Persistent Damage Cost Change

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


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .

Avaran

Baron
This has got to be my favorite possible way to truly solve the damage bloat issue, not to mention it directly addresses the other issues with "fighter skills." I appreciate you bringing up Hamstring and "Throat punch" from my first post in the new rules forum. I think that something like them should be introduced to keep things interesting for fighters. I have 9 per day abilities not counting racials as a high-teens fighter. Now yes, I get higher damage all day, but I'd gladly sacrifice base damage in favor of having more per days in both offense and defense.
One of the many things to keep in mind is if you move away too much from "Constant Damage" in favor of effects and effect-based skills, you will absolutely start running into another problem: Defense bloat.

Let me give an example. I'm picking Disarm because it is the cheapest Fighter/Rogue Skill, has one of the lowest Requirements to buy at 15 XP spent required, and in my experience it is also, by far, the most memorized 1st level spell for Celestial scholars (some E. Casters will pick it too).
Say you have 5 Fighters. This is a relatively low number, but it will illustrate my point nicely. Each of those 5 Fighters can have, say 15 Disarms (with the current 2.0 rules, you can buy two Profs and then nothing else but Fighter Skills and Stun Limb). You can hit the 15 Disarm mark around the 160 Build mark. That is 75 Disarm effects that only those 5 Fighters can do, per day.

Now let's throw in some Scholars.
Say you have 5 Celestial Scholars who only want to focus on Battle Magic spell slots. At 157 Build (including pre-reqs), each Scholar can have a 6-Column. So that is 6 Disarms per Scholar for a total of 30 more Disarm effects. But wait, we're not done with the Scholars yet! They can, if they want, choose to use all of their Second level spell slots and memorize 1st level spells at a 1:1 ratio! This means that each Scholar can now have 12 Disarms each! That brings our total to 60 Disarm effects!

Now let's add in Rogues!
Say you have 5 Rogues. This, again, is a relatively low number. Let's say that each of those 5 Rogues also have, say 15 Disarms (like Fighters, with the current 2.0 rules, you can buy two Backstabs and then nothing else but Rogue Skills). You can hit the 15 Disarm mark around the 160 Build mark, again, light Fighters. That is another 75 Disarm effects that are coming from those 5 Rogues, per day.

From just those 15 people, we now have 210 Disarm Effects in total.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a Plot team who needs to scale encounters, modules, town fights, etc. for those 210 Disarm effects.

Do you want your PC's to have an easy time of it? Great! Send your NPC's out with Swords and Shields and let the PC's Disarm their gear and pillage and kill to their hearts' content.

Now what about that one Special NPC from the Encounter? Or those 5 Special NPC's from that encounter? You want them to be tougher, so now you have to think about how you're going to deal with those 210 Disarm effects. DO you want to have to deal with those 210 Disarm effects? Will you make your 5 Special NPC's immune to Disarm so you won't have to worry about it? What about the PC's who spent all of that build on Disarm? At least the Scholars can pick other Spells the next day, but Rogues and Fighters are stuck with their Disarms (Still 150 if you take out our 5 Celestial Scholars). How do you make sure that those players don't feel like they have wasted their build by buying Disarms instead of Constant Damage? At least Constant Damage is nearly always useful to one degree or another (at least in theory).

So now will you send out waves and waves of NPC's who are susceptible to Disarm so the PC's can feel useful? With 15 NPC's, that's 10 waves...will your PC's get bored of doing the same thing over and over? And more importantly, will your NPC's get bored or frustrated because they can't fight the PC's like they want?

What about PC's who save their Disarms for the 5 Special NPC's, only to find that the 5 Specials are Immune? Or what if your PC's save them only to find they need to use 10 of their 15 Disarms on each NPC just to get through the Cloaks/Dodges/Banes/Effect Guards that are on the NPC card?

And make no mistake, this problem gets worse at high level, not better.

