Persistent Damage Cost Change

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

  • Yes - I currently/will play an effected class

    Votes: 23 33.8%

  • Yes - I do not, nor will I play an effected class

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • No - I currently/will play an effected class

    Votes: 33 48.5%

  • No - I do not, nor will I play an effected class

    Votes: 6 8.8%

  • Indifferent - I do not have a strong opinion in either respect.

    Votes: 5 7.4%
  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
Muir said:
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.
Click to expand...

...or physically dodged the packets (I do that all the time), or had a resist magic (dark elf / wylderkin), or had a resist binding (dryad / wylderkin), or had a previously cast spell shield, or had a spell shield in a potion, or could cast a spell shield from a scroll (a relatively trivial 15 build investment for a 300+ build fighter). Also for a relatively trivial investment, that same fighter could pack throwing daggers and likely deal enough damage at range to take out the scholar before the second spell hit (assuming everyone has eagle-eyed aim), especially since most NPCs don't wear armor (due to a lack of phys reps in monster camp).

And finally, bind isn't a take-out. Either the fighter can still move their arms (and thus are still dangerous, especially if they have a ranged option) or can still move their legs and can thus retreat to a safe spot, end the bind, and come out swinging. But rather than totally sidetrack your example, I will pretend the scholar has 8 more build and can cast Web... FUDGE! Errr... 18 more build and can cast Sleep.

-MS
 
I think we've had this discussion before, but one of my prime rules theory standards is: splashing into another class should not be required to make your class effective at its primary role.

Bind + disarm is effectively a takeout because the fighter on his own is left with nothing to do but stand there and get poked for 2's (or wanded) until he falls over. Remember, .9 Bind includes the pin replacement, so it's not just 'no arms run away'.
 
Muir said:
Bind + disarm is effectively a takeout because the fighter on his own is left with nothing to do but stand there and get poked for 2's (or wanded) until he falls over. Remember, .9 Bind includes the pin replacement, so it's not just 'no arms run away'.
Click to expand...

If he was leg bound, has no other weapons or for some reason cannot bend down to retrieve his only weapon. Most fighters will likely have multiple weapons, thrown weapons etc. Even a brand new character should have an extra weapon on them if other players are helping them out.

Dropping your weapon between your legs is also a very valid tactic as no one can reach down to grab it without breaking the charging rule. ;)
 
It is an "or" not an "and". You get arms or legs, not both. If you are getting poked for 2s, then your caster dipped into the fighter class effectively (it may not be called a fighter skill, but the costing clearly makes it fighter primary). If you are relying on a wand, you will use all 10 1-damage shots and the fighter will still be standing.

Also, disarm lasts 5 seconds. The fighter will pick that weapon up unless you are very close. Heck, most fighters I know have a backup weapon, especially once they are level 30+ (or an unshatterable, spirit linked weapon, but I assume that is going away in 2.0). And none of what you said negates my thrown weapon point or the simple act of physically dodging a spell or the potion (an easy purchase for a 30th level fighter... in fact, expected treasure value is a built in part of the game, thus entirely reasonable to assume in any such theoretical discussion).

You are pretty much trying to claim that a 30+ fighter has no answer to a 1st level scholar and that simply isn't the case. But for sake of discussion, I will concede the point in theory. Assuming it was true, it doesn't matter, because the primary role of a fighter is to be able to deal damage all day long. The primary role of a caster is part toolbox and part disabling effects, restricted by limited use. A caster alone that beats a fighter (I'm assuming a less disparate example than 1st vs. 30+ here) does so because the effectiveness of a caster is magnified in a specific one-shot scenario. Potentially, a caster can blow their load and fire every spell in a single encounter, far surpassing their average utility in that single encounter. However, they basically become a part of the scenery for every other encounter in the day. End result: both fighter and scholar of equal level have approximately equal utility over 24 hours. The fighter is just more consistent while the scholar has spurts.

-MS
 
mythic said:
no one can reach down to grab it without breaking the charging rule.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If someone is under the effects of a Pin, then the attacker should know they can't move. Given that, the person Pinned should trust that the person going for their weapon will have enough bodily self control that they won't make physical contact with them. Unless the game is only being played by people who can't control themselves better than a toddler, that person should not feel like they are going to be run into (the primary requirement for a Charging infraction). Therefore, the charge rule isn't being broken. You can run at them at full speed, stop two feet in front of them, bend over, reach forward, and grab their weapon without ever coming into contact with them or threatening their OOG physical well-being.

If I am standing still, it is my expectation that the person running at me won't run into me and that they can control themselves at least that much. If you can't, don't be running at me. You'll likely come to a sudden stop and fall down.

The bottom line is that if you run into someone who is pinned, you're fighting unsafely and are breaking more than just the Charging rule.

mikestrauss said:
an unshatterable, spirit linked weapon, but I assume that is going away in 2.0)
Click to expand...
This aspect of Magic Items isn't going away as far as I know. Spirit Link is becoming Spirit Lock though with Perm Items, I think that's the only major change? Can't remember for sure. But weapons/items will still be unshatterable.
 
