Damage scaling

Should weapon damage be scaled by build in fighter/rogue skills like wand damage is for scholars?

  • Yes, but I think there would need to be new skills introduced.

  • Yes, and the fighter/rogue skills should remain as written in .9.

  • No, I like the weapon proficiency as written in .9

  • No, I think that there is no problem with the damage rules in 1.3.

  • Indifferent.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Azmodeous

Artisan
Alternately, make Weapon Proficiency and Backstab a passive -- like Wand Damage -- calculated off how much build a character has into the appropriate abilities, with the same 'burst damage' that Spells have, found through offensive (currently Prepare to Die) skills. The proposed rules still push Alliance entirely toward burst damage, not steady damage, so this would seem the appropriate proposal/direction to take.

After reading this and speaking with others, I'm interested to see what the overall opinion is on this proposition.
 
I think it's an idea worth exploring, at the very least.
 
I'm for sticking with the 1.3 standard of a static cost. The changes to how all the rest of the skills work, along with the removal of most if not all of the force multiplier and pocket defensive magic items is more than enough to counterbalance the ability to spend build for repeatable damage.
 
It's an idea worth checking out, I think. BUT...I feel like there'd need to be 2-3 more skills in the rogue/fighter tree.
 
It's an idea worth checking out, I think. BUT...I feel like there'd need to be 2-3 more skills in the rogue/fighter tree.

In addition to those presented in 0.9, or overall (I suspect the former, but, you know, clarity). And any particular inclination of said skills (Defensive/offensive/support/etc.)?
 
Overall I think.

And game design isn't my strong suit... But I'd say defensive/supportive skills, since the current offensive skills are pretty solid.

Either way, I doubt new skills would be added this late into development.
 
I really like this idea the more I think about it, obv earth would need some kinda of scaling to your build equivalent as well to round it out for all classes.
 
Working on it now!
 
If done incorrectly this could make Fighter even worse than it already is under this system...
 
Thanks for your support. . . ;P

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 
You'd either need to include weapon skills in your base for determining how many of a particular skill can be bought (as it seems like this is a move to eliminate profs) or make some alterations to the requirements for buying skills.

Something like: first purchase of each skill has no pre-reqs, would probably do it, but you'd run into an issue with most characters having a parry, eviscerate, dodge, stun limb and terminate at a certain level.
 
-
 
Last edited:
We have scholars now with 100+ per day effects, and will continue to do so with the new rules.

Why not have some sort of parity between the two?
 
One of the points of 2.0 is to have consistency -- Numerous daily effects in all combat-builds (ie, non artisans) would seem to support that far more than "Buy five things, then you're good." If you have another suggestion on how to "fix" Fighters in this, @Avaran , I know I'd be interested in seeing it rather than the current sky-is-falling, everything-is-terrible viewpoints. :)
 
The choice to go effect heavy as a fighter is just that, a choice. You can still build an effect-less (or mostly effect-less) fighter. Thus, anyone making the choice is presumably doing so because they are comfortable with a large quantity of effects (just like a spellcaster is).

The only really meaningful point I see here is that the choice should be relatively equal, and there is a good argument that the current playtest system might not be (I'm hesitant to make a definitive statement for a variety of reasons). There are a number of potential balancing options:

1) Play with the costs. Current playtest cost for proficiency is 15 + 3 * (# of current proficiencies). The balance may be as simple as changing the 3 to 2 in that equation.

2) Offer additional benefits to a proficiency. A proficiency may maintain its value longer (long enough that most players will never get high enough level to care) if it gained some additional benefit. One possibility is for each proficiency to also duplicate the effect of a critical attack (or maybe 2 critical attacks). Another possibility is for a proficiency to also offer a once/day active effect that lets a fighter immediately recover a used ability as per the focus rules without having to wait the normal 10 minutes.

3) Allow the build "penalty" to provide an additional benefit. For example, every 3 build of "penalty" could provide 1 point of natural armor to the fighter that stacks with regular armor.

All of the above is spitballing, but I think they are all potentially reasonable approaches that maintains the concept at play while simultaneously making the tradeoff between Proficiencies and effect-based skills a little more balanced (assuming they are currently not balanced, which again I am not certain of).

-MS
 
Here's a simple idea: Each Prof to give the fighter the ability to 'shrug off' one take out effect per day/weekend. That way they can be a little 'tankier'
 
-
 
Last edited:
That's one long swear word.

And even if you drop the 'tank' part of my post, a big issues fighters are having with 2.0 (judging from the giant thread) is the lack of counterplay against takeout/status effects. So it's an idea. I thought I'd throw out there to help alleviate some of that.
 
That's one long swear word.

And even if you drop the 'tank' part of my post, a big issues fighters are having with 2.0 (judging from the giant thread) is the lack of counterplay against takeout/status effects. So it's an idea. I thought I'd throw out there to help alleviate some of that.

Not saying your idea was bad, just that I think that's too far for a larp that isn't built around the tank-dps-healer design space.

Also, not a swear word, just a bunch of shift+numbers. *$#&@$#*@#*(!@)(!)(@!(@#*#*@(*!@(#**$&$&*#!@(*#!()*#! <--Like this.
 
Back
Top