Devs, remove SP penalty tied to Combat Expertise

[sephiroth1084]

When CE got changed to not turn off when casting spells, it was instead given a penalty that doubles SP costs while it's active. This penalty is overly punitive, and really only affects 2 character types: AC paladins and AC rangers. Fighters, rogues and monks are entirely unaffected, and aside from some very off-beat combinations, no one else is going to be running around with both Combat Expertise and spells.

I don't know if you're afraid of a wizard gaining both AC and spells, but that really doesn't seem like it should be a major concern, given how difficult it is to get enough AC to matter on a caster, and how much doing so detracts from the other focuses of the character (AC gear takes up a lot of space that would otherwise be devoted to improving spellcasting in some way).

Whatever the intent was, I believe that the penalty is entirely unnecessary. Characters putting up Combat Expertise are already taking a penalty, because they aren't using Power Attack, and this game definitely skews toward DPS more and more as you level. The change to the way Intimidate functions only further supports this statement.

Please, just remove any extraneous penalties on Combat Expertise; losing 5-10 damage per swing, the multiplied hate value derived from that extra damage and the -5 attack penalty are enough.

[EDIT] In light of the fact that the devs have come out and stated that they are looking to address some of the problems with AC in the game, though how exactly is still unknown, I'll say that, if AC is being revamped to be accessible and useful to everyone some penalty on Combat Expertise would be reasonable, but not the doubled spell point cost it carries currently. It's not more powerful than Quicken, Heighten or Maximize, and should therefore not cost so much more than they do. If the devs really feel that it needs to carry such weight, give it a 10 SP cost, like other metamagics, or have it get suppressed for a few seconds after casting a spell, or have it increase the cost of spells based on their level, making lvl 5 and higher spells increasingly expensive, essentially putting a clamp on casters that are also picking up AC, while leaving paladins and rangers without such a severe penalty.

[LookingForABentoBox]

How would your decision affect casters from level 1-10, where it's easier to get a workable AC?

[redspecter23]

I want to assume that the line of thinking was that for a caster, wizard in particular, the "penalty" of -5 attack would never come into play as they would be simply casting spells instead of engaging in melee. Therefore an additional penalty had to be added. This thought is flawed in 2 ways. In lower level content where the +5 ac could actually matter, casters are actually using melee weapons and -5 attack would be a massive downside and in addition to that, the +3 ac gained by having CE over defensive fighting won't matter much. You can get a good lowbie ac without it. For higher content you could still potentially have a reasonable ac on a caster using CE if you wanted to, but at that point it's going to cost you in gear slots that you should be devoting to caster gear if you want to actually cast exclusively at that point.

Long story short, if you're meleeing (battlecaster, ranger, paladin) the -5 attack (and potential loss of power attack) is penalty enough and if you're casting (wizard, sorcerer), your ac will have a rough time getting to a useful level without losing casting power in a gear slot somewhere.

[Kza]

/signed

[chodelord]

Signed SO hard.

If a caster spends one of his meager slots on CE to be harder to hit then he deserves it. Having to manually turn off CE then turn it back on just to make my poor s&b pal's spell pool last between shrines is just added tedium, it doesn't help gameplay in the slightest.

So what if a wizard is unhittable in delaras? Non-specialized AC becomes effectively useless past level 12ish.

CE has two inherent penalties, 1 it costs a feat, 2 you can't simultaneously use power attack.

[sephiroth1084]

How would your decision affect casters from level 1-10, where it's easier to get a workable AC?


I want to assume that the line of thinking was that for a caster, wizard in particular, the "penalty" of -5 attack would never come into play as they would be simply casting spells instead of engaging in melee. Therefore an additional penalty had to be added. This thought is flawed in 2 ways. In lower level content where the +5 ac could actually matter, casters are actually using melee weapons and -5 attack would be a massive downside and in addition to that, the +3 ac gained by having CE over defensive fighting won't matter much. You can get a good lowbie ac without it. For higher content you could still potentially have a reasonable ac on a caster using CE if you wanted to, but at that point it's going to cost you in gear slots that you should be devoting to caster gear if you want to actually cast exclusively at that point.

Long story short, if you're meleeing (battlecaster, ranger, paladin) the -5 attack (and potential loss of power attack) is penalty enough and if you're casting (wizard, sorcerer), your ac will have a rough time getting to a useful level without losing casting power in a gear slot somewhere.
This covers that concern pretty thoroughly.

I'll add to red's post that a character can typically gain enough AC from level 1-6 to not be hit much without CE, and after level 6 many casters will have Spell-like abilities that they are likely to lean on while leveling, which aren't affected by this change.

Further, balancing a feat around its impact in the first 5-8 levels on characters unlikely to retain the feat for the rest of the game is a very poor design decision. Clerics, favored souls and sorcerers are unlikely to be able to qualify for the feat, let alone take it. Bards and wizards may well qualify, but are also unlikely to take it, since getting through those early levels isn't all that difficult and is very fast. After that point, maintaining AC is rather difficult, and hedges out other important equipment. Therefore, if a bard or wizard wants to sacrifice some of their primary capabilities in order to maintain AC, I don't see the problem with their using CE--they are giving up something in either case.

In any case, the number of characters who primarily cast spells as a primary role and pick up CE (and can make use of CE) represents a very small percentage of all the characters using CE. The much larger section affected by the SP penalty are paladins and rangers who use their SP to either self-buff or self-heal, the latter of which tends to require a rather heavy investment to make useful, and they are the ones being penalized the most.

If the devs are that concerned about casters running around with 5 more AC at no -4 attack bonus, they can treat it like a metamagic and have it add 10 SP to the cost of casting a spell. Why is CE more expensive currently than MAXIMIZE or HEIGHTEN? Certainly it isn't adding anywhere near the same amount of power to a caster. At most, Maximize costs 25 SP, and Heighten 40 SP, while CE can cost anywhere from 20 to 100 extra SP. How is that reasonable?

[Aashrym]

How would your decision affect casters from level 1-10, where it's easier to get a workable AC?

You mean when many of them are buffing and attacking with an axe instead of casting spells? The to hit penalty kicks in then. ;)

Most casters in those levels still can't afford to blow SP thru a whole quest and it's not until at least lvl 6 with SLA's etc they might start. In the meantime that caster still lost a feat the he could have used for something better than just an AC bonus.

/signed.

[Velexia]

Signed. I'd rather it turned off when a spell is cast, if nothing else, because I keep forgetting to turn it off and ouch...

[Valindria]

I don't have any toons with the feat so if this is dumb, I am sorry.

What if they made it takes 2 or 3 times as long to cast spells when active instead of more SP?

[Junts]

I don't have any toons with the feat so if this is dumb, I am sorry.

What if they made it takes 2 or 3 times as long to cast spells when active instead of more SP?

That would also really suck - thin kabout how much dps time you'd lose recasting zeal/divine favor - it'd prbably take like 3 seconds for those animations at double speed, much less triple.

The problem is that CE is uberconservative for fear of ac clonks and wizards or something, but the only people who have it are rangers and paladins with small sp pools who get demolished recasting their temporary buffs (especially paladins, who have several of those).

