Persistent Damage Cost Change

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


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .

Avaran

Baron
Why spend 70 build (on 3 weapon proffs and ohe )

The worry here, for me, is that the way 2.0 is now, I think all Spellswords are going to only get 3 Profs and then just buy spells and other skills. I don't seem them investing in more profs than just because of the scaling costs, and Slay/ImpSlay scaling just isn't going to be worth it, I think. Particularly at higher levels when Damage is going to be less important than take-out effects.

It is 27 build for a SpellWord to get that 4th Prof to swing for 6. That is 3 build shy of another column of spells.

Prof 5 is 30 build, which is another column of spells, which is multiple take-out effects, and damage/healing, plus Wand Packets, Plus wand damage increase passively the more build spent, just for the ability to swing +1 damage in a game where damage is marginalized. This is further compounded by NPC's naturally scaling damage down to more easily managed numbers (5) to calculate more quickly.

I feel like this is a bit worse for Adepts because they have to spend build on an additional (4th) BackStab so that they can swing for an even 10.

This, again, goes against the stated goal of giving classes/players options. From a build efficiency standpoint, I feel like it's going to be even WORSE for Adepts/Spellswords and to a lesser extent, Scouts, than it is in 1.3. I feel like there's more build diversity among Adept/Templar now, just based on BS/Prof purchases and focus because going into another Prof/BS isn't necessarily a bad thing for those classes. But because of the scaling costs of those skills now, those two classes will cap out, likely, at 5 damage for Fighters and 10 Damage from behind for Rogues and then all build aside from that will be for whatever Rogue/Fighter skills they are able to buy, and then just Spells (and Paragons if those go through). I just don't see a whole lot of build diversity there.
 
Last edited:
I've mostly state my thoughts on this before, but the short version is that I like the concept. I can see some room for small modifications, but I think the idea is beneficial for the game as a whole, and I think it will play out very well over a standard weekend (which I don't feel that playtests are able to mimic very well).

For this post, I just want to discuss grammar.

"Effect" is a noun.
"Affect" is a verb (that can be changed into an adjective with certain suffixes -- ie. affected).

I believe every single instance of "effect" in the original poll and the first post should be "affect" (or some variation -- affected, unaffected, etc.).

I'm not trying to be rude, but it kinda made the original post hard to read.

-MS
 

Samyania

Scholar
"Effect" is a noun.
"Affect" is a verb (that can be changed into an adjective with certain suffixes -- ie. affected).

Incorrect when applied universally (both can be either, though they have different meanings), though correct when applied to this post, and in either case unnecessary, off-topic, and yes, a little rude.
 

Polare

Count
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?

(following is personal opinion/comments, not in any official capacity)

For context: My primary character Polare currently (1.3) has ~115ish Wand packets each day. When I was in a Master Construct I'd run out basically every day. Without a Master Construct (not in one anymore because quite frankly they're stupidly overpowered for a character that can cover their few weak spots) I generally run through the first half (60ish) every day without fail. I don't run completely out very often (maybe 1 day out of every 7 or 8?) but in large part that's because I start getting much stingier about throwing them once I'm down to about 40 or so. I can't run back to the cabin and restock like I could on arrows (for additional 1.3 context, my Rogue can easily go through 200+ arrows on a heavy archery day).

For additional context: The builds I'd look at doing in 2.0 take my Wand damage from ~20 in 1.3 to ~7 or 8 per packet, and my packet quantity goes down by about 1/4 - 1/3. It's a massive difference in the amount of damage the character puts out via Wand in a day, mostly due to diversification in skills but also removal of MIs/High Magic (Greater Wand and Elemental Burst wand bonus damage) as well as "poorer" scaling (the character is focused much more on battle magic than other Celestial skills, and thus does worse with Wand packets in 2.0). Taking Paragon Paths impacts that Wand damage and # of packets even more.
 

