Persistent Damage Cost Change

Is the cost change in Backstabs and Weapon Profs, overall, good?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .

Saephis

Squire
Taking the below excerpt from the 0.9 'packet':

Lastly, sources of persistent damage (Weapon Proficiency and Backstab) become harder to purchase as you buy more of them. Each one takes one additional “turn in skill” (either Critical Attack or Back Attack respectively) for each Weapon Proficiency or Backstab you’ve already purchased, up to the 10th purchase (it never costs more than 14 Critical Attacks or Back Attacks respectively). This helps close some of the gap between high-level players and low-level players, and gives additional reason to spread build expenditure around instead of just buying Weapon Proficiencies or Backstabs at high levels.
With the 'shortish' version of every Backstab and Weapon Proficiency costing progressively more to purchase, with the intent of lowering damage.
 

Ruki

Scholar
I play a rogue, so an affected class. I'm not a huge fan of the scaling....but if the goal is to reduce static damage, it is doing it's job. Just means I'll have to branch out my skills a bit more to do things other than just pure damage.
 

Saephis

Squire
For clarity on who 'isn't effected' -- Artisans and Scholars are really the only uneffected classes (ignoring the possibility for inefficient character builds).

I'm voting no for the following reasons (And in no particular order):
  • There is no equivalent 'nerf' to the damage/skill purchase even remotely equitable in Celestial and Earth magic, with more damage becoming more available.
  • This will result in "most" characters buying relatively the same number of Backstabs and Weapon Proficiencies, with likely most characters swinging approximately the same damage, only glut of "other skills" displaying high vs low, resulting in very little "One day I can do X" aims.
  • This will adversely effect characters further, with the above noted limited damage range, and being afflicted with Weakness (A third level spell), and characters of all levels being simply ineffective in combat due to the wide availability of such a skill.
  • The usefulness for this seems only half thought-through, with simple moves like scaling better being the resolution
  • An increased "need" for Take-Out effects only, as combat will simply drone on and on with low damage and high body (See: Hearty)
This, frankly, seems like a proposal written by-scholars-for-scholars without any consideration of the sheer volume of classes adversely afflicted by its move. That's Fighters, Rogues, Templars/Spellswords, Scouts, and Adepts (Five classes) versus ... Scholars, and the (stated noncombatant class) Artisans.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
I understand the reasoning for it, you want to bring the overall damage down, and that's great, but I think it goes too far. Removal/rework of damage boosters like DA, Monster Slayer, and Race Reaver, as well as others, already bring the numbers down quiet a bit, this change causes a problem of your damage simply not mattering unless you're using a two-handed weapon or spent an incredible amount of xp into more profs/backstabs, which kills your usefulness in other sections.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
  • An increased "need" for Take-Out effects only, as combat will simply drone on and on with low damage and high body (See: Hearty)
Our playtest this weekend demonstrated this quite readily. Takeouts or per day skills were viewed as being excessively powerful, or being the only way to go. The majority of NPC's felt that their damage, even when swinging 10's was mostly irrelevant unless accompanied by a takeout carrier. As an NPC, I was seldom concerned when faced with a single player's static damage, and the times I died to it were almost exclusively when it came from multiple PC's simultaneously. The majority of deaths I experienced were due to per day skills, takeout abilities, or high values of Elementalist Paragon Burst pools.
 

Parzivel

Artisan
I think it is just one more nail in the coffin of actual combat. If feels like all that matters is take outs and counters, especially now that persistent damage is getting limited.
 

Thorgrim

Artisan
I am not opposed to the idea of slightly scaling prof costs to encourage fighters to branch out and just not sink all their build into prof and parry. However the scaling introduced by the current rules proposal is so drastic that it completely eliminates the purchasing of profs after 6 or so purchases. All that this scaling has done is forced fighters into purchasing and stacking crit attack instead of prof, making our damage more bursty, which makes scaling encounters more difficult and also punishes new players who can't afford to stack multiple crits multiple times per day in order to make their damage meaningful.
 

Parzivel

Artisan
Why do you want people to branch out? Surely the ideal should be that branching out is different but neither more nor less powerful, so that both are viable options for different playstyles? Isn't the point to allow different playstyles, rather than to encourage particular ones?
 

Inaryn

Knight
What if the costs scaled the way spells scale up? So for a fighter, the first two profs are 15, the next two 18, etc. Then your cross classes get the first two for 15, the next at 18, then the fourth and fifth at 21, etc? Once you hit 9, that's the fixed price for them going forward? (And the same for Stabs, obviously.) Would that be a compromise that people could go with?
 

Saephis

Squire
What if the costs scaled the way spells scale up? So for a fighter, the first two profs are 15, the next two 18, etc. Then your cross classes get the first two for 15, the next at 18, then the fourth and fifth at 21, etc? Once you hit 9, that's the fixed price for them going forward? (And the same for Stabs, obviously.) Would that be a compromise that people could go with?
Not really. I feel like this is another symptom-response to the entirely different actual issue.

Damage-numbers are the most obvious giveaway for a level-scaling "Who should fight what" standpoint. If every NPC started swinging somewhere between 2 and 10, like PCs likely will, then there's going to be no indicator as to who should fight what. This will result in a poor player experience for newer players, not necessarily understanding what is within their "reach" as a character to take out on the field.