[sephiroth1084]

Signed. I'd rather it turned off when a spell is cast, if nothing else, because I keep forgetting to turn it off and ouch...
No. This was an incredibly irritating functionality, and its getting removed was a good idea. Adding a penalty to replace this was a poor idea.

I don't have any toons with the feat so if this is dumb, I am sorry.

What if they made it takes 2 or 3 times as long to cast spells when active instead of more SP?
There is simply no reason to have such a massive penalty tacked onto this feat. Again, if the devs feel it is that important for the feat to penalize characters casting spells, have it add 10 SP to the cost of your spells. It certainly isn't more powerful on a caster than Quicken, Maximize, Empower or Heighten, so why should it carry a heavier penalty?

[Valindria]

That would also really suck - thin kabout how much dps time you'd lose recasting zeal/divine favor - it'd prbably take like 3 seconds for those animations at double speed, much less triple.

The problem is that CE is uberconservative for fear of ac clonks and wizards or something, but the only people who have it are rangers and paladins with small sp pools who get demolished recasting their temporary buffs (especially paladins, who have several of those).

fair enough. I was thinking the casting speed was increased for paladin spells but I could be off. My thought was based of of new spell casting faster or

New Spell Cast + CE Penalty = Old Spell Cast Speed.

Still might be a bad idea, I was just throwing it out there for discussion.

[Maegin]

When CE got changed to not turn off when casting spells, it was instead given a penalty that doubles SP costs while it's active. This penalty is overly punitive, and really only affects 2 character types: AC paladins and AC rangers. Fighters, rogues and monks are entirely unaffected, and aside from some very off-beat combinations, no one else is going to be running around with both Combat Expertise and spells.

I don't know if you're afraid of a wizard gaining both AC and spells, but that really doesn't seem like it should be a major concern, given how difficult it is to get enough AC to matter on a caster, and how much doing so detracts from the other focuses of the character (AC gear takes up a lot of space that would otherwise be devoted to improving spellcasting in some way).

Whatever the intent was, I believe that the penalty is entirely unnecessary. Characters putting up Combat Expertise are already taking a penalty, because they aren't using Power Attack, and this game definitely skews toward DPS more and more as you level. The change to the way Intimidate functions only further supports this statement.

Please, just remove any extraneous penalties on Combat Expertise; losing 5-10 damage per swing, the multiplied hate value derived from that extra damage and the -5 attack penalty are enough.

No. Your not even supposed to be casting spells in CE. If you must, there WILL be penalty.

[chodelord]

No. Your not even supposed to be casting spells in CE. If you must, there WILL be penalty.

Why? It isn't "realistic", it isn't like pen and paper?

You are wrong. There is no other way to say it.

CE already has costs. 13 int prereq is a big cost for most builds. A feat slot is a big cost for anyone except fighter or monk and even then a feat slot = 20 hp. Finally the biggest cost is the massive melee damage hit from not using power attack, and being ineligible for rage and inspire recklessness.

But if the developers still have an irrational fear of wizards and clerics with combat expertise they should just make the penalty -20% magic damage and healing instead of spell point cost.

[sephiroth1084]

No. Your not even supposed to be casting spells in CE. If you must, there WILL be penalty.
You want to qualify that with some reasons? Some support? Other than, "In PnP you can only use CE when attacking, and therefore can't use it with spellcasting?" The "it's different from PnP" argument died a long time ago for DDO.

[Trillea]

You want to qualify that with some reasons? Some support? Other than, "In PnP you can only use CE when attacking, and therefore can't use it with spellcasting?" The "it's different from PnP" argument died a long time ago for DDO.

Sure - low level AC is so easy to get that having no casting penalty to combat expertise would completely trivialize levels 1-7 for casters even more, which would be bad for the game.

[redspecter23]

You can already get a "hit only on a 20" ac on a caster for level 1-7. Your argument that it will break the game is invalid.

[Aaxeyu]

Sure - low level AC is so easy to get that having no casting penalty to combat expertise would completely trivialize levels 1-7 for casters even more, which would be bad for the game.

Make CE require 4 bab, problem solved. Not that a caster is better of taking CE instead of a feat that actually boost casting anyways. It's really a non-issue.

[Jahmin]

/signed

Another spectacular turbine failure - typical :rolleyes:

[Phidius]

...
But if the developers still have an irrational fear of wizards and clerics with combat expertise they should just make the penalty -20% magic damage and healing instead of spell point cost.

I must say, this sounds very sexy to me. It would remove the mechanic that Turbine admitted was too punitive (when they left Defensive Fighting alone), yet still give me motivation to turn it off when I'm in full-bore healing mode.

Or just change CE to double the base cost of the spell before metamagics instead of after. To be perfectly honest, I'd rather take a reduction in damage, as most of my "oh-I-left-CE-on" moments involves buffing.

[Junts]

Why? It isn't "realistic", it isn't like pen and paper?

You are wrong. There is no other way to say it.

CE already has costs. 13 int prereq is a big cost for most builds. A feat slot is a big cost for anyone except fighter or monk and even then a feat slot = 20 hp. Finally the biggest cost is the massive melee damage hit from not using power attack, and being ineligible for rage and inspire recklessness.

But if the developers still have an irrational fear of wizards and clerics with combat expertise they should just make the penalty -20% magic damage and healing instead of spell point cost.

ranger and paladin csw builds say boo hiss bad.

[sephiroth1084]

Sure - low level AC is so easy to get that having no casting penalty to combat expertise would completely trivialize levels 1-7 for casters even more, which would be bad for the game.It isn't already? I can't imagine that it could get more trivial simply with the addition of a little AC. Also, is CE tied to BAB as it's supposed to be? If so, that would be +0 AC for lvl 1, +1 for level 2 and 3, +2 for 4 and 5 (that's 5 levels where defensive fighting does basically the same thing). Also, how many casters are having an easy time with level 1-7 without using a melee weapon? And if they are using a melee weapon, how many wouldn't be hurting really badly with a -5 penalty on their attack rolls?



Make CE require 4 bab, problem solved. Not that a caster is better of taking CE instead of a feat that actually boost casting anyways. It's really a non-issue.Not bad, but that locks out the possibility of melees taking CE before level 4 (or 6 for a non-fighter).

I'd like the devs to just release CE without any further penalties on Lama and see if it's as problematic as people think it is.


ranger and paladin csw builds say boo hiss bad.
Yeah.

[sweez]

You guys are worried about overpowered AC-casters in level 1-10 content? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Casters at those levels are mostly swinging a Carnifex anyway, - to attack would punish them pretty severely.

/signed

[Beethoven]

/signed.

I don't even see the necessity for a penalty, double SP cost seems sort of over the top.


No. Your not even supposed to be casting spells in CE. If you must, there WILL be penalty.

But you are supposed to use scrolls in CE? I find no sane reason or explanation why a character should be able to scroll a spell in CE (without penalty) but casting the spell comes at an extreme cost.


Sure - low level AC is so easy to get that having no casting penalty to combat expertise would completely trivialize levels 1-7 for casters even more, which would be bad for the game.

