So if the ranger monk splash is overpowered... what do you do about it? [Archive]

honkuimushi

02-07-2009, 11:09 AM

Jendrak

02-07-2009, 11:09 AM

1. Fix multi-classing
2. Fix multi-classing
3. Fix multi-classing

Had they actually done it the right way none of this would even be a problem.

If you dont know what im talking about here it is.

If you decide to multi-class the levels of your classes can not be more than 1lvl apart. I.E. A 11thlvl wizard/rogue would have to have 6lvls wizzy and 5lvls rogue(or vice-a-versa)to take no penalties.

The penalty for for being more than 1lvl "off" is 20% of your xp.

Every race has a favored class. So if you wizard rogue was a halfling you could do 9 wizzy and 2 rogue and not suffer any penalty because a halflings favored class is rogue and not subject to the penalties. However, if you add anyother class it must be within 1 lvl of the wizard lvls because for the purpose of multi-classing its almost like the rogue levels dont exist.

Edit: fixed xp penalty on multi-classing

Tanka

02-07-2009, 11:14 AM

1. Fix multi-classing
2. Fix multi-classing
3. Fix multi-classing

Had they actually done it the right way none of this would even be a problem.

If you dont know what im talking about here it is.

If you decide to multi-class the levels of your classes can not be more than 1lvl apart. I.E. A 11thlvl wizard/rogue would have to have 6lvls wizzy and 5lvls rogue(or vice-a-versa)to take no penalties.

The penalty for for being more than 1lvl "off" is 10% of your xp per lvl difference past 1. I.E. 2=10%, 3=20%, etc...

Every race has a favored class. So if you wizard rogue was a halfling you could do 9 wizzy and 2 rogue and not suffer any penalty because a halflings favored class is rogue and not subject to the penalties. However, if you add anyother class it must be within 1 lvl of the wizard lvls because for the purpose of multi-classing its almost like the rogue levels dont exist.
In a game with functionally infinite XP gain, this is silly and pointless.

What they should do is similar to what they did with Sorc's doubling of SP items. They gain a percentage of their Wisdom bonus to AC based on what percentage of Monk they are.

Jendrak

02-07-2009, 11:18 AM

Jendrak

02-07-2009, 11:21 AM

In a game with functionally infinite XP gain, this is silly and pointless.

What they should do is similar to what they did with Sorc's doubling of SP items. They gain a percentage of their Wisdom bonus to AC based on what percentage of Monk they are.

Ok so change the penalty....loss of abilties or something. I realize that everything in PnP wont "translate" exactly but the core of the system works it just needs to be tweaked

Tanka

02-07-2009, 11:21 AM

And finally, AGREED. Mobs should definatly behave move like PC's. By behave i mean, scaling attack bonus, concentration checks, no more "free" Meta-everything spell casting, blanket immunities.
1) Go ahead, code that.
2) Welcome to Boresburgh. Population: You

Tanka

02-07-2009, 11:23 AM

Ok so change the penalty....loss of abilties or something. I realize that everything in PnP wont "translate" exactly but the core of the system works it just needs to be tweaked
Loss of abilities for using a functional multiclassing system?

The core of the system was always horribly broken. In any of my games, I flat out ignore mutliclassing penalties because they lower the fun value my players have.

Hobgoblin

02-07-2009, 11:25 AM

may be wrong but i thought it was a flat 20 percent loss to xp if your levels wernt balanced

Tanka

02-07-2009, 11:27 AM

may be wrong but i thought it was a flat 20 percent loss to xp if your levels wernt balanced
Correct.

Jendrak

02-07-2009, 11:32 AM

may be wrong but i thought it was a flat 20 percent loss to xp if your levels wernt balanced

Thanks for the correction.....i tried finding the exact system but all my books are back in texas and i couldnt find it on the srd.

Jendrak

02-07-2009, 11:41 AM

Loss of abilities for using a functional multiclassing system?

The core of the system was always horribly broken. In any of my games, I flat out ignore mutliclassing penalties because they lower the fun value my players have.

The loss of abilities was just a quick suggestion. Theres obviousley better solutions thats just what came to mind in the 5 seconds i took to reply.

As for the core system being broken. Thats your opinion. However, with the every build has to be ranger/monk/rogue attitude thats killing this game. You can deny that something must be fixed. And if its not the way multiclassing is done then we are only patching the problem until the next Uber-I-can-do-it-all-and-everyone-else-is-usless build comes along and we are gonna be right back where we started

BlackPantha2

02-07-2009, 11:49 AM

I'd imagine them putting in some nice light armor/shields with some nice ac bonuses(like a +5 dragontouched with +2/3/4 dodge built in) or some shield with a much higher bonus to try to equalize the ac bonus from monk wisdom.

Tanka

02-07-2009, 11:58 AM

As for the core system being broken. Thats your opinion. However, with the every build has to be ranger/monk/rogue attitude thats killing this game. You can deny that something must be fixed. And if its not the way multiclassing is done then we are only patching the problem until the next Uber-I-can-do-it-all-and-everyone-else-is-usless build comes along and we are gonna be right back where we started
Not every build has to be Ranger/Monk/Rogue. There's Cleric/Monk, Paladin/Monk, Rogue/Monk...

Oh, right, proving a point here.

Forcing any sort of artificial loss due to multiclassing is deliberately against what the system intends. Is the Monk Wisdom bonus to AC overpowering? For certain subsets of builds, absolutely.

What an intelligent Developer should do is limit the amount of Wisdom that can be granted to your AC based on a ratio of Monk:Total Level. So, at the moment, a level one Monk splash would receive 1/16th of his Wisdom score to AC (rounded up, for fairness). In other words, 1 AC, unless he somehow has a +17 Wisdom bonus (that's a 44 Wisdom, by the way).

Will it anger lots of those who did the Monk splash long before this change was introduced? Yes. Which is also why a respec mechanism needs to be in place before such a radical change.

redoubt

02-07-2009, 11:59 AM

I'm not opposed to improving S&B (in fact I'd like to see that happen).

However, if the effort goes into further powering characters are the mobs going just continue to inflate as well???

geoffhanna

02-07-2009, 12:01 PM

1. Nothing

maddmatt70

02-07-2009, 12:07 PM

1: Reduce Favorite Enemy Enhancment bonus'
1a: Increase Mob Diversity within a Module.
2: Change Tempest AC Type (Done)
3: Provide more options for S&B players to match/Exceed the ac of a Monk splash.

I think 1a is the key. If they made alot more mob diversity in mods or gave us more content per mod with several different raid bosses/ red name types this would weaken rangers substantially..

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 12:21 PM

Nick_RC

02-07-2009, 12:35 PM

I think 1a is the key. If they made alot more mob diversity in mods or gave us more content per mod with several different raid bosses/ red name types this would weaken rangers substantially..

Yeah if this actually becomes a reality.

We're experimenting with different ways to make damage worthwhile again for both mundane classes and spellcasters.

Raid boss variability is the only thing that will affect anything as if its anything orange or less just w/p those mobs and FE or crit rage or power surge be damned.

To be fair lets look at the mobs that came out in last module.

Drow
Scorpions (vermin)
Wolves(animals)
Mephits (nuetral outsiders)
Elementals
kobolds (reptiles)
Giants
Ice flensers
Winterwolves (magical beasts)

In all honesty there is quite a bit of variation there (mobs yes red names not so much)and some of those most definately arnt your run of the mill FE selections. The problem is who really cares if it aint a FE when stat dmg is so powerful (on hard and elite) and they stat dmg 10% faster anyway...Then red named kobold, efreet, elemental, abberation, giant and dragon and undead.

I wish i had something more consructive to say but im not sure how best to proceed either...

Edit : I dont believe an overt nerfing is the right way as it unfairly impacts those players who built there toons under those guidelines which they were given - without a full respec mechanism (which i highly doubt will be implemented). I think bolstering of other abilities is the way to go or more discreet 'external nerfs' like a reduction in stat damage effectiveness combined with more varied mobs per module. I generally look at offensive measures as thats where the majority of my experience lies - il leave the defense to borror0 and others.

Drwaz99

02-07-2009, 12:40 PM

- Add some form of shield-only profane AC bonus
- Add some form of shield-only DR (like hound shields, but more!)

I think DR combined with the large selection of guards that we currently have is the way out of this hole.

I agree with this. While I do not know the official DDO rules, so forgive me if I am off, but when I think of a paladin with a Swords and a huge Tower Shield, I can see enemies hitting the shield way more often in combat than the character. The difference between blocking DR is minimal to me when you compare Large Shield and Tower, esp if you have to take a feat to use. I also think that if you can use a Tower shield there needs to be something along the line of at lest DR 10, but since you have such a huge shield you attack slower than you normally would. I would leave most shields alone except maybe up the AC bonus a bit and Double the AC bonus for a tower shield and add an automatic DR 10, but slow your attack rate down 10-15%.

I just think in real life a larger shield/armor gives you more protection, but with more protection/DR, you lose the ability to attack or move really fast.

Junts

02-07-2009, 12:45 PM

Junts

02-07-2009, 12:47 PM

I agree with this. While I do not know the official DDO rules, so forgive me if I am off, but when I think of a paladin with a Swords and a huge Tower Shield, I can see enemies hitting the shield way more often in combat than the character. The difference between blocking DR is minimal to me when you compare Large Shield and Tower, esp if you have to take a feat to use. I also think that if you can use a Tower shield there needs to be something along the line of at lest DR 10, but since you have such a huge shield you attack slower than you normally would. I would leave most shields alone except maybe up the AC bonus a bit and Double the AC bonus for a tower shield and add an automatic DR 10, but slow your attack rate down 10-15%.

I just think in real life a larger shield/armor gives you more protection, but with more protection/DR, you lose the ability to attack or move really fast.

my high ac s/b toon has some guards (right now, radiance on my dt, plus 2% chances for healers bounty and concordant; I've also had a variety of offensive guards on my dt sovreign)

I don't think guards are useful to the s/b ac toon, and s/b ac is possible (i raid buff to 75, and in m9 will raid buff to 83, sustainable (shortest buff being haste/recite). The only way I can see guards being effective for s/b builds in this way is if their activation chance scales upward with your ac, so that they have some chance of going off; that doesnt maek any sense, so I don't think its a good solution.

Treerat

02-07-2009, 12:54 PM

1. Nothing.

2. Let turbine raise the to-hit and hit points of mobs even more.

3. Reduce the ability to use monk AC in some maner.

4. Reduce the tempest bonus in some maner.

5. ???

1. That way lies the death of the game more surely than any other change. Keeping the situation the same when the situation is already making people upset just means those people more convinced that the developers are not interested in the health of the game.

2. Bad idea; that was done with Gianthold and the the modules since and instead of increasing the number of viable classes its shrunk them to a point where "not a ranger, not a barbarian, not a cleric, not a buff & PK/ FoD Sorc? Sorry not letting you into the raid."

3. Best possible fix. As has been said over and over - make the maximum wisdom bonus a function of monk levels (and please do the same for paladin save bonuses). Yes people will cry that their "uberized fotm multiclass" is not longer the best tank and the best dps: these people would cry just as hard if other classes where brought up to their levels because they are no longer at the top of the food chain.

They'll throw a tantrum for a month or so, threaten to leave the game (a handful might even cancel their accounts for a month), and generally clutter the forums and game with their whining about how unfair the change was. Then they'll quitely come back and act like nothing ever happened. As for the few that actually do quit? Odds are those are the ones who have quite a few black marks against them for violating the games code of conduct. Getting rid of them just saves Turbine from losing more customers to the misanthropes need to abuse everyone else to make themselves feel better.

4. Make it a shield bonus so it won't stack with the shield spell (and get them the equivalent AC of having a shield without sacrificing damage). Still useful, just not allowing them to reach game-breaking levels.

vainangel

02-07-2009, 12:54 PM

Monk AC should be directly tied to MONK level.
Limit the AC bonus you get per level range of monk... problem fixed.

Deathseeker

02-07-2009, 01:01 PM

1. Change monk wis bonus to type Shield
2. Change the dodge feat to give +1 ac while THF, TWF but +2 AC while using a shield
3. Allow the dodge feat to be taken multiple times (and fighter/monk bonus feat elligible)

This indirectly hurts the Tempest III / Monk splash the most. Monks lose the benefit of shield clickies, but can use feats to get some permanent ac back if they so choose. This helps fighters (which need the help). This helps S&B (which desperately needs help).

4. Add a +4 Dodge Ring.

This is a big deal. It wont stack with Icey Raiments. Therefore it helps everyone else. You could wear this and the chattering, or Icey and the chattering, or two rings, or Dragontouched and this. All would end up giving you +7 dodge.

5. Adjust as necessary mob to-hits to account for this overall increase in AC to everyone (except tempests and TWF).

Not sure that needs to be done...I dont know the to-hits of every mob. But if all of this raises AC overall a little too much, then they can adjust the mob BAB a bit.

The beauty of this approach...IT DOESNT SUBSTANTIALLY NERF ANY CLASS THAT IT BREAKS BUILDS. The worst is the Tempest III/Monk splash loses 4ac. We all recognize that build is unbalanced. 4 ac is not game breaking on a build that has top notch dps and top notch ac. If the lack of shield clickies in exchange for dodge feats is a problem for monks, throw the monk a few enhancements to bump their ac by 1 or 2. Monks dont need to be hurt or helped, so in the end I'd rather see them neutral.

This would substantially fix the AC system.

gfunk

02-07-2009, 01:04 PM

5) raise the AC and diversity of monsters in mod 9. I think that many of the monk spashes out there suffer from a lowish to hit bonus, that is even beginning to show itself at the higher end content. Against non-favored enemies, these builds are much less competitive in their damage output, partially do to inability to hit all the time. Introduce more high AC humanoids such as drow, dwarves, and other rarer mobs like dragons etc.. and the favored enemy edge will be greatly diminished (Without touching the build)

redoubt

02-07-2009, 01:13 PM

Deathseeker

02-07-2009, 01:20 PM

Changing monk wisdom bonus to type Shield causes pure monks to lose 4 AC due to the loss of shield clickies (as you mentioned earlier, but missed in the recap.)

I think finding a way to limit wisdom bonus that does not reduce an actual monks AC would be important to the fix. (The not hurting pure monks part, not that the wisdom bonus must change.)

I felt like I covered that here...

If the lack of shield clickies in exchange for dodge feats is a problem for monks, throw the monk a few enhancements to bump their ac by 1 or 2. Monks dont need to be hurt or helped, so in the end I'd rather see them neutral.

I wouldnt mind seeing, in addition to the type change, monks be given 1 or 2 ac via the enhancement system. Remember, monks cant inherently use shield wands, and clickies only last 30 seconds. Yeah, there are cookies, but that's not really a part of the build system. So 1 or 2 permanent AC in exchange for the shield clickies is very fair to the monk. It would be non-dispellable and permanent as well.

bobbryan2

02-07-2009, 01:21 PM

Nothing should be done unless players that splashed monk have a sort of respec recourse.

Add a respec, and we'll talk about balance.

Drwaz99

02-07-2009, 01:30 PM

my high ac s/b toon has some guards (right now, radiance on my dt, plus 2% chances for healers bounty and concordant; I've also had a variety of offensive guards on my dt sovreign)

I don't think guards are useful to the s/b ac toon, and s/b ac is possible (i raid buff to 75, and in m9 will raid buff to 83, sustainable (shortest buff being haste/recite). The only way I can see guards being effective for s/b builds in this way is if their activation chance scales upward with your ac, so that they have some chance of going off; that doesnt maek any sense, so I don't think its a good solution.

Forgive me, but I'm not quite up to all of the DDO terminology, I didn't mention guards anywhere, or did I and just call it something else?

dopey69

02-07-2009, 01:43 PM

Kaldaka

02-07-2009, 02:53 PM

5) raise the AC and diversity of monsters in mod 9. I think that many of the monk spashes out there suffer from a lowish to hit bonus ...

Umm ... Aren't these the builds with the 38 DEX? ... With Weapon Finesse to boot?

Not sure, but I think based on the TWF math and the loss of one BAB for the monk level(s), doesn't that means their to-hit bonus would be equal to a S/B fighter with 32 STR? ....

cforce

02-07-2009, 03:58 PM

5. Include some shields with more total AC bonus, either through a base increase like the DT armor has, or a significant bonus, or both.

(And this is what my bet is on for Mod 9.)

sephiroth1084

02-07-2009, 04:39 PM

In a game with functionally infinite XP gain, this is silly and pointless.

What they should do is similar to what they did with Sorc's doubling of SP items. They gain a percentage of their Wisdom bonus to AC based on what percentage of Monk they are.

But in reverse? Where each non-monk level decreases your bonus? Otherwise, monks at level 1 would be incredibly handicapped, as they would have awful AC, and would continue to have terrible AC until late in their careers...if they ever got there.

Gunga

02-07-2009, 04:43 PM

5. Roll a ranger w/monk splash.

Aeneas

02-07-2009, 04:45 PM

Jendrak

02-07-2009, 04:56 PM

Who told you all that the devs have to give you respecs when they make a character breaking change? They've done it before and they'll do it again. When it happens, deal with it.

I'll bet those of you who made evasion pallies in heavy armor back in the beginning of the game's life don't even remember the character's name anymore.

The obvious fix in my eyes is the limit the wis bonus to monk level, it will still allow pure monks to get as much as 20 AC from wisdom which as far as i know is not currently a possible number to reach. Those who splashed will still get a couple free AC, the evasion, and the monk feats.

While most of the time i would agree with you i would say this is a little different than a fix to a broken feat. Evasion was never supposed to work with heavy armor so to those that took the chance and lost...to bad.

However, when they change something that is working the way it should because they want/need to its not the same thing and being able to respec would be nice.

And before the "they dont have to do anything" stuff starts. All i said was it would be nice and is something they should look at before they start change too much stuff.

Borror0

02-07-2009, 05:05 PM

5. Include some shields with more total AC bonus, either through a base increase like the DT armor has, or a significant bonus, or both.

(And this is what my bet is on for Mod 9.)
Gear dependency...

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 05:07 PM

Gear dependency...

To an extent, I don't think we can get away from that.

DaggomaticDwarf

02-07-2009, 05:11 PM

I mean the only people who seem to complain about this are the "Kill Counters" who claim they are not keepin count. I mean who cares who killed what? so they can put it in their bio page BFD. Complaining just to complain is useless IMHO. ok now to put on my "Flame retardant" undies

Borror0

02-07-2009, 05:30 PM

To an extent, I don't think we can get away from that.
Get rid? Of course not. But Turbine keep on raising the bar each Module, by adding more grind.

I'm not against gear dependency, I also think S&B needs better shields, but trying to solve the problem only (or even mainly) by adding a new, better shield is irresponsible. Grind this, grind that. At one point, the amount of grind to just be affective on a defense spec'd character gets a bit... ridiculous.

Borror0

02-07-2009, 05:32 PM

I mean the only people who seem to complain about this are the "Kill Counters" who claim they are not keepin count.
S&B players complaining about how other characters out-do them in every single aspect... care about kill counts?

Odds are that if you're a S&B player, you don't care about kill count. And if one does, he chose the wrong build from the start.

Kraldor

02-07-2009, 05:48 PM

But in reverse? Where each non-monk level decreases your bonus? Otherwise, monks at level 1 would be incredibly handicapped, as they would have awful AC, and would continue to have terrible AC until late in their careers...if they ever got there.

Based on your percentage of monk levels out of your total current level, not 16.

So a pure Monk at any level is still 100% monk, and still gets 100% of his wisdom bonus.

QuantumFX

02-07-2009, 05:49 PM

1. Nothing.

2. Let turbine raise the to-hit and hit points of mobs even more.

3. Reduce the ability to use monk AC in some maner.

4. Reduce the tempest bonus in some maner.

5. ???

5. Make dodge bonuses from items work like every other AC bonus in the game.

6. Reduce the meaning of a high AC by lowering the attack bonuses. Diminishing returns FTW. (It works for paladin splashes.)

RuneDude

02-07-2009, 05:52 PM

This is my second post on these forums. hopefully this idea has not been suggested already.

Was thinking about the Feat mentioned for using longswords and staying centered. How about there be a feat like this for every weapon to use centered.

Reduce the AC to wisdom when not centered to cap out at number of monk levels.

Those with splashes not using traditional monk weapons, can still have the chance to keep their AC. It will somewhat balance out the power of a very top heavy class like monk. Do not see any reason the feat cannot be taken for multiple weapons. Otherwise if you choose not to spend the feat you can still have some AC and have one less stat to worry about optimizing.

However, while the feat should allow centering and usage of monk ki abilities, it probably should not benefit from the flurry to-hit bonus, which should only apply to basic monk weapons.

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 06:18 PM

Get rid? Of course not. But Turbine keep on raising the bar each Module, by adding more grind.

I'm not against gear dependency, I also think S&B needs better shields, but trying to solve the problem only (or even mainly) by adding a new, better shield is irresponsible. Grind this, grind that. At one point, the amount of grind to just be affective on a defense spec'd character gets a bit... ridiculous.

Sure. You know my "it's how gear stacks" opinion of balance in DDO. What I'd like to see is not a new "must have" shield grind, but perhaps a new Shield prefix/suffix that gives something good to S&B folks.

For example, although I'm in the minority opinion on this, I think the change to "of Deception" was a significant bonus to the Rogue community. Maybe something similar on shields? Add crafted shields, sure, but add a new random suffix/prefix that grants additional bonuses to fighters or paladins not unlike "sacred" did for DVs? They could/should change some of the shield mechanics (best option) but maybe tweaking how some of the suffixes (suffices?) work would also help the situation.

redoubt

02-07-2009, 07:08 PM

I felt like I covered that here...

