0.10 - Weakness: To Nerf, or Not to Nerf?

[Samyania]

As well as adding 'throat' as a valid target for stun limb, to the same end.

As long as you don't have to hit the thing you're stunning...

 

[Saephis]

As long as you don't have to hit the thing you're stunning...

It was in the mixed-application (Scholars hit whatever, fighters hit your very specific target, because "reasons") mind, we obviously(?) don't want people whacking each other in the throat.

 

[Avaran]

-

 

[Saephis]

Them's the rules now!

Throat whacking is TOTALLY not fine.

Only if its physical-in-nature.

Spell packets ... you gotta take that.

 

[Avaran]

-

 

[Saephis]

Is the neck part of the head?...

 

[MondayMcGee]

Eh, I think Weakness is general should just be removed because even if you put it at -2 damage, you're screwing new players who start base-line 2 damage, and you make wands useless since they start at 1 damage and don't increase until 5th level and if you just make it -1 damage, you're STILL screwing new players over - especially casters who are so maligned - and cutting new player melee damage by 50% still.

Anyway you look at it, Weakness screws new players and only marginally affects high-level players, though to a higher relative degree than 1.3.

What? I loved Weakness as a new player. Something that let me cut a hard-hitting monster down to more my size so I can engage with it: hell yes.

Granted, being on the receiving end of a bunch of NPC-cast Weaknesses as a new player would suck, but that's a plot team/scaling issue, same as having monsters that can only be affected by magical weapons that newbies aren't likely to have, or any of a myriad other options that could be used to screw new players if desired.

 

[Melimir]

I just had two mage duels on Saturday night!

I am going to make the assumption that most PvP is planned or sanctioned (duels/tournaments). A lot of the discussions/complaints about balence are class vs class problems. I feel that's not the nature of the game. I think in these discussions we've gotten away from the goal that Alliance is a Team game where generally us as players are supposed to be fighting NPCs not each other.
And more importantly we're supposed to need each other to be effective: fighters rogues and scholars.

 

[Samyania]

And more importantly we're supposed to need each other to be effective: fighters rogues and scholars.

Production, good luck.

 

[Avaran]

-

 

[Draven]

And more importantly we're supposed to need each other to be effective: fighters rogues and scholars.

I don’t think this is exaaaactlty, true. We’re supposed to need each other, yes; I don’t think we should have to need people based on their class.

 

[Saephis]

A lot of the discussions/complaints about balence are class vs class problems.

I feel like these are more related to class equity -- the vast majority of automobiles need four wheels to go places. They need to be effectively equal in their ability to turn. If you have some bizarre franken-axle, it doesn't work so well. The issue we've routinely run into is that a great deal of these rules are inclined towards that back, driver side Celestial wheel to the point where we'll be running a dune-buggy game, where Celestial casters are all folks want to play, because the other classes feel empty and under-supported.

If one class can do everything with the aid of just a little alchemy or potions, what's the point of anything else?

 

[mikestrauss]

Personally, I think Fighters should get a Weakness strike. The same as Weakness (including applying to Wands).

I have often said that I think rogue one-shot attacks should be changed across the board so that they are all strike versions of Curse effects. Weakness, Silence, Destruction, Paralysis, and Death all feel like very rogue-like moves to me when applied to a strike. Shatter not at all. And Stun Limb and Disarm feel more fightery than rogue-y. Yeah, this gets rid of Terminate and Assassinate, too, but Death mimics Terminate and Assassinate feels kinda meaningless given how high rear rogue damage is.

-MS

 

[mikestrauss]

I don't. Wand Damage has nothing to do with your physical strength, which is what Weakness is - by design, by name, and by flavor - intended to reduce.

I think if something like that is added to the game (reducing damage Casters can do), it should absolutely be given to Melee classes I also think that version should be percent-based reduction since Caster damage tends to be all over the place (say, 50% damage reduction across all sources of Magic Damage).

Could be a Rogue skill (like Assassinate), a Fighter Skill (like Slay), or available to both (like Stun Limb) from a Pre-req standpoint.

Except that increased damage from Proficiency and Backstabs don't represent an increase in strength of the blow. They represent an increase in skill of the weapon user. The rule book used to even have a long diatribe about that (I don't know if it is still there). Weakness, by name may sound like it affects strength, but it certainly doesn't by design. If it did, it would have some effect other than combat damage. It wouldn't affect crossbows. It would stop people from using Endow to perform feats of strength.

Admittedly, it used to be more directly tied to physical strength, when there was a direct correspondence between monster strength and weakness, but that link got removed in a previous edition. Now, weakness affecting rip out ability is entirely optional, and pretty much only exists as an artifact of old rules.

Also, melee classes already effectively reduce magic damage in half. They do it by having more than twice the body points and the potential for more than twice the armor (with the exception of the highly broken, but very customer friendly... sigh... Arcane Armor) of a scholar.

-MS

 

[mikestrauss]

Eh, I think Weakness is general should just be removed because even if you put it at -2 damage, you're screwing new players who start base-line 2 damage, and you make wands useless since they start at 1 damage and don't increase until 5th level and if you just make it -1 damage, you're STILL screwing new players over - especially casters who are so maligned - and cutting new player melee damage by 50% still.

Anyway you look at it, Weakness screws new players and only marginally affects high-level players, though to a higher relative degree than 1.3.

As long as Shatter exists, I want Weakness to stay in the game. Weakness screws a new player for 10 minutes. Shatter screws a new player for as much as an entire weekend. I consider Shatter to be the low level Death spell. At least when you are weakened, you can still block for others.

-MS

 

[Avaran]

-

 

[Inaryn]

As long as you don't have to hit the thing you're stunning...

It's super effective!

 

[Tantarus]

It was in the mixed-application (Scholars hit whatever, fighters hit your very specific target, because "reasons") mind, we obviously(?) don't want people whacking each other in the throat.

Actually Stun limb is still calling out what limb with the melee version. You dont understand we need to keep things consistent, so it is easier for new people. Never mind that disarm and shatter strikes cause magic armors to work totally different now too.

 

[Tantarus]

I voted no. I am against nerfing earth casters any more then they are. I realize they are still a step up a from melee. But Let earth and melee not fight among ourselves. We know who all our true enemies are. The filthy sky magic overlords that oppress us all!

 

[mikestrauss]

I think this should be removed as well, along with Destroy. Or, failing that, make those effects so they only effect Constructs and Locks/Traps.

I always push for Shatter to be a temporary effect that lasts until a blacksmith repairs it (30 second count or something similar). It adds more usefulness to a woefully weak skill (blacksmith), while maintaining the intended effect (removing a weapon or shield from play).

If that were implemented, I would also love to see blacksmiths be able to craft patches that would allow a quicker fix (say, a three count) or maybe allow a non-blacksmith to fix a damaged item.

As a 7th level spell (or did it drop to 6... can't remember), I think I am okay with Destroy being permanent. Though, also, I seem to remember that Destroy was removed in at least one of the iterations of these playtests, because Shatter basically became Destroy.

-MS