If that is in fact a possibility, then I will make the time to contact my chapter owner to voice my opinions of the performance issues discussed here today.
Thanks, Draven and Tevas. Good info.
Thanks, Draven and Tevas. Good info.
It was never stated that the intention was to directly create a bid for a new rule. An issue had been identified, and it was suggested that the folks involved in identifying that issue create a thread to brainstorm the discussion of potential solutions. I am unsure how you came to that conclusion, nor does the associated condescending and rather unnecessary remark serve any purpose in supporting the creative processes that should be encouraged in this thread.Correct. Honestly, the whole "creating entirely new rules for Alliance/modifying rules" thing was pushed off the forums a long time ago.
You're quite welcome. Everyone involved will be playing the final product, so it is important to gather as much relevant feedback as possible. Thank you very much for contributing your ideas to this process! Please don't hesitate to continue to do so!If that is in fact a possibility, then I will make the time to contact my chapter owner to voice my opinions of the performance issues discussed here today.
Thanks, Draven and Tevas. Good info.
You might want to recheck that sir. I believe that was the old way. I am pretty sure that ARC is coming up with these rules and are the ones that rule on them as well.Common misconception, but that's not ARC's job, either.
If someone wants to propose a change to the rules, the best (and only) avenue they have is to petition a chapter owner. ARC's job is to provide clarification and interpretation, but not actually authorize changes themselves.
I like that right up until you have to keep track of division while being whacked with plumbing supplies, often from multiple directions.I like the new version of Evade...1/2 the damage and you drop the carrier....no need to worry about the big damage calls with take out carriers...
But add into that the flurry rule and it gets a little easier. Plus for me, smaller games and more 1 day events...lends more utility for that skillI like that right up until you have to keep track of division while being whacked with plumbing supplies, often from multiple directions.
This is true...but rarely have I, as a PC, stepped up to a fight with 3 NPCs and have gotten hit with a big shot from each in rapid sucsection.....but as an NPC I can't count the number of times this has happened to me...with 5+ PC yelling 3 different big shots each....I was about to say that. And...
If you go with the other variation, (powerful blows) requiring a 3 second delay between your slays, it doesn't preclude 3 guys standing in a line in front of you taking turns delivering one slay every second.
These things all seem great if you're play testing them in 1v1 fights. But that rarely happens in game.
Yeah. I'm not sure if that, or Sarr going the #@%@ away is my favorite new rule.But add into that the flurry rule and it gets a little easier. Plus for me, smaller games and more 1 day events...lends more utility for that skill
From what I read, ARC says that scaling up the build cost for profs and backstabs helps to reduce the gap between low and high level players. To me, this indicates that ARC cares about the power gap between players and that other changes might also help.The ARC only brought up a gap regarding passive damage from Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs. Any other gap you reference is one of your own devices, and not one that they have openly recognized. Does that mean that it has no opportunity to exist? No. But please do not state it as though they are designing rules based on it, as they have not made mention of it.
Again, I haven't seen ARC describe the alleged "gap" (huh?) as existing particularly with regards to Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs. They say that changing profs and backstabs should help to reduce the gap. Doesn't that mean that other things should help reduce the gap too? Reducing wand damage maybe?To answer your question, ARC described the alleged "gap" as existing particularly with regards to Weapon Proficiencies and Backstabs. They are not the only contributor to differences in capabilities between lower and higher level players, but they are the contributor that ARC chose to identify and address in this fashion due to its direct impact on other aspects of the game, specifically monster statting.
Context could be your friend. I think that meditate will help high level casters do more damage in the new rules than in the current rules. Alchemists will also do more damage because they can hurt more stuff. High level alchemists will do more damage because they have more money to throw (and can hurt more stuff). Then comes the important question: Why are we helping high level casters and alchemists dish out more damage with the new rules? I have a feeling that Tevas will reply (again) that spell damage has not changed. True, my eighth level spell does the same damage in both rule sets. But over the course of an event I will deal more damage if I get back missed spells.- The suggestion to re-read the playtest packet came specifically from a need to ensure that correct information was being communicated to the general player base. Any ideas of punishment are solely of your own creation. The comparing skills and equal weight comes from your post saying: "I just don't see any logic with making profs more expensive to reduce the gap while introducing meditate and blast gas to increase the gap.", which once again refers to an out of context "gap" that you had somehow derived from the section on passive damage reductions. As so far as your next question on abilities goes, again, there is no published ARC stated intention of "evening the playing field" for anything aside from constant sources of passive damage. The design behind the change, as stated by ARC in the "Clarifications of Intent" thread, regarded monster body points as a contributing factor, and wished to change the nature of combat away from a "grind the monster down" model by reducing both monster body points as well as these sources of passive damage.
- We talk about maximum purchased numeric damage because anything outside of that operates off of a fictional hit percentage that varies from individual to individual and situation to situation with extensive variables and as such cannot be regarded as reliable data. If you wanted to say, "Meditate should allow casters to throw with more confidence because they have the ability to regain missed spells, which might amount to more spells landing over the course of an event", then that would be a perfectly reasonable statement. Unfortunately, however, you said "...while increasing high level spell and alchemy damage...", which is untrue, because high level spell damage did not actually change. And why do I mention Alchemy damage changes? Because you specifically said that high level Alchemy damage had increased, so I was addressing it. Taking the opportunity to review your previous posts prior to continuing the thread may help eliminate fragmented issues like this, and maintain a higher level of discussion coherency for the outside reader.