I wouldnt mind seeing, in addition to the type change, monks be given 1 or 2 ac via the enhancement system. Remember, monks cant inherently use shield wands, and clickies only last 30 seconds. Yeah, there are cookies, but that's not really a part of the build system. So 1 or 2 permanent AC in exchange for the shield clickies is very fair to the monk. It would be non-dispellable and permanent as well.

I thought the clickies were a little more than that time wise... I'll have to look again. hmmm. Anyway...

Trading clickies for feats does not work unless you are a fighter. Monks do not have enough feats to replace shield clickies witih additional dodge feats. My monk has dodge as a feat, but I had to skip out on some other weapon feats to get it.

This fix is interesting, but I cannot see how a pure monk is going to either feats or enhancements to spare. Have to think on it, but I'd still like a fix that doesn't nerf and / or place additional feat and enhancement requirements on the pure class.

underlordone

02-07-2009, 07:14 PM

Give them all CHEEESE WITH THERE WINE HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

cm2_supernova

02-07-2009, 07:43 PM

Give them all CHEEESE WITH THERE WINE HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Congratulations! Your DiMaggio like streak of saying nothing even remotely interesting is alive and well!!!

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 08:27 PM

5. Make dodge bonuses from items work like every other AC bonus in the game.
What does that mean?

EinarMal

02-07-2009, 08:29 PM

What does that mean?

I would assume he means only the highest dodge item applies, so they don't stack like natural armor, protection, etc...

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 08:33 PM

I would assume he means only the highest dodge item applies, so they don't stack like natural armor, protection, etc...
So he's lobbying for a nerf of Dodge bonuses, IOW. I believe the DEX AC bonus is a Dodge bonus (which is why I think Dodge bonuses sack), so (assuming I'm right) either the DEX AC bonus would have to be made its own special AC category (which stacks with everything), or DEX AC bonus would become pointless if the character had a high enough Dodge AC item.

My next post will have more parentheses.

Noctus

02-07-2009, 09:18 PM

So he's lobbying for a nerf of Dodge bonuses, IOW. I believe the DEX AC bonus is a Dodge bonus ... [snip]

it is not.

Aeyr

02-07-2009, 09:40 PM

Seems to me the original rules for the game pre-MMO were written to have armor/shields provide a relative give and take between dodge and armor bonuses. That is, you could go with heavy armor (i.e. full plate for 9 armor and only 1 dex (=+10 AC excluding pluses on armor), or light armor (i.e. leather armor for 1 armor but up to 8 dex (=+9 AC); thus a pretty comparable defense assuming the light armor wearer has free mobility. Most medium armor fell between these (provides armor bonus between these two examples, but allows for a dex bonus between these two as well). A robe wearer build would have unlimited AC, but was pretty much limited to +10 AC or so unless he tried to squeeze just a few more points in by completely sacrificing all stat points except Dex and Wis (for Monk). Thus many Monks would have comparable AC to that of an average Fighter.

The problem in DDO is it retains the armor+dex limits with a very few slight exceptions of a couple points of AC for enhancements available for very specific classes, but that the bracer/robe wearing Monk splashes can achieve DEX and WIS bonuses to AC that far exceed the levels that the original game designers really considered to be feasible on a PC. This was exacerbated by the availability of inordinately high AC boosting items specific to bracer/robe wearers.

As to fixing this, I would say expect little to no change on it leaving so as to not upsetting those that built these characters. However, I suspect the devs are more clever than some give them credit for and that they may just release new defensive bonuses to all the non-extreme dex/wis based characters. I have no idea what that might be (maybe dodge bonuses tacked onto raid armor loot, maybe stacking DR bonuses tacked onto raid armor loot, etc). Such additions would help narrow the gap between 90% of the characters out there and these extreme AC builds).

I liked some of the other ideas posted here, but I've already written too long a post.

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 09:54 PM

it is not.
Yes, I see in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#dodgeBonus) that it is not. However, that still leaves the question "Why nerf Dodge bonuses so that they don't stack?"

honkuimushi

02-07-2009, 10:23 PM

As for the ac section it is done exactly like in PnP and doesnt need to be "fixed". Heres the text/link from/to the SRD:http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm[
AC Bonus (Ex)
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.

Notice that the Monk starts gaining an AC Bonus at level 5. In DDO they start Gaining it at level 2. I have no problem with removing that and making AC increases beyond the normal +5 an enhancement which is available at higher levels. Even putting it at 1st level would make it less attractive for splashing.

Now, I don't agree that the Ranger/Monk Combination is inherently unbalanced. Spalshing Monk is only available to Lawful characters and that rules out any combinations with Barbarian or Bard. And since we have a 3 class maximum, it limits you to 2 other classes.

You also have a problem with MAD. A monk needs every stat except for Intelligence and Charisma. But for those going for a really high AC, they need Combat Expertise and need at least a 13 Intelligence. Also, this combo is mostly good for finesse characters. Even with the Monk splash, I'm not sure a Strength based Ranger could get their Dex and Wisdom high enough to get a Higher AC in robes than with a Mithril Breasplate or the Delving Suit.

Now, the Icy Rainments are a complication. My faored solution is to allow Dodge bonuses to stack from different items to stack, but with a limit between +4 and +10. The amount of equipment that grants the bonus should be increased so that the best bonuses are reserved for one type of character. The bonus for DT Armor should probably be increased to +4 so that it is equal to the item using the same slot and so it doesn't nullify the Chattering Ring.

If you do that and make it so that mobs do not always attack at their highest bonus, I think you'll find that Ranger/ Monks are nice, but not overpowered. I strongly oppose tying the Wisdom bonus to Monk level because that goes completely against PnP rules and screws over those who made these characters and invested tomes and bound items. This isn't like Evasion in heavy armor where it was pointed out from the beginning that it was against the rules and a potential problem.

When you look at the total bonus from Wisdom, it's nice, but not extreme. Especially since you have to forego using armor. A +5 mithril chainshirt will give you +9 to AC. A +5 mithril breastplate or the Delving Suit will give you +10. You won't cap your dex bonus until 20 or 22. If you take my suggestion for making Dex cap increasers more common, that could go up to 24 or 26. +5 Mithril full Plate can get +11 to Armor and at least 3 more fom dex. The best bracers are currently +8 and I wouldn't say that those are easily available. +7 or +6 are more available. So without Armor you start down about 2 AC. This is where the Rainments come in, but hopefully, that will be dealt with.

Now for wisdom bonus, a 14 Wisdom gives you +2, a +6 item will give you +3 and a +2 tome will give you +1. So for a Tome and 6 build points, you get +6 to AC. You could get 1 more if you took 2 levels of monk and took the wisdom enhancement and put a point from level ups or a +3 tome in wisdom. +6 is 1 less than a +5 heavy shield. So if you start out about 2 points lower than someone with the Delving Suit and if they put on a +5 Heavy shield, they're up by 3. You can go Tempest for 2 to 4 more, but the shield user can use the Alchemical recepie to get an additional +1.

It seems to me that the Wisdom bonus balances out fairly close to a shield. The dodge bonus issue creates a problem, but that's really a separate issue. I do think that shields need some love. The allowable enchantments should probably be increased and something like Greensteel crafting should probably be added. I also support passive DR for using a shield. But I really don't see a problem with the numbers from the Wisdom boost to AC.

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 10:34 PM

You promised more parentheses.
I'm not that kind of boy.

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 10:46 PM

Yes, I see in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#dodgeBonus) that it is not. However, that still leaves the question "Why nerf Dodge bonuses so that they don't stack?"

Dodge stacks with itself ad infinitum; if we want to reduce the gap between the casual and hard core player, we will need to reduced the delta between min and max AC at least somewhat...dodge bonus is the biggest offender.

Scalion

02-07-2009, 10:46 PM

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 10:53 PM

Seriously?

Dodge stacks with itself ad infinitum; if we want to reduce the gap between the casual and hard core player, we will need to reduced the delta between min and max AC at least somewhat...dodge bonus is the biggest offender.
What is this alleged "gap" between casual and hard core players? I'm as casual as it gets. To me, it sounds like gear envy. I don't care how uber other players' characters are. Gear is a direct result of time spent playing. If someone plays like an insomniac on crack, they're gonna have more and better gear.

I am actively recruiting members for The Pirates Who Don't Care About Anything(tm).

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 11:01 PM

What is this alleged "gap" between casual and hard core players? I'm as casual as it gets. To me, it sounds like gear envy. I don't care how uber other players' characters are. Gear is a direct result of time spent playing. If someone plays like an insomniac on crack, they're gonna have more and better gear.

I am actively recruiting members for The Pirates Who Don't Care About Anything(tm).

Huh? Who are you, and what have you done with Bran?!?!?! ;)

Isn't this at odds, even slightly (even frickin' *slightly*?), with previous debates we've had? Multiple threads of "power gamer" vs "casual gamer" and all that? Respec option vs Reroll? Greensteel reconstruct vs "stuck with what you have"?

:confused:

Whatever.

I'm one of the "power gamers"; I have all this ****. I think the gap is too large.

Tanka

02-07-2009, 11:03 PM

But in reverse? Where each non-monk level decreases your bonus? Otherwise, monks at level 1 would be incredibly handicapped, as they would have awful AC, and would continue to have terrible AC until late in their careers...if they ever got there.
Incorrect. Let me elucidate:

14Rgr/1Mnk/1Rog gets 1/16th of his Wisdom bonus applied to his AC (rounded up).
1Mnk gets 1/1th of his Wisdom bonus applied to his AC (rounded up).

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 11:06 PM

Huh?

Isn't this at odds, even slightly (even frickin' *slightly*?), with previous debates we've had? Multiple threads of "power gamer" vs "casual gamer" and all that? Respec option vs Reroll? Greensteel reconstruct vs "stuck with what you have"?

:confused:
Some people take the game way too seriously. I don't play with those people. Which is why I don't care what kind of gear their characters have. In the game, I don't care who they are or what they do.

On the forums, they're rather silly and they write silly things.

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 11:06 PM

Some people take the game way too seriously. I don't play with those people. Which is why I don't care what kind of gear their characters have. In the game, I don't care who they are or what they do.

On the forums, they're rather silly and they write silly things.

I'm linking this, and may be quoting you in the future. Just so you know. ;)

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 11:15 PM

I'm linking this, and may be quoting you in the future. Just so you know. ;)
Just because I make comments about things on the forums does not mean such things are really that important to me.

Take respecs. I've always maintained that the reason I don't want respecs is simply because I don't like them, and that if they added them, I'd probably even use them. And as I've also written many times, my biggest beef with pro-respeccers is that they won't admit they want respecs simply because they like them, as if they need to find a better reason than that and convince everyone else of the rightness of their position.

ShaeNightbird

02-07-2009, 11:19 PM

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 11:22 PM

Monk splashed on my Ranger.
Quick, get a pre-moistened towelette!

ShaeNightbird

02-07-2009, 11:24 PM

Quick, get a pre-moistened towelette!

Too wimpy. Gotta use bleach to get it out.:p

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 11:25 PM

Just because I make comments about things on the forums does not mean such things are really that important to me.

ok

Take respecs. I've always maintained that the reason I don't want respecs is simply because I don't like them, and that if they added them, I'd probably even use them.

ok. Note that I'm on record in that thread saying I'd probably *not* use the respec mechanism I was proposing....I would hate having to relevel. ;)

On the other hand, some of the other mechanisms proposed I'd use too much...I get bored, and like to try out new things in all MMOs.

And as I've also written many times, my biggest beef with pro-respeccers is that they won't admit they want respecs simply because they like them, as if they need to find a better reason than that and convince everyone else of the rightness of their position.

Right. And I'm for reducing the gear gap between power gamers and casuals because it would improve my...something. I guess. Since I have all this gear already. :confused:

SableShadow

02-07-2009, 11:27 PM

I don't care about respecs one way or another. I don't care about uber gear. I don't care about having Monk splashed on my Ranger. I have fun when I play, with the gear I have, which would not be considered Uber in the least by power gaming folk. That's really all that matters to me.

I follow you. And that's good! I think (my opinion) that the delta between the gear I ground out and the gear a casual can probably see is just too large.

*shrug*

Opinion, I guess...kinda tired of arguing against myself, really. :)

ShaeNightbird

02-07-2009, 11:38 PM

I definitely consider myself a casual gamer. My highest lvl character is 9, and that's fine with me too, I'll get her leveled up eventually, doesn't matter to me when that is. I like all my characters, and the ones that suffer from less than optimal builds due to inexperience, oh well. I improve what I can, and the things I can't? Whatever. It keeps things challenging, that's for sure!

branmakmuffin

02-07-2009, 11:44 PM

I follow you. And that's good! I think (my opinion) that the delta between the gear I ground out and the gear a casual can probably see is just too large.
I'm sure it is large. But why is it a problem? Do you think it hurts the game? For all the razzing I do of elite power-gamers on the forums, I really don't care about who they are or what they do or what gear their characters have in the game.

Is that you think too many casual players will leave in frustration if they don't get loot easily enough? My position is (and has been consistently) that too much easily obtained loot is bad for the game because the game is already way too Monty Haul. Sure, I have characters with Monty Haul loot (Monty Haul for the levels they are, that is), but if it all disappeared, if the AH disappeared, if the brokers disappeared, I'd like the game better.

smatt

02-08-2009, 12:02 AM

Let's face it..... Giving an ability to a DDO player, and then taking it away is like giving a 3 year old a piece of candy, letting them tak a bite... And then ripping it out of their hand... You'll get the same reaction everytime.:p Seeing as at least 30-40 of the game population ran out and built ranger/mopnk high AC/DPS or Stat-Damage 2 weapon fighting easy button uber toons, nerfing them would be a bad idea. The tears would be so bad Stormreach would flood and then were would we be :eek:

I always throw out the same option, and some others do as well.....

1. Passive scaling by level DR/AC on medium and heavy armor. Has top end up being a significant amount... Meaning not 1's and 2's.....

2. Non-shroud crafting enhancements on med/heavy armor. Say you can add +3 AC to Medium, and +5 to heavy respectively. And perhaps a DR ritual as well.

3. Rethink the clickie type enhancements for fighters.... Rangers get these really cool new level 18 enhanements and fighters get another clickie? Palis the same... when all clickies are going they're way over the top.... BUT when those clickies run out..... Booooooo

I think they've really let rangers get out of hand... I'm not calling for a nerfing.... Nor complete balance..... Just some love for sword and boards and every other non-ranger melee.....

branmakmuffin

02-08-2009, 12:08 AM

I think they've really let rangers get out of hand... I'm not calling for a nerfing.... Nor complete balance..... Just some love for sword and boards and every other non-ranger melee.....
Bah, eliminate classes altogether. Classes are lame. GURPS doesn't have classes. 'Nuff said!

Dark_Helmet

02-08-2009, 12:44 AM

Loss of abilities for using a functional multiclassing system?

The core of the system was always horribly broken. In any of my games, I flat out ignore mutliclassing penalties because they lower the fun value my players have.

...and this is how they broke it in DDO. Just like you ignored the rules written, so have the devs and created a bad situation which is just getting worse.

Yes, it works in your confined world with just your players, but it is very bad in a generic world with different play styles.The more they deviate from the core roles for one play style, the more they penalize others. And yes, it is a penalty because as the monsters get adjusted for the hard core players, the casual take the loss.

The rules are not horribly broken as that is your minority opinion (I have never, ever heard that arguement as feedback for broken rules at any convention). But, that is the nice thing about a game where you can make your own house rules.... In your case, I honestly don't see how it lowers the fun level to have an XP penalty (they just get to play MORE to level up ;) ).

for the OP:
Doesn't sound like they will fix it properly by using the XP penalty. Not really a punishment for the power levellers.

Tanka

02-08-2009, 01:38 AM

...and this is how they broke it in DDO. Just like you ignored the rules written, so have the devs and created a bad situation which is just getting worse.
Please, tell me how they can stop people from capping in a game with functionally infinite XP available by instituting a 20% XP hit from multiclassing.

Borror0

02-08-2009, 04:02 AM

What I'd like to see is not a new "must have" shield grind, but perhaps a new Shield prefix/suffix that gives something good to S&B folks.
Even so, I doubt that will be enough. At best, it will be the most grindtastic change they could even implement.

The problem, with randomly generated tower shields and armors, is that it needs to be +5 mithril. Otherwise, why bother? Then, you've got to be lucky to get anything worth talking about on the same tower shield. You've got better chances to win at the lottery than to find this in all your playtime. Let's face it, adding a good enchantment on shields will simply result in a bigger grind than adding a named shield.

That said, I agree with you in that I think named gear is the way to fix it.

Named gear keeps on getting better and better, as time passes by. We've now reached a point where the gear in DDO is almost uniquely crafted or named gear. There's the rare w/p and +2 tomes, or the very rare powerful Greater Banes, but as a general rule random loot is a joke. If Turbine keeps on adding better and better named gear, they will soon reach a point of no return and random loot will stop mattering.

Hopefully, Turbine will prevent this from happening. Keeping random loot attractive should be of great importance to them. It is much easier to put a chest in a dungeon than to craft named gear worth looting for each dungeon you create. Of course, they could craft named gear that will spawn in chest randomly (�* la Sunblade), but it is still less cost efficient. And, adding to this system will require more effort (creating a new enchantment vs creating a few new pieces of equipment).

Also, more obviously, putting one shield as the 'new best thing to have' is kinda lame. It reads "You must have this to be good at S&B", which is a turn off for many both in creating a new character or playing an existing character. Hard to achieve loot should not be required to be good at your fighting style.

Better? Yes.

Good? No.

Of course, there is a middle ground where they can put different shields, varying in power and difficulty to obtain, but then the question is: is it really more cost-effective to go that way? Personally, I think not, but I could easily be mistaken. But, in the perspective than I am right, either way is a lot to ask from Turbine. And, that's why I am worry that Turbine will fall into the loot trap.

I think DDO needs better shields/shield enchantments but...

GlassCannon

02-08-2009, 09:52 AM

1) Cap WIS AC bonus at either a % per Monk, or a 1 Per Monk Level with Pures being unlimited.

2) Cap Dodge AC bonuses at +4 or +5

3) Cap total AC at ((level*3)/2)*5

more to come later.

Shyver

02-08-2009, 09:58 AM

Borror0

02-08-2009, 10:03 AM

2) Cap Dodge AC bonuses at +4 or +5
Rather, changing the current dodge bonuses in non-Dodge bonuses and simply being more cautious about the future would be a better idea.

Chattering Ring, Dragontouched armor and IR's Dodge bonus should be changed into something else. IR should get its own bonus type, which will be used on multiple new pieces of named loot. Chattering ring and Dragontouched armor should be changed into something else, of the same bonus type. Rings with lower bonuses of that new no-stacknig bonus type should also be created and easier to obtain.

As for Chaosgarde, it can keep its Dodge bonus but something should be done for non-lawful characters. Currently, non-lawful characters without UMD loose on 2 AC, without trade off. Going lawful or having UMD greater than 20 is a no brainer if you care about AC. It would be healthier for the game if there would be a choice to make there as it would make alignment choice matter more.

But, a cap is the cheaper/quicker fix...

3) Cap total AC at (level/2)*5
Erm, why?

Turial

02-08-2009, 10:10 AM

.....
3) Cap total AC at ((level*3)/2)*5

more to come later.

Huh?

16*3 = 48/2 = 24 *5 = 120 AC....

That is not much of a cap.

Even after 4 more levels it is unlikely that players who can reach 80 AC will be gaining an additional 40 AC.

Turial

02-08-2009, 10:14 AM

Change Monk wisdom bonus to centered only.

This reduces the DPS done by the monk splash without penalizing the monk class itself while at the same time doesn't completely invalidate the builds that took the monk splash.

Change the favored enemy damage so that it works properly. This will further bring ranger DPS in-line with other melee builds.

Unless they change the diversity of mobs, it is less likely that changing the basic damage progression of FE will have much effect on rangers. All rangers have evil outsider as a FE and with new mods there would simply be a 3 to 15 day period before rangers fully speced over to the new dominate FE.

Shyver

02-08-2009, 10:23 AM

Unless they change the diversity of mobs, it is less likely that changing the basic damage progression of FE will have much effect on rangers. All rangers have evil outsider as a FE and with new mods there would simply be a 3 to 15 day period before rangers fully speced over to the new dominate FE.

True they would still be tops against (most likely) evil outsiders but it would help reduce the "best at everything" vibe that Favored Enemy is tossing out at the moment.

Borror0

02-08-2009, 10:29 AM

Unless they change the diversity of mobs, it is less likely that changing the basic damage progression of FE will have much effect on rangers. All rangers have evil outsider as a FE and with new mods there would simply be a 3 to 15 day period before rangers fully speced over to the new dominate FE.
But they would have to increase less the diversity of mobs than they would if keeping the same progression.

Juggle

02-08-2009, 10:31 AM

Shyver

02-08-2009, 10:34 AM

So is it true they are making a fix on this for sure? I just wish they would let us know ahead of time until waiting after I've invested millions of plat and shroud items on my AC Cleric/Monk. That way I could avoid even wasting my time and money on builds that will be changed anyway. If this change does happen, it will seriously give me reason to quit...

It's all just speculation.

Everyone, for the most part, agrees that a balance is in order, it's just how to achieve that balance is the crux of the argument.

But no the dev's haven't said word one about it.

Angelus_dead

02-08-2009, 11:05 AM

But they would have to increase less the diversity of mobs than they would if keeping the same progression.
Yeah, there's no reasonable way they can make top-end raid bosses substantially more diverse than 5 types. It's not even likely they can have even 5 top-end raid bosses at once (although it would be really good to try).

