Persistent Damage Cost Change

[Draven]

It's a better alternative in my opinion, though I feel it's a band-aid fix. I suspect high-level fighters are still going to feel that damage being heavily throttled, and feeling pressured to branch out into other skills.

I, personally, don't mind playing the Crit Resource game, but that's just my opinion. Some folks really want just high-end static damage to compete with all those KO effects.

 

[MaxIrons]

So, just a question, if the Fighter Skill prerequisites for powerful blows were removed, and instead it was a matter of you could take Weapon Prof at an increasing threshold of Fighter Skills, would that be better?

I.E. The cost of a single Weapon Prof or Backstab goes to a flat 15 if in class. You can take your first Weapon Prof without needing any Fighting Skills. You then you need (5x your cost for a Critical Attack) in Fighter Skills to take your second W.P, 6x for your third, and so on. You could build as a Slay-o-matic, Mr. Damage with crit attacks for days, a crippler with stun limbs/shatter/disarm, and could do these things without being locked into needing to increase their base swing value. You can truly specialize without the WP gates.

Edit: Changed to remove the Fighting Skills Prerequisites instead of Weapon Prof prerequisites in the text.

 

[Saephis]

I, personally, don't mind playing the Crit Resource game, but that's just my opinion. Some folks really want just high-end static damage to compete with all those KO effects.

For a proposed system focused on simplifying things, having an upsurge in resource management seems counter to that intent. Especially with several proposals that involve using skills to do things counter to what those skills are laid out to do. Which, then, is also poor treatment of new players and their ability to learn just a differently complicated system, rather than simplifying what we currently have.

 

[Draven]

For a proposed system focused on simplifying things, having an upsurge in resource management seems counter to that intent. Especially with several proposals that involve using skills to do things counter to what those skills are laid out to do. Which, then, is also poor treatment of new players and their ability to learn just a differently complicated system, rather than simplifying what we currently have.

I admit, I don't consider tracking Crits/BAs/per-day fighter-rogue skills to be all that difficult....but I've been playing a scholar for the last several years. My perception may be skewed.

 

[Avaran]

do these things without being locked into needing to increase their base swing value. You can truly specialize without the WP gates.

As Dan highlighted in another thread, you can do this already to some degree. You only need 1 or 2 Profs to really start the ball rolling because Skills now count toward XP requirements for themselves (i.e. the first Dodge needs 30 Rogue Points, but subsequent ones need only 25).

For me, it's the "are these other skills (intercept, disarm, shatter, etc.) useful at Higher Levels?" And, if there are too many of these effects, Defense Creep on NPC's starts to be a thing.

Really, any way you go, you're going to have to deal with "damage bloat", "effect bloat" or variations thereof, particularly with the availability of cheap skills.

 

[Shades]

As Dan highlighted in another thread, you can do this already to some degree. You only need 1 or 2 Profs to really start the ball rolling because Skills now count toward XP requirements for themselves (i.e. the first Dodge needs 30 Rogue Points, but subsequent ones need only 25).

For me, it's the "are these other skills (intercept, disarm, shatter, etc.) useful at Higher Levels?" And, if there are too many of these effects, Defense Creep on NPC's starts to be a thing.

Really, any way you go, you're going to have to deal with "damage bloat", "effect bloat" or variations thereof, particularly with the availability of cheap skills.

The big problem I see with disarm/shatter, it that they are duplicate effects that casters also get, 2 of them can effectively remove creatures from combat unless they have defenses, and they are battle magic scrollable. Also both fighters and rogues get the same skills. This seems to me the largest contributor to the effect bloat.

 

[MaxIrons]

As Dan highlighted in another thread, you can do this already to some degree. You only need 1 or 2 Profs to really start the ball rolling because Skills now count toward XP requirements for themselves (i.e. the first Dodge needs 30 Rogue Points, but subsequent ones need only 25).

For me, it's the "are these other skills (intercept, disarm, shatter, etc.) useful at Higher Levels?" And, if there are too many of these effects, Defense Creep on NPC's starts to be a thing.

Really, any way you go, you're going to have to deal with "damage bloat", "effect bloat" or variations thereof, particularly with the availability of cheap skills.

Yeah... I saw that after writing this.

The big problem I see with disarm/shatter, it that they are duplicate effects that casters also get, 2 of them can effectively remove creatures from combat unless they have defenses, and they are battle magic scrollable. Also both fighters and rogues get the same skills. This seems to me the largest contributor to the effect bloat.

Heresy here... But if they were removed from casters?

