Azmodeous
Apprentice
After reading this and speaking with others, I'm interested to see what the overall opinion is on this proposition.
Damage scaling
- Thread starter Azmodeous
- Start date
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.
Muir
Elite
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.
Saephis
Virtuous
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.)?
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.
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.
Saephis
Virtuous
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. 
mikestrauss
Virtuous
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
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
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.
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.
Avaran
Exemplar
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.