Besides, it's really bad system design for the character mechanics to tell quest builders "Sorry, you can't use giants, undead, evil outsiders, dragons, or aberrations as your next enemy group. How about Oozes or Animals?" Diversity for diversity's sake leads to silly storylines.

noinfo

02-08-2009, 11:22 AM

Not every build has to be Ranger/Monk/Rogue. There's Cleric/Monk, Paladin/Monk, Rogue/Monk...

Oh, right, proving a point here.

Forcing any sort of artificial loss due to multiclassing is deliberately against what the system intends. Is the Monk Wisdom bonus to AC overpowering? For certain subsets of builds, absolutely.

What an intelligent Developer should do is limit the amount of Wisdom that can be granted to your AC based on a ratio of Monk:Total Level. So, at the moment, a level one Monk splash would receive 1/16th of his Wisdom score to AC (rounded up, for fairness). In other words, 1 AC, unless he somehow has a +17 Wisdom bonus (that's a 44 Wisdom, by the way).

Will it anger lots of those who did the Monk splash long before this change was introduced? Yes. Which is also why a respec mechanism needs to be in place before such a radical change.

Ok so lets have a look at a few things here:

1. These people with high ac's have dedicated not just 1 but 2 stats to this.
2. They are already capped in ac if they wear armour so they are already disadvantaged here [if you want to be really worried about ac, try seeing what would happen if these characters did not have to worry about armour dex limits)
3. The ac bonus is far less an issue then people who take 2 levels of monk or rogue to get evasion.
4. Perhaps we should limit the unlocking of skills base on level taken, ie no more umd (the most powerful skill in game) based on 1 level of rogue or bard.
5. In the past, the only way to have the best ac was to be a dwarf due to enhancements.
6. If you want s/b more valid, give all classes a s/b enhancment line that means something, +2 per rank would be very useful and make it worthwile to give up the 2nd weapon for in some conditions. No extra bonus is needed with armour as it already gives best protection in game +5mfp or dt full plate > ac 8 bracers only the dex of the wearer makes up the difference, didn't invest in a high dex? dont complain about your ac, the same as if you dont invest in str, dont complain about your pure dps. Worried that high dex characters might start using a shield? well, they won't get their wis bonus and that is what the complaint is about anyway, also why should people with the highest dexs not be the hardest to hit? Particulary at high level? That dragon that can chew through mfp like it is butter but can't hit the elf/halfling with lightning like reflexes seems reasonable to me.
7. Instead of the garbage finesse feat, make all light/finessable weapons automatically require dex to hit, while I appreciate why barbs etc use wop rapiers it does seem like a joke.
8. While we are talking limiting things, lets limit str damage based on weapon type, just like dex and armour, the might barberian raging with his wop dagger? don't really sound right to me.
9. We could always go back to 2nd edition and limit con hp bonuses to non fighter levels, lets watch all the dwarfs/wf cry.

To me this is just the latest knee jerk reaction to the fotm. There are already major balance issues listed above that should be looked at as well.

I have 2 toons that use monk in them for various things including ac. 1 is a pure ac build, the second is a str ac build.
Both have reasonable ac's (neither has icy or chattering rings or dt +3 dodge bonus, I must have been one of the few to miss out before the adjusted loot tables in the subterain), the biggest issue to me is while I expect my ac build to be harder to hit, it should lack the killing power of my str build. In all except red named it doesn't. Make DPS matter more and things will start to ballance out, vary mob types or reduce the categories of fe and things will start to get back to ballance.

The biggest issue this game has is it's difference between the haves and the have nots.
Chattering ring
to an extent Icy Rainments
Are two ac items without peer and that is a major issue, IMO there should be the uber hard to get stuff like this but alway lesser more readily available items of a lesser value. If this was implemented then it should be considered to allow DT dodge bonus to stack with the chattering ring (best bonus for FP toons), this can be managed easily, for example the ring in Invaders that gives a +2 Natural Armour bonus become a dodge bonus. This bonus being a ring should be set not to stack with other ring dodge bonuses. A +1 ring dodge bonus could be found somewhere else but unbound. This actually makes an item useful again (considering how cheap +3 bark pots are and they give a better ac anyway) and reduces the differnce between toons with and without. The with should always be better because they put in the time and the effort, however the withouts are not 7 pts of ac behind. Shroud crafting was a step in the right direction, DT armour was 2 steps back and needs to be revised badly, both should include shields.

noinfo

02-08-2009, 11:30 AM

Yeah, there's no reasonable way they can make top-end raid bosses substantially more diverse than 5 types. It's not even likely they can have even 5 top-end raid bosses at once (although it would be really good to try).

Besides, it's really bad system design for the character mechanics to tell quest builders "Sorry, you can't use giants, undead, evil outsiders, dragons, or aberrations as your next enemy group. How about Oozes or Animals?" Diversity for diversity's sake leads to silly storylines.

They could perhaps narrow the fe types though, eg Lawful Evil Outsiders, rather than evil outsiders. Hill Giants, Stone Giants, Ogres etc or something similar.

noinfo

02-08-2009, 11:41 AM

I think that after moving so far away in terms of enhancements and stats in DDO, perhaps the armor itself should be reworked.

The 'Best' base heavy armor is full plate, 8 AC, 1 dex
The 'Best' base light armor is padded, 1 AC, 8 Dex

Of course there are things like mithril and enhancements to allow more AC to be gained from this gear, but this is the core gear, and it's based around PnP rules where most content is not extremely far from the 20-30 AC mark.

Maybe there needs to be something better than full plate introduced for heavy armor wearers. In theory, plate wearers trained in combat should be the most surviveable.

So if a dragon was going to bite you would you:
1. Hope that your armour was going to somehow stop it
2. Know that your god like reflexes and insight are going to get you out of the way?

As it stands people without high dex can get the best ac out of heavy armour, this limits the high dex people all the way though to higher levels when they finally begin to shine.

Adding an enhancement line for shields is IMO the way to increase S/B ac bonus and encorage the use of shields and requires some investment that s/b are not otherwise reqired to do ie no stat investment or splashing [grind not withstanding]

Hurley

02-08-2009, 11:50 AM

If everyone is rubbed so wrong about the splashes in classes. I don't think you should penatlize the people that created then, they where just playing the game how it was created. So they figured out how to make a awesome class, and for them doing so you want to put restictions....I don't think its fair to blame..restrict....penatilize..them. How about you build your own...and if you don't like those classes how about you find your own class splash build and build it and like it..I understand that DnD is way different that DDO but the people that pay for this game shouldn't take a hit for the game developers mistakes..The Developers should have know this from the begining when introducing new content.

Yes I know I miss spelled some things....I don't care this isn't a spelling contest. :)

Borror0

02-08-2009, 12:11 PM

How about you build your own...
"Building one" won't solve the problem, whether it is the loss of a loved character or greater (and frustrating) constraints.

I elaborated more on this topic here (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=159126).

[...] the people that pay for this game shouldn't take a hit for the game developers mistakes.
True. That's why respecs should be implemented.

But, even without respecs, people are already 'paying' for their mistakes.

GlassCannon

02-08-2009, 02:03 PM

So if a dragon was going to bite you would you:
1) Use the combination of your obscene Strength, godlike Reflexes and impermeable Fullplate to completely nullify the dragon's attack.
2) Get eaten because you tried to deflect it with your Monk training while holding Rapiers

A very strong person wears fullplate like a not-so-strong one wears cloth. Example taken: SCA Mock Battles with real steel fullplate and bamboo/duct tape swords(so they don't kill each other, they just bruise the cr@p out of one another instead).

Edited for additional physics inclusion.

Nick_RC

02-08-2009, 02:12 PM

Edited for additional physics inclusion.

Rofl. Nice addition.

manfredshw

02-08-2009, 07:56 PM

why just design bab20 with sixth attack chain, and stwf only works on sixth attack.
Then this will kill 18/1/1, because they lost bab, can't hit bab20, so tempest3 enhancement is useless for them, bacause you don't have sixth attack, stwf will not work on you unless you cast spells to make you hit bab20.

and also, change monk wis ac to be only works when you centered.

and I really tired to see so many balance issue and ranger overpowered post in the forums recentley. If you think class X is overpowered, why just roll for it. And I have a dream that all class in my server is all rangers, 18/1/1 is the best.

Tanka

02-08-2009, 08:22 PM

Ok so lets have a look at a few things here:
Deal. This should be astoundingly funny.

1. These people with high ac's have dedicated not just 1 but 2 stats to this.
People going S&B have dedicated an astounding number of Feats, Dex points, items and Enhancements, which your Ranger hybrid doesn't need to dedicate, aside from FE: Defense. Which any Ranger can pick up, and any Ranger with a good AC should pick up. S&B tanks are the only ones who bother with Armor or Shield Mastery.

2. They are already capped in ac if they wear armour so they are already disadvantaged here [if you want to be really worried about ac, try seeing what would happen if these characters did not have to worry about armour dex limits)
S&B tanks, the ones who should be all about taking and mitigating damage, are worse off than the hybrids. Why? Because of their "monastic" training (that is; using a frontloaded class ability that greatly overpowers them)?

3. The ac bonus is far less an issue then people who take 2 levels of monk or rogue to get evasion.
That is shockingly wrong. Name one time where Evasion is an absolute must. If you say Enter the Kobold, I'll laugh at you.

4. Perhaps we should limit the unlocking of skills base on level taken, ie no more umd (the most powerful skill in game) based on 1 level of rogue or bard.
I'd like to direct you to the SRD's entry on multiclassing and skills (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/multiclass.htm). Specifically:

If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character level determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + character level.) (Emphasis mine.)

Moving right along.

5. In the past, the only way to have the best ac was to be a dwarf due to enhancements.
Yes, and that's been wrong the whole time. I'm as big an advocate of removing Dwarven Armor Mastery as I am for reducing splash-Monk's Wisdom bonus to AC.

6. If you want s/b more valid, give all classes a s/b enhancment line that means something, +2 per rank would be very useful and make it worthwile to give up the 2nd weapon for in some conditions. No extra bonus is needed with armour as it already gives best protection in game +5mfp or dt full plate > ac 8 bracers only the dex of the wearer makes up the difference, didn't invest in a high dex? dont complain about your ac, the same as if you dont invest in str, dont complain about your pure dps. Worried that high dex characters might start using a shield? well, they won't get their wis bonus and that is what the complaint is about anyway, also why should people with the highest dexs not be the hardest to hit? Particulary at high level? That dragon that can chew through mfp like it is butter but can't hit the elf/halfling with lightning like reflexes seems reasonable to me.
Why buff S&B? The problem isn't any one thing. It's iterative attack bonuses increasing rather than decreasing. That's one of the unbalancing factors (the other being Enhancements, but we can save that for another argument). Suddenly, it makes sense to not always leave PA/CE/Rage on, it makes sense to try for at least some AC.

7. Instead of the garbage finesse feat, make all light/finessable weapons automatically require dex to hit, while I appreciate why barbs etc use wop rapiers it does seem like a joke.
Goes against the rules, I'm afraid. Light weapons aren't suddenly finesse only. You can bash someone in the head just as hard with a light mace than a heavy mace.

8. While we are talking limiting things, lets limit str damage based on weapon type, just like dex and armour, the might barberian raging with his wop dagger? don't really sound right to me.
Doesn't sound right to me either, but they're removing Crit Rage from the selectable Enhancements in M9. People will be grandfathered in, but for how long?

9. We could always go back to 2nd edition and limit con hp bonuses to non fighter levels, lets watch all the dwarfs/wf cry.
Try again.

To me this is just the latest knee jerk reaction to the fotm. There are already major balance issues listed above that should be looked at as well.
Yes, there are lots of balance issues. Just because there are others doesn't mean this one shouldn't be looked at first. Monks came in late, they should've forseen this.

I have 2 toons that use monk in them for various things including ac. 1 is a pure ac build, the second is a str ac build.
Both have reasonable ac's (neither has icy or chattering rings or dt +3 dodge bonus, I must have been one of the few to miss out before the adjusted loot tables in the subterain), the biggest issue to me is while I expect my ac build to be harder to hit, it should lack the killing power of my str build. In all except red named it doesn't. Make DPS matter more and things will start to ballance out, vary mob types or reduce the categories of fe and things will start to get back to ballance.
Again, that's more a problem with overabundance of magical weaponry and increasing iterative attack bonuses. Change it to decreasing attack bonuses and slowly it becomes less of a problem. Not a lot less, but a bit.

The biggest issue this game has is it's difference between the haves and the have nots.
Chattering ring
to an extent Icy Rainments
Are two ac items without peer and that is a major issue, IMO there should be the uber hard to get stuff like this but alway lesser more readily available items of a lesser value. If this was implemented then it should be considered to allow DT dodge bonus to stack with the chattering ring (best bonus for FP toons), this can be managed easily, for example the ring in Invaders that gives a +2 Natural Armour bonus become a dodge bonus. This bonus being a ring should be set not to stack with other ring dodge bonuses. A +1 ring dodge bonus could be found somewhere else but unbound. This actually makes an item useful again (considering how cheap +3 bark pots are and they give a better ac anyway) and reduces the differnce between toons with and without. The with should always be better because they put in the time and the effort, however the withouts are not 7 pts of ac behind. Shroud crafting was a step in the right direction, DT armour was 2 steps back and needs to be revised badly, both should include shields.
It isn't a difference between have and have nots. The problem is the overabundance if Dodge bonuses on items (sidenote: A_d, you're right. Just because the DMG allows Dodge bonuses on items doesn't mean we should have ten dozen of them. Or even more than one or two).

redoubt

02-08-2009, 08:34 PM

That is shockingly wrong. Name one time where Evasion is an absolute must. If you say Enter the Kobold, I'll laugh at you.

Start laughing then.

The newest guy in my guild has played several mmos, but is new to this one. He's been here 3 or 4 months now. You'll have a hard time convincing him that evasion is not a requirement in this game. He went so far as to take 2 levels of, you guessed it, monk on his cleric to get evasion. He is very excited to have it and talks about it a lot in guild chat. (And its not that he is a bad player, I'd say he's better than many people who have been here since launch.)

SoS often puts "evasion needed" in the LFM. Is it a requirement? No. Technically, neither is a cleric, but is sure as heck helps!

Now if you are an uber Neo, have tons of cash for pots and scrolls and have all the great gear like greaves and such, then no... evasion is no big thing. If you are anything short of 99%tile, evasion is a huge boon to your character.

Tanka

02-08-2009, 08:38 PM

Start laughing then.

The newest guy in my guild has played several mmos, but is new to this one. He's been here 3 or 4 months now. You'll have a hard time convincing him that evasion is not a requirement in this game. He went so far as to take 2 levels of, you guessed it, monk on his cleric to get evasion. He is very excited to have it and talks about it a lot in guild chat. (And its not that he is a bad player, I'd say he's better than many people who have been here since launch.)

SoS often puts "evasion needed" in the LFM. Is it a requirement? No. Technically, neither is a cleric, but is sure as heck helps!

Now if you are an uber Neo, have tons of cash for pots and scrolls and have all the great gear like greaves and such, then no... evasion is no big thing. If you are anything short of 99%tile, evasion is a huge boon to your character.
Intelligent play beats character and gear, any day of the week.

Does it help? Sure. Is it required? No.

Garth_of_Sarlona

02-08-2009, 09:53 PM

Now if you are an uber Neo, have tons of cash for pots and scrolls and have all the great gear like greaves and such, then no... evasion is no big thing. If you are anything short of 99%tile, evasion is a huge boon to your character.

Yay Neo bashing! :) In fact, I've decided I'm taking that as a compliment that Neos are top 1% - in which case I will be booting myself and Tanka from the guild immediately.

3. Reduce the ability to use monk AC in some maner.

To the Original Post: 3 sounds good to me - either put a cap on the wisdom bonus to AC based on your ratio of monk level to level (DEV BONUS POINT: the code already exists for this in the 'amount of spell points for sorcs wearing power or wizardry items' source file) or simply just make it so the centered bonus and the wisdom bonus to AC only works when the monk is centered. It does seems strange that the 'centered' bonus doesn't require you to be 'centered'... :)

Garth

yk49

02-08-2009, 11:22 PM

Maybe this is off-topic, but in our user's manual it is clearly stated that dodge bonuses only stack up to a maximum of 10 (page 74). And, that is obviously not the case in game.

Does anyone know about dev post or pnp rule referred to it?

* IR 4
* chat ring 3
* dodge feat 1
* alchemical rituals 2 (planned to be changed to different bonus type)
* haste buff 1
Thats already a 11...

* (imp) uncanny dodge 4-6
* dwarven giant dodger 4-
* inspire heroics 4
* air guard proc 1
* ...

Angelus_dead

02-09-2009, 12:11 AM

Maybe this is off-topic, but in our user's manual it is clearly stated that dodge bonuses only stack up to a maximum of 10 (page 74). And, that is obviously not the case in game.
Hiliarious- when was that manual added?

It must have been copy and paste from some other product (like NWN2 maybe). Just reading the rest of the page shows drastic differences from how DDO works: the existence of a Confused status and using Heal skill to cure poison are only two of the more obvious ones.

PS. I have confirmed that those portions of the DDO manual were copied from the NWN Documentation (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6935724/NWNOnlineManual). Obviously, that means they have minimal relationship to the rules of either D&D nor DDO.

redoubt

02-09-2009, 01:09 AM

Yay Neo bashing! :) In fact, I've decided I'm taking that as a compliment that Neos are top 1% - in which case I will be booting myself and Tanka from the guild immediately.

To the Original Post: 3 sounds good to me - either put a cap on the wisdom bonus to AC based on your ratio of monk level to level (DEV BONUS POINT: the code already exists for this in the 'amount of spell points for sorcs wearing power or wizardry items' source file) or simply just make it so the centered bonus and the wisdom bonus to AC only works when the monk is centered. It does seems strange that the 'centered' bonus doesn't require you to be 'centered'... :)

Garth

Not bashing at all. Most Neos I've run across are incredibly well equipted and know how to play the game. For them, evasion is probably not a big deal.

But, your reply is missing the point. To anyone less equipted, evasion is a huge benefit. But, now even I, seem to be sidetracking my own thread... lol.

Edit: Tanka's reply is missing the point. You answered the OP. Thank you.

rimble

02-09-2009, 09:30 AM

What they should do is similar to what they did with Sorc's doubling of SP items. They gain a percentage of their Wisdom bonus to AC based on what percentage of Monk they are.

This.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 10:19 AM

noinfo

02-10-2009, 10:26 AM

Intelligent play beats character and gear, any day of the week.

Does it help? Sure. Is it required? No.

This does not help your argument either.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 10:29 AM

noinfo

02-10-2009, 10:43 AM

Edited for additional physics inclusion.

Originally Posted by noinfo
So if a dragon was going to bite you would you:
1) Use the combination of your obscene Strength, godlike Reflexes and impermeable Fullplate to completely nullify the dragon's attack.

--> lol that is really funny, str yep, godlike reflexes in movement restricting armour right and Fullplate. To me it sounds like a packed lunch.

2) Get eaten because you tried to deflect it with your Monk training while holding Rapiers

--> lol only person slow enough to get eaten is the poor old tin man.

A very strong person wears fullplate like a not-so-strong one wears cloth. [If they were born on Krypton maybe, for the real world you might want to think this through]

Example taken: SCA Mock Battles with real steel fullplate and bamboo/duct tape swords(so they don't kill each other, they just bruise the cr@p out of one another instead). You do realise why people stoped wearing armour don't you? Basically heavy armour was just useless against the weapons of the day and dexterity became far more important.

You might want to take a reality check with this one [funny in a fantasy game I know]. Have your Hercules suit up and sprint 400m and let me know the time it takes and how they are feeling. I am not talking modern military armour now, but the old full plate. Pretty sure my granny in a wheel chair would win that race.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 10:46 AM

This.

If you apply it to every muliclass splash ability. Evasion, unlocking skill levels etc.

Borror0

02-10-2009, 10:51 AM

If you apply it to every muliclass splash ability. Evasion, unlocking skill levels etc.
Evasion could use some unfront-loadingness. Skills? Nah.

Emili

02-10-2009, 11:06 AM

1. People going S&B have dedicated an astounding number of Feats, Dex points, items and Enhancements

-->lol, really? No S/B feat gives ac, DR maybe and that is useful for mitigating damage if blocking [and they do this much better than rangers] so what feats are you talking about? Dex points is another poor example MFP + max ranks in FAM is 6 course if you are a dwarf you automatically get the wonderful armour bonus there, so all you need is a 16 dex to start with or 14 with +2 tome or 13 with +3. Yep lot of investment in dex there. Enhancements is what? 12 points? Those rangers usually have all racial dex bonus and class bonus enhancements for their ac 16 points i think not counting fe stuff?

The only thing a S/B has to invest in is gear so don't go kidding yourself, this should have been your strongest argument but you have nothing to support it at all.

2. S&B tanks, the ones who should be all about taking and mitigating damage, are worse off than the hybrids. Why? Because of their "monastic" training (that is; using a frontloaded class ability that greatly overpowers them)?

-->Compared to evasion? Using a level to unlock skills? Take a level of fighter and get every Martial Weapon and Shield and Armour in game? Now that sounds a bit overpowered. Evasion at level 2 yep overpowered.

3. That is shockingly wrong. Name one time where Evasion is an absolute must. If you say Enter the Kobold, I'll laugh at you.

-->A must? No but that is like saying ac is a must for everything. How long have Barberians dominated things prior to the ranger? Gee they have such uber ac.

4. I'd like to direct you to the SRD's entry on multiclassing and skills (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/multiclass.htm).

-->So you want to quote the SRD with multi classing? Ok I will take an xp hit, now leave the wis bonus alone. Oh you were just using it to support your argument not mine?

5. Yes, and that's been wrong the whole time. I'm as big an advocate of removing Dwarven Armor Mastery as I am for reducing splash-Monk's Wisdom bonus to AC.