It doesn't trivialize the levels 1-7 any more than access to maximize that turns several damage spells into insta-kills (and is cheaper on top). Soon we even get SLA's that come at very little cost (even with metamagics on) and SP regen (echoes of power). CE was never really popular with casters and never will be since there are so many better feats for them.

Turbine's rationale had nothing to do with game balance (as they themselves stated in the original thread about the change) and everything with "keeping with the thematic aspect of CE being detrimental to casting spells". I find it non-sensical though since the same time they allow for scrolls to be used and even without any penalty.

What makes things more problematic is how easy it is to forget turn it off. It is also not very true to the DnD theme that casters forget they are so pre-occupied with defending themselves they have a hard time casting a spell.

[TiranBlade]

Whoa Whoa WHOA!, hold the phone, you're all complaining because Turbine threw everyone a bone by letting them be able to cast spells while in CE mode, when before you couldn't use it at all?

Sure it's got a penalty but the original imagining for CE didn't allow the bonus when you were not techincally fighting in combat (ie Melee/Ranged) hence giving up use of your accuracy to ensure a greater defense. When casting a spell you are supposed to be concentrating on the spell hence leaving you open to take damage. At least that sounds realistic to me.

It's my opinion that Turbine did some good by letting spells work while defending yourself, it just takes greater power to do so. Showing how much effert you yourself are putting into defending yourself, hence making it harder to cast. It does make sense in a sense.

I know a lot of you don't agree, and I can't fault your logic, but this is my thought proccess on it.

BTW, hey everyone it's been a good long while!

TiranBlade, Timekiller

[sephiroth1084]

You can use clickies, wands, potions, scrolls, spell-like abilities, dragonmarks, supernatural non-combat abilities (like Lay On Hands), emotes, doors, switches, levers and valves while CE is up with no penalty whatsoever. How is any of that different from casting Divine Favor, Zeal or Cure Serious Wounds?

[sigtrent]

signed

Good idea, the balance concerns in Tabletop make sense for CE but in DDO it's not really an issue.

[TiranBlade]

You can use clickies, wands, potions, scrolls, spell-like abilities, dragonmarks, supernatural non-combat abilities (like Lay On Hands), emotes, doors, switches, levers and valves while CE is up with no penalty whatsoever. How is any of that different from casting Divine Favor, Zeal or Cure Serious Wounds?

You bring up a good point, but at the same time, you can look at it like with wands for example.

Clickies like wands, scrolls, and potions are a simple trigger item, no harm no fowl, you point and speak, and boom effect.

Emotes, doors, switches, levers, and valves can all be moved while defending your self, no "offensive combat" requirement there, so no loss.

Supernatural Abilities non-combats, same boat.

Spell-like abilities/dragonmarks are more instantanious, require no verbal or symantic component, and can be interrupted like any spell, but rather than having to draw on other energy sources, the source is already available at your hand, with no prep, and no drawing. It's either a blood-line/racial ability or something that comes with extreme supernatural source outside the normal means of spellcasting.

Your bringing up different things that have completely different situations. But in essence, spells require a person to draw on power from either around them or from within, as part of defending yourself you would draw on more power to say, hasten your casting to be more successfull, without leaving yourself quite as open.

It's not the only possible explaination for why it would be reasonable that you draw double power. But it's not really right nor wrong.

TiranBlade, Time Killer

[Atree]

... no one else is going to be running around with both Combat Expertise and spells.

....

Did anyone mention the Valiance build yet? You know, the one that solo'd VoD?

AFAIK Clonks and monk-splashed FVS are not that uncommon, and I can definitely see the advantages of having CE on while raid-healing and suchlike.

A to-hit penalty isn't much of a biggie in either of those cases, whereas increased spell costs will be quite pronounced.

[ahpook]

Make CE require 4 bab, problem solved. Not that a caster is better of taking CE instead of a feat that actually boost casting anyways. It's really a non-issue.

This isn't a bad idea. I was going to pitch something similar: a -5 to all spell DCs. Assuming that any penalty is needed at all at least it target the potential problem rather than innocent bystander.


Whoa Whoa WHOA!, hold the phone, you're all complaining because Turbine threw everyone a bone by letting them be able to cast spells while in CE mode, when before you couldn't use it at all?

Sure it's got a penalty but the original imagining for CE didn't allow the bonus when you were not techincally fighting in combat (ie Melee/Ranged) hence giving up use of your accuracy to ensure a greater defense. When casting a spell you are supposed to be concentrating on the spell hence leaving you open to take damage. At least that sounds realistic to me.

It's my opinion that Turbine did some good by letting spells work while defending yourself, it just takes greater power to do so. Showing how much effert you yourself are putting into defending yourself, hence making it harder to cast. It does make sense in a sense.

I know a lot of you don't agree, and I can't fault your logic, but this is my thought proccess on it.

BTW, hey everyone it's been a good long while!

TiranBlade, Timekiller

The problem is that going in and out of stance is relatively painless in PnP BUT very awkward and costly in DDO. Therefore the magnanimity of the devs doesn't come through as you envision. Another possible workable model would be to temporarily turn off CE for 2 to 6 seconds after casting and then reapplying it after that time.

[TiranBlade]

The problem is that going in and out of stance is relatively painless in PnP BUT very awkward and costly in DDO. Therefore the magnanimity of the devs doesn't come through as you envision.

Ah, I see, I missed that in my original scan of this thread.....

.....apologies are in order for that.

I do see the point in this though, using spells as purely buff needing, then turning on CE to fight, then turning back off to cast, it does sound a bit tiresome, it does pose a hinderance. I will admit I see that now.


This isn't a bad idea. I was going to pitch something similar: a -5 to all spell DCs. Assuming that any penalty is needed at all at least it target the potential problem rather than innocent bystander. .

While the DC solution, is a nice one, not all spells I think run off of them, or do the offensives spells all have a DC?

If they do, then the DC negative would be the best solution for the offensive capabilites as seeing that CE only affects offensive for melee and ranged characters, nothing to do with the defensive aspect/healing aspect of anything.

True enough, and a good idea.


Another possible workable model would be to temporarily turn off CE for 2 to 6 seconds after casting and then reapplying it after that time.

This is also another great idea, but probably one that is difficult to code into the game compared to the DC change, however I think the best Idea if possible.


Make CE require 4 bab, problem solved. Not that a caster is better of taking CE instead of a feat that actually boost casting anyways. It's really a non-issue.

I however disagree with the increase in BAB requirement because for the builds that use it, it would cause a lot of issues with needing to be respeced and would make feat slots even harder on some characters. At least that's my logic on it.

So, apologies to everyone who is trying to come up with a decent solution to an issue that I didn't realize was the core of the arguement, and I hope you manage to get something, which I now agree with needs to be done, done.

Thanks for listening and good luck,
TiranBlade, Time Killer

[Phidius]

This isn't a bad idea. I was going to pitch something similar: a -5 to all spell DCs. Assuming that any penalty is needed at all at least it target the potential problem rather than innocent bystander.
...

I can get behind this idea.

Make it so.