My point is that Constant Damage has its place and there is a need for it, we just need to find a happy medium that isn't 1.3 and one that doesn't go as far as the current 2.0 goes.

Defense Bloat is another very real concern - make it too easy to get lots of Defenses, or make a Class feel like it has to stack defenses just to be playable, and you're doing to have to stat your cards with more offense to get through, and while that is happening, more defenses so that the NPC can stay alive because it has to take so much time in taking down just one target. (Think of it like Body Bloat, but instead of having tons of Body to Constant Damage your way through, you now have Defenses that you have to get through in the same way.)
 
Last edited:

Muir

Fighter
Honestly, I'd rather be playesting 1.3 without MIs for a couple events for comparison. I generally play that style myself outside of my Arcane (GS was cheaper than building/buying a good armor rep), and it is -rough- to get to big damage numbers in the mid-high game without the artificial build supplementation of DA's, reavers, and slayers.
 

Azmodeous

Artisan
Owner
Seattle Staff
Let me give an example. I'm picking Disarm because it is the cheapest Fighter/Rogue Skill, has one of the lowest Requirements to buy at 15 XP spent required, and in my experience it is also, by far, the most memorized 1st level spell for Celestial scholars (some E. Casters will pick it too).
Say you have 5 Fighters. This is a relatively low number, but it will illustrate my point nicely. Each of those 5 Fighters can have, say 15 Disarms (with the current 2.0 rules, you can buy two Profs and then nothing else but Fighter Skills and Stun Limb). You can hit the 15 Disarm mark around the 160 Build mark. That is 75 Disarm effects that only those 5 Fighters can do, per day.

Now let's throw in some Scholars.
Say you have 5 Celestial Scholars who only want to focus on Battle Magic spell slots. At 157 Build (including pre-reqs), each Scholar can have a 6-Column. So that is 6 Disarms per Scholar for a total of 30 more Disarm effects. But wait, we're not done with the Scholars yet! They can, if they want, choose to use all of their Second level spell slots and memorize 1st level spells at a 1:1 ratio! This means that each Scholar can now have 12 Disarms each! That brings our total to 60 Disarm effects!

Now let's add in Rogues!
Say you have 5 Rogues. This, again, is a relatively low number. Let's say that each of those 5 Rogues also have, say 15 Disarms (like Fighters, with the current 2.0 rules, you can buy two Backstabs and then nothing else but Rogue Skills). You can hit the 15 Disarm mark around the 160 Build mark, again, light Fighters. That is another 75 Disarm effects that are coming from those 5 Rogues, per day.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that people are that boring and know that given other viable options for skills, they'll take them. Say something like: "gut shot" one swing with the nausea carrier, "throat punch" one swing with the silence carrier, hamstring... slow, sever spine... paralysis, marked for death... destruction, or even something like "shake it off" effects like ripping from binds, webs, and eventually confines on a 3 count. Then, given the choice, I guarantee you won't have someone that bloated on disarms.
 

Avaran

Baron
Those effects either aren't in the game or aren't available to purchase as a Fighter.

Then, given the choice, I guarantee you won't have someone that bloated on disarms.
It's not a question of "boring", it's a matter of there being a very small pool of available Fighter Skills. I challenge you to build a Fighter only buying a maximum of 2 Profs while still spending 160+ build only in Fighter Skills/Stub Limb. They also cannot be WEA or Blacksmithing. See how many Disarms you end up with, even when you avoid trying to buy them. It's a lot more than you might think. 15 is an easy number to get to since there isn't anything else to spend build on without getting more Profs than that (counter to the exercise/point of having a Fighter without Constant Damage).

I can neither speculate nor guess on how those other effects would alter that since they don't exist as Fighter Skills.
 

