If Constant Damage is so good, then I should be able to reach 5/15 with a Scout and then just spend everything else in Defense because...Constant Damage is supposed to be that good, right?
I'm not sure that's a good representation of the reasoning behind lowering/scaling constant damage. It's a more complex chain of thought than just "it's too good!" (and in fact "too good" isn't really part of the equation
at all), but let me try to give some additional insight into the reasoning (since there's misunderstandings among playtesters like it was changed because it was "too good").
When talking about "constant damage" we are specifically referring to 4 things: Rituals (DA/Slayer/Reaver), Backstabs, Weapon Proficiencies, and Wands. Wands
technically have a limitation in usage that the other ones don't, but at higher level that limit is less impactful, so we're considering it as "constant damage" for the purposes of this discussion.
The idea behind lowering constant damage is not because it's "too good". Unlimited Magic Items are "too good" -
hundreds of Cloaks/Banes/Expanded Enchantments on the same character is what I'm referring to here - but constant damage isn't "too good". Instead, constant damage
warps the game. Your primary character swings 20+ and (not uncommonly with the right rits) throws for 40+ damage from a bow, with
every single shot. My primary character throws about 20s from his wand, with
every single shot. The only realistic way to deal with that (outside of "gimmicks" on a single monster type here and there), from a statting perspective, is to jack up the Body Points on our enemies.
20 years ago, 9th level damage spells and Slay/Eviscerate (or their equivalents) still existed (and in terms of damage spells were actually more powerful than they are today). They were used and landed fairly often. Landing 40 - 100 damage was hugely impactful, because the body totals were a fraction of what they are today. In the current Alliance game, it's the opposite. Landing a single shot for 40 - 100 damage is generally either negated or (more likely) kind of useless at high levels. Why? Because players can do that much in one or two shots of constant damage. "Moderate" crunchies against high level players
regularly come out with 200-400 body these days. It's not to keep up with the Slays or Assassinates or Dragon's Breaths, it's to keep up with the Wand charges of 20 and the weapon swings of 20-40 that happen with
every single attack over and over all day long.
There are 2 primary reasons this body bloat (and it's accelerating over the years, not slowing down) is (at least from some perspectives) "bad" for the game:
1. It significantly devalues "burst" damage. At high level, burst damage is almost entirely overshadowed by takeouts. There are multiple reasons for this, but a significant contributer is that body bloat has reached a breaking point. Why would I
ever memorize an Ice Storm when I can memorize a Confine that will last at least 3 seconds, which gives me time to throw 3 Wand charges and do 60 damage (even if I'm all alone!)? Why would I
ever throw a Cure Mortal Wounds against an Undead when I can throw a Purify and have my buddy swing twice with an Earth Aura'd Undead Reaver to do MORE DAMAGE than my supposedly anti-Undead spell? Evocation damage, Slays, Healing against Undead (or Necromancy damage against the Living), Assassinates, those are all intended to be major portions of the Alliance PC skillset that (barring specific cases that Plot teams have to engineer) are thrown by the wayside in high-level play today.
2. I hear two common reasons from new players who leave Alliance (often in favor of other games). The first is the complexity of the ruleset. The second is that the gap between high-level and low-level PCs is astronomical and seen as far,
far too wide. This problem manifests itself in several ways. (a) A newer player's first "awesome" moment of character progression in combat is generally
intended to be a burst - their first Slay, their first Flame Bolt or Dragon's Breath, etc. etc... As noted above, it's far too easy these days for that "burst" to get completely overwhelmed on the battlefield by the sheer amounts of body on even mid-level monsters. (b) It is
very very easy for a player swinging 3 or 4 in their first couple of events to feel like nothing more than a speed bump on the battlefield when those 3s and 4s are completely ignored - in large part because of the body bloat mentioned above. (c) Some players are encouraged by seeing people on the field swinging 40s with every shot, and think "I want to become that!" - but many are
discouraged by the 10x or 20x multiple of what they can do,
with no resources expended on the part of the higher damage player. It's easy to understand a feeling of despondancy and uselessness in that case.
Plot teams can certainly try to work around these items. Some do, with varying degrees of success. But it's
much harder than it should be, and quite frankly many Plot teams aren't that good at scaling in the incredibly difficult way that's needed in the current Alliance game.
Will lowering Constant Damage solve all these problems? Of course not. No one thing will. But I expect that lowering sources of constant damage from PCs will make a major, major difference. It's
not a "it's too good so we have to lower it!", which is what you seem to be expressing above (perhaps a bit hyperbolically). It's that the high constant damage we see now skews the entire game around it in ways that cannot otherwise be corrected for. Swinging for 20-40 with every single swing warps the game environment in incredibly harmful ways, and the problem is only increasing over time, not decreasing.
I don't think anyone has claimed that it's the entire solution, or perfect as-is in the playtest packet (maybe it needs some tweaking, but that's why we playtest!). But my
personal opinion is that if the high constant damage problem is not squashed, it will have supremely detrimental effects on the long-term health of the Alliance game even more than it has currently had.
-Bryan
PS: I will likely not come back on here to argue back and forth if that's what folks are interested in, though you are free to discuss among yourselves
I do try my best to answer questions of intent, and that's what this seems to be.