[Tirisha]

Double cost is a bit much shouldn't it be like 10?

[sephiroth1084]

Did anyone mention the Valiance build yet? You know, the one that solo'd VoD? What's your point? VoD has also been soloed by a pure wizard, an Exploiter build, and I'm sure several other characters, at least half of which didn't bother with AC at all. How many potions did the Valiance build use to solo VoD? How many more would it have used with the double cost on CE (I'm assuming it has CE, because if it doesn't whatever point you're trying to make is moot).



AFAIK Clonks and monk-splashed FVS are not that uncommon, and I can definitely see the advantages of having CE on while raid-healing and suchlike.

A to-hit penalty isn't much of a biggie in either of those cases, whereas increased spell costs will be quite pronounced.While this is true, many of them have enough AC without CE, and haven't got many feats to spare, let alone the 3-5 build points to get their Int up high enough to take it. The feat already comes with some pretty significant costs.

[Emili]

For the longest of time. To me (and I used to build AC tanks at one time) CE is a prereq to Improved Trip (I like quick cooldowns) nothing much more. ;)

[Beethoven]

Whoa Whoa WHOA!, hold the phone, you're all complaining because Turbine threw everyone a bone by letting them be able to cast spells while in CE mode, when before you couldn't use it at all?

Turbine threw a bone to those who make heavy use of scrolls and clickies. They stated themselves the way their code works makes it very hard for the game to differentiate where a spell comes from (cast, scroll or clicky) and they wanted to stick with the theme casting in CE is hard. Now, while I understand their point double SP cost hardly make it a beneficial for those relying on actually casting.

So, in other words, it was a huge boost for rogue splashes/UMD users that have workable AC. It made things harder for most others as particularly Paladins and Rangers simply don't have the SP pool to afford casting while CE is on. It changed <cast> and <turn CE back on> to <turn CE off>, <cast>, <turn CE back on>.



Clickies like wands, scrolls, and potions are a simple trigger item, no harm no fowl, you point and speak, and boom effect.

You are spot on as far as clickies are concerned. However, last I checked that's /not/ how scrolls work. You do not point a scroll and say "go" to invoke its magical properties. They have a casting time (similar to, but not exactly the same as spells) to resemble you unfolding it, reciting the mystical symbals scribbled on it to invoke the magical powers stored within. That's the very reason scroll usage can be interupted.

It's certainly true there are some spells that may be more complex than scrolls, but the same holds true the other way around too. Casting Power Word: <whatever> for example is significantly easier than scolling a Heal spell.



Did anyone mention the Valiance build yet? You know, the one that solo'd VoD?
AFAIK Clonks and monk-splashed FVS are not that uncommon, and I can definitely see the advantages of having CE on while raid-healing and suchlike.


Check how many scrolls they used while solo'ing VoD. In fact, most concepts you describe make heavy use of scrolls which they already can while in CE with no penalty. It'd give an advantage to healers who stand back doing nothing else but heal, not sure why that's supposed to be game-breaking? Meanwhile it creates a situation where splashing rogue on a melee toon to UMD heal scrolls has yet another advantage over taking Maximize/Empower Heal on a Paladin/Ranger for self healing.

To me it is less about suffering a penalty but I feel the completely overshot the goal; adding <x> SP to spell cost (similar to how metamagic works) and/or increasing casting time/cooldown instead of SP cost would have made far more sense to me.

[redspecter23]

Perhaps keep CE on at all times, but while in a casting animation impose a -5 ac penalty? This makes all spells, scrolls, clickies and many effects basically turn off CE for up to a second or two, but it avoids the need to actually toggle it yourself. Also it applies the "you are concentrating" penalty to all similar actions without specifically targeting paladins and rangers.

[Zaodon]

The proper solution:
- remove the SP penalty.
- Casting a spell while combat expertise is active applies a debuff to you called "Attack of Opportunity" which lowers your AC by 5. The debuff lasts 3 seconds, then dissipates. It is reapplied every time you cast a spell while CE is active.

The Turbine shortcut solution:
- remove the SP penalty, call it a day. Move on with life. There is virtually no use for AC anyway, and letting healers have 5 more AC for "free" isn't exactly a game-breaking thing, since most aren't even geared for AC in the first place.

[elujin]

You bring up a good point, but at the same time, you can look at it like with wands for example.

Clickies like wands, scrolls, and potions are a simple trigger item, no harm no fowl, you point and speak, and boom effect.

Emotes, doors, switches, levers, and valves can all be moved while defending your self, no "offensive combat" requirement there, so no loss.

Supernatural Abilities non-combats, same boat.

Spell-like abilities/dragonmarks are more instantanious, require no verbal or symantic component, and can be interrupted like any spell, but rather than having to draw on other energy sources, the source is already available at your hand, with no prep, and no drawing. It's either a blood-line/racial ability or something that comes with extreme supernatural source outside the normal means of spellcasting.

Your bringing up different things that have completely different situations. But in essence, spells require a person to draw on power from either around them or from within, as part of defending yourself you would draw on more power to say, hasten your casting to be more successfull, without leaving yourself quite as open.

It's not the only possible explaination for why it would be reasonable that you draw double power. But it's not really right nor wrong.

TiranBlade, Time Killer

woudn't it be better to remove the Ce effect when casting and automaticly adding it again when casting is done.

*edite* shoud have red the whol thread :D

[sephiroth1084]

Bumping this into view again to see if we can get some dev traction on the issue.

To sum up a few of the possible, reasonable solutions presented here:


Change the double SP cost for casting while CE is active to doubling the base cost of the spell before metamagics are applied.
Simply treat CE as a metamagic feat, increasing the cost of spells by 10 SP while it's active.
Remove the penalty altogether, since it's hardly relevant on real casters and unnecessarily penalizes rangers and paladins.
Treat CE like PA, with a 1:1 ratio of BAB to AC bonus up to 5, which would remove the concern about the feat being too strong on wizards early in the game.
Have casting a spell while CE is active impose a penalty to AC of -5 (virtually turning CE off) for a few seconds.
Have casting a spell while CE is active impose a -5 penalty to spell DCs while the feat is active.

[Phidius]

Meh - all this time later, and I no longer care. As long as AC works the way it does currently, the biggest penalty of CE is that it costs a feat slot.

Maybe if they gave every character CE for free, I might use it. Then again, you can't use CE with PA on, so probably not even then.

Sorry guys, I held out as long as I could.

[sephiroth1084]

Meh - all this time later, and I no longer care. As long as AC works the way it does currently, the biggest penalty of CE is that it costs a feat slot.

Maybe if they gave every character CE for free, I might use it. Then again, you can't use CE with PA on, so probably not even then.

Sorry guys, I held out as long as I could.
Irrelevant. You're looking strictly at level 20 epic content. CE is still useful in the rest of the game up to and including Tower of Despair on elite. There is always the possibility that AC becomes relevant in epic content and other endgame locations, which brings us back to the topic at hand.

I can appreciate your frustration, and other threads are addressing the general issues with AC at endgame, both currently and in the future. This is about how Combat Expertise should figure into that, particularly for paladins and rangers who are being unduly penalized, as you know, because you've read and previously posted in the thread.

