James,
Early on in one of the threads I asked that a member of the ARC or an administrator post a thread titled "Clarifications of Intent" that is pinned for us in the Coordinator forum. This might help clarify some of the questions that you are asking. I have provided some samples of it for you, but as I stated in my original request post, I do not feel comfortable making its entire contents available without their permission. In the document, the question was specifically asked regarding the intended development direction that influenced the purchasing changes to Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs. The response was primarily that combat had become a "grind the monster down fight", which devalued things like slays and high level damage spells, and that having to track high levels of body points was an undesirable activity that made NPC'ing more difficult to approach. The intent of reducing passive damage is to make the usage of slays and high level damage spells more impactful and rewarding, and to reduce monster body points by 40-50%.
Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs are not the only items being addressed in the v2 revision. There are eight chapters worth of changes. Damage, however, seems to be the area that you are heavily focused on. That's not a bad thing, as every aspect of the system should be thoroughly reviewed. However please do not state things like, "ARC only want to address profs and backstabs". Statements like that are simply untrue and quite misleading to the outside reader.
Thank you for providing a revised statement on Meditate that more accurately represents the changes in the playtest packet.
An Alchemist's ability to affect more things is subjective, and varies from event to event based on what type of enemies are present. Yes, the changes allow them to better engage opponents who are non-poisonable (as stated in the playtest packet), however if all enemies you face are in fact susceptible to poisons in the first place, there is really no net change. Declaring that high level players have more money to throw is not necessarily a true statement. The economy varies from chapter to chapter, and wealth varies by individual. Just because a player is a higher level than another does not assure them any degree of wealth, aside from increased opportunities for investment in Crafstman skills through additional build. Distribution of wealth aside from Crafstman is strictly an in game mechanic managed by plot teams and players. Is it more likely that higher level players will have access to a larger amount of wealth? That is typically the case, however it is not a hard and fast constant in the game system that can reliably serve as a centerpiece for design theory.
As aforementioned, I have already requested for the "Clarifications of Intent" thread to be made available for general viewing. The performance objectives are available therein. Personally I would love for them to be available for you to view, as I think information and design transparency is critical in the development process. I have been involved in a number of discussion with ARC about exactly that, and continue to encourage them to provide as much insight as is reasonably possible.
Early on in one of the threads I asked that a member of the ARC or an administrator post a thread titled "Clarifications of Intent" that is pinned for us in the Coordinator forum. This might help clarify some of the questions that you are asking. I have provided some samples of it for you, but as I stated in my original request post, I do not feel comfortable making its entire contents available without their permission. In the document, the question was specifically asked regarding the intended development direction that influenced the purchasing changes to Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs. The response was primarily that combat had become a "grind the monster down fight", which devalued things like slays and high level damage spells, and that having to track high levels of body points was an undesirable activity that made NPC'ing more difficult to approach. The intent of reducing passive damage is to make the usage of slays and high level damage spells more impactful and rewarding, and to reduce monster body points by 40-50%.
Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs are not the only items being addressed in the v2 revision. There are eight chapters worth of changes. Damage, however, seems to be the area that you are heavily focused on. That's not a bad thing, as every aspect of the system should be thoroughly reviewed. However please do not state things like, "ARC only want to address profs and backstabs". Statements like that are simply untrue and quite misleading to the outside reader.
Thank you for providing a revised statement on Meditate that more accurately represents the changes in the playtest packet.
An Alchemist's ability to affect more things is subjective, and varies from event to event based on what type of enemies are present. Yes, the changes allow them to better engage opponents who are non-poisonable (as stated in the playtest packet), however if all enemies you face are in fact susceptible to poisons in the first place, there is really no net change. Declaring that high level players have more money to throw is not necessarily a true statement. The economy varies from chapter to chapter, and wealth varies by individual. Just because a player is a higher level than another does not assure them any degree of wealth, aside from increased opportunities for investment in Crafstman skills through additional build. Distribution of wealth aside from Crafstman is strictly an in game mechanic managed by plot teams and players. Is it more likely that higher level players will have access to a larger amount of wealth? That is typically the case, however it is not a hard and fast constant in the game system that can reliably serve as a centerpiece for design theory.
As aforementioned, I have already requested for the "Clarifications of Intent" thread to be made available for general viewing. The performance objectives are available therein. Personally I would love for them to be available for you to view, as I think information and design transparency is critical in the development process. I have been involved in a number of discussion with ARC about exactly that, and continue to encourage them to provide as much insight as is reasonably possible.