This is the perfect example of why takeouts are less prevalent than consistent damage. This crunchy monster has 1 Parry. So if I want to use an eviscerate on it, I need to use 2, or a whole level worth of build. And since you can parry for another person, if I get jumped by three of these, I could need 4 eviscerates before 1 of them sticks, and 6 to kill all of them. So a fighter could spend 30 build to get out of a situation that MAY happen once a day, or get +2 damage all day long.
Proposal: Reduce Negation abilities
- Thread starter Alavatar
- Start date
That event WAS a lot of fun, but you know what? The combat challenge I remember from that event was fighting both you and Adam (granted, one of those was 3-touch, so rules didn't much impact.)
The game is not designed specifically FOR PVP, but it is something that exists, and I really hope that it doesn't get completely overlooked in the new rules set.
mikestrauss
Squire
I designed it as a creature of approximate level 30 equivalency. At that high a level of equivalency, it should be able to negate roughly 5 build on a single character. I certainly didn't overload it with defenses, nor would I have put that parry on it if it were equivalent to level 15 (no, I don't know where the break is). But, ignoring for a moment that parries can be used for other creatures (I forgot that when I was quickly designing it and almost certainly would have noted <self only> if I had remembered), it is reasonable that creature requires two modest damage slays (rather than one) to immediately drop given that it is supposed to be a challenge for a 30th level PC.
-MS
Alavatar
Baron
Another idea:
- Parry
- Alter the attack to 5 damage (regardless of effect)
- Add Deflect
- Same as Evade, except for Fighters
- Riposte
- Unchanged
- Dodge
- Take 3 steps back after use
- Cloak
- Change to only work on packet delivered effects
- Bane
- Change to only work on packet delivered effects
- Spell Shield
- Change to be Group Specific on cast (i.e. Spell Shield Command)
- Weapon Shield
- Move to L6
- Add Weapon Deflect
- L2 Spell
- Acts like Evade/Deflect
- Poison Shield
- Unchanged
- Reflect Magic
- Change to be Group Specific on cast (i.e. Reflect Magic Command)
- Elemental Shield
- Unchanged
- Spell Parry
- Alter the attack to 5 damage (regardless of effect)
- Counterspell
- Change to only work on packet delivered effects
- Stalwart Shield
- Change to only work on packet delivered effects
mikestrauss
Squire
I hate not having constructive criticism, but just about every one of these increases complication rather than decreases it. That is pretty much the opposite of the intention of these rule changes and I think increasing the complication in that way does as much damage (in terms of making the game enjoyable) as it solves.
Looking at a few specifics, Deflect being identical to Evade in every way really means it shouldn't have a new name (similarly, there is a very good argument that Cloak should just be called Resist since it is entirely identical to Resist in every way).
Weapon Shield is level 2 because it can be negated with an infinite action attack (and often is). And since Prepare to Die has gone away, recasting before the powerful attack is almost impossible in 2.0.
All of the "packet-only" stuff is adding an entirely new level of complication to our rules. Nothing else in the rules differentiates based on packet vs. non-packet. Even parries, evades, and riposte only differentiate based on delivery (weapon, either stick or packet), not based on physical representation of that delivery.
To quote a friend of mine (and probably dozens of others at this point): Simplify, simplify, simplify.
-MS
Looking at a few specifics, Deflect being identical to Evade in every way really means it shouldn't have a new name (similarly, there is a very good argument that Cloak should just be called Resist since it is entirely identical to Resist in every way).
Weapon Shield is level 2 because it can be negated with an infinite action attack (and often is). And since Prepare to Die has gone away, recasting before the powerful attack is almost impossible in 2.0.
All of the "packet-only" stuff is adding an entirely new level of complication to our rules. Nothing else in the rules differentiates based on packet vs. non-packet. Even parries, evades, and riposte only differentiate based on delivery (weapon, either stick or packet), not based on physical representation of that delivery.
To quote a friend of mine (and probably dozens of others at this point): Simplify, simplify, simplify.
-MS
I agree on the duplicate effects - they should all be called the same thing, even if they are acquired differently. But I do see some things that I really like.
Adding Weapon Deflect at level 2 and moving Weapon Shield to level 6 is a good solution to the issue of high-build-cost takeouts being negated by a level 2 spell. This seems more balanced.
I also think that changing Spell Shield and Reflect Magic to be group specific is an interesting idea. I think there would need to be some cost balancing, as people would need more protectives cast to be "full up" under this scheme, but it would also allow people to use their protectives more strategically, which I like.
For the packet vs non-packet issue, could these effects be simply changed to differentiate based on delivery, as everything else is? I believe that the intended effect was to make these defensives situation-specific rather than blanket negates, so I think that would still work fine.
Adding Weapon Deflect at level 2 and moving Weapon Shield to level 6 is a good solution to the issue of high-build-cost takeouts being negated by a level 2 spell. This seems more balanced.
I also think that changing Spell Shield and Reflect Magic to be group specific is an interesting idea. I think there would need to be some cost balancing, as people would need more protectives cast to be "full up" under this scheme, but it would also allow people to use their protectives more strategically, which I like.
For the packet vs non-packet issue, could these effects be simply changed to differentiate based on delivery, as everything else is? I believe that the intended effect was to make these defensives situation-specific rather than blanket negates, so I think that would still work fine.
mikestrauss
Squire
I honestly think the solution to high-build-cost takeouts being negated by a level 2 spell was implemented the moment that Prepare to Die went away. As someone who plays a Scout, I can assure you that I have never had a Terminate blocked by a Magic Armor, because the time to cast a magic armor after my first normal weapon blow (which pops the dumb defense) is longer than the time it takes me to deliver a Terminate. No warning means that a dumb defense like Weapon Shield simply can't block an intelligently used powerful blow.