[Aaxeyu]

Another solution is to exempt ranger and paladin spells from the SP cost penalty.

[sephiroth1084]

Another solution is to exempt ranger and paladin spells from the SP cost penalty.
That is also a possibility. I like that one.

[Elaril]

Another solution is to exempt ranger and paladin spells from the SP cost penalty.

That's probably the way to go. I'd also consider providing the exemption for bards and possibly artificers, depending on how they play.

[sephiroth1084]

Bumping this thread since it hasn't gotten any attention lately, yet is still annoying as hell (the CE penalty, not the thread).

[sherbertmachine]

All of the suggestions are quite good. I would also like to add if and when they do tinker with CE again they should show it a little more love. What I mean is, power attack is just so much more attractive than CE and AC is so gear intensive it's no wonder the vast majority of melee toons take it over CE and going the AC route. It should get something extra that's small like +2 to intimidate or something while active, since turbine's recent changes to intimidate, that to me makes at least a little sense.

[sephiroth1084]

All of the suggestions are quite good. I would also like to add if and when they do tinker with CE again they should show it a little more love. What I mean is, power attack is just so much more attractive than CE and AC is so gear intensive it's no wonder the vast majority of melee toons take it over CE and going the AC route. It should get something extra that's small like +2 to intimidate or something while active, since turbine's recent changes to intimidate, that to me makes at least a little sense.
Honestly, I don't think CE needs to be improved in any way beyond its intended functionality. You have to make a choice when activating it, and have to build to be able to use it effectively.

That said, the loss of PA is definitely a burden on characters trying to maintain aggro while assuming a defensive posture (AC gear, defensive feats, etc... rather than a purely DPS focus), so tacking on something like +5% hate while CE is active might be nice. Not necessary, though.

CE has always had some big problems: Int is typically a dump stat for melee characters, and especially the MAD paladins and monks, which makes it a pain to meet the prerequisites for, and it tends to be much less helpful than Power Attack for most characters in most situations, even being somewhat detrimental in the situations it is designed for (again, maintaining aggro).

Activating CE used to be rather annoying, but penalized everybody more or less evenly, with probably fighters and dark monks being the exceptions in most cases. It was never very attractive for any full casters, and now it severely penalizes paladins and rangers, while not penalizing anybody else that is likely to carry the feat, including UMDing fighters and monks.

[redspecter23]

The idea of adding a bonus to threat while PA is active sounds like a great idea to me. PA would be the better dps option, but if the numbers were tweaked properly, CE could be higher threat compared to PA, but lower DPS.

In addition, the SP penalty still seems tacked on and mostly pointless except to keep paladins and rangers in check. There is no fear of a caster based AC toon rocking all content on the basis of his CE feat. That same toon is rocking just fine with 0 AC and the feat put to better use elsewhere. The SP penalty does nothing to him.

[Ralmeth]

/Signed. The SP penalty while CE is turned on is a real pain on my Pally DoS. It's really annoying when you are halfway done buffing and you realize that you had CE turned on and now half of your mana is gone:( I've adapted and usually have power attack turned on or know to check if CE is turned on, but once in a while I will forget. Doh!

[sephiroth1084]

In addition, the SP penalty still seems tacked on and mostly pointless except to keep paladins and rangers in check.
Is that sarcasm? I hope it is, because paladins and rangers are in no danger of being "out of check" just by being able to use CE while casting spells.

/Signed. The SP penalty while CE is turned on is a real pain on my Pally DoS. It's really annoying when you are halfway done buffing and you realize that you had CE turned on and now half of your mana is gone:( I've adapted and usually have power attack turned on or know to check if CE is turned on, but once in a while I will forget. Doh!
In my case, it's often that I'm burning through 120 SP with CE up on every Maximized Quickened CSW, and 70 SP on Quickened Zeals that I toss while tanking, which is seriously overkill.

[Ookami007]

Honestly... if you're going to spend one of the few feats you have on Combat Expertise, which is practically useless (really... +5 AC?!) for all intents and purposes except at the lowest possible levels, it shouldn't come with a penalty.

Give them their free +5 AC... see how that works for them in Epics.

AC is a joke in DDO. It's a non-sensible stat that is meaningless past level 10-12 and is non-existent at epics.

IF the dev's EVER make AC applicable... THEN it might be a problem. Until that time... remove the penalty... and for Pete's sake... make Mobility a useful feat. It PAINS me to see how little use this feat is after building so many toons with it in PnP, where there's a little thing called AOO attacks.

[sephiroth1084]

Uh...ignoring your argument about whether AC is useful or not, the fact remains that everyone else can UMD scrolls, use clickies and use SLAs without suffering any penalty from having CE up, which are arguably as strong as paladins or rangers casting spells.

[Moltier]

While you are casting, you dont get the bonus AC.

[redspecter23]

Is that sarcasm? I hope it is, because paladins and rangers are in no danger of being "out of check" just by being able to use CE while casting spells.

Mostly sarcasm, partly confusion. I don't think pallys and rangers need to be kept "in check" but apparently someone at Turbine does. That's where I was going with that comment. It's the only reason I can think that the SP penalty would be there to begin with and it's a pointless reason in my opinion. My thought is that the dev in charge of the CE change was afraid of a high ac wizard being OP. That of course is ridiculous because wizards are quite fine with 0 ac at endgame. A low level wiz can have a massive ac if he wanted to, even without CE. A kiting wizard with 0 ac is still getting hit less than a tanking melee with 500 ac. That's a fact. AC is just not a factor into whether or not a caster is overpowered. Because of that reasoning, the only characters that are actually hurt by the SP penalty are those that actually become more powerful with higher ac and have blue bars. That is pallys and rangers. Do I think they need to be penalized for having higher ac? No.

[redspecter23]

While you are casting, you dont get the bonus AC.

Simpler solution, take out all SP penalties. They are simply not a factor and are there mostly for flavor. I really don't think that not lowering a pally's ac by 5 for 1 second while he casts a CMW on himself is at all overpowered. This falls into the category of reducing the ability to it's simplest balanced form. CE is balanced just fine with no penalties at all. The penalty is just a variation on a holdover from pnp in a game where there is enough variation from pnp that using that as justification on keeping the penalty there just feels silly.

[sephiroth1084]

Had a discussion recently on which made the better tank, Stalwart Defenders or Defenders of Siberys, and the biggest point in favor of the latter was their ability to self-heal, but LoH go only so far, and if you invest in stuff like Maximize and Quicken, you lose much of that benefit when in full AC mode, while the fighter could get as much or more healing drinking Silver Flame pots at no investment. Yes, the paladin could drink SF pots as well, but then they are losing even more of the benefit of being a paladin while tanking--saves.

[Dagolar]

/signed

[Missing_Minds]

But if the developers still have an irrational fear of wizards and clerics with combat expertise they should just make the penalty -20% magic damage and healing instead of spell point cost.

Interesting idea. I like it. Chances are it would get bumped up to 25% though.