Azmodeous

Artisan
Owner
Seattle Staff
Those effects either aren't in the game or aren't available to purchase as a Fighter.
That is what I was trying to say: If WP/BA went away and weapon damage went up like wand damage from scholarly skills there would have to be more options available for fighter and rogue skills. I was simply stating a few effects that already exist as suggestions and I have plenty more like having a purchasable innate Protection Aura that can be increased by 1 for every 50 spent in fighter. Every effect I suggested I've seen in game and I've only been playing for a couple of years, so I'm sure they wouldn't be that hard to implement.
 

Cedric

Rogue
Marshal
One thing that celestialists bring to the table are tactical or utility skills, something most other classes don't have, especially fighters. If static damage just went up, A) they'd have to lose something, for instance all their skills would have to go up in cost and/or B) They need more utility skills. Things like Magic storm that aren't good most of the time, but in the right niche makes fighters (and also rogues) interesting.

For instance
Plug the hole - The fighter calls this ability and as long as they don't move their feet, they gain 40 armor.
Swing harder - If the fighter is wielding a two handed sword, their next 5 swings can gain the massive carrier.
Gauge Opponent - By fighting with someone for 10 seconds, they can gain knowledge about the card of their opponent."
Fighters massage - By rubbing a limb that has been affected by stun limb for 10 seconds, they reduce the time left on the count to one minute.
Fight Beyond - If a fighter with this skill goes to zero body or less, they immediately are healed to full body for a 10 count and have +2 damage during this time. They must count down their timer out loud. When the timer reaches zero, they go back to their originally body level.
Expert Weapon Instructor - After sparring with a student for 10 minutes, that student gains 2 crit attacks for the next logistics period to use.
etc...
 
Last edited:

Saephis

Squire
Building a fighter with only two Weapon Proficiencies would see them swinging 4, and any 2nd level Earth somethingerother with a Dagger could kill them with a Weakness and a dagger.

Frankly, I don't see it as an option.

That same fighter, in 0.9, being highly prone to spells (still) could be swinging for 9, be down a windfall of build accordingly, and that same scholar could simply have a protection aura. Still useless, and I guarantee you that with that many Weapon Proficiencies in 0.9, the Scholar has more magic armors than that fighter has Slays, if built in any sort of 'built tree' manner. A dagger, eight and a half minutes of '1 Normal' later, and the Scholar remains king.
 

Avaran

Baron
That is what I was trying to say: If WP/BA went away and weapon damage went up like wand damage from scholarly skills there would have to be more options available for fighter and rogue skills.
I understood your point, and I appreciate your further clarification. My point is that if we just copy/paste effects across all classes, then you run into my aforementioned issue of Effect Bloat.

Please remember that one of 2.0's goals was to reduce the number of effect group and redundant effects, which they have done. They've also consolidated effect groups. This means that the defenses that exist will be that much more useful/effective as well.

I don't know that it's a good idea to just triple-up on common deliveries of Effects. I don't think it's healthy for the game to be able to have an effect like Silence be baseline and widely available to every class. Currently only E. Casters can get Silence; I don't want Rogues and Fighters to get it too because then you start to water down the classes and you end up homogenizing every effect with the only difference being Delivery.
 

Azmodeous

Artisan
Owner
Seattle Staff
Currently only E. Casters can get Silence;
Actually, trap globes make it so that rogues can throw elemental silence. Also, I'm not saying make them widely available make it so that it's only available every 30, 40, 50 build.
 

Alavatar

Baron
that same scholar could simply have a protection aura.
While I agree with your point, I just want to point out that Protection Aura is being removed from 2.0 (as noted in the 0.9 packet). Also, Damage Reduction abilities (i.e. Threshold, Reduce, etc.) cannot reduce damage below 1.

Again, I agree with your overall point. I just wanted to make sure that was corrected so people didn't think PA will still be a thing. :)
 

Saephis

Squire
While I agree with your point, I just want to point out that Protection Aura is being removed from 2.0 (as noted in the 0.9 packet). Also, Damage Reduction abilities (i.e. Threshold, Reduce, etc.) cannot reduce damage below 1.