-->Agree

6. Why buff S&B? The problem isn't any one thing. It's iterative attack bonuses increasing rather than decreasing. That's one of the unbalancing factors (the other being Enhancements, but we can save that for another argument). Suddenly, it makes sense to not always leave PA/CE/Rage on, it makes sense to try for at least some AC.

-->I would also like to see a reduced attack rate like in PNP and agree that it would make it better to force a choice as to whether to turn these on or off.

6. Goes against the rules, I'm afraid. Light weapons aren't suddenly finesse only. You can bash someone in the head just as hard with a light mace than a heavy mace. So does what your requesting, and good luck with that light mace.

--> Now you are worried about going against the rules? lol but yes light weapons aren't finesse only, but they should be. Also to think that everyone is going to use brute strength using a dagger etc and require them to have a feat is a joke, but it is in the rules so dex based characters pay for the feat.

7. It isn't a difference between have and have nots. The problem is the overabundance if Dodge bonuses on items (sidenote: A_d, you're right. Just because the DMG allows Dodge bonuses on items doesn't mean we should have ten dozen of them. Or even more than one or two).

-->Who are you kidding? Of course it is, particulary with S/B who are completely gear dependant. Do you think you can seriously make a high ac S/B without a chattering ring? An overabundance of dodge items, yeah right, the problem is a few hard to get ones makes others stand out dramatically.

Seriously most of what you have said is pretty weak, you quote SRD when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't. At the end of the day someone with a dex of 36+ should be much harder to hit then someone with 22 dex and not just by a little bit. Could S/B use some help? Yep, but considering that anyone can use S/B without any significant investment except in gear +13 dex +12 AP and compare it to the investment made by the ranger stat wise is a joke.

Well, except for one thing... the synergy of Ranger/Monk is more pronounced in DDO then in DnD due to the loot and enhancement system (items supporting high dex AC such as raiments)... ie.) In PnP 3.5 it's quite possible to build a finnesse Pally/Monk or a finnesse Fighter/Monk and have the same overall AC equal of a Ranger/Monk because they can have the same exact dex and wis stats... In DDO the ranger has up to +3 more dex and +3 ac vs favored enemies (which they abound) while the Pally may add bulwark to catch up slightly (plus affects everyone near) so really is no real self boost - it's an everyone boost... the fighter since his ac enhancement bonus entails use of armour is out in th cold....

So go figure you want a high AC character based on dex... Ranger/monk is it in DDO while if this was PnP your options would be much much more. Thus less build options exist in DDO then DnD 3.5.

BTW... People stopped wearing armour because of firearms. The Late middle ages the purpose of the Claymore was to breach armour... beacause on the field of battle the masses of foot soldiers were eliminated by longbow/charge (piercing armour took greater force then bow or most men with lesser weapons alone could do) leaving mostly the noblemen in their heavy armour to fight the ends by lance and other very heavy hand weapons...

The battle of Kircholm in 1605. 3000 of polish calvary destroyed the army of 12,000 Swedish troops with loses of 120 compared to 9000+ on the Swedish side. (how? one main factor was they were heavily armoured and the opposition was not.)

Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget, pauldrons, couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a back and breast plate with a culet, a fauld and tassets, a skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves and sabatons. It was personally made to the wearer. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour could be as light as only 40 pounds if well made, and so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. That it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and has no historical base. Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:07 AM

1. Nothing.

2. Let turbine raise the to-hit and hit points of mobs even more.

3. Reduce the ability to use monk AC in some maner.

4. Reduce the tempest bonus in some maner.

5. ???

1. Good option, fix sb instead, give them something to invest in to warrant the ac.

2. Considering how few hp relatively they have, I can see how this would be fair, but we can balance this against those with more hp by having mobs that bypass fortification, now the lower ac toons with lots of hp can share the fun.

3. As long as you fix every other multiclass bonus in a similar manner.

4. Already done and I agree with the typing of the bonus.

Try 5. Give high dex toons armour they can actually wear and get an armour bonus from, they will still have lots more ac then the rest but didn't they spend their stat points on dex so they wouldnt get hit?
Con bonuses are not limited in hp 500 hp bards anyone?
Str bonuses are not limited over 40 str toons doing massive dps
Dex bonuses are limited in ac.

Take away monk bonus and give us armour we can wear equivalent to full plate +5 that allows our dex bonus to work and I'll be happy with that. That way I won't have invest in 2 stats for ac. BTW a 13 dex does not count as investing stat points for a S/B max, though I suppose with DT armour I should revise that to an 11.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:17 AM

Well, except for one thing... the synergy of Ranger/Monk is more pronounced in DDO then in DnD due to the loot and enhancement system (items supporting high dex AC such as raiments)... ie.) It's quite possible to build a finnesse Pally/Monk or a finnesse Fighter/Monk and have the same overall AC equal of a Ranger/Monk because they can have the same exact dex and wis stats... In DDO the ranger has up to +3 more dex and +3 ac vs favored enemies (which they abound) while the Pally may add bulwark to catch up slightly (plus affects everyone near) so really is no real self boost - it's an everyone boost... the fighter since his ac enhancement bonus entails use of armour is out in th cold....

So go figure you want a high AC character based on dex... Ranger/monk is it in DDO while if this was PnP your options would be much much more. Thus less build options exist in DDO then DnD 3.5.

The pally monk can use UMD for shield wands and the ranger will often bark others as well, so really he and the pally are pretty similar there, can't argue with dex for that 1-2 ac point, pallys bonuses to saves combined with evasion make up for that though, not to mention smite etc, loh etc. You might want to consider the Prc of the pallys before going down this line as before they come out for the pally they are pretty comparable with ranger monks.

No doubt that fighters struggle in this area though, no really synergy here at all, but we all know that fighters need some work.

And I agree that FE is an issue. To me it is more of an issue than monk wis bonus.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:19 AM

Evasion could use some unfront-loadingness. Skills? Nah.

Why not? I am sure a lot of the rogues get sick of the hybrids. And the most unbalancing thing in the game is UMD. 1 level of rogue or bard unlocks it.

Also how many Pallys take a level of fighter just to unlock intimidate + get tower shield and a bonus feat.

Taojeff

02-10-2009, 11:27 AM

1. Nothing.

2. Let turbine raise the to-hit and hit points of mobs even more.

3. Reduce the ability to use monk AC in some maner.

4. Reduce the tempest bonus in some maner.

5. ???

1. No this is probably the most overpowered-unbalanced thing in the game. It causes people to who dont play this overpowered class grief. It also makes the game too easy for said classes leading to increased boredom. It causes bad play style, if I had a copper for everytime I saw a monk splash run off because the dont need the rest of the party (sorc too).

2. No way, that is unbalanced already.

3. Cap the amount of AC you can get based on monk levels. Make it just monk weapons, or change it to insight bonus.

4. Nothing wrong with the tempest bonus.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:34 AM

...

It causes bad play style, if I had a copper for everytime I saw a monk splash run off because the dont need the rest of the party (sorc too).

lol and don't forget those zerging 600 hp Barberians or that Battle Cleric or the WF Melee wizard or that ...

Get the picture?

bandyman1

02-10-2009, 12:29 PM

Borror0

02-10-2009, 01:19 PM

That's why armor and shield ADD to AC instead of decreasing it.
Exactly, if AC meant "not being touched" armor would not benefit AC. And, AC would not be called AC.

branmakmuffin

02-10-2009, 01:24 PM

Exactly, if AC meant "not being touched" armor would not benefit AC. And, AC would be called AC.
You must have meant to type something else.

bobbryan2

02-10-2009, 02:03 PM

You must have meant to type something else.

I understood it.

As armor doesn't actually help you avoid blows... if armor class meant not getting touched... armor wouldn't help and it wouldn't be called armor class.

bobbryan2

02-10-2009, 02:05 PM

1. No this is probably the most overpowered-unbalanced thing in the game. It causes people to who dont play this overpowered class grief. It also makes the game too easy for said classes leading to increased boredom. It causes bad play style, if I had a copper for everytime I saw a monk splash run off because the dont need the rest of the party (sorc too).

It causes good play style you mean.

Borror0

02-10-2009, 02:20 PM

As armor doesn't actually help you avoid blows... if armor class meant not getting touched... armor wouldn't help and it wouldn't be called armor class.
Exactly, but also the use of the word 'armor' would make the concept confusing.

Imagine a conversation between a veteran and a new player:

New player: What's AC? I see that on my character sheet...

Veteran: Oh, that's Armor Class.

New player: What does it do?

Veteran: It's the number that defines how hard you are to hit. When someone attacks you, he rolls a d20 and adds his to-hit - that's a number that indicates how good you are at connecting hits - to the result. If the result is equal to or higher than your Armor Class, he will hit you. Otherwise, the hit will miss.

New player: That does not make any sense.

Veteran: Why is that?!

New player: Well, isn't an armor supposed to protect you from damage. You know, if I cannot dodge the hit or cannot deflect it with my shield, my armor would prevent the blow to be lethal. If they meant it to be the chance for me to dodge an hit, why didn't they call it 'avoidance' or something?!

Veteran: Uh, I don't know.

Borror0

02-10-2009, 02:41 PM

Why not? I am sure a lot of the rogues get sick of the hybrids. And the most unbalancing thing in the game is UMD. 1 level of rogue or bard unlocks it.

Also how many Pallys take a level of fighter just to unlock intimidate + get tower shield and a bonus feat.
There are multiple reasons to be against that change, the most obvious one is the practicability of that change. You're going to force everyone to revert their skill points? If so, how should they do that? Would it really be worth the effort? Grandfather it? If so, meh, not fixing much, are you?

Then, there's the fact that skills need to be better, not worse. Having skill mattering is a good thing.

If UMD is overpowered in itself, deal with UMD. Don't attack the skills. They, themselves, need love, not hate. UMD powerful, but it's still a trade off.

branmakmuffin

02-10-2009, 03:25 PM

I understood it.
Irrelevant. I didn't write I didn't understand it. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

As armor doesn't actually help you avoid blows... if armor class meant not getting touched... armor wouldn't help and it wouldn't be called armor class.
He didn't write "AC wouldn't be called AC," he wrote "AC would be called AC." Well, AC is called AC.

Part of armor class means "not getting touched," i.e., the character's touch AC (does DDO have a touch AC?). One of the biggest flaws in D&D is abstracting "armor class" as a combination of armor protection, shield protection and dodging ability (discounting for the moment magical other exotic additions to armor class).

Chaos000

02-10-2009, 03:40 PM

Then, there's the fact that skills need to be better, not worse. Having skill mattering is a good thing.

If UMD is overpowered in itself, deal with UMD. Don't attack the skills. They, themselves, need love, not hate. UMD powerful, but it's still a trade off.

UMD underwent a change in how it worked since beta. Remember using wands without failure with only cross-class ranks into UMD?

Borror0

02-10-2009, 03:49 PM

UMD underwent a change in how it worked since beta. Remember using wands without failure with only cross-class ranks into UMD?
I remember DD, Firewall and BB scrolls. ;)

Deadz

02-10-2009, 04:11 PM

I think that after moving so far away in terms of enhancements and stats in DDO, perhaps the armor itself should be reworked.

The 'Best' base heavy armor is full plate, 8 AC, 1 dex
The 'Best' base light armor is padded, 1 AC, 8 Dex

Of course there are things like mithril and enhancements to allow more AC to be gained from this gear, but this is the core gear, and it's based around PnP rules where most content is not extremely far from the 20-30 AC mark.

Maybe there needs to be something better than full plate introduced for heavy armor wearers. In theory, plate wearers trained in combat should be the most surviveable.

I do think there are plenty of other good suggestions in the thread, but this is mine. Rather than nerfing a build, bring the other classes up to par, and design content appropriately.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner... well sort of...

The answer to "fixing" all the AC issues. is introducting a real non / light / medium / heavy armor system.. leave the actual builds alone..

As in full plate might be, oh say, 20 base ac, but need a requirement of lvl 10 to wield (just an example off the top of my head) and make all the different armors diverse and meaning full instead of the only a few used, like full or none ..

If you not going to play by PnP rules for mobs and characters with this crazy loot, why are we trying to stick to PnP armor for characters? There in lies the issue with DDo.

Aesop

02-10-2009, 04:30 PM

1. Nothing.

2. Let turbine raise the to-hit and hit points of mobs even more.

3. Reduce the ability to use monk AC in some maner.

4. Reduce the tempest bonus in some maner.

5. ???

1. Personally I have nothing against Monk Splash overall. The problem that exists stems from much more than just that. Monk Splash is just easy to see the effect.

2. Would be counter productive making Monk Splash Maximum AC the only AC that matters.

3. I could see this as having potential but again I don't really like this method of "fixing" things. However if you really want to have nightmares about Monk Splash... think about what happens when Druids come in... Suddenly you have A Bear with a 100 AC TWF Claw attacks in its own Firewall with self Cast Barkskin and Stone Skin throwing its own heals... gonna be funny

4. Already done... but I think its done wrong. I would perfer it to be an untyped AC Bonus but at half potency. It should be +1 at first tier +2 at second and +3 at third.

5. Give other combat styles effective tools and abilities that help them be effective. They already started with THF and the Glancing Blow improvements. I'd also add letting Bucklers be equiped with Two Handed Weapons. Improve S&B and Ranged as well http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=170912&highlight=aesop

Aesop

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:47 PM

For you guys who keep insisting on throwing in that a martial artist should be harder to hit than a tin-man;

AC DOES NOT EQUAL NOT BEING HIT!

It represent's ones ability to avoid damage!

That's why armor and shield ADD to AC instead of decreasing it.

Touch AC is the forte of Dex based builds, and is about completely dodging an attack. Unfortuanately; It also doesn't exist in DDO.

A S&B toon sacrifices a boatload of DPS for defense. By that; They should be the highest defensive fighting style in the game. Currently, they're not.

We get that you love your ranger/monk splash. Hell, I love my own.

But there's absolutely no way that I can argue that they are balanced, or that they are not overpowered with a straight face.

I agree with you as that it represents the ability to avoid damage (this is one of the poorest design decisions in all the dnd incarnations) what I try and put accross is that their is a limit to how much a suit of armour can do this. It is represented by the fp +5 and towershield +5. If they increase this further no problem. The capacity to avoid damage by dexterity etc is less limited exceptin circumstances that should make you lose that bonus. S&B sacrifices a boatload of DPS for defense I agree and that is the only thing they sacrifice. It is not the ac that is the issue here is that a high dex ranger can not only have a great ac as they should but that they can do this with out true loss in killing power. FE and stat damaging weapons (best of which are finessable) are the cause if this. The situation is that if you have sacrificed your str and other stats for your ac you should suffer a reduced killing power.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:53 PM

Exactly, if AC meant "not being touched" armor would not benefit AC. And, AC would not be called AC.

I agree that it is a combination of both (as I have stated that this is one of the poorest design decisions in all incarnations of the game but its what we have)

The fact of the matter is that armour has its limits and is a gear dependant solution. Give the people a benefit to using a shield, such as an enhancment line that improves ac so that it can be justified with people being better trained at using a shield in actual combat. Someithing that requires actual investment for the ac rather than just gear.

noinfo

02-10-2009, 11:58 PM

A S&B toon sacrifices a boatload of DPS for defense. By that; They should be the highest defensive fighting style in the game. Currently, they're not.
.

Rubish, the problem is that high dex rangers are not made to sacrifice enough dps or killing power because of fe and the current most effective way of killing things.

noinfo

02-11-2009, 12:13 AM

There are multiple reasons to be against that change, the most obvious one is the practicability of that change. You're going to force everyone to revert their skill points? If so, how should they do that? Would it really be worth the effort? Grandfather it? If so, meh, not fixing much, are you?

Then, there's the fact that skills need to be better, not worse. Having skill mattering is a good thing.

If UMD is overpowered in itself, deal with UMD. Don't attack the skills. They, themselves, need love, not hate. UMD powerful, but it's still a trade off.

Of course having skills matter is a good thing (nor do have issues with how they are gained unless you start talking about prorataing other class abilities), my issue is that you don't understand the hypocrytical nature of your argument. You want to restrict 1 or 2 areas of your percieved imballance (I believe the issue lies elsewhere), but reject the concept that if such a change is implemented that it should not be applied to all things consistantly.
Why should a Pally who takes 1 level of fighter be as good at intimidate as a full fighter? Pro rata it too. UMD same thing. I am not arguing practicality of change here, I am arguing consistancy.

If I see someone do something in game that I can't do, I think cool, not how can I undercut what they have done. UMD etc is very powerful, evasion as well... If people have designed their characters and planned their developement to use them great and good on them. Having a fighter with a high umd use a res scroll to bring back a cleric to save the day can be the stuff that makes things interesting. The real issues is that for rangers currently there is no real draw back and that the S/B really has had no love and no real way to expand on themselves design wise.

branmakmuffin

02-11-2009, 12:16 AM

FE and stat damaging weapons (best of which are finessable) are the cause if this. The situation is that if you have sacrificed your str and other stats for your ac you should suffer a reduced killing power.
As you point out, part of that is from finesseable stat-damaging weapons (just go ahead and say wounding rapiers of puncturing). But that's not anything directly related to Rangers, so tinkering with Rangers, Ranger/Monks or Ranger/Rogue/Monks is not going to do anything about that.

Is this another "nerf wounding of puncturing?"

noinfo

02-11-2009, 12:17 AM

UMD powerful, but it's still a trade off.

I'm just curious as to how it is a trade off? 2 skill points per level and a char item? Loss of a single BAB point to get all those rogue skill points?

noinfo

02-11-2009, 12:21 AM

As you point out, part of that is from finesseable stat-damaging weapons (just go ahead and say wounding rapiers of puncturing). But that's not anything directly related to Rangers, so tinkering with Rangers, Ranger/Monks or Ranger/Rogue/Monks is not going to do anything about that.

Is this another "nerf wounding of puncturing?"

Sorry, no I really don't want to nerf wounding of punturing, I was simply pointing out that the fact that stat damage is "currently" the best way of killing mobs makes a finesse build probably a better killer than a dps build in many situations. I would prefer to see DPS become king of killing again to tell the truth, with vorpals and stat damage being a viable option but not necessarily the best. (Mob hp reduction, maybe increase of ac of mobs, more mobs rather than just lots of hp)

noinfo

02-11-2009, 12:24 AM

[QUOTE=branmakmuffin;2049247]As you point out, part of that is from finesseable stat-damaging weapons (just go ahead and say wounding rapiers of puncturing). But that's not anything directly related to Rangers, so tinkering with Rangers, Ranger/Monks or Ranger/Rogue/Monks is not going to do anything about that.

...QUOTE]

But also the way FE works on most things gives significant DPS against most mob types, this is an issue with Rangers and allows othewise low dps Rangers to excell at DPS against a great many mob types in game.

bobbryan2

02-11-2009, 12:55 AM

But also the way FE works on most things gives significant DPS against most mob types, this is an issue with Rangers and allows othewise low dps Rangers to excell at DPS against a great many mob types in game.[/QUOTE]

That's not an 'issue,' that's just the class. it's the same with rogues. Dex based rogues can still do good DPS.

It's because those two are DPS classes.

noinfo

02-11-2009, 02:08 AM

But also the way FE works on most things gives significant DPS against most mob types, this is an issue with Rangers and allows othewise low dps Rangers to excell at DPS against a great many mob types in game.

That's not an 'issue,' that's just the class. it's the same with rogues. Dex based rogues can still do good DPS.

It's because those two are DPS classes.[/QUOTE]

But becomes an issues when mob types are limited.

Borror0

02-11-2009, 07:03 AM

Rubish
Not it's not. Think about it. Even if Dex-based, you still have higher DPS, thus, your AC should be higher!

You don't understand the hypocrytical nature of your argument. You want to restrict 1 or 2 areas of your percieved imballance (I believe the issue lies elsewhere), but reject the concept that if such a change is implemented that it should not be applied to all things consistantly.
Explain me how multiclassing for skills is unbalancing.

/wait

Why should a Pally who takes 1 level of fighter be as good at intimidate as a full fighter? Pro rata it too. UMD same thing.
Anything wrong with that? Again, how is it unbalancing?

I am not arguing practicality of change here, I am arguing consistancy.
That's stupid. If something is not doable, why argue for it at all? Wasting our time?

Cold_Stele

02-11-2009, 07:53 AM

Pally/Monk is not unbalanced, neither is Ftr/Monk.

So it's not Monk that needs nerfing...

noinfo

02-11-2009, 08:08 AM

Not it's not. Think about it. Even if Dex-based, you still have higher DPS, thus, your AC should be higher!
--> addressed opinion of that in previous post

Explain me how multiclassing for skills is unbalancing.

/wait

Anything wrong with that? Again, how is it unbalancing?

--> actually I don't really care if they multi class to gain their skills, but if you think that someone who has put stat points into wis to get a ac bonus is over powered then you may also wish to address cross classing for skills could also be considered an issue

That's stupid. If something is not doable, why argue for it at all? Wasting our time?
--> not do able? of course it can be done all it needs is a complete respec option, and of course you wouldn't want to make a change to the ranger splash without a full respec option would you?

Lets try and summarise our differences here [though we are not going to agree] and please if I have not understood your argument please let me know [I am not trying to put words into your mouth]

1. You believe that S/B should have the highest AC because they lack dps ie they are giving up a second weapon.
[Please remember here that I do think S/B need some help]
While it is possible for S/B to increase their dps by going 2 handed when they need it, it defeats the purpose.

2. I believe that a dex/wis based ranger with splash has given up hp and offensive power to gain that ac. They have burned 2 stats into it and really the S/B has burned none. [I am only going to address dps weapons here, not getting into a nerf wop debate] I would suggest that much of the extra dps of the [dex] ranger comes from FE which is intended to be a situational bonus but in practicality is not. This is what needs to be addressed [I believe].