Or, if you cast the a spell, it auto turns off for 12 seconds. This "turn off" casting does not suffer double SP cost. Any additional spells cast during this time period would suffer the current double sp penalty. After 12 seconds of no casting it turns itself back on.
In this aspect, it allows the rangers and such to be hit not so bad, but still primary casters still won't take it, alieving developer fears. Granted a % penalty as Chod described would help Turbine coffer's more via sp pot sales.


CE is pretty easy to get, honestly, and my opinion is that there should be a penalty. How much of one is debatable. The current is a pain, and the previous was annoying.

[sephiroth1084]

Interesting idea. I like it. Chances are it would get bumped up to 25% though.

Or, if you cast the a spell, it auto turns off for 12 seconds. This "turn off" casting does not suffer double SP cost. Any additional spells cast during this time period would suffer the current double sp penalty. After 12 seconds of no casting it turns itself back on.
In this aspect, it allows the rangers and such to be hit not so bad, but still primary casters still won't take it, alieving developer fears. Granted a % penalty as Chod described would help Turbine coffer's more via sp pot sales.


CE is pretty easy to get, honestly, and my opinion is that there should be a penalty. How much of one is debatable. The current is a pain, and the previous was annoying.
Again, why so complicated and punitive?

Are wizards taking this at all? Were they before? Would they if it had zero penalty?


No.
No.
Maybe. Acquiring AC early in the game is worthwhile, and CE would be very strong for wizards at that point. Solutions to this include adding a BAB requirement to picking up CE, or having it actually work like it should, granting +1 AC per -1 point of BAB; a wizard would get +1 AC at level 2, +2 AC at level 4, +3 at 6, etc... That's not too big a deal.

Are clerics taking this at all? Were they before? Would they if it had zero penalty?


Some monk/cleric builds might if the penalty weren't so severe. The solutions to the wizard problem would apply, though wouldn't necessarily work quite as well, though the Int 13 requirement becomes more significant when you want a high Wis, Con and Dex. Most of these characters also want Str, and/or wish to engage in melee, which brings in the to-hit penalty anyway.
No.
See first comment here.

Are characters that can keep CE up while using clickies, SLAs, wands and scrolls somehow not "breaking" the game as badly as characters using spells?


Artificers could be using level 20 Haste clickies, Displacement wands, enhanced epic wands like Winter's Wrath and Reconstruct scrolls while maintaining +5 AC at no penalty. Anyone with UMD or some half-elf dilettante feats could be scroll healing themselves with CE up at no penalty. I don't see that being a problem.

What spells are paladins and rangers using while CE is up? Do they need to be penalized for doing so?


Buffs, which are certain no more game-breaking than any of the above to be recasting with +5 AC active.
Cure Moderate or Cure Serious Wounds, possibly Maximized and/or Empowered and/or Quickened. A little stronger than using scrolls, and for some weaker than using Silver Flame potions. The investment is steep to get all the gear to make the +5 AC meaningful, and the gear to get enough SP to make the self-cast healing meaningful, and even with all of that, it does not break the game in any way.

Treat it like a metamagic and add +10 SP to spells cast while it's active, or...
Exempt paladin and ranger spells from whatever penalty it ends up with, or...
Accept the fact that investing 5 build points, a -5 penalty to attack, a feat slot, the penalty of not having Power Attack active, investing gear and other resources into AC represents enough of a penalty without creating some more elaborate tax on the use of CE and just let it function as described in the PHB.

[Tirisha]

/signed

The feat slot, the pre reqs. the lose of PA and rage is penalty enough for the feat.

if the Devs must keep a penalty it should be something reasonable like 10 more SP.

[sephiroth1084]

/signed

The feat slot, the pre reqs. the lose of PA and rage is penalty enough for the feat.

if the Devs must keep a penalty it should be something reasonable like 10 more SP.
You know, I'd forgotten about CE turning off Rage! So for the caster-types, that's -20 HP, -1 Fort and -1 Will as well at end game for using this feat...

[Ganidel]

You know, I'd forgotten about CE turning off Rage! So for the caster-types, that's -20 HP, -1 Fort and -1 Will as well at end game for using this feat...

Casters using CE?
If you have a caster over 72 ac(self buffed, maybe throw in a Bark) my hat is off to you, but thats like 2 maybe 3 people a server.

As to casting while CE is on and costing more, I think there aim was to stop healing while tanking, but not that many people really do or did that.
To me its just annoying, because you only lose mana because you forget CE is on(Pally, Ranger and multi-Classes).

Also I would still take costing more spell points over having CE turn off when you cast.

On semi the same line is dragonmarks, if you use a dragonmark it turns off auto attack which I have tried to post on the forums hoping devs might care enough, but with little hope.

[Emili]

On semi the same line is dragonmarks, if you use a dragonmark it turns off auto attack which I have tried to post on the forums hoping devs might care enough, but with little hope.

I've not used autoattack since.... ummm sometime early 2006? It's a silly thing to use and actually a detriment. Besides the fun of melee be in movement, tactics and control.

PS: count your attacks pe min with it on and then without it on. ;)

[Diyon]

I've not used autoattack since.... ummm sometime early 2006? It's a silly thing to use and actually a detriment. Besides the fun of melee be in movement, tactics and control.

PS: count your attacks pe min with it on and then without it on. ;)


Only reasons I use autoattack:

-My index finger is getting tired of almost constantly holding down my left mouse button.
-As long as I'm not having to chase stuff, it makes it easier to click on stuff on my action bars while still attacking.
-I can step away from the computer while killing the training dummy.

For these reasons, I normally have it turned on, but still typically use the left mouse button most of the time.

[Teharahma]

How would your decision affect casters from level 1-10, where it's easier to get a workable AC?

Cus spending something on a feat with the intention of improving your character isn't what we want, now is it ?

[SisAmethyst]

You know, I'd forgotten about CE turning off Rage! So for the caster-types, that's -20 HP, -1 Fort and -1 Will as well at end game for using this feat...

While I not have a single charcater currently with CE (obvious reasons?) I agree that the penalty seem to be a bit too steep and that at least solutions like 'exempt ranger and paladin spells from the SP cost penalty' should be taken into consideration, while I probably would prefer the 'granting +1 AC per -1 point of BAB' solution without a penalty.

[sephiroth1084]

/bump to see if this can get some dev attention. Also editing the OP.

[noinfo]

You know, I'd forgotten about CE turning off Rage! So for the caster-types, that's -20 HP, -1 Fort and -1 Will as well at end game for using this feat...

Free bump for you because now is the time for these things to be looked at.

Though IIRC 20hp and -1 Fort is irrelevant isn't it?

[sephiroth1084]

Free bump for you because now is the time for these things to be looked at.

Though IIRC 20hp and -1 Fort is irrelevant isn't it?
Ha!

[Gulain]

I had a different line of thought on how they could still affect casters without completely shutting down viability of CE on Rangers and Paladins....

How would people feel about having CE be mutually exclusive with metamagics? I know this isn't a perfect solution as some Ranger and Paladin builds to take Maximize or Empower Healing but it would make it a rather undesirable feat for most Offensive casters to look into getting. As long as CE is running other metamagics simply wouldn't apply and there would need to be a moderate CD on dropping out of CE to make this cost non-negligible (I'm thinking 15-20s?).