 

[mikestrauss]

For all intents and purposes, there are three types of offensive abilities in the game:
-Hinder ability to fight
-Remove ability to fight
-Remove ability to act

Even damage is just a subset of the last type, with two special clauses:
1) It doesn't activate until surpassing a specific threshold
2) Multiple individuals can work together to surpass the threshold

The point of the above is that basically every effect in our game is a duplicate (or darn similar) to another effect.

Stun Limb and Wither Limb are effectively just Disarm / Shatter.
Eviscerate is effectively Sleep or Paralysis.
Silence is effectively Shatter, just targeting a different class.
Even something like Repel is either effectively a Disarm (against a fully melee target) or roughly equivalent to a Weakness against a caster/gas thrower/archer (because the extra range makes it harder to hit, effectively reducing the quality of attacks by the target).

Effects will always step on each other's toes. There really isn't much that can be done about that (though I still think that Rogue abilities should be curse effect group rather than what Rogues have now).

-MS

 

[Saephis]

Heresy here... But if they were removed from casters?

"Oh, but what would we memorize on Level 1?" is the only response I can hear being replied with... which, you know, is just a different problem, if people only take Disarm.

 

[Azmodeous]

I've said it in the fighter skills post and I'll say it again here: If the character kept half of the crit attacks/back attacks (rounded up, down, whatever) when they bought a weapon prof I'd have no problem with it. For example WP 1 costs 4 crit attacks, so you get back 2. The next one requires 5 additional crit attacks, of which you keep 2 bringing your total to 4. Rinse and repeat. Then at 4 WPs (78 build as a fighter) you'd be swinging 6's (longsword) and for 10 minutes a day you could ramp it up to 16 and at 8 profs (204 build) in you'd have 28 crits that were kept but the character would still have to purchase and additional 12 crits if they wanted another prof. Most players won't reach that until mid to late 20's if they spend their build anywhere else and to compare, 204 build is 6 columns of magic, a staff, and 14 formals for a scholar. The build expenditure stays the same as it is in .9, but you get to keep a portion of your crits/back stabs, which are the only build expenditures that go away as you advance.

 

[Shades]

I've said it in the fighter skills post and I'll say it again here: If the character kept half of the crit attacks/back attacks (rounded up, down, whatever) when they bought a weapon prof I'd have no problem with it. For example WP 1 costs 4 crit attacks, so you get back 2. The next one requires 5 additional crit attacks, of which you keep 2 bringing your total to 4. Rinse and repeat. Then at 4 WPs (78 build as a fighter) you'd be swinging 6's (longsword) and for 10 minutes a day you could ramp it up to 16 and at 8 profs (204 build) in you'd have 28 crits that were kept but the character would still have to purchase and additional 12 crits if they wanted another prof. Most players won't reach that until mid to late 20's if they spend their build anywhere else and to compare, 204 build is 6 columns of magic, a staff, and 14 formals for a scholar. The build expenditure stays the same as it is in .9, but you get to keep a portion of your crits/back stabs, which are the only build expenditures that go away as you advance.

I would prefer something like that to the current 2.0 proposal, although for simplicity I would recommend increasing the cost of crit attacks and decreasing the number needed instead of doing keep half. Or drop them to 5 minute duration, which I think would be even better.

 

[Draven]

"Oh, but what would we memorize on Level 1?" is the only response I can hear being replied with... which, you know, is just a different problem, if people only take Disarm.

Move Slow to level 1.

 

[Saephis]

I've said it in the fighter skills post and I'll say it again here: If the character kept half of the crit attacks/back attacks (rounded up, down, whatever) when they bought a weapon prof I'd have no problem with it. For example WP 1 costs 4 crit attacks, so you get back 2. The next one requires 5 additional crit attacks, of which you keep 2 bringing your total to 4. Rinse and repeat. Then at 4 WPs (78 build as a fighter) you'd be swinging 6's (longsword) and for 10 minutes a day you could ramp it up to 16 and at 8 profs (204 build) in you'd have 28 crits that were kept but the character would still have to purchase and additional 12 crits if they wanted another prof. Most players won't reach that until mid to late 20's if they spend their build anywhere else and to compare, 204 build is 6 columns of magic, a staff, and 14 formals for a scholar. The build expenditure stays the same as it is in .9, but you get to keep a portion of your crits/back stabs, which are the only build expenditures that go away as you advance.

Alternately, make Weapon Proficiency and Backstab a passive -- like Wand Damage -- calculated off how much build a character has into the appropriate abilities, with the same 'burst damage' that Spells have, found through offensive (currently Prepare to Die) skills. The proposed rules still push Alliance entirely toward burst damage, not steady damage, so this would seem the appropriate proposal/direction to take.

