking him. HEY! DKs are OP, so he just emotes
/e dodges paladin1's strike, parries paladin2's sword with his runeblade, kicks rogue1 in the groin and distrups his attack, shoots laz0rs at priest1 to interrupt his holy fire and shrugs off warrior1's hammerblow with his 1337-plate.
It just leads to an entirely unsatisfactory combat. Can't you..you know...AVOID being encircled in the first place? Even picking up the priest via strangulate and throwing him at the rest of the group to knock them down while using that time to slash the lone-standing Paladin is better. I strongly disapprove of moments where OP'ness simply means standing still, throwing creativity out of the window and shrugging off all attacks with a string of /dodge /parry /armor /block /magicblock.

This I would like to illustrate further with an entirely FICTIONAL example, which shows it better than anything.

Death Knight engages a paladin and a warrior on the balcony of Purple Parlor in Dalaran. Paladin kites the knight around, and positions him on the carpet. Paladin attacks and forces DK to parry. In that moment, warrior pulls the carpet to send the DK off-balance and paladin does a sparta-kick to knock him down the tall-ass tower. Normally one would say "Oh, that's pretty awesome! Cleverly played!"
Death Knight falls over and tumbles down the tower, hitting the cobblestones below with the sound of a collapsing closet full of kettles and pans.
But wait! DKs are OP. So, the DK just emotes
Death Knight's armor is so heavy and his undead reflexes give him stability. He does not lose his balance.

To conclude: I don't like OPness when it is used as a license to not bother thinking or being creative in RP, as that leads to a less enjoyable experience.

Your prob there isnt DK op it is the lighty zerg. If 2 DKs really want to charge 10 then they are idiots, but if 6 of whatever surround someone and spam emotes there will never be a happy outcome or good RP. The falling from the tower thing is most likely fatal for the DK as it would anyone bar a slow falling mage so to not be op in that instance means death, fair enough maybe but I could see why someone would not want that, would it be op if a DK just Death gripped the warrior off the balcony?

These kind of arguments are foolish generally as they assume DK RPers are all the same and dont have alts. The OP DK lolplayer would be an op ninja on a rogue, or a great balls of fire mage, or a generic pull light from their ass paladin, or the Fel launching, walk through SW with pet out lock. The class in this sense is meaningless, it is the players behind it ffs, if you gave the DK in your examples any other class would his general emotes be so different?

Nope, but this is a thread about DKs and not emote-battles in general. The main problem was that the DKs from the two examples, when whispered, used the 'DKs are lorewise OP' as explanation of their behaviour.

My point still stands. Do you think they would be better if you gave them any other class? It is not the DKs, it is the players.

Well Lex.
The group of Lighties would be STUPID not to surround the DK(s) if they outnummered them.
They know they are powerful foes. The best and most common tactic (aside from divide and conqure, but that's rather for multiple foes) is to flank and surround to crush in between.

The object of RP is not the win, but the story. Becides there is another angle here, I saw once a DK who publicly stated that they were looking to kill their char. 5 mins later he died under a zerg and a thousand emotes, even after the act people were /e "tries" to shoot him in the head at close range, "/e "tries" to remove his head with an axe. The blood lust of the apparent lighties was amazing, just so their char can be the one who can say they killed it.

But in RP terms a mindless zerg with 10 emotes for every one the defender can get out is never good RP, it is better to let a lightie be noble and ask for a 1 on 1 for example, or let the dk wound a few to even the numbers, I once had three Dwarves come to the acherus to fight 12 of the shroud, it is what I did, call on 3 DKs to show them the "power of the acherus" (ie not zerg the Dwarves for all the good it did).

And the point still stands, Bad RPers are still bad if they roll another class.

If you're even halfway organized you can surround someone and not spam emotes.
And good RPers wouldn't walk away free from scratches.

there is nothing wrong with 10 people surrounding one DK.

The problem, is it resulting in a fight at all. The DK should simply surrender or run away at the first sign.

stopping and engaging in an emote fight is the wrong choice to make for the DK.

Likewise the lighties once surrounding the dk, should give him the oppertunity to surrender instead of starting the fight.

Once you outnumber the other side, there should be no reason to even engage in Emote-fighting.

Lexgrad wrote:My point still stands. Do you think they would be better if you gave them any other class? It is not the DKs, it is the players.

Well, DUH?

The DK should simply surrender or run away at the first sign.

Lok'tar Ogar, victory or death!


I think it's fine for 10 people to surround 1 or 2 others and engage in combat as long as it's done properly.
Don't spam emotes mindlessly, give others the chance to reply, in general just don't be an asshat. Some organization is in order.
When you dumb it down so that it shall be more or less a 50/50 chance of victory or loss for either side I personally get a bit disappointed as it becomes so straight forward, scripted and makes little sense. I myself go for whatever makes the most sense in a situation and suffer the consequences even if it means the death of my character.

I'm also entirely fine with characters being "OP" as long as they're not invincible gods and have a few weak sides that are possible to exploit while being played in a proper way, makes it all so much more tasty and colourful. Use your head, make a plan, don't just mindlessly charge when fighting such a character and instead be clever! Personally I find RP the most enjoyable when you have the possibility to do such. I really don't give a damn whether your character is a Grand Champion amongst the Kor'Kron or a thumb sucking kid, just make it interesting!

