PDA

View Full Version : PvP Pally spec



Odess
12-10-2007, 12:12 PM
I've been leveling a paladin, and recently decided to mostly just PvP with her and was wondering on a spec, for BGs mostly to begin with until I get some gear upgrades, and then plan on moving her to arenas, with either a rogue, lock, or warrior partner in 2s depending on which one of my friends wants to finish leveling one of their alts lol. I was just wondering what kind of spec I should be looking at? I know I will be healing in the arenas, but in BGs my main goal at the moment is to be as annoying as possible... frustration from years of being annoyed by pallys pre-BC.

Klimpen
12-10-2007, 04:01 PM
I personally run with Talent Calculator - World of Warcraft (http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=sVxuMxzheoZVMphMIbM) when I'm Holy.

A lot of people swear by 41/20, but I feel that has a little less of a PvP focus, than a PvE. Since I'm only Holy when I PvP, I went for an extremely focus'd build for PvP [+6% Sta, all 3 4th Teir talents...]

Hope this helps.

Daikyu
12-15-2007, 12:10 AM
Wowhead seems to be experiencing technical difficulties, so I can't say much about the spec Klimpen posted. Deviating from 41/20 is proving to be a difficult task; it's almost to the point where competitive healing paladins have about as much choice as competitive pvp warriors do (which is to say, not much choice at all).

If you have to run 2's on a pally, given your choices I'd push for lock / pally, it looks to be quite strong. Rogue / pally isn't too bad, given the current strength of the rogue class. War / pally probably isn't worth pushing competitively; play it if you have no other options but don't expect to get far.

War / pal is essentially unviable without tremendously strong gear, due to the tremendous numbers of ways now available to interrupt or shutdown a paladin completely. Even if it is viable, it's extremely difficult to attain a good rating with it. Almost every other viable combination out there has better odds to win than you do. Except double-melee, perhaps.