Avaran

Baron
the character is focused much more on battle magic than other Celestial skills, and thus does worse with Wand packets in 2.0

I don't quite understand this.

Aren't wand charges still based on the number of Spells you have per day? i.e. a 4 Column has 36 Spells, so has 36 Wand Packets? Therefore, focusing more on Battle Magic (spell slots?!) would mean more packets, not fewer, wouldn't it? Or am I misunderstanding your usage of "Battle Magic"? Also, isn't 1 XP spent for a celestial spell slot the same as spending 1 XP in "other" Celestial skills, netting you the same affect?
 

Alavatar

Baron
In 2.0, Wand Charges are 1 charge per 3 XP in "scholar skills" and Wand Damage is Base 1 +1 per 50 XP in "scholar skills". Current 1.3 gives damage at +1 per 25 Build (for a scholar since that is the cost of getting a 9th level spell). So 2.0 is effectively cutting wand damage by more than half.

I believe I am one of the few people actually getting buffed by the changes now that Formal is being counted as a Scholar Skill.
 
I think the change in how skill prereqs are done will have a small but noticable reduction in static damage as well, without any scaling whatsoever. The scaling as-is, along with all the other changes, is just too much.
 

Avaran

Baron
In 2.0, Wand Charges are 1 charge per 3 XP in "scholar skills"

Thanks for that, Seth. I didn't realize it had changed to a per-xp-spent model for wand charges.

That said, I don't understand how spending XP in battle magic differs from "other" celestial skills. 21 XP spent is Celestial Skills for Battle Magic is still the same as 21 XP spent in "other" Celestial skills, isn't it? In fact, wouldn't that mean it's less of a hit to go Formal for Wand damage and Wand Charges (since right now you don't get any benefit to Wand Damage/Charges for spending lots on Formals)?
 

Polare

Count
Thanks for that, Seth. I didn't realize it had changed to a per-xp-spent model for wand charges.

That said, I don't understand how spending XP in battle magic differs from "other" celestial skills. 21 XP spent is Celestial Skills for Battle Magic is still the same as 21 XP spent in "other" Celestial skills, isn't it? In fact, wouldn't that mean it's less of a hit to go Formal for Wand damage and Wand Charges (since right now you don't get any benefit to Wand Damage/Charges for spending lots on Formals)?

Yes, exactly. Characters with large investments in Formal Magic will do much better with Wands in 2.0, while those with proportionally more Battle Magic might do worse with Wands in 2.0. As a character both (a) focused much more in Battle Magic than other Celestial Skills, and (b) looking at diversifying his skill base outside of Celestial skills, Polare gets hit by both of those in the Wand damage / packets department. Characters like Alavatar or Kel (lots of Formal Magic and Create Scroll respectively), however, will be much happier with Wands.
 

Avaran

Baron
looking at diversifying his skill base outside of Celestial skills

I think this is the part I either missed or misunderstood from your first post because "outside of" wasn't added to your initial post which I quoted above. Thanks for clarifying. :)

For a character that is just porting directly over without making changes to their build choices, what would the change look like?

In other words, if you just stayed with Celestial Skill choices instead of changing it up and making other choices, how would it alter/change/affect Polare in terms of Wand damage/Charges?
 
Thank you, Polare. That is a perfect example of what I have been saying all along.

There are three major sources of raw damage in the game for PCs: Profs, Backstabs, and celestial magic. The latter is primarily wand damage because it is usually optimal to memorize something other than a damage spell at any given spell level (level 7 is the one big exception I can think of). And, as Polare described so well, wand damage is dropping like a rock. In fact, it is dropping even more precipitously than both Prof and BS damage.

That means, in terms of persistent damage output, fighters and rogues are effectively seeing an increase, not a decrease, in damage. Caveat time: The previous sentence is true if monsters / NPCs are appropriately scaled back in terms of body. And the ARC / owners are recommending exactly that. Heck, they are even changing the monster database (a universal source of monsters, that, at a bare minimum, acts as benchmarks for building new enemies, even if nothing in it is used). The one possible dilemma is that PCs and monsters follow a different design philosophy. But this has always been true, even since the early days. Plot teams / monster desks have learned over time to use slightly different scaling approaches for "normal" monsters and "PC-style" enemies in order to maintain balance.