Again, I agree with your overall point. I just wanted to make sure that was corrected so people didn't think PA will still be a thing. :)
Protection Aura is also still listed as a Defense-Type, so (shocking, I know) another inconsistency on proposed rules in this cycle's packet.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
In the event that such a change occurred, I would be totally agreeable to Disarm/Shatter being martial-only. Casters have a plethora of KOs.
 

Avaran

Baron
Actually, trap globes make it so that rogues can throw elemental silence. Also, I'm not saying make them widely available make it so that it's only available every 30, 40, 50 build.
Thanks for the info about Traps! I don't use traps and generally ignore their rules outside of what I need to know if I were a victim of a trap, so I definitely wasn't aware of this.

As long as the build cost was high, like you suggest, I might be able to get behind such a thing. I don't know, I would have to see how things generally shake out (like a 2.0 weekend event that goes out of its way to test out these sorts of things).
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Honestly, I'd rather be playesting 1.3 without MIs for a couple events for comparison. I generally play that style myself outside of my Arcane (GS was cheaper than building/buying a good armor rep), and it is -rough- to get to big damage numbers in the mid-high game without the artificial build supplementation of DA's, reavers, and slayers.
This this this. A thousand times this! The game would completely change back to the co-op, work with others style that it was meant to be.
Id also say to get rid of HM but I think I'm the minority here with that opinion.
 

Muir

Fighter
I have no sstrong opinion one way or the other on HM, but am a bit sunnier on it than MIs because at least it is somewhat tied to character abilities instead of being a crutch to shore them up.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
This this this. A thousand times this! The game would completely change back to the co-op, work with others style that it was meant to be.
Id also say to get rid of HM but I think I'm the minority here with that opinion.
I would cry.
 

Saephis

Squire
I'd like to see the effect of the 2.0 Magic Item change to otherwise-1.3 rules. A lot of it seems like "too much", like the move of Cloak/Bane to High Magic only, however the bulk of the revocations seem fine. But, considering everything around 2.0 has been presented as a "package deal", that seems unlikely, unfortunately.
 

Avaran

Baron
everything around 2.0 has been presented as a "package deal", that seems unlikely, unfortunately.
This is what I don't understand - why it all has to be a Package Deal.

While a LOT of the changes are interconnected with each other, I think that the Magic Item change could be implemented easily and with few unforeseen consequences. You'd get a really good idea of class balance, and could use the rest of 2.0 to address potential issues that arise and fill gaps (if there are any) for classes.

I really think the 9 Towers Campaign was a model for this, and I'm sad that nobody who played or ran that campaign has spoken up about their experiences with that campaign. I heard nothing but good things about it, but never talked directly to anyone who played/ran it.
 
This is what I don't understand - why it all has to be a Package Deal.

While a LOT of the changes are interconnected with each other, I think that the Magic Item change could be implemented easily and with few unforeseen consequences. You'd get a really good idea of class balance, and could use the rest of 2.0 to address potential issues that arise and fill gaps (if there are any) for classes.

I really think the 9 Towers Campaign was a model for this, and I'm sad that nobody who played or ran that campaign has spoken up about their experiences with that campaign. I heard nothing but good things about it, but never talked directly to anyone who played/ran it.
Effectively, you have heard from people who played/ran it. The 9 Towers Campaign pretty much just mimicked what the game looked like roughly 20 years ago. The highest levels in the game were early teens and the number of magic items in the game didn't even fill a one page list and most had drawbacks (the only magic weapon had a penalty to damage). Sure, those days were pre-high magic and detect magic was still in the game (and we won't even talk about prof handedness), but basically it was a game where skills on the character sheet dominated all other factors other than player physical and mental ability.

I can name at least three people who have spoken in these forums who played during those early days. I am one. I am not going to call out the other two I can think of off the top of my head. However, I will say that the three of us have expressed very conflicting opinions on a number of topics presented in 2.0.

If you are really interested in my experience from those days, I'd be willing to write down my thoughts about them.

-MS
 
Top