Likewise, large health pools are often linked to high damage numbers, leaving higher level PCs to fight things that are expected to take that sort of damage.

This change feels like a "I don't have much health as a scholar" or "I'm having difficulties scaling encounters for different groups of players". The former is resolved in cohesive fighting, with the latter resolved with something resembling a 101-Guide on monster card writing/building and encounter development.
 

Avaran

Baron
What if the costs scaled the way spells scale up? So for a fighter, the first two profs are 15, the next two 18, etc. Then your cross classes get the first two for 15, the next at 18, then the fourth and fifth at 21, etc? Once you hit 9, that's the fixed price for them going forward? (And the same for Stabs, obviously.) Would that be a compromise that people could go with?
Obviously, I would prefer no scaling. That said....

My first reaction to this is that it's a really good idea if (as it seems) most of the owners are hell-bent on reducing Weapon-based persistent damage. It would help cross classes a lot, for sure. I would have to think about it a bit more and play with the character builder a bit to really understand it. I will say that I think your idea is a HELL of a lot batter than the current iteration, that is for sure.
 

KyleSchmelz

Fighter
I was working on a slightly different idea for a slower version of prof scaling (just go up every other prof), but I quite like Inaryn's version. One thing I was noticing is that either with 2.0 scaling or the version I was playing with, fighters and rogues are hit way harder than cross-classes, especially scouts. I would be a little leery about the fact that templars would get their first three profs at the same cost as fighters, but that's the only thing that stands out to me at first glance.
 

Shades

Newbie
I was working on a slightly different idea for a slower version of prof scaling (just go up every other prof), but I quite like Inaryn's version. One thing I was noticing is that either with 2.0 scaling or the version I was playing with, fighters and rogues are hit way harder than cross-classes, especially scouts. I would be a little leery about the fact that templars would get their first three profs at the same cost as fighters, but that's the only thing that stands out to me at first glance.
I also agree that it seems like cross classes are better than pure fighters or rouges. However, I don't think that any of the templars can compare to a celestial caster and their wand. Why spend 70 build (on 3 weapon proffs and ohe ) plus the increased spell cost to swing for 5s with a sword, when you could just buy 3 more columns and increase your wand damage?
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I also agree that it seems like cross classes are better than pure fighters or rouges. However, I don't think that any of the templars can compare to a celestial caster and their wand. Why spend 70 build (on 3 weapon proffs and ohe ) plus the increased spell cost to swing for 5s with a sword, when you could just buy 3 more columns and increase your wand damage?
Under the current 0.9 Paragon packet, there is an option where your Weapon Proficiencies count as Scholarly skills for the purposes of wands.
 

KyleSchmelz

Fighter
I also agree that it seems like cross classes are better than pure fighters or rouges. However, I don't think that any of the templars can compare to a celestial caster and their wand. Why spend 70 build (on 3 weapon proffs and ohe ) plus the increased spell cost to swing for 5s with a sword, when you could just buy 3 more columns and increase your wand damage?
You only get additional wand damage every 50 Celestial Scholarly build in 2.0, for one. Wands don't last all day, for two. Also, with Inaryn's proposal, Templars would get OHE and the first 3 profs for 55 build - that's only enough to lift your wand damage by 1.
 

Shades

Newbie
Under the current 0.9 Paragon packet, there is an option where your Weapon Proficiencies count as Scholarly skills for the purposes of wands.
That build still seems worse than just buying 2 more columns and increasing your wand damage by 1 (if you spend 50 build in the paragon path). To me it seems like a big problem that the celestial casters get something for free every time they spend build, but the melee classes get dimming returns on the build they spend. If the fighter damage is expected to cap at 10, then 8-10 damage from a wand is just too much. Especially since it can be done from range. and goes through weapons and shields. Plus it gets a element all day, which is something fighters/rogues cannot do anymore.
 

Shades

Newbie
You only get additional wand damage every 50 Celestial Scholarly build in 2.0, for one. Wands don't last all day, for two. Also, with Inaryn's proposal, Templars would get OHE and the first 3 profs for 55 build - that's only enough to lift your wand damage by 1.
I disagree that wands won't last all day. 100+ wand packets a day is fairly easy, and there are people in the game that could do more than 160. As someone who is a primary archer, I have used less arrows than that in a day. Not to mention that at only 375 build you can get a 15 column giving you 135 spells, some of which can turn into multiple packets.

I would be interested to hear from high level celestial casters in 1.3. How many wand charges do you have, and how long do they last you?
 

Inaryn

Knight
I was working on a slightly different idea for a slower version of prof scaling (just go up every other prof), but I quite like Inaryn's version. One thing I was noticing is that either with 2.0 scaling or the version I was playing with, fighters and rogues are hit way harder than cross-classes, especially scouts. I would be a little leery about the fact that templars would get their first three profs at the same cost as fighters, but that's the only thing that stands out to me at first glance.
While true on the costing for cross classes, it also lets them break into that aspect of their character sooner, letting those classes feel more like an actual cross rather than a poor version of a pure until late game. It also reigns their late game in as far as balance against pure physical classes so that they're just a little less godmode.
 
Top