Proposed solutions:

1. You believe a nerf is required and there have been many suggestions provided by others as to how it should be done.

2. I believe that adjustments should be made to the ranger but not in the same area as you believe. I also believe that build options should be made avaible to enhance the use of a sheild to generate addional armour class in the hands of someone trained. I would prefer a feat to unlock (any one of the sheild feats) followed by an enhancement line.

Lets face it I don't like anything about your solution or pretty much any solution I have seen preposed (just as I am sure you don't like mine). I don't see the ac bonus provided as any more beneficial that evasion, or gaining a massive number of feats or unlocking skills / or even taking a level of rogue at first level for the massive skill point boost etc. The multi class system as it is allows for some very powerful things to be done immeadiatly on gaining 1 level of a class. If you want to do it to one class, be fair and work a system that can be used to consistently apply the concept across each of the classes. I do not believe we have to take such drastic action because lets face it, multi class as is has always been a core part of the game and no matter what class you splash into, you gain a massive amount of extras in that first level, you and many others are caught up in the benefits provided by one.

noinfo

02-11-2009, 08:12 AM

But also the way FE works on most things gives significant DPS against most mob types, this is an issue with Rangers and allows othewise low dps Rangers to excell at DPS against a great many mob types in game.

That's not an 'issue,' that's just the class. it's the same with rogues. Dex based rogues can still do good DPS.

It's because those two are DPS classes.[/QUOTE]

The key here is that they are situational DPS classes [Referring to Dex based builds only here] and should do very well in those situations.

Borror0

02-11-2009, 08:29 AM

addressed opinion of that in previous post
Irrelevant.

actually I don't really care if they multi class to gain their skills, but if you think that someone who has put stat points into wis to get a ac bonus is over powered then you may also wish to address cross classing for skills could also be considered an issue
Non-sequitur. Plus, your sentence does not make any sense.

of course it can be done all it needs is a complete respec option
Wrong. It needs a FORCED skill respec and a complete respec feature.

The former is the problem.

You believe that S/B should have the highest AC because they lack dps ie they are giving up a second weapon.
It would be more accurate to say that I believe S&B needs better AC because it is the best way to balance S&B with non-S&B.

(Other means to mitigate damage can also be used.)

While it is possible for S/B to increase their dps by going 2 handed when they need it, it defeats the purpose.
I hope you are not trying to say that S&B can switch to THF and achieve identical DPS...

I believe that a dex/wis based ranger with splash has given up hp and offensive power to gain that ac. They have burned 2 stats into it and really the S/B has burned none.
What one has 'given up' is unimportant, it's how powerful it is in the end that should be balanced.

That's why we use "overpowered" and '"underpowered".

I don't see the ac bonus provided as any more beneficial that evasion, or gaining a massive number of feats or unlocking skills / or even taking a level of rogue at first level for the massive skill point boost etc.
Scale: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scale?p) A progressive classification, as of size, amount, importance, or rank.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 12:24 AM

Irrelevant.

-->Extremely relevant.

Non-sequitur. Plus, your sentence does not make any sense.
--> More than happy to rephrase, you are not concerned about balance you just want S/B dominance of the ac area and other areas that may considered ballance issues due to multiclassing don't count because they may benefit your ideal build.

Wrong. It needs a FORCED skill respec and a complete respec feature.
--> gee a few extra lines of code to execute once off. Not so different to what you want to do with Rangers but at an even lower level to force a class respec.

The former is the problem.

--> and yet you have no hesitation in enforcing your reality onto others.

It would be more accurate to say that I believe S&B needs better AC because it is the best way to balance S&B with non-S&B.

--> To general a statement to lend any support to your agument

(Other means to mitigate damage can also be used.)

--> good I agree other methods certainly should also be used to help mitigate damage, S/B should be hard to hit (effectively) as well as survive better once hit.

I hope you are not trying to say that S&B can switch to THF and achieve identical DPS...

--> Please go back and re-read the statement and I am sure that you will see exactly what I am saying.
-->THF is poorly implemented and does not generate the same dps as 2 weapon fighting, but can increase your base dps over S/B

What one has 'given up' is unimportant, it's how powerful it is in the end that should be balanced.

--> Balance includes taking into account all areas not just those you deem important at the time. And it is hard to talk balance against a class that has had no support for a while. How about you compare apples for a change. A dex based fighter instead of a ranger and compare numbers.

That's why we use "overpowered" and '"underpowered".
--> Subjective at best as you are determined to look at 2 narrow areas. DPS and AC.

Scale: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scale?p) A progressive classification, as of size, amount, importance, or rank.

--> Quoted for a reason? Irrelevant.

Angelus_dead

02-12-2009, 12:43 AM

Pally/Monk is not unbalanced, neither is Ftr/Monk.
Wrong, and wrong.

Sit pal14/monk2 and fig14/monk2 next to pal16 and fig16 and see if you still call them "not unbalanced".

The relationship between ran15/monk1 and pal14/monk2 is the similar to that between ran16 and pal16. (Except the monk splash gives even more benefit to the pally)

The reason you don't see many pal14/monk2 or fig14/monk2 builds running around is that by the time monks came out, rangers were already the definitively superior full-BAB class. Since they're all new rolls designed by players who've studied the rules, they stayed away for pal or fig in favor of ran.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 12:45 AM

Pally/Monk is not unbalanced, neither is Ftr/Monk.

So it's not Monk that needs nerfing...

Solid logic.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 12:55 AM

Irrelevant.
I hope you are not trying to say that S&B can switch to THF and achieve identical DPS...

There is also no reason a S/B can't take the 2 weapon fighting feats if they need to switch to DPS mode either, its not like the current shield feats add to active ac anyway, they are probably nice if you sit there blocking though.

S/B can hardly be called a build anyway. If you are a melee, you get it free. If it wants to actually be called a build, they need to actually give use something to "build" eg feats or enhancements that can be used specifically to enhance S/B FAM and TSM are bare minimums and can't even be taken by pally's.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 01:53 AM

Extremely relevant.
Obviously, with no justification.:rolleyes:

You are not concerned about balance you just want S/B dominance of the ac area and other areas that may considered ballance issues due to multiclassing don't count because they may benefit your ideal build.
Obviously. Of all the posters here, I am the one who do not care about balance. On what do you base this baseless accusation?

Plus, how does that related with the proposition that if I believe that monk splash is overpowered, I am forced to believe that multiclassing for skills is also overpowered.

gee a few extra lines of code to execute once off.
Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

Not so different to what you want to do with Rangers but at an even lower level to force a class respec.
Extremely different. Anything I suggested does not require any FORCED respec.

and yet you have no hesitation in enforcing your reality onto others.
Uh, what?

Balance includes taking into account all areas not just those you deem important at the time.
What is important to look at his performances.

"Burning two stats " is unimportant. What matters is saves, Evasion or no Evasion, AC, DPS, HP, SR and skill scores. In other words, it is the manifestation of what you have given up that matters. For example, a lower Wis on a pure paladin means lower Will saves, except that lower Will saves on a paladin don't matter in the end, for how high they are already.

Even "giving up 20 HP" is not an appropriate examination of the situation, as it lacks the context. Loosing 20 HP on a 400 HP character with Evasion, good saves and good AC is much smaller loss than loosing 20 HP on a 320 HP character with poor saves, low AC and no Evasion.

What ultimately matters is how well the character plays in the game, not the 'numbers' he sacrificed.

Subjective at best as you are determined to look at 2 narrow areas. DPS and AC.
Intersubjectivety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective).

Quoted for a reason? Irrelevant.
Of course. You say they are "all the same", like if they couldn't be placed on a scale or if they would have the same value on an "power scale".

Borror0

02-12-2009, 02:08 AM

S/B can hardly be called a build anyway. If you are a melee, you get it free.
True, it's not a build, it's a fighting style. I thought it was obvious.

Now, yes, you can build around S&B. It usually involves not talking no THF nor TWF feats and building around Armor Mastery, Tower Shield Mastery and aiming for significant AC. Some may also pick up Shield Mastery and Improved Shield Mastery, and it is wise to get a good Intimidate score.

Cold_Stele

02-12-2009, 02:26 AM

Wrong, and wrong.

Sit pal14/monk2 and fig14/monk2 next to pal16 and fig16 and see if you still call them "not unbalanced".

OK here's a long list of stuff Pally and Ftr WON'T have if they splash Monk.

1. Here's the big one - AC or DPS - because they'll be a Str build with lower AC or a Dex build with no recourse to FE Damage to make up the shortfall.

Seriously - a non-Rgr or Rog Dex build?

2. They will have to choose between 1 Rgr 1 Rog or 2 Monk - so it's UMD or Evasion, not both.

3. They will lose even more DPS (in already DPS weak classes) by not being able to take capstones - Weapons of Good or Weapon Alacrity - mod 9 Pally/Ftr is going to need these to keep up with DPS.

4. They lose yet more DPS spreading their stats paper thin. Pally would need to buy into all 6 stats if he wanted CE - no dumpstat = lower Str + Cha = less DPS.

So there you have it Pally/Monk would have to be a Str build with not spectacular DPS, or a Dex build with even less. No FE damage here to rely on.

Monk 1's not the problem, it's a class than can splash 2 levels of anything (Sorc1/Wiz1 maybe) and still come out uber the other side. You can't make a bad Rgr because all your feats etc are more or less pre-chosen for you and FE damage and STWF take care of your DPS. Hell you can even be a Rgr now, dump stat Dex to 11 and still end up with STWF.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 02:53 AM

Of all the posters here, I am the one who do not care about balance. On what do you base this baseless accusation?

--> You are not interested in balance. That is a word you are throwing around to justify your position in the argument. You are interested in dominance of the S/B in the area of AC. You are not happy because this is no longer the case. [edit this is not a bad thing, people should be passionate about what they believe, but don't pretend it is all about ballancing things].

Plus, how does that related with the proposition that if I believe that monk splash is overpowered, I am forced to believe that multiclassing for skills is also overpowered.

Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

-->No but it is a sign that you are not actually really interested in ballance, the fact that splashing anything provides you with massive bonuses, but you don't care about any of them except the one that directly stands in your builds way so it is a clear sign that perhaps balance is not really your concern.

Extremely different. Anything I suggested does not require any FORCED respec.
--> really? so how would you justify that to those who have placed a high stat in wisdom? I could just as easily say that those skill points are accessed again when you attain a higher level. No respec required. Not fair to either

What is important to look at his performances.

"Burning two stats " is unimportant. What matters is saves, Evasion or no Evasion, AC, DPS, HP, SR and skill scores. In other words, it is the manifestation of what you have given up that matters. For example, a lower Wis on a pure paladin means lower Will saves, except that lower Will saves on a paladin don't matter in the end, for how high they are already.

Even "giving up 20 HP" is not an appropriate examination of the situation, as it lacks the context. Loosing 20 HP on a 400 HP character with Evasion, good saves and good AC is much smaller loss than loosing 20 HP on a 320 HP character with poor saves, low AC and no Evasion.

--> if only it were 20 hp and I had 400 hp

What ultimately matters is how well the character plays in the game, not the 'numbers' he sacrificed.

-->And the whole floor of your arguement is based on why he plays so well. The monk ac bonus is not the reason, it is simply your bugbear (though not yours alone). Look at your argument from that of a dex based fighter and tell me where the imbalance lies from the monk splash?

noinfo

02-12-2009, 03:01 AM

True, it's not a build, it's a fighting style. I thought it was obvious.

Now, yes, you can build around S&B. It usually involves not talking no THF nor TWF feats and building around Armor Mastery, Tower Shield Mastery and aiming for significant AC. Some may also pick up Shield Mastery and Improved Shield Mastery, and it is wise to get a good Intimidate score.

It is obvious that it should hardly be called even a fighting style, it is the default fall back option. Why? because there is nothing worth taking that really enhances it. I really think it could be more, but a FAM and FTM are not enough to even make it interesting, and guess what? If you nerfed monk it still would not matter it would still be uninteresting. The Pally prestige coming out starts to do the right thing but there could have been far more in terms of tru shield enhancment lines.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 03:11 AM

[QUOTE=Cold Stele;2052012]
So there you have it Pally/Monk would have to be a Str build with not spectacular DPS, or a Dex build with even less. No FE damage here to rely on.
[QUOTE]

And there is the major issue, the secondary one is making DPS more relevant thoughout quests so that those with a truely high dps can shine.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 05:47 AM

No but it is a sign that you are not actually really interested in ballance, the fact that splashing anything provides you with massive bonuses, but you don't care about any of them except the one that directly stands in your builds way so it is a clear sign that perhaps balance is not really your concern.
Obviously, I am not interested in balance even though I posted I don't know how many post about paladins, while I don't even own a paladin. If you really believe I tackle only topics that concerns me, then you are in deep trouble explaining me how I end up caring about rogues as well (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=172493). Probably because I have a secret rogue no one knows about, riiight?

Not trying to convince you, by the way. I don't care about what you think. I'm trying to ridicule what you said, because it is hilarious.

Look, what you've done is an ad hominem. You're trying to make my position look bad by motives. Whether you are right or wrong about my motives does not mean that I am wrong in my position, nor will it mean you are right. It would only mean I have faulty motives. Furthermore, it's an attempt at changing the topic, which usually means you realized your defense is weak and you are trying to dissimulate that. In other words, it can back fire.

Unless you clearly lay out for me why I should care about multiclassing for skills, I won't change my mind nor will you convince anyone.

Explain clearly, or shut up.

really? so how would you justify that to those who have placed a high stat in wisdom? I could just as easily say that those skill points are accessed again when you attain a higher level. No respec required. Not fair to either
Not similar, by any means. You would have to force the data to change on the character.

Suggested nerfs about monk splash don't go and lower everyone's Wisdom (and costing them creation points in the process). We cap the bonus they get to AC from their Wisdom. C'est tout. What you suggest is, by far, much more complicated and is way worse without the proper respec option. If Turbine did what you suggest, it would lead to anger greater than Abbot, M3.3 and the Evasion nerf together.

I don't know how you cannot see that.

if only it were 20 hp and I had 400 hp
Doesn't matter, the logic is the same.

Look at your argument from that of a dex based fighter and tell me where the imbalance lies from the monk splash?
What about THF? What about S&B? You're looking at it in a microscopic scale, that's unfair and dishonest.

Vorn

02-12-2009, 06:00 AM

Late contributor. Apologies to those in the midst of their debate.

To the OP.

Perhaps one way to address the issue is to require burning feats to get the ability to multi-class monk. Ascetic Hunter and Ascetic Rogue would burn two feats for the 18/1/1 that folks are worried about. That's at least in accordance with the Eberron campaign materials.

To implement would be tricky, maybe a full feat respec upon log in--go see Fred and the first two feats that would have to be taken before any others would be the ascetic ones. For a new character on leveling up if you don't have or can't take the required feat you can't advance the character leveling process.

My objection isn't so much to the 18/1/1 build in and of itself--I think it's brilliant. I want it to cost something significant to have, however. Feats seems one possibility.

Ok, I'll end this and let y'all get back to bashing.
:)

Borror0

02-12-2009, 06:04 AM

It is obvious that it should hardly be called even a fighting style, it is the default fall back option. Why? because there is nothing worth taking that really enhances it.
I wouldn't call a fighting style requiring to acquire a new piece of equipment (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Category:Tower_Shield), possibly requires picking up a feat and investing a noteworthy portion of your APs a "fall back option". Can it be? Of course, but to say it is 100% of the time and to say it is not a fighting style isn't true.

Furthermore, even if you consider it a "fall back option", it does not mean it should not become a fighting style worth talking about.

Why? For the same reason you desire balance (unless you have selfish motives like me).

guess what? If you nerfed monk it still would not matter it would still be uninteresting.
True, and that is why it needs more love even after the nerf.

Aesop

02-12-2009, 06:04 AM

It is obvious that it should hardly be called even a fighting style, it is the default fall back option.

It is a fighting style to say it isn't is fallaceous and shows a lack of understanding as to what a fighting style is...

Why? because there is nothing worth taking that really enhances it.

ding ding ding... Yep the current "improvements" to the style lack anything that would make them worthwhile in the taking. It makes the style artificially weak. Opposite that we have TWF Feats that Dramatically enhance the fighting style and Enhancements that go beyond that. THF is now getting improvements to Feat (that were made up btw) so that they can contend with the enhanced TWF style... why then aren't the S&B Feats likewise improved

I really think it could be more, but a FAM and FTM are not enough to even make it interesting, and guess what?

And this is why I suggest post number three http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=170912&highlight=aesop

If you nerfed monk it still would not matter it would still be uninteresting.

Not interested in nerfing Monk. I knew exactly what MOnk would mean before it came out and I knew that regardless of Monk that S&B needed some improvements. Monk just allowed for more people to see that more clearly

The Pally prestige coming out starts to do the right thing but there could have been far more in terms of tru shield enhancment lines.

Actually I'm fairly disappointed with the DoS line... not sure why over all ... just am. No I don't have a good logical reason behind that

Aesop

Borror0

02-12-2009, 06:19 AM

No I don't have a good logical reason behind that
Well, I do, and I am sure it is for the same reasons.

Most of what I dislike about it is that it's the repetition of what I currently dislike about the enhancement system. In itself, it would be great... if some modifications that I already wished for prior to the announcement of Defender of Syberys.

Also, I tend to be wary of short duration triggered abilities, especially on paladins.

esoitl

02-12-2009, 06:49 AM

The only thing that makes Ranger/ Monks arguably overpowered is that they can raise 2 stats for AC without having to worry about caps. With the ease of gaining stat points in DDO compared to D&D, it's more noticeable.

I think that the Armor Mastery enhancements should take a page from the Toughness book and let everyone take a few levels very cheaply. If you make it so that even non-dwarven characters without Fighter levels can expect to get the full benefit of starting at 14 dex, it would not seem so overpowered.

I think the next step would be to remove the first step of the centered AC bonus and start be giving you +1 at level 5, just like in PnP. If you think that that hurts monks too much, add additional AC bonuses as enhancements at higher levels like the Paladin enhancements.

Finally, give the mobs scaling attack bonuses. They don't purposely inturrupt their attack to maximize their high AB attacks and by giving them penalties to later attacks, you make it so that the barbarian with 30 AC gets hit less often than the 8 AC Barbarian. This gives AC some meaning even if you can't hit the current "magic number."

Edit: I think that eventually, we will need some sort of passive DR for shields, but that isn't completely on topic here. Still, AC really does need a full review.

In red: Then what is left to distingusih Fighters from other classes?
I think it's not a very attractive addition and would nerf Fighters to a degree. The Toughness is a valid change as what's to say that certain races are not allowed to become tougher while some can? The greater durability of Dwarves and WF is reflected in an increased bonus to the enhancement line. Fighters are the supposed masters of weapons and armour and hence should have a unique line to allow them to be better with both.

In green: I doubt this would do anything besides actually take away slightly from a pure Monk. I will agree with you that they should never have changed the progression from the PHB but the centred bonus is hardly the issue with the splash build. It's the fact they can get the Monk's WIS AC bonus with only 1 Monk level, which for a Ranger, can be a substantial ammount. After all, WIS isn't essential but it's not bad for a Ranger so generally it isn't a base 8 dump stat. Taking away the +1 from centred isn't going to change the build. Half of these builds probably aren't willing to take the DPS hit using kamas to even bother being centred anyways so you basically are taking a meaningless 1 AC from a pure Monk.

In blue: That doesn't solve anything. In fact, it's counter intuitive. In a turn based system getting a minus to have more attacks is a worth while sacrifice. Getting penalized for becoming stronger? Doesn't make sense.
Also, if the big problem is having a TWF splash build have too high an AC how is lowering the monsters attack going to solve anything? It's just going to make it worse as then they worry about one attack and then they're safe until the next attack sequence.

In grey: This is a common request but I disagree. There is no reason to break the core rules regarding the function of armour. It's in fact working properly but with the current rules system it just doesn't reflect the same use that a pen and paper AC does.

All in all, and back to the OP, I say do nothing.
Am I stating there is nothing wrong with the build? Not exactly.

There should be some sort of cap to the WIS bonus for a non-pure Monk but since it made the game in this state I say leave it.
What some of us may not be considering though is we are comparing a Multi-class build with very good synergy including one of, if not the best, PrE released to date with builds that may or may not be multiclassed with less synergy and no PrEs attached. Let's wait to see what the PrEs bring to help out with shield bearing characters. I have a feeling we will see a definite shift in the power levels, maybe never to an equal footing AC wise, but it will get better. One more thing you have to consider is that the best items have favoured the Monk-Ranger build. Once a shield bearer gets an Icy Raiments level item to put in their gear set you'll see a big change in the utility.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 07:19 AM

Obviously, I am not interested in balance even though I posted I don't know how many post about paladins, while I don't even own a paladin. If you really believe I tackle only topics that concerns me, then you are in deep trouble explaining me how I end up caring about rogues as well (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=172493). Probably because I have a secret rogue no one knows about, riiight?

Not trying to convince you, by the way. I don't care about what you think. I'm trying to ridicule what you said, because it is hilarious.

Look, what you've done is an ad hominem. You're trying to make my position look bad by motives. Whether you are right or wrong about my motives does not mean that I am wrong in my position, nor will it mean you are right. It would only mean I have faulty motives. Furthermore, it's an attempt at changing the topic, which usually means you realized your defense is weak and you are trying to dissimulate that. In other words, it can back fire.

Unless you clearly lay out for me why I should care about multiclassing for skills, I won't change my mind nor will you convince anyone.

Explain clearly, or shut up.

Not similar, by any means. You would have to force the data to change on the character.