I also think the effect group-based Spell Shield does more harm than good. The original post reasoned that PCs are frustrated by wasted abilities. Changing Spell Shield doesn't really help this concern much. NPCs generally use protective spells much less than PCs (most have built in smart / dumb defenses and aren't spell casters). So, at least in my experience, this change hurts PCs much more than NPCs. Furthermore, by making a protective effect group specific, now the only way to break the protective is with a spell of the same effect group. That means, for example, it always takes two Prisons to land a Prison spell, because no there is no other attack spell in that effect group. Similarly, if you are trying to land a Sleep spell, you can only break a Spell Shield with a Shun or an Awaken (or a Dominate, but that is higher level). In short, PCs get the shaft again because they no longer have the ability to throw a 1st level spell to break a Spell Shield and then hit with something impressive. Thus, this results in PCs burning even more powerful resources than before to break a Spell Shield when it matches their take-out spell (or just being incapable of breaking a Spell Shield). Finally, it must be remembered that all effect groups can possibly be linked to all delivery methods. A Spell Nausea (Alteration) is rare, but not against the rules.
Note: <X> Shield does currently exist as a monster-only ability in the current rules set, though it only cares about effect group, not about delivery.
-MS
I also think the effect group-based Spell Shield does more harm than good. The original post reasoned that PCs are frustrated by wasted abilities. Changing Spell Shield doesn't really help this concern much. NPCs generally use protective spells much less than PCs (most have built in smart / dumb defenses and aren't spell casters). So, at least in my experience, this change hurts PCs much more than NPCs. Furthermore, by making a protective effect group specific, now the only way to break the protective is with a spell of the same effect group. That means, for example, it always takes two Prisons to land a Prison spell, because no there is no other attack spell in that effect group. Similarly, if you are trying to land a Sleep spell, you can only break a Spell Shield with a Shun or an Awaken (or a Dominate, but that is higher level). In short, PCs get the shaft again because they no longer have the ability to throw a 1st level spell to break a Spell Shield and then hit with something impressive. Thus, this results in PCs burning even more powerful resources than before to break a Spell Shield when it matches their take-out spell (or just being incapable of breaking a Spell Shield). Finally, it must be remembered that all effect groups can possibly be linked to all delivery methods. A Spell Nausea (Alteration) is rare, but not against the rules.
Note: <X> Shield does currently exist as a monster-only ability in the current rules set, though it only cares about effect group, not about delivery.
-MS
mikestrauss
Squire
I want to discuss the reasoning presented by the OP.
According to the original post, the reason for this proposal is that PCs get frustrated when their abilities are negated outright. However, many of the solutions I have seen seem to ignore the equal, if not greater, frustration that PCs feel when they can't reasonably counteract the abilities of their foes. A lot of the solutions I have seen presented have primarily focused on weakening defenses that PCs use more than NPCs (spell defenses, cloaks, banes, fighter and rogue defenses). That counterproductive to me.
If the goal is to ensure that PCs never feel that abilities are wasted, I honestly think the KISS solution is simply to say that if an ability is blocked by a defense (ANY defense), it can be refocused via the new refocus rules. That seems to neatly deal with the concern with absolute minimum complexity.
I like the idea of effects that aren't purely take-out effects (Weakness and Destruction are pretty much my go-to examples of wonderfully designed spells), but I feel that the design work for that should be on the front end (what effects do), rather than on the back end (converting one effect to another). Because, with the exception of really slick designs like Evade (kudos to whoever came up with the new mechanics), such conversions are difficult to remember and add unneeded complexity.
-MS
P.S. - With the possible exception that I think it needs an exception for First Aid, I love the new design for Disease as well.
According to the original post, the reason for this proposal is that PCs get frustrated when their abilities are negated outright. However, many of the solutions I have seen seem to ignore the equal, if not greater, frustration that PCs feel when they can't reasonably counteract the abilities of their foes. A lot of the solutions I have seen presented have primarily focused on weakening defenses that PCs use more than NPCs (spell defenses, cloaks, banes, fighter and rogue defenses). That counterproductive to me.
If the goal is to ensure that PCs never feel that abilities are wasted, I honestly think the KISS solution is simply to say that if an ability is blocked by a defense (ANY defense), it can be refocused via the new refocus rules. That seems to neatly deal with the concern with absolute minimum complexity.
I like the idea of effects that aren't purely take-out effects (Weakness and Destruction are pretty much my go-to examples of wonderfully designed spells), but I feel that the design work for that should be on the front end (what effects do), rather than on the back end (converting one effect to another). Because, with the exception of really slick designs like Evade (kudos to whoever came up with the new mechanics), such conversions are difficult to remember and add unneeded complexity.
-MS
P.S. - With the possible exception that I think it needs an exception for First Aid, I love the new design for Disease as well.
I am not a fan of the removal of Prepare to Die. As you say, it means that Weapon Shields are useless against a powerful blow delivered with no warning. I'd much prefer a solution that would allow for similarly intelligent use on the behalf of the defender.
That is an excellent point about the need to double tap Prisons and the like.
That is an excellent point about the need to double tap Prisons and the like.
I actually agree with Mike on this one. That is a an elegantly simple solution. It means that you can use your ability without worrying about whether or not it will be blocked because even if it is, you'll still be able to use it on something else. It also makes defensive spells actually worth less than offensive ones because they (almost) always do work. There's some other things going on that I'll have to think about but man... that would be so very awesome.
Inaryn
Knight
This is entirely my experience with Weapon Shield vs powerful blows in the playtest.