Don't even have to grab it, just take your staff (assuming you went with the fighting skill that Scholars get a discount on, and thus can be assumed to be a class skill for them) and knock it out of their reach while they can't effectively stop you. Then proceed to walk around behind them where they can't defend easily with their feet pinned and drop 2's until you get bored.
 
@Avaran I understand that view for sure. My only response is the Charging rule on 93 states that if a player can reach out and touch you, you are likely charging. I don't know how long your arms are, but there are not a lot of people that could reach down and grab the weapon away without being that close. Again, for me, it is a safety issue. An errant knee to the face is always a possibility if someone is reaching down to the ground. I trust my players, but things happen and I'd rather err on the side of caution. :D

BUT, this is a topic for another day. ;)
 
mythic said:
Dropping your weapon between your legs is also a very valid tactic as no one can reach down to grab it without breaking the charging rule. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm going to echo @Tantarus on this -- Given the spell/effect is 'Disarm' and not 'tactically put this where your enemy can't take it from you', this feels like abuse of system. I've seen people rightfully called out on ditching a weapon to their friends behind them, and this just feels like the solo-approach of the same.
 
This sounded super cheesy to me as well. I can understand dropping your weapon behind you or to the side so it doesn't get stepped on and broken, but deliberately using the charging rule to make your weapon immune to being picked up reeks of poor sportsmanship.
 
It's a perfectly valid option to protect your weapon from theft in game or being trod on out of game at the cost of standing your ground for the duration of the spell. If you can pull it off - power to you. If the opponents cannot move you with threat of damage or take out spells and curse - they did not capitalize on their advantage. In a different LARP someone reaching out for my blade on the ground would be grappled by the throat, here we have a no charging rule to replace that. Poor alternative in my opinion, but it's better than nothing.
 
Cipher said:
It's a perfectly valid option to protect your weapon from theft in game
Click to expand...

I don't feel this is a valid reason for dropping your weapon between your feet. The spirit of Disarm, I think, is that it being stolen (in-game) is a perfectly acceptable outcome. You can always collect your weapon phys-rep after the game ends.
 
Folks, we have went well beyond the scope of the OP. Let's get back on topic please. If you want to discuss the merits of where to drop disarm, then a different forum/thread would be appropriate as this is out of the scope of playtesting.
 
You do realize how it looks when you bring up something, it doesn't go your way, then you call off topic? You started down this path by claiming this was a valid action to take.
 
Sure. And then once again, it has spiraled into completely off topic. So let's get back on track. That has been a persistent issue on the forums. It just becomes a cyclical argument and nothing resolves (again, this is not a 2.0 thing as it is not in the scope). Players will have varying degrees of what they believe and no one will be able to change anyone's perspective.

So again, let's get back on topic please.
 
We can argue about spirit of things. Spirit of no charging rules according to me includes having a zone where people will stay away from to avoid grappling. I really miss that part of combat.
 
Original Topic - Back stabs and profs sucking in 2.0.

Here is an idea... keep them moving up by 3xp ... but start them at 9.
Prof +1 = 2 crits then prof = 9
Prof +2 = 3 crits then prof = 12
Prof +3 = 4 crits then prof = 15
Prof +4 = 5 crits then prof = 18
Prof +5 = 6 crits then prof =21 ... and so on...
This helps the low level catch up a bit quicker as well as allowing for a bit more on the top end for fighters instead of stopping at +6. Maybe they will go for 10s or 12s this way.
 
Jesse Grabowski said:
Original Topic - Back stabs and profs sucking in 2.0.

Here is an idea... keep them moving up by 3xp ... but start them at 9.
Prof +1 = 2 crits then prof = 9
Prof +2 = 3 crits then prof = 12
Prof +3 = 4 crits then prof = 15
Prof +4 = 5 crits then prof = 18
Prof +5 = 6 crits then prof =21 ... and so on...
This helps the low level catch up a bit quicker as well as allowing for a bit more on the top end for fighters instead of stopping at +6. Maybe they will go for 10s or 12s this way.
Click to expand...

I like this idea because it is a big boost to new players.

I dislike this idea because it hurts pure rogues and fighters and is a big buff to templars, scouts, and adepts.

I like this idea because it doesn't nerf melee classes quite as much.

I dislike this idea because it still scales Fighters, Scouts, and Rogues without giving any scaling to Scholars.

Ultimately, I'm really split on this idea.

I like this idea as long as Fighters and Rogues are given an option of something else to buy. Right now the issue is not just that their damage is very low, but rather also that they don't have enough good options to spend build on. It also is still a nerf overall to Fighters and Rogues when the classes are mostly balanced in 1.3. If this proposal is combined with other utility for Fighters and Rogues then I'd be less opposed to it. Either way, its better than the proposal as it stands in [0.9]
 
That's not bad. Looking at base 2 damage weapon for fighter, if you want to get to the sweet call spot which is 10, this costs you 48 xp less then the current 0.9, leaving you more room to spread, nearly covers the cost of 5 levels of paragons, but is still 36 xp more then the 1.3 setup.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top