Suggested nerfs about monk splash don't go and lower everyone's Wisdom (and costing them creation points in the process). We cap the bonus they get to AC from their Wisdom. C'est tout. What you suggest is, by far, much more complicated and is way worse without the proper respec option. If Turbine did what you suggest, it would lead to anger greater than Abbot, M3.3 and the Evasion nerf together.

I don't know how you cannot see that.

Doesn't matter, the logic is the same.

What about THF? What about S&B? You're looking at it in a microscopic scale, that's unfair and dishonest.

Bit of name calling there Bor?

0. I will come out and say that I have 2 toons that use a monk splash for ac. Not a massive amount on one but a reasonable on the other, neither has high end ac gear but that is not the point of the post. I do have a vested interest in the Monk ac bonus and I am willing to accept that. The fact that I have far more non monk splash melee (mainly S/B) that I don't feel threatened by ranger splashes.

1. Actually you are the one to look at it on a microscopic scale only focusing on one issue.
2. You keep focusing on ranger/monk splashes and refuse to aknowledge that the issue could be else where rather than the monk component. Your posts always ignore this.
3. I am glad to see you champion other causes and I never said that you have not. I believe that the ac of S/B is very important to you in game and that you want it to be number 1 "because this is the best way to balance S/B against others", to me and probably to others this comes across as just using the word balance as an excuse for them to be king in that area and you are looking for ways to nerf other ways of achieving a high ac. This is the point of your posts, I don't see any looking for alternatives here. I have suggested several times that S/B needs attention and some of my opinion. S/B fixes that may actually make people want to use a shield, but still you ignore them and not discuss it.
4. You fail to address the massive power added to other builds using a single splash of another class and compare it to the power offered by the 1 level of monk.
5. As far as my defense being weak, well, I have yet to see any substance in yours at all and that is very sad.
6. You want to restrict access to 1 class splash based on a pro rata based on its synergy with 1 other class. Yet you complain when I suggest that if this is done then we should place a pro rata on all multi class ability based on the number of levels taken including skills as being balanced. Your inablity to comprehend this one simple fact is amazing.
7. Your inability to comprehend that I don't actually want number 6 above is astounding. I would much prefer things left as is and have said it over and over, but if you start pro rata on one then I believe it should be done for all.
8. Finally with regard to your motives, the fact that you want S/B ac to be king is NOT a bad motive at all but not acknowledging that it is one of your motives is an issue.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 07:21 AM

I wouldn't call a fighting style requiring to acquire a new piece of equipment (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Category:Tower_Shield), possibly requires picking up a feat and investing a noteworthy portion of your APs a "fall back option". Can it be? Of course, but to say it is 100% of the time and to say it is not a fighting style isn't true.

Furthermore, even if you consider it a "fall back option", it does not mean it should not become a fighting style worth talking about.

Why? For the same reason you desire balance (unless you have selfish motives like me).

True, and that is why it needs more love even after the nerf.

Only requires picking up a feat if you are a Pally and then a Pally who hasn't splashed that fighter level (should I talk about splashes here?)

Substantial amount of ap? 24? fair enough and you get pretty poor value for it. Maybe why I keep suggesting that maybe this needs to be fixed?
I really want to see S/B become something more than it is now, it could be a lot more. But a few poor feats and 2(3) enhancement lines really doesn't do it justice.

S/B should have been getting number 1 priority in getting fixed for some time.

[edit and I am happy to admit that I am influenced at least in part by my investment in my characters. I try not to let it cloud my judgement and don't believe it has in this case]

noinfo

02-12-2009, 07:35 AM

Aesop

It is a fighting style to say it isn't is fallaceous and shows a lack of understanding as to what a fighting style is...

--> I will wear the critisim on this one to a point, that point being that it they have left its potential unrealised.

noinfo

02-12-2009, 07:39 AM

Aesop

I have no problems with pretty much any of that (though I only skimmed over it).
I like the way most involved enhancments and much prefer enhancement/feat solutions that require a build/concept rather than equipment based solutions (though I would like to see GS shields for balance Bor :-p)

Tanka

02-12-2009, 07:43 AM

OK here's a long list of stuff Pally and Ftr WON'T have if they splash Monk.

1. Here's the big one - AC or DPS - because they'll be a Str build with lower AC or a Dex build with no recourse to FE Damage to make up the shortfall.

Seriously - a non-Rgr or Rog Dex build?

2. They will have to choose between 1 Rgr 1 Rog or 2 Monk - so it's UMD or Evasion, not both.

3. They will lose even more DPS (in already DPS weak classes) by not being able to take capstones - Weapons of Good or Weapon Alacrity - mod 9 Pally/Ftr is going to need these to keep up with DPS.

4. They lose yet more DPS spreading their stats paper thin. Pally would need to buy into all 6 stats if he wanted CE - no dumpstat = lower Str + Cha = less DPS.

So there you have it Pally/Monk would have to be a Str build with not spectacular DPS, or a Dex build with even less. No FE damage here to rely on.

Monk 1's not the problem, it's a class than can splash 2 levels of anything (Sorc1/Wiz1 maybe) and still come out uber the other side. You can't make a bad Rgr because all your feats etc are more or less pre-chosen for you and FE damage and STWF take care of your DPS. Hell you can even be a Rgr now, dump stat Dex to 11 and still end up with STWF.
Stele, I'm sorry, but WoG and the as-of-yet unannounced Weapon Alarcity aren't argumentsto be proud of with regards to pure-classing.

WoG is good, yes. However, having a Holy Silver of GEOB will work just fine. You're down 3d6 of damage overall, but gaining Evasion and your Wisdom bonus to AC is better than that.

Weapon Alarcity may be good, it may be terrible. Adding Evasion and Wisdom bonus to armor, again, is pretty good in the long haul. And Fighters have more than enough Feats to make up for it.

Right now, the builds I'm seeing a lot of are splashed with 1-2 Monk, depending on if they have Evasion yet or not. Rogue for UMD is nice, but, really, if you have RR'd stuff, you can either trade it for other RR's or buff your UMD high enough with clickies and gear to be able to bypass it with only half-ranks. Rogue just isn't the Hot Thing these days, it's Monk with its overpowered first-level granted ability, adding his Wisdom bonus to his AC. That's anywhere from 3-7 extra AC, just for a one-level splash.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 07:59 AM

Bit of name calling there Bor?
Should I laugh at that comment?

Actually you are the one to look at it on a microscopic scale only focusing on one issue.
On what ground? You said "well, if you look at the balance between Dex-build and monk splash, you'll see the balance is fine".

Regardless of if that is true or not, you are looking at the balance between two builds. Fact is, the imbalance is blatant between monk splashed and multiple builds. S&B is the obvious looser here, but it is not the sole looser in all of this. The improvements other builds would require to match the power of monk splash is terrifying.

You keep focusing on ranger/monk splashes and refuse to aknowledge that the issue could be else where rather than the monk component.
Fair criticism, if it happens to be true. What am I not considering correctly?

I believe that the ac of S/B is very important to you in game and that you want it to be number 1 "because this is the best way to balance S/B against others", to me and probably to others this comes across as just using the word balance as an excuse for them to be king in that area and you are looking for ways to nerf other ways of achieving a high ac.
First of, discussing my motives is pointless. At least, telling me that I am too stupid to comprehend the ingenuity of your proposition would be slightly more relevant.

Secondly, your argument does not follow. If I was motivated by selfish desire, like you suggest in the above quote, I would be looking at overpowered suggestions to make S&B the best fighting style around and not simply looking out to nerf which ever fighting style/build is currently better. However, as you can clearly see, I am not. In fact, I have even told Aesop that some of her suggestions were overpowered. Ask her (or him).

I don't see any looking for alternatives here.
You do realize that I am discussing this topic since before monks hit the live servers, right?

This means I have had over seven months to ponder on the problem and look for "alternatives". I consider new suggestions that are brought up to me, but I have gone through the process of figuring the best way solution that I could find. Sadly, it involves nerfs.

If you have something new to bring to the discussion, fine. Go ahead! Explain! I'll listen (or read).

But, stop going off topic.

You fail to address the massive power added to other builds using a single splash of another class and compare it to the power offered by the 1 level of monk.
If you are talking about multiclassing for skills, I view it as a desirable feature of multiclassing.

If we nerf multiclassing too much, multiclassing becomes uninteresting and that is not good. You have yet to show me how that is unbalancing. If at all, we should make skills better, not less appealing. It would be a great thing for the game, if skills started mattering.

If you are talking about something else, then please go in details.

You want to restrict access to 1 class splash based on a pro rata based on its synergy with 1 other class.
I don't. Search better than that.

Yet you complain when I suggest that if this is done then we should place a pro rata on all multi class ability based on the number of levels taken including skills as being balanced.
Oh, this smells like poor logic.

First of all, you assume that what you suggest is easy to implement. It is not.

Secondly, you assume incorrectly that since one imbalance is fixed via one mean, all imbalance sharing one attribute (front-loaded ability acquired via multiclassing) should all be fixed the same way. Using this logic, since you could fix a broken red wall with a hammer and a few nails, you can also fix a broken red cup with the same hammer and a few nails. After all, both are broken and red.

Finally, you fail to understand that having skills somewhat attractive is a good thing and the real problem is that most skills suck.

[...] but if you start pro rata on one then I believe it should be done for all.
Hopefully, you don't repair every red thing with an hammer.

Aspenor

02-12-2009, 08:20 AM

Fix favored enemy to work the right way:

Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger may select a type of creature from among those given on Table: Ranger Favored Enemies. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures.
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored enemy from those given on the table. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by 2.
If the ranger chooses humanoids or outsiders as a favored enemy, he must also choose an associated subtype, as indicated on the table. If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger’s bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 08:29 AM

Fix favored enemy to work the right way:
That would be one step in the right direction, yes.

Another would be either opening PrEs for all classes that meet the prereqs or removing Enhancements altogether.

Deathseeker

02-12-2009, 08:33 AM

Fix favored enemy to work the right way:

That would definitely help bring things in line quite a bit. Should be very easy to implement (just nerf favored enemy feat to a static +2, then add a bunch of "improved favored enemy" feats that contain the added bonuses and requires a matching favored enemy feat as a pre-req and can only be taken once.

This really isnt that build breaking for anyone either unless you took a very specific level of ranger (10 or 15) just to get an added favored enemy. But I doubt that's common, and with 4 more levels being addedd, that's fairly easy to fix as you are likely going toward 12 or 18 anyways.

And if that's how it is in PnP, then it gives Turbine some cover. Not too important to me as Im not very concerned with the core rules, but to many that is a huge difference.

It's a nice suggestion.

Aspenor

02-12-2009, 08:39 AM

That would be one step in the right direction, yes.

Another would be either opening PrEs for all classes that meet the prereqs or removing Enhancements altogether.

This should have been done in the first place. I think class-based PrE's were a terrible idea from the beginning.

Cold_Stele

02-12-2009, 08:40 AM

Stele, I'm sorry, but WoG and the as-of-yet unannounced Weapon Alarcity aren't argumentsto be proud of with regards to pure-classing.

WoG is good, yes. However, having a Holy Silver of GEOB will work just fine. You're down 3d6 of damage overall, but gaining Evasion and your Wisdom bonus to AC is better than that.

Weapon Alarcity may be good, it may be terrible. Adding Evasion and Wisdom bonus to armor, again, is pretty good in the long haul. And Fighters have more than enough Feats to make up for it.

Right now, the builds I'm seeing a lot of are splashed with 1-2 Monk, depending on if they have Evasion yet or not. Rogue for UMD is nice, but, really, if you have RR'd stuff, you can either trade it for other RR's or buff your UMD high enough with clickies and gear to be able to bypass it with only half-ranks. Rogue just isn't the Hot Thing these days, it's Monk with its overpowered first-level granted ability, adding his Wisdom bonus to his AC. That's anywhere from 3-7 extra AC, just for a one-level splash.

Don't know if you've seen my earlier posts Tanka but my point here is that Pally or Ftr 18/Monk 2 is in pretty poor shape compared to Rgr18/Monk1/Rog1.

I'd love to see someone prove me wrong and post a high AC, high DPS, Evasion build that includes just 2 Monk levels but none of Ranger or Rogue.

Think I'm going to be waiting a long time though.

Like I said, it's not the Monk splash that needs nerfing.

Aspenor

02-12-2009, 08:50 AM

A dodge AC bonus on a shield would help. Please don't argue that lootflation is bad, because it's far too late to be making those arguments when we have icy raiments and green steel.

Or, they could throw Deepwarden into the PrE mix and completely throw the system for a loop (don't actually implement Deepwarden, please).

Tanka

02-12-2009, 08:54 AM

Don't know if you've seen my earlier posts Tanka but my point here is that Pally or Ftr 18/Monk 2 is in pretty poor shape compared to Rgr18/Monk1/Rog1.

I'd love to see someone prove me wrong and post a high AC, high DPS, Evasion build that includes just 2 Monk levels but none of Ranger or Rogue.

Think I'm going to be waiting a long time though.

Like I said, it's not the Monk splash that needs nerfing.
I agree the Monk splash needs nerfing, but a Pal18/Mnk2 will be a force to contend with against Evil Outsiders. Having GEOB on any weapon they wield is pretty potent.

I'm all for changing the Monk splash benefits. One level should not get you 3-7 AC.

A dodge AC bonus on a shield would help. Please don't argue that lootflation is bad, because it's far too late to be making those arguments when we have icy raiments and green steel.

Or, they could throw Deepwarden into the PrE mix and completely throw the system for a loop (don't actually implement Deepwarden, please).
Ugh, no more Dodge bonuses. It's what's gotten us here in the first place (stupid Raiment).

Tanka

02-12-2009, 08:55 AM

This should have been done in the first place. I think class-based PrE's were a terrible idea from the beginning.
D&D has never been about classism, and yet Turbine is making DDO about classism. Any class can get into any PrC, assuming they meet the prereqs. It should be the same for DDO, and yet it isn't.

Admittedly, I'd rather see PrCs than PrEs, but since they haven't added Druids or Artificers, I'm willing to wait.

Aspenor

02-12-2009, 09:00 AM

Ugh, no more Dodge bonuses. It's what's gotten us here in the first place (stupid Raiment).

Yeah, it was a bad idea. It's too late to take it back, and putting a dodge bonus on a shield would not really break the game any more than it already is broken. DT armor COULD have closed the gap if the dodge bonus had stacked with the Chattering Ring. Then the only issue we'd have is equivalent AC with incomparable DPS, which can be fixed via alternate routes.

Offering interesting and useful shield feats could go a long way as well.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 09:01 AM

Yeah, it was a bad idea. It's too late to take it back, and putting a dodge bonus on a shield would not really break the game any more than it already is broken. DT armor COULD have closed the gap if the dodge bonus had stacked with the Chattering Ring. Then the only issue we'd have is equivalent AC with incomparable DPS, which can be fixed via alternate routes.

Offering interesting and useful shield feats could go a long way as well.
Offering interesting and useful feats in general would be a better idea than adding more Dodge bonuses to AC.

Cold_Stele

02-12-2009, 09:02 AM

I agree the Monk splash needs nerfing, but a Pal18/Mnk2 will be a force to contend with against Evil Outsiders. Having GEOB on any weapon they wield is pretty potent.

...but I'm not saying Monk splash needs nerfing, just the opposite.

With your example, Evil Outsiders, pure Pally will do significantly more DPS than Monk splash, and have higher Str and Cha too.

1 Monk is not a problem unless you bolt it on a Rgr.

Kintro

02-12-2009, 11:07 AM

4. Add a +4 Dodge Ring.

So this isn't entirely related to monk splashes but I quite like this idea:
1) It goes someway to redressing the balance between armour wearers and icy wearers.
2) It increases the value of dragontouched for all AC builds (+3 dodge on 3rd tier)
3) It shifts focus towards newer content (mod8/9) and away from older (mod2/5) without hurting your build.
4) It shouldn't increase the max attainable AC.
5) it doesn't decrease the value of the chattering ring it took 40/60/80 titans to get.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 11:11 AM

So this isn't entirely related to monk splashes but I quite like this idea.
Seriously? There are tons of reasons against it. but I'll name the most obvious one: gear dependency.

Ok, another one, additional sacrifice for defensive spec'd characters.

branmakmuffin

02-12-2009, 11:18 AM

Seriously? There are tons of reasons against it. but I'll name the most obvious one: gear dependency.

Making the game more Monty Haul to make up for another problem of Monty Haulness (and for sake of argument I'm assuming the rgrX/mnk2 build is a problem with Monty Haulness) will probably lead (eventually) to more Monty Haulness.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 11:22 AM

A dodge AC bonus on a shield would help.
If you really want to go down the inflation road, there are better ways to do it.

Turbine could consider:

Changing the bonus type on IR into a non-stackable one. Then, adding named times with the same bonus type.
Adding new feats or enhancements limited to S&B, or favoring it at least.

All of these are much better fixes than a +4 Dodge shield.

A +4 Dodge shield would just kill any possible variety in shield, unless shields all get +4 Dodge bonus. But then, it becomes a bit stupid. Turbine finally got around their phobia of +5 Mithril TS named loot. We are about to see a choice of Tower Shield worth wearing, depending out the rest of our gears, specs and preferences. At least, if Turbine play their cards correctly. A +4 Dodge shield would kill that possibility and make S&B even more gear depend than it is, when we should aim at reducing the gear dependency of S&B.

Even if you have given up of deflation, there are better ways than more Dodge bonuses.

Aspenor

02-12-2009, 11:39 AM

If you really want to go down the inflation road, there are better ways to do it.

Turbine could consider:

Changing the bonus type on IR into a non-stackable one. Then, adding named times with the same bonus type.
Adding new feats or enhancements limited to S&B, or favoring it at least.

All of these are much better fixes than a +4 Dodge shield.

A +4 Dodge shield would just kill any possible variety in shield, unless shields all get +4 Dodge bonus. But then, it becomes a bit stupid. Turbine finally got around their phobia of +5 Mithril TS named loot. We are about to see a choice of Tower Shield worth wearing, depending out the rest of our gears, specs and preferences. At least, if Turbine play their cards correctly. A +4 Dodge shield would kill that possibility and make S&B even more gear depend than it is, when we should aim at reducing the gear dependency of S&B.

Even if you have given up of deflation, there are better ways than more Dodge bonuses.

Explain why these things are "better." It's not like there's any variety in shields right now anyway. Everyone and their sister uses the hound tower shield.

Additionally, I don't really see why reducing gear dependency is desirable, at least not from the Turbine's perspective (making money). Gear dependency begets longer subscription times, as many people are "forced" to grind yet another item.

I wouldn't be against the adjustment of the Icy Raiment to something like a profane bonus, luck bonus, or some other type that isn't dodge, either. However, unless they make it some kind of bonus that isn't currently available on gear or via spells, people will view it as a horrid nerf.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 11:41 AM

...but I'm not saying Monk splash needs nerfing, just the opposite.

With your example, Evil Outsiders, pure Pally will do significantly more DPS than Monk splash, and have higher Str and Cha too.

1 Monk is not a problem unless you bolt it on a Rgr.
Let's see if the forums will let me post this now.

Any class that adds something as significant as 3-7 AC is overpowering. No class offers that much of an AC boost from one level.

Let's also talk about Pal18/Mnk2 that takes Defender of Siberys. They have an outrageously high self-buffed AC, and it only goes up from there.

It's these builds that devalue the standard S&B build entirely, which is the problem. The build that should be best at tanking isn't. They're mediocre. They do less damage and have lower AC than someone who builds a Lawful character and splashes Monk.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 11:49 AM

I wouldn't be against the adjustment of the Icy Raiment to something like a profane bonus, luck bonus, or some other type that isn't dodge, either. However, unless they make it some kind of bonus that isn't currently available on gear or via spells, people will view it as a horrid nerf.
I wouldn't bother with a profane bonus, since there are currently no profance bonuses to AC.

A luck bonus or natural armor bonus, sure. Maybe even type it the same as the Bard song for extra kick.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 11:52 AM

Explain why these things are "better." It's not like there's any variety in shields right now anyway.
I can think of at least two reasons:

It allows Turbine the possibility to great a variety in shields.
It is easier for Turbine to create more attractive shield than this one, in the future. (Which is good because it introduces new grinds.)

I don't really see why reducing gear dependency is desirable, at least not from the Turbine's perspective (making money).
I disagree. Gear dependency is bad, because it makes it harder for the new players and those who play very little to play end game content. In other words, it artificially reduces the content, which is not good. It's a turn off for these players, and that is bad for Turbine.

Players tend to grind for better gear as the criteria is not whether or not the gear is essential but if it's better (think +3 tome).

Thus, ideally, Turbine would have at least two "layers" of gear. One that is good and fulfills the basic needs and another that is slightly better and that would be ground for by the hardcore gamers. Having a gap as big as it is now, though, is unacceptable. A poorly equipped player cannot compete.

It is obviously not fun, and not good for business.

However, unless they make it some kind of bonus that isn't currently available on gear or via spells, people will view it as a horrid nerf.
I meant a new bonus type.

Aspenor

02-12-2009, 11:52 AM

I wouldn't bother with a profane bonus, since there are currently no profance bonuses to AC.

A luck bonus or natural armor bonus, sure. Maybe even type it the same as the Bard song for extra kick.

Pretty sure the bard song is a dodge bonus, not positive though.

The advantage of making it a profane bonus is that you can then introduce other items with the same bonus that would not stack, thus giving people variety.

Unless it was a natural armor bonus that stacked with barkskin (which is an ENHANCEMENT bonus to natural armor, interestingly enough) would be viewed as a horrid nerf, and wouldn't go over well.

Luck wouldn't be terrible. Is Recitation a luck AC bonus?

Borror0

02-12-2009, 11:53 AM

Any class that adds something as significant as 3-7 AC is overpowering.
Anyone remember pre-M4 Aura of Good?