Overall, though, fighters and rogues should actually be more effective against standard meat & potato enemies. The majority of fighters should actually feel more useful, not less. The reason is because the damage of the average fighter is dropping 50% or less, while body of monsters should be dropping about 50%. As a result, the average fighter sees no change. The upper end fighters see a slight reduction, but probably no more than a swing worth against the average monster. However, the lower end fighters see their low damage (2-5) suddenly being roughly twice as effective (keeping in mind that the cost of that damage is almost unchanged, especially with the 25 build starting point calculated in).

And that is just half the analysis. The other half of the analysis is the armor / body increase for PCs. Increased armor means less downtime getting refits (and the skill that can decrease that to 45 seconds is a nice bonus, too, though I would prefer to see 10 or 15 second increments for that skill). It also means that fighters, in particular, are even more resistant to carrier attacks than they were. And that is important, because the benchmark monsters in our game usually are melee combatants that either have a carrier attack, a few damage packets, or 1 or 2 (partial) take-out effects. The last can be annoying, though binding is easily removed if someone else kills the monster.

The first two are the important things to note, though. Carrier attacks are basically the bane of scholars, a modest annoyance to rogues, and laughed at by fighters. That is intentional design and is the reason that carrier attacks are one of the most common ways to "upgrade" a monster (undead are an excellent example of this). Similarly, fighters can simply power through the many "burst" monsters in the game (best example is elementals) that throw a handful of damage packets before resorting to melee.

No fair weekend scaling could unleash endless take-out effects, even in the magic item glutted game we have now, let alone in a game that will have minimal magic items. Meat and potato enemies (primarily melee, maybe with carriers or low amounts of packets) have to constitute a significant bulk of the scaling for sake of balance. And against these enemies, fighters and rogues should be seeing better results, due in part to the reduction in persistent damage.

-MS
 

Muir

Fighter
As someone who presently plays a (really inefficient) Scout looking to move to Templar, these rules as written will likely mean I never play a straight combat class in this game again. They too drastically decrease the ability of melee classes to play the game effectively without solely focusing on getting one shot takeouts.

Long play under 1.3 has taught me that I do not really find the 'cloak, bane, dodge' version of combat very enjoyable, so making it even more the focus just seems likely to make any primarily damage dealing melee class deeply not fun.
 
Last edited:

Avaran

Baron
Overall, though, fighters and rogues should actually be more effective against standard meat & potato enemies. The majority of fighters should actually feel more useful, not less. The reason is because the damage of the average fighter is dropping 50% or less, while body of monsters should be dropping about 50%. As a result, the average fighter sees no change. The upper end fighters see a slight reduction, but probably no more than a swing worth against the average monster. However, the lower end fighters see their low damage (2-5) suddenly being roughly twice as effective (keeping in mind that the cost of that damage is almost unchanged, especially with the 25 build starting point calculated in).

Mike, what are your thoughts on this:

Weapon Skills are available to ALL classes, and EVERY class can swing for 1 (Dagger), 2 (Long Sword), or 3 (two-handed weapon) an unlimited number of times per day. Two damage is going to be a very common damage call. Looking at the lower end of things, there isn't a vast difference in 2.0 between 2 and 5, you yourself point out in the BOLDED part above. Plus, as you also pointed out, with the oft-cited lower Body on NPC's (which I don't think will last long, but we'll see) 2 Normal becomes vastly more effective than it is now.

Any Scholar can swing for 2's. Higher End Templar will swing for 5's. Highest End Fighters will swing 10's.

Constant damage is devalued horrifically in 2.0 imho. I'm having a hard time seeing things from your perspective, I guess, in part because of the above.
 