It wouldn't really affect scroll healers in situations like this and while FvS and Cleric could still benefit in alot of ways in normal quests they really wouldn't be using it in Raids anyway because meaningful AC costs too much in healing or damage output on these chars.

[Maelwyn]

/signed

My tank is a 18 Paladin/2 Monk tank build and utilizes the CE feat solely for the +5 to AC. This toon has several short term buff spells that require recasts every couple of minutes (e.g Zeal and Divine Favor). The double SP costs seem ridiculous and overly backwards given that SP pools for melee builds are rather low to begin with. CE's -5 penalty to the 'to hit' number is plenty of a penalty, IMO. I don't really see any kind of caster class builds taking CE, ever. Casters need their metamagic feats, insightful reflexes, spell pen feats, etc., etc. To give up even one of those for a +5 to AC seems like a rather juvenile decision, especially considering that casters don't have enough slotting space to gear out for high AC. Besides, most geared casters utilize the Torc and GS Con-op SP bonuses that come from getting hit alot (i.e. having low AC is beneficial to a good caster). I could maybe see a battle cleric type of build utilize CE, but even they probably won't be able to gain enough to their build with this, considering the -5 'to hit' penalty. So, I'm not really sure why we still have two penalties for the CE feat currently in the game. It's a feat, and a feat requires a feat slot, which are rather expensive consider most characters get fewer than 10 feat slots, even with splash builds (save for maybe fighters and wizards). Why should a feat that has several prerequisites to begin with grant 1 benefit and 2 penalties? That just doesn't make any sense. Please Devs, fix this so that CE only has 1 penalty, that being -5 to hit. Thank you.

[Maelwyn]

On semi the same line is dragonmarks, if you use a dragonmark it turns off auto attack which I have tried to post on the forums hoping devs might care enough, but with little hope.

I hope they fix this, too. I usually have auto-attack on, for the most part. I hate it when using a dragonmark clicky turn auto-attack off. I also hate this on my wizard when using the past-life feat magic missile clicky. It's just annoying and seems like the devs never tested these clickies before they went live. It usually makes me stop for a second or two, to re-click the auto-attack feature in my hotbars, which takes away from casting a spell or attacking or healing, etc.

In the same vein of thought, is the radiant servant's burst effect and targetting issues. That's pretty annoying how it currently works. Hate having to untarget someone (say a melee in the AOE area fighting Harry in the Shroud) just so I can click my radiant burst once. My cleric basically turns into a front line healer at that point, standing with the melees with no one targeted, just in order to heal more quickly (since he has 24 turn undeads, it makes sense to do this).

Btw, I use a logitech PS2 controller and a mouse to play this game, and it works extremely well on every kind of toon. The above situations are some of the only times I actually have to utilize my mouse, since nearly everything is keymapped to my controller, utilizing the modifer keys. Anyways, just a side note.

[Vellrad]

You wan't penatly appleid to CE, which would fit as well as -5 to hit but for casters?
Make it a -5DC and/or spell pen.
Simple.

[DrawingGuy]

Really - if you are a caster and have the option to take +5 AC for basically no penalty mid to late game, then swap it when your AC is no longer useful.... who really wouldn't? Taking it early level means it would be cheap to change out later, and metas are usually too costly to want to use too often for the first half anyways.

-5 AC penalty is not enough, but I definitely think double SP is too much. I agree that 10 SP is a viable penalty.

[Phemt81]

Yes, remove SP penalty tied to Combat Expertise, then remove encumbrance, and spell material component...

Sorry, if i can disagree, i will.

[Maelwyn]

-5 AC penalty is not enough, but I definitely think double SP is too much. I agree that 10 SP is a viable penalty.

Actually, this won't work too well. Remember that most of the melee toons that would take CE and have SP pools (blue bars) are Paladin or Ranger builds. Their spells range from 1st to 4th level spells. Some of these spells cost less than 10 SP to cast to begin with, like Cure Light Wounds (which only cost 6 SP). If you charge an extra 10 SP, then it would equal 16 SP to cast a Cure Light Wounds, under this proposal. Guess what? That is 4 more than it costs currently (being 12 SP when in CE). So, that's not really a good solution to the problem. (And, yes, my Pally/Monk tank utilizes Cure Lights for decent HP benefit, due to healing amp (i.e. human recovery enhancements, tier 3 glorious stand bonus, healing amp items, superior potency, etc.)

Just take the SP double cost penalty away. That's the easy solution. I don't think there will be many casters trying to take advantage of this feat in an exploitative way, simply because most casters need their feats at lower levels to unlock prestiges like Archmage or Pale Master or Savants, etc. If they decide to take CE, they might be doing themselves a disservice by locking themselves out of their PrE early on, or by losing much needed HP if they drop, say a Toughness feat for CE.

Anyway, I don't think having a feat with 1 benefit and 2 penalties makes much sense. How many other feats are stacked this way currently? The only feats besides CE that seem to have any penalties at all are Manyshot (penalty to hit while gaining mulitple shots in ranged attack), Power Attack (penalty to hit while gaining extra damage), Precision (penalty to damage while gaining a bonus to hit), and Resilience (penalty to hit AND damage while gaining a bonus to saves). Resilience really is about the only feat that can compare to CE and even then it really doesn't come close, as resilience is not a very common feat to take on a toon, and even when it is taken, it is usually used before a toon runs through a trap (turned on and off). CE on my tank, for example, is left on pretty much all the time, unless I need to buff or cast a lot of cure spells in succession. However, this is usually not an option during a fight, and especially not during a raid situation. If you look at all the other feats in the game, you will find that they only have a beneficial effect with really no penalty whatsoever. So, yeah, I think it's time for the devs to take a look at AND revise the way CE works...at least the penalties side of it (i.e. no more SP penalty).

[Ancient]

Sure - low level AC is so easy to get that having no casting penalty to combat expertise would completely trivialize levels 1-7 for casters even more, which would be bad for the game.
What does this do that robe of invunerability doesn't? And the robe doesn't cost a feat.

[Alrik_Fassbauer]

Invulvnerability can be crafted, too.

[Ryiah]

What does this do that robe of invunerability doesn't? And the robe doesn't cost a feat.

Invulnerability only absorbs the first five points of damage. Not very good when all you ever run is elite.

[TheDjinnFor]

How would your decision affect casters from level 1-10, where it's easier to get a workable AC?

It wouldn't affect them at all, as you can get no-hit AC on any class and race combination whether you have CE or not.

[Entelech]

I want to assume that the line of thinking was that for a caster, wizard in particular, the "penalty" of -5 attack would never come into play as they would be simply casting spells instead of engaging in melee. Therefore an additional penalty had to be added. This thought is flawed in 2 ways. In lower level content where the +5 ac could actually matter, casters are actually using melee weapons and -5 attack would be a massive downside and in addition to that, the +3 ac gained by having CE over defensive fighting won't matter much. You can get a good lowbie ac without it. For higher content you could still potentially have a reasonable ac on a caster using CE if you wanted to, but at that point it's going to cost you in gear slots that you should be devoting to caster gear if you want to actually cast exclusively at that point.