Borror0

02-12-2009, 11:55 AM

Pretty sure the bard song is a dodge bonus, not positive though.
It is, but not sure on how it behaves with IR since I don't have one.

The advantage of making it a profane bonus is that you can then introduce other items with the same bonus that would not stack, thus giving people variety.
Exactly.

Unless it was a natural armor bonus that stacked with barkskin
Pretty sure that this is what Tanks meant, since he has plenty of D&D knowledge.

Is Recitation a luck AC bonus?
Yes, it is.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 11:55 AM

Luck wouldn't be terrible. Is Recitation a luck AC bonus?
It is.

Anyone remember pre-M4 Aura of Good?
That required Pal3 to unlock +3. Otherwise it was just 2.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 11:57 AM

That required Pal3 to unlock +3. Otherwise it was just 2.
I know. Reminding everyone that bonus was lowered from +2 to +1.

By the way, I said Aura of Good. Not Bulwark of Good.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 11:58 AM

Pretty sure that this is what Tanks meant, since he has plenty of D&D knowledge.
I'm not even sure DDO has it coded that way. The question is: Does the DT Armor with +4 Natural Armor Bonus stack with a Ranger's Barkskin?

It does need to be changed so that it does, that way there's a reason to go DT over IR. As it stands, the only reason is "Levik's 3," and even that is suspect.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 11:58 AM

I know. Reminding everyone that bonus was lowered from +2 to +1.

By the way, I said Aura of Good. Not Bulwark of Good.
The saves were also +2, changed to +1. ;)

Raithe

02-12-2009, 12:04 PM

There are, obviously, 2 different problems being discussed in this thread. One is monk splashing, the other is ranger DPS and the free TWF feats.

Monk splashing:
1) Adds 6 to saves (2 in each save)
2) Gives wisdom armor class bonus and allows wis items and spells to be +2-3 AC
3) Gives a combat feat
4) Centered bonuses & stances when fighting with monk weapons
5) Possibly evasion

Ranger DPS:
1) Favored enemy
2) Ram's Might
3) Tempest 10%+ bonus
4) Free TWF feats (and ranged - which are also quite powerful)

Monk splashing actually benefits Paladins a little more than Rangers - they can get evasion out of the mix, and making Paladins better at DPS wouldn't fix any of the problems, it would just change the titles of threads. As the arms race between rangers/paladins/barbarians continues, I find it amusing that the classes that should have the highest sustainable DPS potentials - fighters and rogues - are becoming more and more marginalized.

I don't really like any of the so-called fixes in this thread. The best fix, IMO, is to simply create content as if you hadn't already ruined your game mechanics, and make many of the benefits of splashing overkill. It's one of the advantages of a D20 system, as well as a disadvantage.

Even with that, however, Ranger DPS still needs some nerfing. Ram's Might should be +2 strength at most. Favored enemies should work per PnP and enhancements to damage should be limited to +2. Tempest should be 5% + superior TWF.

And paladin capstone enhancements shouldn't be implemented as currently specced.

Borror0

02-12-2009, 12:05 PM

Does the DT Armor with +4 Natural Armor Bonus stack with a Ranger's Barkskin?
No. Otherwise we would have heard about it now.

It does need to be changed so that it does, that way there's a reason to go DT over IR.
Given how random DT crafting is, I'd rather not.

Tanka

02-12-2009, 12:07 PM

No. Otherwise we would have heard about it now.

Given how random DT crafting is, I'd rather not.
Which is another topic, obviously. True randomness is annoying, hence why DT is such a flop overall.

Cold_Stele

02-12-2009, 12:50 PM

I won't even go near the DT armor, and consequently the quests either.

That's because of the randomness btw, not because of how pimp I look in my BP of Destruction...

Borror0

02-12-2009, 12:57 PM

Not because of how pimp I look in my BP of Destruction...
Awww, c'mon, it's not that bad...

Tanka

02-12-2009, 01:15 PM

Awww, c'mon, it's not that bad...
You're right. There are a couple of armors out there that look worse.

Only a couple, though.

noinfo

02-13-2009, 02:40 AM

Should I laugh at that comment?
--> Yep

On what ground? You said "well, if you look at the balance between Dex-build and monk splash, you'll see the balance is fine".

Regardless of if that is true or not, you are looking at the balance between two builds. Fact is, the imbalance is blatant between monk splashed and multiple builds. S&B is the obvious looser here, but it is not the sole looser in all of this. The improvements other builds would require to match the power of monk splash is terrifying.

--> the monk build with ranger [there is the difference]

Fair criticism, if it happens to be true. What am I not considering correctly?

First of, discussing my motives is pointless. At least, telling me that I am too stupid to comprehend the ingenuity of your proposition would be slightly more relevant.

--> lol get over it.

Secondly, your argument does not follow. If I was motivated by selfish desire, like you suggest in the above quote, I would be looking at overpowered suggestions to make S&B the best fighting style around and not simply looking out to nerf which ever fighting style/build is currently better. However, as you can clearly see, I am not. In fact, I have even told Aesop that some of her suggestions were overpowered. Ask her (or him).

--> Very wrong here. Just because someone is motivated by something does NOT mean that they throw everything out the window. You have not gone out of your way to try and make the S/B the most uber fighting style in the game and I would like you to quote where I even implied it? You would like it to dominiate one area because you feel that it should. This is the basis for all your ac arguements and this is fine.

You do realize that I am discussing this topic since before monks hit the live servers, right?

--> Yep and I agree with a lot of your suggestions. The fact that you have not addressed them here as part of a proposed solution by someone who would like to see S/B get the support it needs rather than the one sided nerf that ddo does not.

This means I have had over seven months to ponder on the problem and look for "alternatives". I consider new suggestions that are brought up to me, but I have gone through the process of figuring the best way solution that I could find. Sadly, it involves nerfs.

--> And it solves nothing. S/B does not involve builds which is often what inspires people to design them. 2 Enhancement lines and 1 Feat (free for fighters) is ordinary. Nerf away it will NOT change that.

If you have something new to bring to the discussion, fine. Go ahead! Explain! I'll listen (or read).
--> Not so sure you would unless it was someone agreeing with you.

But, stop going off topic.
--> every thing I have said is relevant to the discussion

If you are talking about multiclassing for skills, I view it as a desirable feature of multiclassing.

If we nerf multiclassing too much, multiclassing becomes uninteresting and that is not good. You have yet to show me how that is unbalancing. If at all, we should make skills better, not less appealing. It would be a great thing for the game, if skills started mattering.

--> If you are going to make a decision to limit 1 classes mulit class functionality with an abitary rule such as pro rata it, apply it to all multi classes. Don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Oh, this smells like poor logic.
--> I can understand how you would recognise that.

First of all, you assume that what you suggest is easy to implement. It is not.
--> Where did I say this?

Secondly, you assume incorrectly that since one imbalance is fixed via one mean, all imbalance sharing one attribute (front-loaded ability acquired via multiclassing) should all be fixed the same way. Using this logic, since you could fix a broken red wall with a hammer and a few nails, you can also fix a broken red cup with the same hammer and a few nails. After all, both are broken and red.

--> lol theres that smell again.

Finally, you fail to understand that having skills somewhat attractive is a good thing and the real problem is that most skills suck.

--> In what way did I fail to understand that? Yep there are very few decent skills out there that have real relevance. Those that do often have people splash a class just for them (and feats etc, often at first level to maximise it). Isn't that part of front loading that comes with every class splash?

--> What you somehow don't appreciate is that you want to make an arbitary change a key aspect of the game in one area because you don't like it. Too bad. This is not a turbine created enhancement issue such as Barberian Crit Rage etc, this is a core class ability. You can complain all you like about how they implemented multiclassing, too bad either revise it and give people the xp penalty or move on. Any change should be part of an entire overhaul of the multiclass system, not because of a few people who don't like it.

Hopefully, you don't repair every red thing with an hammer.
--> on the bright side you (attempted) wit > your logic

Neither of us is going to back down on positions, but I know if I say I am going to leave the thread go, you are going to come back and say something that I know I am going to have to respond to and I know I am probably going to be back :-( and then I will say something you will not let go etc. Unless you of course are a better person than I am.

Ok gunna try.
So Bor
1. I hope you don't get the nerf you are after.
2. I hope S/B gets the support it needs.

Borror0

02-13-2009, 07:01 AM

OK, going to time to respond to the few comments worth responding in that post...

And it solves nothing. S/B does not involve builds which is often what inspires people to design them. 2 Enhancement lines and 1 Feat (free for fighters) is ordinary. Nerf away it will NOT change that.
LOL, yes it will. Search for intimitanks, you'll see what I mean.

If you are going to make a decision to limit 1 classes mulit class functionality with an abitary rule such as pro rata it, apply it to all multi classes. Don't know how much plainer I can make it.
As I said, it is not because a fix was use for a somewhat similar problem that the same fix should be this time again. Claiming otherwise is poor logic. Not all heart diseases are cured with the same method. Not all front-loaded abilities should be fixed by the same method.

I would think that this is basic logic.

Any change should be part of an entire overhaul of the multiclass system, not because of a few people who don't like it.
If multiclassing was the only problem, or if the problem would only be solved through a multiclassing overhaul, that might be closer to truth.

However, the problem is not that monk's AC bonus is front-loaded. While that is problematic in itself in a balance perspective (talking about balancing options so that multiclassing does not become the only and best option for a class), the main problem is how powerful the builds get.

noinfo

02-13-2009, 08:40 AM

However, the problem is not that monk's AC bonus is front-loaded. While that is problematic in itself in a balance perspective (talking about balancing options so that multiclassing does not become the only and best option for a class), the main problem is how powerful the builds get.

--> I will stick with commenting on this point as it is the closest I come to agreeing with anything you have said. With a ranger (no other class) the best option IMO is to take a splash level, if you are going ac. But I also see plenty of st based rangers who do not bother, therefore in that regard your argument is flawed.

Anyway Bor good luck in the game.

Darth_Sizzle

02-13-2009, 09:02 AM

5. ???

5. Assume it will be nerf'd.

Borror0

02-13-2009, 09:10 AM

With a ranger (no other class) the best option IMO is to take a splash level, if you are going ac.
False. Best option also for rogue, paladin, cleric and fighter.

But I also see plenty of st based rangers who do not bother, therefore in that regard your argument is flawed.
Oh, there are plenty of possible reasons for that.

Metagaming (Assuming it will be nerfed at some point in time.)
Not wanting to do join the dark side.
Strictly wanting a DPS toon.
Not wanting to grind for the whole AC gear. (Looking at you, Chattering Ring and IR)
Wanting to enjoy the character now, not when it has all the gear.
Hating multiclassing
Trying something different
Roleplaying reasons

There are a few others.

If power was all that mattered to us, there would be far less diversity in Stormreach.

Vorn

02-13-2009, 09:19 AM

Interesting thoughts about the power of builds.

I don't think it's the power that bothers me. I think it's the power without significant associated costs. Cost can be measured in a variety of ways--trade offs between dps/ac being a big discussion point here. Cost could also be in required feats (the perception around here being that dodge/mobility/s.a. isn't a big enough cost for the 18/1/1 tempest, (with which I agree thinking it ought cost at least two more feats for ascetic ranger and ascetic rogue), action points, and probably other things my coffee-deprived brain hasn't thought of.

Nothing more to add...just a random trollish thought that crossed my mind.

Aesop

02-13-2009, 09:33 AM

For me. (I know its not a sentence but I wanted to highlight it a little more emphatically)

I have no problem with the build conceptually ... I havea problem with it being the "only game in town" so to speak. If there were 6-7 other ways to get to this level of a build... I wouldn't have any problem with it at all...

Maybe they should throw the Monk's Belt in as a Loot option

Or maybe add in the Mystic Wanderer (I think that was the one) Prestige Class ... hmmm that one would be dangerous... I think it could stack with Monk ... yeah that'd be just icky

Throw in Fist of the Forest and ... ouch that'd be an AC build.

Well anyway I've still not heard anything I like better than what I am already suggesting in other threads

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=170912

Aesop

krud

02-13-2009, 10:02 AM

I never thought making the tempest AC a shield bonus was the way to go. Keep it as the same bonus it currently is and perhaps separate it into a subordinate enhancement to tempest, with TWD as a prereq. I'm in favor of allowing uberness, but it should always come with some kind of trade off. In this case it's more AP and a feat.

The problem I have with the wis AC thing, is that the entire monk centered idea is designed to limit monks to monk only weapons. A pure/mostly monk loses a lot by not being centered. Monk splashes lose nothing when uncentered. The only reason I can think of for doing this is to make kamas a worthwhile weapon in DDO. That's dumb. All this to justify one single wimpy exotic weapon? Either remove the centered thing so monks can use any weapon, and only lose their flurry of blows, as it is in PnP, or include the wisdom AC bonus as a centered requirement.

A compromise to the latter idea could be to allow only x+1 or 2x monk level wis AC bonus when uncentered, and have it cap out at something like 4 or 6. This would still allow MC monks to take advantage of their wis AC bonus, but would require deeper multiclassing, i.e. another trade-off.

Borror0

02-13-2009, 10:08 AM

If there were 6-7 other ways to get to this level of a build... I wouldn't have any problem with it at all...
That's far too few. We have 10 classes...

Maybe they should throw the Monk's Belt in as a Loot option
It would make problems that I know you hate much worse.

I don't think it's the power that bothers me. I think it's the power without significant associated costs.
If by cost and trade off you mean that the character looses on something that, for a lot of people, would be such a cost that it would be an hard decision (in other words, getting ability A costs you ability B and it's an hard choice between the two because you'd love to have both), then you are still talking about power. Power level of character is not determined by its DPS, AC or saves, alone, but it's rather the addition of all of these.

In other words, a build is powerful not because it can reach high AC or DPS, but rather because the trade off for that AC or DPS is worthwhile. (For example, it is possible to reach 1000 HP, but you would hit like a wet noodle so no one does it. It's a weak build, even if it can reach an insanely high number.)

However, if by cost and trade off you mean costing a lot of APs, feats slots or ability points, it does not make sense. Why would you even care if the character had to sacrifice all his feats for that? Wouldn't a monk PrE requiring you to acquire many feats (Dodge, Mobility, Skill Focus: Repair, Skill Focus: Heal, Skill Focus: Swim, Skill Focus: Diplomacy, Skill Focus: Jump, Skill Focus: Listen, Skill Focus: Perform and Skill Focus: Tumble), spend half of your APs and have a base Int of 20 still be overpowered to your eyes if it added +42 to damage and gave +42% melee alacrity?

Either you do care about power, or you are using an odd logic.

In a perfect world, loosing all your feats, spending half your APs and having a base Int of 20 would be a significant cost to this. It would make you ponder on whether or not you should go down that path or keep your feat slots, APs and creation points for a different build. However, if the bonus is too great for the "cost", then it becomes a no brainer.

In other words, the PrE is too powerful since not taking it would be a mistake.

Anyway, just more random trollish thought to add to your reasoning.

noinfo

02-13-2009, 10:13 AM

lol got me going again.

False. Best option also for rogue, paladin, cleric and fighter.

--> False
1. Clerics give up too much (there are a few around but most would take 2 levels primarily for evasion at a guess)
2. Rogue would get some benefit out of it even though it would probably lower their bab again, depending on how many levels taken.
3. Pally and Fighter would have extremely poor dps here as they have no FE/tempest to make up for it. Pallys a bit better with saves and evasion (but really just get rogue and do the same thing), Fighters with evasion yeah, but limited reflex save anyway and pure dps would be one of the lowest in game [well not as low as a regular wiz or sorc maybe :-)].

Oh, there are plenty of possible reasons for that.

Whatever comes to mind...
Strictly wanting a DPS toon.

--> Look we found one, and since I am sure you are still focused on Rangers, you are looking at the highest DPS in game anyway and a level of Monk takes away from that.
--> I will concede the following point, if you are going to max your dex to the point where you are penalised because you cannot wear armour anyway, you would be crazy to not consider a monk splash.

If power was all that mattered to us, there would be far less diversity in Stormreach.

-->Lol depending on what the FOM is. Each mod brings something that absolutely must be nerfed or the world will end etc. [perhaps this is the reason for all those crashes?] Then something else comes out.

Borror0

02-13-2009, 11:05 AM

Clerics give up too much (there are a few around but most would take 2 levels primarily for evasion at a guess)
If they would only go for Evasion, they would go rogue.

Clerics don't "give up too much" for the trade off to be worthwhile, which is all that matters. You said "if you for AC", and it that context I am right.

Rogue would get some benefit out of it even though it would probably lower their bab again, depending on how many levels taken.
Loosing BAB might not really be a bad thing (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=164794), in the first place. To-hit has never really been a rogue concern anyway.

Anyway, loosing DPS is not really all of a bad thing for rogues as they tend to have more DPS potential than they can really dish out.

Pally and Fighter would have extremely poor dps here as they have no FE/tempest to make up for it.
Oh, really? Tell me what would paladins and fighters loose on?

You are looking at the highest DPS in game anyway and a level of Monk takes away from that.
Not sure what your point is, really.

Lol depending on what the FOM is.
You think players roll a dice to decide which build is the FotM?

Oh, by the way, not all FotM need to be nerfed. But, yes, sometimes, the best fix is a nerf or contains a nerf.

Vorn

02-13-2009, 11:14 AM

By feat cost I guess I was thinking that an 18/1/1 gets 7 feats, 8 if human. If you had to tie those up in dodge, mobility, s.a., ascetic ranger, ascetic rogue that only leaves two or three for p.a., c.e., otwf, skill focus umd, twd, improved crit, toughness, khopesh, Otwf, or whatever. Add in a requirement for weapon focus and whirling steel strike for anyone who wants to use non-monk weapons with the full BaB and stances and you have forced folks to make some hard choices and some folks might elect to give up tier 3 tempest, others would give up some ac or hp or to hit,...that's all I was getting at.

Oh, and also we need more/better s/b feats and more/better shields. Totally all over that.
:)

Please return to your regularly scheduled bickering.
:p

Grimlock

02-13-2009, 11:21 AM

Borror0

02-13-2009, 11:37 AM

Why complain if X class is TOO overpowered?
Bonne lecture. (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=159126)

Perhaps you should re-think some characters of your own and re-roll.
Here, take a pill of empathy and comprehension. Seems like you need it.

Deathseeker

02-13-2009, 11:43 AM

Jesus.... Can people on here do anything other than complain or cry? Shall I put on the Deathcab for Cutie music and pass out razorblades now?

Why complain if X class is TOO overpowered? Because you own builds are inept? There are many threads on the forums whining about how broken Rangers are. Quite frankly, its getting old. If you have nothing better to do with your time other than complain about how overpowered or broken a class is, then perhaps you should re-think some characters of your own and re-roll.

1. If the discussion bothers you so much, why would you read it, and then post on it? The title is pretty clear on the thread. Some of us have value for the discussion.
2. Several in this thread are routinely accused of being fanboi's or Turbine lackeys. Your comprehension of the discussion and those having it is way off base.
3. Many of those in this discussion already have the build in question, and most have those with a full compliment of raid loot. Your concept of our motivation is seriously flawed.
4. How about refuting with actual arguments as to why its beneficial to the game to have a build that is beyond what others are in terms of capability. Make an argument as to why mis-balance is good for the game or why that build isnt as unbalanced as we think. Try adding to the discussion.

This thread is our forum for feedback to Turbine on changes we think would be good for the game. Most of this thread is not whining, but rather a rational look at the situation and our opinions on why its good or bad.

Actually, the tone of your post is much more immature than most of the posts in this thread.

Grimlock

02-13-2009, 11:56 AM

I rest my case

krud

02-13-2009, 12:19 PM

I rest my case
/fail

noinfo

02-13-2009, 09:42 PM

If they would only go for Evasion, they would go rogue.

Clerics don't "give up too much" for the trade off to be worthwhile, which is all that matters. You said "if you for AC", and it that context I am right.

--> for ac they would have to have a very high dex to begin with for this to matter, means poor every thing else. So extremely poor hp and st and char and int.
--> to get a good ac you need to have ce, ce drops EVERY time you cast a spell.
-->what is the point of having a good ac if you are not melee? by restricting your stats here you have very limited dps and a very poor to hit unless you burn another feat on finesse.
--> You give up sp and if you go for evasion you miss out on the highest levels of spells currently in the game [not a biggie atm except for those sp which really do matter].

Oh, really? Tell me what would paladins and fighters loose on?

-->DPS and a lot of it, which I would have thought is a major concern.
--> HP and a lot of it
--> Pallies stats would be spread even thinner, lower char for lower ability powers and even lower dps

Oh, by the way, not all FotM need to be nerfed. But, yes, sometimes, the best fix is a nerf or contains a nerf.
-->Can you give me an example where one was based on removal or limiting of a class ability [not enhancement mind you]?

Borror0

02-13-2009, 10:01 PM

for ac they would have to have a very high dex to begin with for this to matter, means poor every thing else.
Wrong. Hafling 10/17/14/9/17/8 could a way to do it.

Dex, Con and Wis are all that matter on that build anyway. What is "everything else"?

to get a good ac you need to have ce, ce drops EVERY time you cast a spell.
Eh, no, since you are not melee good AC is not the same.

You give up sp and if you go for evasion you miss out on the highest levels of spells currently in the game
Miss out on...what exactly? Nothing most will care about. Plus, by level 20, you're missing out on nothing.

You're only missing out on SP, again, your request was "best at AC".

DPS and a lot of it, which I would have thought is a major concern.
Prove it. I doubt it, seriously.

HP and a lot of it
False and utterly wrong. Yes, I had to say both, because that's how inaccurate that is.

Can you give me an example where one was based on removal or limiting of a class ability [not enhancement mind you]?
I don't understand the question.

noinfo

02-13-2009, 11:18 PM

Wrong. Hafling 10/17/14/9/17/8 could a way to do it.