Last edited:

Shades

Newbie
Thank you, Polare. That is a perfect example of what I have been saying all along.
There are three major sources of raw damage in the game for PCs: Profs, Backstabs, and celestial magic. The latter is primarily wand damage because it is usually optimal to memorize something other than a damage spell at any given spell level (level 7 is the one big exception I can think of). And, as Polare described so well, wand damage is dropping like a rock. In fact, it is dropping even more precipitously than both Prof and BS damage.
-MS
I would be interested in seeing what math you are using on this. It seems to me that the number of wand charges will be about the same, and the damage will drop by a bit more than half.

Overall, though, fighters and rogues should actually be more effective against standard meat & potato enemies. The majority of fighters should actually feel more useful, not less. The reason is because the damage of the average fighter is dropping 50% or less, while body of monsters should be dropping about 50%. \
-MS
In 1.3 a fighter with 300 build in proffs gets 20 proffs, so with a +3 DA is swinging 25s.
In 2.0 a fighter with 285 build in proffs gets 10 proffs, and swings for 12

This is less than half and isn't even taking into account the following.
1) It will be very rare for a fighter to swing more than 10 one handed (8 proffs)
2) Reavers and Auras are either non existent, or much worse in 2.0, and such, drop the amount of damage fighters will do even farther. This also increases the amount of damage scholars will do, as they get to choose the relevant elemental carrier.

The first two are the important things to note, though. Carrier attacks are basically the bane of scholars, a modest annoyance to rogues, and laughed at by fighters.
-MS
This is not the case on the west coast. When things are swinging for 10 death and everyone has 30 pts of arcane armor, this is much more of a concern to the fighters that have to go toe to toe with the npc than the casters [ and archers :) ] who get to stand back and throw packets at it. Or rogues who can evade them.

Similarly, fighters can simply power through the many "burst" monsters in the game (best example is elementals) that throw a handful of damage packets before resorting to melee.
-MS
This is a much larger problem when those 3 packet total 100 damage that can't be blocked by weapons. We are much more reluctant to charge elementals in the west coast than it sounds like you are.

No fair weekend scaling could unleash endless take-out effects, even in the magic item glutted game we have now, let alone in a game that will have minimal magic items. Meat and potato enemies (primarily melee, maybe with carriers or low amounts of packets) have to constitute a significant bulk of the scaling for sake of balance. And against these enemies, fighters and rogues should be seeing better results, due in part to the reduction in persistent damage.
-MS
Except the west coast where takeout effects are constant and plentiful.
 

Muir

Fighter
No fair weekend scaling could unleash endless take-out effects, even in the magic item glutted game we have now, let alone in a game that will have minimal magic items. Meat and potato enemies (primarily melee, maybe with carriers or low amounts of packets) have to constitute a significant bulk of the scaling for sake of balance. And against these enemies, fighters and rogues should be seeing better results, due in part to the reduction in persistent damage.

Think back to the last weekend event you played, then consider how many MI-based dodges, Banes, and Cloaks you heard. There are a -ton- of low-level one-shot takeouts that should sensibly be available to NPCs, but Fighters have effectively lost 100% of their ability to survive them.

Under the current playtest as written, in a vacuum, a 300+ build melee fighter is candy for a 25 build caster, because their only answer to 'Disarm, Bind' is hoping they have a spell parry, or racial dodge.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
Either way, as a rogue, it certainly feels as though it will take 5 years of playing to get up to 10 damage from the back, 2 from the front. Mostly because I want to diversify my skills, RP more, I don't spend lots anyways. Scaling back damage, I can agree with, I can also agree, this is a bit much. Been weighing on a few ideas I've heard, but I would most appreciate a way to increase a little from the front too.
 