Amaryl wrote:there is nothing wrong with 10 people surrounding one DK.

The problem, is it resulting in a fight at all. The DK should simply surrender or run away at the first sign.

stopping and engaging in an emote fight is the wrong choice to make for the DK.

Likewise the lighties once surrounding the dk, should give him the oppertunity to surrender instead of starting the fight.

Once you outnumber the other side, there should be no reason to even engage in Emote-fighting.

Yes and... no.
I agree it makes little sense from an OOC pov to fight when heavily outnumbered or when you outnumber the enemy. But, as always, it's not the OOC that matters but the IC. Example: Black Hand is in Duskwood, Lighties have started a huge zerg against them, with gryphons and such too. One of the DKs stands back to cover the flight for the others. He's been already seen as Black Hand so, even if gets caught, he will probably die. Considering that his goal is to slow the pursuers, of course he will fight, probably dying or being forced to surrender, only to die after, but that it is.
The Lighties should let him surrender, if he shows he will? If they're true Lighties, they should, but since lately Lighties are all but Lighties, but just plated warriors with different levels of zealotry, no to mention Black Hand kills and killed many people, some very beloved, it's normal that the paladins will try to put him down, not waiting for an eventual surrender. They wouldn't let surrender the random dk breaking rules in town, figures a proven member of the cult who killed so many people on a weekly basis.

All this to say: some times what is convenient OOC is, and should be, overruled by what is needed IC. I agree OOC communication is needed and should be done more often, but especially in case of people IC fighting each other, this doesn't happen, 'cause either side wants to win over the other OOC(showing little maturity, but hey, that's how things go), but even so, that OOC level shouldn't force our chars to behave differently than how they would.

Gor'Thrak, love ye.

The Lighties should let him surrender, if he shows he will? If they're true Lighties, they should, but since lately Lighties are all but Lighties

Not if he is swinging his sword around. One of the reasons Drustai has pretty much no support from my char is because instead of coming quietly, she unleashed a massive attack when we went to capture her - endangering the lives of many.

If a DK does the same, they should be slaughtered quickly - and that doesn't break any of the virtues. E.G, look to Uther. He didn't once tell Orcs to surrender when they were attacking a town. If he threw down his sword and time was of the essence, a quick kill would be justified.

I think my main issue with RP is when people who don't want their chars to die, play stupidly. In relation to DKs, a lot of them just expect to get resurected again once they die.

Melnerag wrote:

Lexgrad wrote:My point still stands. Do you think they would be better if you gave them any other class? It is not the DKs, it is the players.

Well, DUH?

Exactly my point, why is it endless threads about bad DK RP when it would be more true and constructive to talk about bad RP?

It might be worth saying, if we're considering the wider "RP actions in an aggressive situation", that this a quasi-medieval fantasy land full of war, hardships, ignorance and fear.

Quick death when surrendered and taking advantage of numbers (mob rule) would probably be the norm... unless you were worth money (or power) to keep alive.

But that would make for dull RP... the story is what's important, and do you not want to be entertained?

Or sumat.

Vaell wrote:

The Lighties should let him surrender, if he shows he will? If they're true Lighties, they should, but since lately Lighties are all but Lighties

Not if he is swinging his sword around. One of the reasons Drustai has pretty much no support from my char is because instead of coming quietly, she unleashed a massive attack when we went to capture her - endangering the lives of many.

If a DK does the same, they should be slaughtered quickly - and that doesn't break any of the virtues. E.G, look to Uther. He didn't once tell Orcs to surrender when they were attacking a town. If he threw down his sword and time was of the essence, a quick kill would be justified.

I think my main issue with RP is when people who don't want their chars to die, play stupidly. In relation to DKs, a lot of them just expect to get resurected again once they die.

If Dru was a mage would she have acted any differently (Becides in many cases ic Dru is more mage than DK anyway). But that is a case of consquences applying, Dru did what she does and your char responds to that.

I think my main issue with RP is when people who don't want their chars to die, play stupidly. In relation to DKs, a lot of them just expect to get resurected again once they die.

Cant disagree with that really, only I would add to it that if your char wants to kill another it should be done with the acceptance that they too could die during the fight. In terms of the Black hand situation, why should they wait in the depths of duskwood for the zerg, if they see a smaller group of the zerg isolated is it not fair and right that they could kill someone who wants to kill them.

I do think sometimes us as players are too keen to look for the kill so our chars can be the one to proclaim it as their own, it goes both ways really good and bad - lighties and cultists. If you do manage to kill all of the blackhand do you expect them to fold the guild or to endlessly recycle their chars so they can kill again?

But that would make for dull RP... the story is what's important, and do you not want to be entertained?

QTF

Death knights are killable just like anyone else.

As for "lighties" allowing death knights who have slaughtered so many innocent people over the last few months or so to surrender? Why icly should we? It is not against any virtue to cut down a undead who has killed a lot of people in fact it more something us "lighties" would do.