 

[Avaran]

Alternately, make Weapon Proficiency and Backstab a passive -- like Wand Damage -- calculated off how much build a character has into the appropriate abilities, with the same 'burst damage' that Spells have, found through offensive (currently Prepare to Die) skills. The proposed rules still push Alliance entirely toward burst damage, not steady damage, so this would seem the appropriate proposal/direction to take.

This is a neat idea, but you'd need a larger pool of skills to choose from, or build out "Melee Tree Slots" like Scholars have where each Level has slots you buy, and each slot is filled by a skill that fills that slot.

A C. Scholar has more than 40 Spells/Effects to choose from for their tree.
An E Scholar has about that same amount if you don't count Necro
Fighters have 15 if you include Weapon Prof, Crit Attack, Blacksmithing, and WEA. 11 Skills if you don't.
Rogues have 12 if you count Create Trap. 11 Skills if you don't.

I suppose you could increase the costs of Rogue/Fighter skills...

 

[Saephis]

Adding in Spell Parry/Riposte, Poison Parry/Riposte, Elemental Parry/Riposte, in addition to the new skills would bring the total up to 40, as well as address the "Please don't point a non-straight-damage packet in my general direction" that is currently pending. Adding in equivalent skills like Hamstring or Kneecap (To go in line with Slow), or the previously mentioned (I can't recall where) 'Throat Punch' to emulate Silence would bump the number up higher.

I don't think increasing the costs would be a great direction, as new characters and players would stagnate out of effected classes due to lack-of-progression. But this would allow and enforce diversification of Martial-character builds, if static damage was taken out of "I'll just buy more" options.

 

[Draven]

Adding in Spell Parry/Riposte, Poison Parry/Riposte, Elemental Parry/Riposte, in addition to the new skills would bring the total up to 40, as well as address the "Please don't point a non-straight-damage packet in my general direction" that is currently pending. Adding in equivalent skills like Hamstring or Kneecap (To go in line with Slow), or the previously mentioned (I can't recall where) 'Throat Punch' to emulate Silence would bump the number up higher.

I don't think increasing the costs would be a great direction, as new characters and players would stagnate out of effected classes due to lack-of-progression. But this would allow and enforce diversification of Martial-character builds, if static damage was taken out of "I'll just buy more" options.

Don't you start to run the danger of increasing resource management and complexity?

I also feel adding more Riposte effects isn't a great idea. Returns already clog up combat calls. I'm not against Parry effects, though.

 

[Shades]

Adding in equivalent skills like Hamstring or Kneecap (To go in line with Slow), or the previously mentioned (I can't recall where) 'Throat Punch' to emulate Silence would bump the number up higher.

I REALLY want to be able to call 'throat punch'

 

[Saephis]

Don't you start to run the danger of increasing resource management and complexity?

I also feel adding more Riposte effects isn't a great idea. Returns already clog up combat calls. I'm not against Parry effects, though.

Not terribly. Before I forged fighter, 90 spells were easy enough to remember (Like you mentioned, oh Scholar Zeth ).

If the effects are the same, there's little clogging happening, in my mind. And, by contrast, saying "Critical Attack fuels these eight other things" (Which is a combination of previous play test cycles and now), having verbals that at least make sense feeds to simplification, still.

 

[Azmodeous]

Alternately, make Weapon Proficiency and Backstab a passive -- like Wand Damage -- calculated off how much build a character has into the appropriate abilities, with the same 'burst damage' that Spells have, found through offensive (currently Prepare to Die) skills. The proposed rules still push Alliance entirely toward burst damage, not steady damage, so this would seem the appropriate proposal/direction to take.

Adding in Spell Parry/Riposte, Poison Parry/Riposte, Elemental Parry/Riposte, in addition to the new skills would bring the total up to 40, as well as address the "Please don't point a non-straight-damage packet in my general direction" that is currently pending. Adding in equivalent skills like Hamstring or Kneecap (To go in line with Slow), or the previously mentioned (I can't recall where) 'Throat Punch' to emulate Silence would bump the number up higher.

I don't think increasing the costs would be a great direction, as new characters and players would stagnate out of effected classes due to lack-of-progression. But this would allow and enforce diversification of Martial-character builds, if static damage was taken out of "I'll just buy more" options.

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.

 

[Cedric]

I also way toying with the idea that static damage was based off build/class/level or something like that too. Glad to see someone else thought up the idea and I wasn't crazy.