Mike, what are your thoughts on this:

Weapon Skills are available to ALL classes, and EVERY class can swing for 1 (Dagger), 2 (Long Sword), or 3 (two-handed weapon) an unlimited number of times per day. Two damage is going to be a very common damage call. Looking at the lower end of things, there isn't a vast difference in 2.0 between 2 and 5, you yourself point out in the BOLDED part above. Plus, as you also pointed out, with the oft-cited lower Body on NPC's (which I don't think will last long, but we'll see) 2 Normal becomes vastly more effective than it is now.

Any Scholar can swing for 2's. Higher End Templar will swing for 5's. Highest End Fighters will swing 10's.

Constant damage is devalued horrifically in 2.0.

I think your analysis of constant damage, while reasonable, misses one important factor. Constant damage is supported by body totals (well, body + armor totals).

I'll use the 10 damage fighter as the example and extrapolate from there. That is 204 build in profs. For easy rounding, I will assume that is a 24th level character (255 build total). That fighter has 59 body and some armor. I think 31 is relatively easy in the new system for armor and is within fighter max without spending build. So, 90 points. The same level templar has 37 body and a maximum of 20-something armor (don't have the rulebook handy). I'll round to 60. The scholar has 26 body I believe max armor is in the teens (18 maybe?). I'll say 45 points total, though that may be low. ***(All numbers are done without rulebook handy and a less than perfect understanding of how the change to 25 build start works, so I may be off by a few points here or there)

So, that fighter can swing for 10s until 90 body is depleted. The templar swings for 5s until 60 body is depleted. And the scholar swings for 2s until 45 body is depleted. The easiest comparison is the fighter to the scholar. Effectively, you need to double the fighters damage because the output will generally last for twice as long. A similar comparison works with the fighter and the templar.

Also, I want to be clear, I said there wasn't a vast difference in cost between 2 and 5 in 1.3 and in 2.0 (9 build, which is equivalent to the 10 build boost characters are getting). There is a significant difference in damage. If monster body totals are lower (and they should be because they only increased originally in response to ridiculously high damage numbers) then minor increases are magnified. Simple example. Take a 60 body monster in 2.0. It takes 30/20/15/10 swings of 2-5 (respectively) to kill it. If the monster now has 30 body, it takes 15/10/8/5 respectively. Low level fighters have a chance to feel more useful (even if they can't do it alone). High level fighters basically break even. The fellow swinging 20 (or 25) before is now swinging roughly 10 (maybe higher, I still will probably shoot for about 12 for example) and is still taking the exact same 3 hits to drop the monster in both systems.

Also, I find it curious that every single discussion of this I have seen has completely ignored the existence of two-handed weapons They do exist and I know many PCs who use them and they will unquestionably be maxing out at a higher value than 10.

-MS
 

Avaran

Baron
Thanks for your thoughts, @mikestrauss I'll mull them over and respond after. :)

Also, I find it curious that every single discussion of this I have seen has completely ignored the existence of two-handed weapons

I know they exist, I don't really mention them because OHE is, by far, the absolute most common Weapon Skill I see being used/bought. So much so that out here, we noticed almost immediately when someone is carrying around a 2h weapon. You'll note that I listed "can't swing for 3" in my weapon skill list there. :) ("EVERY class can swing for 1 (Dagger), 2 (Long Sword), or 3 (two-handed weapon)"

I did leave off Heavy Crossbow which is base 4 damage, I believe, but that is because that is also extremely rare in my experience. Far more rare than 2h weapons in my experience.
 

Cedric

Rogue
Marshal
I think there needs to be another post talking about balancing two-handed weapons, blunts, spears, Florentine/two weapon with 1h edged/board. Once we can get into the realm of balance with 1h edged/board, I think we can talk about how to make other weapon styles an actual decent choice per the rules (and not just taken for RP purposes).
 

Samyania

Scholar
Also, I find it curious that every single discussion of this I have seen has completely ignored the existence of two-handed weapons They do exist(...)

Two-handed weapons? As in, using a weapon with both hands? Never heard of such a thing. Sounds like round-ear propaganda. >:|
 
Top