Dex, Con and Wis are all that matter on that build anyway. What is "everything else"?

--> so you give up 2 levels of sp + spell pen, a lower con for less hp, then farm for ac items, for a non melee toon? Good luck with that. I have seen some Cleric/Monks out there but my 28pt normal clerics are not threatened at all and guess what? They are not even halfling or dwarf clerics either.

Eh, no, since you are not melee good AC is not the same.
--> so mobs say, "oh you are not a melee, I won't try as hard to hit you then" ?
--> no at high levels it is a waste to try, you are far better off having a few more hp and then hitting yourself with a quickened heal spell if you have somehow put yourself in melees way.

Miss out on...what exactly? Nothing most will care about. Plus, by level 20, you're missing out on nothing.
You're only missing out on SP, again, your request was "best at AC".
-->No, your request was "over powered". These examples you have provided can achieve really good ac's but the penalty you pay for them is massive and IMO vastly outways the benefits in most cases.

I can just see a Dex based Figher/Monk splash Shroud run. It would be a clerics nightmare and set aside several hours for that, same for Pally.

False and utterly wrong. Yes, I had to say both, because that's how inaccurate that is.
--> I do believe in fairies, I DO, I DO! I had to say that because of how true it is lol.

I don't understand the question.
--> Give me an example where a nerf was required to remove or limit a core class ability and not just an overpowered enhancement or interpretation?

Borror0

02-14-2009, 09:08 AM

These examples you have provided can achieve really good ac's but the penalty you pay for them is massive and IMO vastly outways the benefits in most cases.
I do agree with you, for clericc. I do not think the trade off is worth it, but if you care about AC, which was your set condidtion ("With a ranger (no other class) the best option IMO is to take a splash level, if you are going ac."). If you want to discuss overpowered, fine, but that was not what you had said.

For rogues, paladins, fighters and rangers, monk splash is overpowered. Oh, and don't get me started on druids!

I do believe in fairies, I DO, I DO! I had to say that because of how true it is lol.
Of course, instead of making a nice HP breakdown proving wrong, you just say some silly stuff...

Way to argue...

Give me an example where a nerf was required to remove or limit a core class ability and not just an overpowered enhancement or interpretation?
LOL, do you realize how FAR it is from what you were replying to?

What I originally said was:
"Oh, by the way, not all FotM need to be nerfed. But, yes, sometimes, the best fix is a nerf or contains a nerf."

Why do you ask me this question? Totally unrelated.

noinfo

02-14-2009, 11:05 AM

I do agree with you, for clericc. I do not think the trade off is worth it, but if you care about AC, which was your set condidtion ("With a ranger (no other class) the best option IMO is to take a splash level, if you are going ac."). If you want to discuss overpowered, fine, but that was not what you had said.

--> Sorry about that you are right I did say ac [went back and checked]. However I stand by that for all of those others the trade off for AC is not overpowered as without FE their dps is truely ordinary and casting power is significantly reduced.

Of course, instead of making a nice HP breakdown proving wrong, you just say some silly stuff...
--> Like your reply, where if you said it x2 it had to be true?

For rogues, paladins, fighters and rangers, monk splash is overpowered. Oh, and don't get me started on druids!
--> No it isn't.

We done?

Borror0

02-14-2009, 11:47 AM

[...] without FE their dps is truely ordinary and casting power is significantly reduced.
False or irrelevant, depending on the point you are trying to make.

In each case, monk splash allows the best AC build that class could make. If you imply the opposite, you are wrong. Try build any AC build better than the monk splashed build using the same class as a base, you'll fail each time. Why? Because the trade offs for monk splash are ridiculously small compared to other options offered to you.

If you rather mean that these builds are not overpowered compared to non-AC builds, that's irrelevant. If that is true, it only proves that defensive builds are underpowered (which is something I have been saying since M6, if not before) but not that monk splash is not overpowered.

Of course, instead of making a nice HP breakdown proving wrong, you just say some silly stuff...
Ever heard of burden of proof?

You make an argument, then you have to prove it is true. I don't have to bother proving it wrong.

For rogues, paladins, fighters and rangers, monk splash is overpowered. Oh, and don't get me started on druids!
See above replies.

Oh, and *laugh* at druid/monk not being overpowered.

noinfo

02-14-2009, 12:08 PM

In each case, monk splash allows the best AC build that class could make. If you imply the opposite, you are wrong. Try build any AC build better than the monk splashed build using the same class as a base, you'll fail each time. Why? Because the trade offs for monk splash are ridiculously small compared to other options offered to you.

--> You pull me up for making a statement without evidence, where is the proof for this?

If you rather mean that these builds are not overpowered compared to non-AC builds, that's irrelevant.

--> Why?

If that is true, it only proves that defensive builds are underpowered (which is something I have been saying since M6, if not before) but not that monk splash is not overpowered.

--> Proof?

Ever heard of burden of proof?

--> And yet you provide none for your statements.

You make an argument, then you have to prove it is true. I don't have to bother proving it wrong.

Oh, and *laugh* at druid/monk not being overpowered.

--> Yep, they absolutely ruled in the last speed shroud. Hang on, there were none...

Borror0

02-14-2009, 01:35 PM

In each case, monk splash allows the best AC build that class could make. If you imply the opposite, you are wrong. Try build any AC build better than the monk splashed build using the same class as a base, you'll fail each time. Why? Because the trade offs for monk splash are ridiculously small compared to other options offered to you.
Hope this (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=1865490&postcount=38) will be enough.

Kepp in mind that:
Dex-based TWF will out-DPS a S&B character of the same class.
Monk splash allows higher AC that non-monk splash.

Why?
It only proves that defensive builds are underpowered, not that monk splashed is balanced.

Monk splash gives AC which is, by nature, defensive. There's a trade off. If making the smallest trade off for AC (splashing monk and investing 4 creation points in Wisdom) is underpowered then it means that ANY sacrifice for AC is worthless. Compare monk splashed to S&B and tell me again that it is balanced.

And yet you provide none for your statements.
You say "[You loose on] HP and a lot of it".

I say: "Prove it."

IYep, they absolutely ruled in the last speed shroud. Hang on, there were none..
Haven't downloaded Module 10 yet? (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=165788)

noinfo

02-14-2009, 11:20 PM

Hope this (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=1865490&postcount=38) will be enough.

--> Where does it discuss in depth trade offs? Irrellivant

Kepp in mind that:
Dex-based TWF will out-DPS a S&B character of the same class.
Monk splash allows higher AC that non-monk splash.

--> With weapons currently available, yep, would like to see the numbers on this though. It would be nice to see what type of break down we would get for a straight fighters, one S/B and one dex based 2 weapon fighter using non magical weapons (while not useful for balance purposes it would give an idea of how much weapons cause to unballance it as well)

It only proves that defensive builds are underpowered, not that monk splashed is balanced.
--> How?

Monk splash gives AC which is, by nature, defensive. There's a trade off. If making the smallest trade off for AC (splashing monk and investing 4 creation points in Wisdom) is underpowered then it means that ANY sacrifice for AC is worthless. Compare monk splashed to S&B and tell me again that it is balanced.

You say "[You loose on] HP and a lot of it".

I say: "Prove it."
--> so you are saying that con would not be lower to the point of loosing more hp? And that with stat allocation the con could be lower by 6 or more?

Haven't downloaded Module 10 yet? (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=165788)
lol sorry Bor haven't had time for that...

Borror0

02-14-2009, 11:57 PM

Where does it discuss in depth trade offs? Irrellivant
I thought you were able to do the analysis yourself.

Monk splashed builds have:

Evasion
Better AC
Better DPS

So, tell me, what do S&B have?

Don't tell shield blocking, TWF builds can do that as well.

With weapons currently available, yep, would like to see the numbers on this though.
When monks were released, I told everyone that even they were out-DPSing my S&B intimitank (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=1744904#post1744904).

I think it gives you an idea of how far behind S&B is. Others get access to better weapons and other abilities favoring TWF...

How?
If you think that even the best AC build sucks, then I think it means there is a problem with AC builds. Agreed?

so you are saying that con would not be lower to the point of loosing more hp? And that with stat allocation the con could be lower by 6 or more?
HP will be lower. Significantly? Not really.

noinfo

02-15-2009, 06:43 AM

Bor we have covered the other parts of your post and gone around and around on them, I am going to leave it at that.

If you think that even the best AC build sucks, then I think it means there is a problem with AC builds. Agreed?
--> I said that they would have to lose significant DPS and HP. Does that mean they suck? No, it depends on what you want to achieve.

--> Is there a problem with AC builds in general yes, there are quite a few issues with them. Quite frankly I am not going to list my opinions on them in case you disagree and I get sucked into another hundred pages :-).

Borror0

02-15-2009, 07:32 AM

I said that they would have to lose significant DPS and HP. Does that mean they suck? No, it depends on what you want to achieve.
Not true, when comparing to a S&B character, which is why monk splash is overpowered.

krud

02-15-2009, 08:18 AM

Why not follow PnP and allow (pure) monks to use any weapon and retain their monk abilities? The only thing a monk gives up in PnP by not using monk weapons is their flurry of blows, and a ki strike. Why all this bending over backwards to justify the kama? If you are going to add all this centered garbage to force monks into a certain setup, then why not do the same for splashes? What is the purpose of being centered?

Borror0

02-15-2009, 08:35 AM

If you are going to add all this centered garbage to force monks into a certain setup, then why not do the same for splashes?
It wouldn't fix everything. Oh sure, it'd end the monk splash with high DPS like Monster or Exploiter, but it would not fix the problem (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2055211#post2055211).

krud

02-15-2009, 09:40 AM

It wouldn't fix everything. Oh sure, it'd end the monk splash with high DPS like Monster or Exploiter, but it would not fix the problem (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2055211#post2055211).
I was kinda being facetious. I wondered what would people think if monks could use any weapon; dual wield khopeshes and rapiers without penalty. Would people complain it's too overpowered? How would it compare to the rgr/mnk splash? It's probably balanced fairly well with a pure ranger, but add in the monk splash and it falls behind. Doesn't that give some indication how overpowered that 1 mnk splash is?

I still think the solution is to not remove the wis AC bonus, but not make it so much of a no brainer. If the wis AC bonus required being centered, and granted only 2x monk level AC bonus if uncentered, that would be a good compromise. Also give back the tempest AC but make it separate from tempest (with tempest and TWD as prereq). That would still give rgr/mnk the option of max AC but requires more investment. They could go with a little less AC, and have a feat, AP or level to spare. The options would still be available to them, but not without some serious consideration about trade-offs. Take more monk for more AC, but then you might have to give up the 1 rog. Go with less AC but then open up the 1 rog option, and so on. It would open a lot more variety even among the rgr/monk splashes, while not nerfing it into oblivion.

Borror0

02-15-2009, 11:02 AM

I still think the solution is to not remove the wis AC bonus, but not make it so much of a no brainer.
No brainer compared to what? And also, what compared to what?

What choice(s) do you think should not be a no brainer:

Str-based DPS w/ monk splash compared to Str-based DPS w/o monk splash?
Str-based DPS w/ monk splash compared to S&B?
Dex-based w/ monk splash compared to Str-based DPS w/o monk splash?
Dex-based w/ monk splash compared Dex-based w/o monk splash?
Dex-based w/ monk splash compared to S&B?

And, of those you listed, which do you think would be fixed by what you suggest?

All of them?

krud

02-15-2009, 11:57 AM

No brainer compared to what? And also, what compared to what?

What choice(s) do you think should not be a no brainer:

Str-based DPS w/ monk splash compared to Str-based DPS w/o monk splash?
Str-based DPS w/ monk splash compared to S&B?
Dex-based w/ monk splash compared to Str-based DPS w/o monk splash?
Dex-based w/ monk splash compared Dex-based w/o monk splash?
Dex-based w/ monk splash compared to S&B?
And, of those you listed, which do you think would be fixed by what you suggest?

All of them?
The obvious cutoff is 18rgr for tempest 3, so I will focus on that as the ranger break point. I'll compare whatever rgr/mnk combo is currently in use to how it would be affected by this proposal. Right now the best option is 18rgr/1mnk/1rog regardless of dex or str build. They get full wisdom AC bonus, full umd and rogue skills and give up what? one FE and a capstone. That's the no-brainer part, why go pure ranger? why go more than 1 monk?

With this proposal if they choose to keep using their max dps weapon setup, then they are limited to wis AC bonus of 2 if they splash 1 monk (they lose ~2-4 AC). They can make up some of it by taking TWD and spending some AP for the tempest AC. The trade-off for more AC is to spend a feat they normally never take (TWD) and a few AP. The idea of TWD as a prereq for tempest AC makes sense thematically.

Now what are the options left for a monk splash? Take another level of monk to raise your wis AC bonus to 4. That effectively cuts them out of taking 1 rog if they want tempest3. If they want max AC they still have to spend the feat and AP for it. Still uber, but not without cost, more than they currently give up.

Nobody is ever going to agree to a total removal of the wis AC bonus. A change like that will most certainly require a respec option. If there is no respec, then it will **** off a large portion of the player base. How much more work would it be to nerf it completely and add a respec, versus just tweaking it down a little? If you think the wis AC bonus is still too high then make it 1x or 1+1x monk level if uncentered. This way there isn't such a pressing need to demand a respec with a wis AC nerf.

I'm not even going to attempt to address s&b here because there is so much that is wrong with s&b. Any fix for rgr/mnk splashes still does nothing for s&b.

Borror0

02-15-2009, 12:15 PM

Any fix for rgr/mnk splashes still does nothing for s&b.
False. The more powerful rngr/monk splash is, the harder it is to improve S&B.

krud

02-15-2009, 12:23 PM

False. The more powerful rngr/monk splash is, the harder it is to improve S&B.
That's just great. All that typing and you can only respond to one line? How about addressing some of the specifics?

Borror0

02-15-2009, 12:54 PM

That's just great. All that typing and you can only respond to one line? How about addressing some of the specifics?
Like what? I think I summarized it all, really.

As for the putting a cap to monk AC, how is that NOT a nerf requiring respec? Seems like you're already agreeing with me.

branmakmuffin

02-15-2009, 01:16 PM

That's just great. All that typing and you can only respond to one line? How about addressing some of the specifics?
Well, you know, people who pick out one line to respond to from one of his posts are being dishonest. When he does it, it's perfectly OK.

Welcome to Borror0's World(tm).

Borror0

02-15-2009, 01:28 PM

Well, you know, people who pick out one line to respond to from one of his posts are being dishonest. When he does it, it's perfectly OK.
We all have our double standards and I don't think the comparison you make is correct.

Anyway.

branmakmuffin

02-15-2009, 01:44 PM

We all have our double standards and I don't think the comparison you make is correct.

Anyway.
J'comprend pas.

Borror0

02-15-2009, 01:47 PM

J'comprend pas.
Nothing important.

krud

02-15-2009, 01:52 PM

Like what? I think I summarized it all, really.

As for the putting a cap to monk AC, how is that NOT a nerf requiring respec? Seems like you're already agreeing with me.
The tempest shield nerf did not elicit a huge demand for respec. Smaller incremental changes and appropriate costs will not necessitate a respec if there still is some worthwhile benefit to going monk. Completely remove it and a respec is most certainly needed. What are the chances that we going to see a respec option? be honest. ZERO! there's your answer.

No sense in addressing only the AC side of the issue when it comes to s&b. Even if you remove the monk splash from the picture, s&b still sux compared to pure ranger and most other TWF styles. I am extremely dissappointed in the supposed boosts to pally and ftr s&b. They are pigeonholing every single shield wielder into an intimitank. Oh yay! score one for more variety:rolleyes:. They will still suck at dps,especially when compared to TWF. Any other change to balance s&b is going to have to be on the dps side, none of which involve the monk splash.

The monk splash AC issue should be addressed only as far as it affects builds with and without it. Compare the trade offs to a pure ranger and it might be easier to make changes that won't send everyone screaming for a never-gonna-be-implemented respec.

Allow the bonus in some form, but make it more costly and you limit the need for a respec. Smaller uncentered AC bonus tied to monk level is one way. Giving tempests their (untyped) AC bonus, but make it more costly with feats and AP is another way to alleviate the sting of the nerf, especially for those 1 wiz splashes. Try coming up with some appropriate costs and a wis AC nerf might be implemented. Shoot to nerf it all, and it never will, or at least not without a very bad response from the player base.

branmakmuffin

02-15-2009, 01:52 PM

Nothing important.
No entiendo.

krud

02-15-2009, 01:59 PM

No entiendo.
can we please get on with the discussion?

branmakmuffin

02-15-2009, 02:08 PM

can we please get on with the discussion?
Only if you post something in a language other than English.

Borror0

02-15-2009, 04:07 PM

Smaller incremental changes and appropriate costs will not necessitate a respec if there still is some worthwhile benefit to going monk.
You have missed the question: how is what you suggest not a nerf?

Smaller incremental changes and appropriate costs will not necessitate a respec if there still is some worthwhile benefit to going monk.
Oh, sure, the trade off will be more balanced. Heck, done carefully, it will be one of many good builds that can be built.

One problem arises, though, people will still be frustrated because that will not be what they have built the character for. The way the character will behave, post-nerf, will be entirely different from what it was planned for. As a result, people will be upset. Let's face it, it is currently unacceptable for a TWF character to have nearly maximum DPS and have some of the highest AC in the game while having Evasion, high saves and more than decent HP. Something will have to change and in 99% of the possible scenarios, a lot of people will be upset. In the one remaining percentage, a few will be upset.

We're not making a class or race less powerful, but questioning the value of a multiclass and investment of creation points. Those, for now, cannot be changed and it won't matter to many players if the build remains powerful: it is not what it was designed for. Pretending otherwise would mean to accept that power is the only criteria used by all DDO players when building their character, which is an indefensible position.

Even if you remove the monk splash from the picture, s&b still sux compared to pure ranger and most other TWF styles.
True, I have been saying this for over a year (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=140656) now. What is your point?

Are you saying nerfing monk splash's AC will not help? That would be false.

If you nerf the top AC builds around, S&B becomes much easier to balance. I have covered that before in the past and we have even talked about it together. And, you're agreeing with me. Otherwise, you'd be here boosting every other options but you are here suggesting nerfs.

Or, am I getting your point wrong?

I am extremely dissappointed in the supposed boosts to pally and ftr s&b.
Let me ask you: what boost to S&B paladins and fighters?

They are pigeonholing every single shield wielder into an intimitank.
Given real-time gaming, that is the only way to do it.

At least, there is got to be a way to draw aggro and if that is what you mean by pigeonholing into an intimitank, then there is no other way around it. If there is no way for one to draw aggro, then his AC is worthless in a group. Most of the time, someone else will have the aggro and the AC will be wasted. Cleaving mobs might address that, a bit, but such encounters are hard to balance as shown by the Shroud (assuming the intend of Harry's Cleaves was to make lower AC worthwhile).

Paladins, in their current implementation, offer a non-Intimidate way of grabbing aggro. So, in that way, S&B characters are not forced into becoming intimitanks. It's just that it is the best way to play a S&B character. Intimidate gains you so much and the cost is so little. There would need to be serious additions to the game for there to be any kind of non-intimitank S&B character.

That much effort is not warranted, for the moment. There are more pressing issues.

Any other change to balance s&b is going to have to be on the dps side, none of which involve the monk splash.
There is a need to improve DPS, but the defensive capabilities of S&B characters are still lacking (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2055211#post2055211).

Shoot to nerf it all, and it never will, or at least not without a very bad response from the player base.
This may sound like a silly question, but you do realize you are simply restating one solution that I have supported to nerf monk splash, right?

Oh, and I hope this is enough text for you this time.

Auran82

02-15-2009, 07:03 PM

As far as I'm concerned the biggest culprits here is the system this game is based off and also the strict adherence to this system in some areas, but not others (here I am referring to things like +5 being the max for armour, but at the same time we have stupidly inflated stats, which means one type of AC build who relys on armour is restricted, while the other who relies on stats ends up with much higher numbers)

In PnP having a static number for AC where you will either be hit for full damage, or missed entirely works fine because of how PnP encounters are typically set out and how character/gear progression usually works.

In an MMO on the other hand where people want to want to get a feeling of advancing their character and as such, things like AC/SP/DPS/HP etc will be forever going up, the problem arises when the max AC achievable (and at the same time, enemy attack bonuses) start getting to stupid levels and because of this, the classes who typically have low ac have a significantly lower ac than the upper levels as such they get hit 95% of the time no matter what (blur and displacement start to not count too because it seems nearly every enemy we come accross has some kind of true seeing.) Then you have the middle range ACs around 50 or so, which is still quite reasonable, but when encounters are balanced around the 70 - 80 ac range (which seems to be where things are heading), the character may as well be running around naked. Another culprit of this is the static hit bonuses in the game instead of the penalties on subsequent attacks found in PnP which gives those with a lower AC a chance.

Something needs to be done about AC in general, at the moment the thinking seems to be boosting fighters/paladins through PREs which seems to be the wrong way to go because it simply widens the gap that mid ac characters can't match. Other things have been suggested in the past like passive DR based on type of armour/shield worn (above adamantine etc) Maybe some slight deviation from PnP is required here, in PnP things have to be kept relatively simple so it can be worked out, in an MMO we have a computer here to work everything out for us, why not make use of it?

Continued inflation really wont solve anything.

As a side note, in some ways the 'AC' system employed in D20 doesn't make a lot of sense to me, a heavily armoured figher with a shield is trying to use the armour to absorb attacks or block the attack with their shield (or really, parry the attack with their weapon) where as the nimble character is simply trying to not get hit, but at the same time attacks pretty much either hit for full damage, or miss and do nothing, there is no inbetween.