Long story short, if you're meleeing (battlecaster, ranger, paladin) the -5 attack (and potential loss of power attack) is penalty enough and if you're casting (wizard, sorcerer), your ac will have a rough time getting to a useful level without losing casting power in a gear slot somewhere.

QFT and signed.

[Monkey-Boy]

/signed.

Casters just dont' have the feat room for this anyway. If one chooses to gimp themselves for 5 more AC where's the harm?

[Chai]

Sure - low level AC is so easy to get that having no casting penalty to combat expertise would completely trivialize levels 1-7 for casters even more, which would be bad for the game.

Levels 1-7 are already trivial. Casters arent more powerful in those levels than melee. The balance issue occurs further down the road. Even if youre running elite for bravery, youre running level 5 quests at that point when youre level 7.

Besides, its not 5 points of AC gained until the caster has 5 BAB which would be level 10 for a pure caster. Defensive fighting covers up to level 5 with a +2 AC. At level 6, the caster would be blowing a feat to gain 1 AC over what they get for defensive fighting, free.

A non human sorc wanting to would have to give up toughness or one of the metamagics they would take to do this.

1. toughness
3. empower
6. maximise

At level 6 they now have better HP with toughness + open up the toughness enhancement. THey have a maximised empowered SLA they can use from the savant line for 2 points of mana.

Which one of these feats are you giving up for 1 point of AC? Your options would be:

Give up toughness. Loss of 28 HP for toughness feat + racial toughness 1 and 2 (gained at level 6)
Give up maximise. Now you have an empowered SLA only rather than a maximised empowered SLA for the same cost - 2 MP.
Give up empower. Now you have a maximised SLA only rather than an empowered maximised SLA for the same cost - 2 MP.

Dont get another feat until level 9 on a sorc. Youd have to live with that feat choice until level 9, or until you realized you just gimped your sorc and have to find a dragonshard or pay lockania a visit and swap it out, heh.

[Alrik_Fassbauer]

Invulnerability only absorbs the first five points of damage. Not very good when all you ever run is elite.

Yes, but for a fresh new, first-life character this can be life-saving !

[sephiroth1084]

You wan't penatly appleid to CE, which would fit as well as -5 to hit but for casters?
Make it a -5DC and/or spell pen.
Simple.
The risk there is that casters could still nuke somewhat effectively and maintain AC, but really, that's getting into the realm of trying much too hard to make the feat seem overpowered. Penalties to DCs and Spell Pen would certain be a solid way to remove the unnecessary penalty on paladins and rangers while keeping casters in check.

Yes, remove SP penalty tied to Combat Expertise, then remove encumbrance, and spell material component...

Sorry, if i can disagree, i will.
Why?

Actually, this won't work too well. Remember that most of the melee toons that would take CE and have SP pools (blue bars) are Paladin or Ranger builds. Their spells range from 1st to 4th level spells. Some of these spells cost less than 10 SP to cast to begin with, like Cure Light Wounds (which only cost 6 SP). If you charge an extra 10 SP, then it would equal 16 SP to cast a Cure Light Wounds, under this proposal. Guess what? That is 4 more than it costs currently (being 12 SP when in CE). So, that's not really a good solution to the problem. (And, yes, my Pally/Monk tank utilizes Cure Lights for decent HP benefit, due to healing amp (i.e. human recovery enhancements, tier 3 glorious stand bonus, healing amp items, superior potency, etc.)

If the feat were simply change CLW from 4 to 14 SP, it wouldn't be a big deal. The problem is that the feat changes Zeal from 25 SP to 50, or 35 SP (Extended or Quickened) to 70 SP, and Maximized, Quickened CSW from 60 to 120, which ends up being between one quarter, and one fifth of a paladin or ranger's SP bar at cap and well-geared.

[Phemt81]

Yes, but for a fresh new, first-life character this can be life-saving !

You mean 28 points builds? They don't exist, we all started on 32-34 type here :D

/sarcasm


Why?

For the sake of balance.

As stated elsewhere, these changes mainly affect only few classes.

When we propose something like this for a class, we should also suggest something for the others. To keep the game balanced.

Or else we ll all end thinking this way:
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4420959&postcount=194

And we would have good reasons!

[sephiroth1084]

You mean 28 points builds? They don't exist, we all started on 32-34 type here :D

/sarcasm



For the sake of balance.

As stated elsewhere, these changes mainly affect only few classes.

When we propose something like this for a class, we should also suggest something for the others. To keep the game balanced.

Or else we ll all end thinking this way:
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4420959&postcount=194

And we would have good reasons!
That was a non-answer.

As stated elsewhere, casters spend much of the game being unhittable even without AC, or run around intentionally getting hit. Clerics, favored souls, wizards and sorcerers have been soloing difficult content with essentially 0 AC for quite a while. The only risk involved in making it easier for them to get real AC is that more than the top 0.01% of the game will be able to achieve these feats, except that simply giving these characters +5 AC at the cost of a feat and 2-5 build points doesn't get them meaningful AC at endgame. They still have no class features improving their AC, and, aside from clerics (and to a lesser degree favored souls) have little synergy with the Dex/Wis monk splashed AC builds. In most cases, picking up CE and going after AC is gimping their role as a caster in some way.

The fact is that clerics can use scrolls while having CE up, but I never see anyone doing that. Why? Because they don't need AC, because AC is still not easy to acquire, and because it's a rather hefty investment with little return.

Arcanes will still have Displacement, which works better than AC in a lot of content, and mobility on their side; casters destroy a lot of content because they are only rarely within range of being hit at all, they spend their time running at top speed or hopping around, actively avoiding attacks and killing at the same time. In order for AC to be of any real value, they have to be standing still more often. Oh, wait, casters are doing that TOO with 0 AC, in order to charge their SP back up with things like the Torc. Where does AC come into the picture? How does AC break anything?

Meanwhile, paladins who have buffs that require refreshing every minute and a half or so, and rangers and paladins who bother with metamagics are being unduly penalized for using a costly feat that already comes with significant drawbacks and penalties.

Are you worried about early game where characters can fairly easily achieve an unhittable AC with fairly run of the mill equipment? Combat Expertise doesn't change anything there. As it is, I recommend against anyone picking up CE before level 12 or 13, because it's so easy to get unhittable AC before that point. And after that, casters have Displacement, Haste, Jump, Stoneskin, Wall of Fire, Cone of Cold, Niac's, Eladar's, Blade Barrier, Heal, Death Aura, Radiant Aura, Reconstruct, Circle of Death, Mass Suggestion, Symbol of Persuasion, and Destruction, and are getting close to Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, and Implosion. Who needs AC when you have those tools?

I know a few divines who have played high-level AC-capable characters, and while they had fun, and they certainly could fill a couple of roles for a group, they were by no means more powerful than a 20 favored soul, or an 18/2 cleric/monk who dumps AC and focuses more on their divine casting and HP, or melee combat.


When I ask you 'Why?' I'm asking for an explanation for how allowing casters to cast spells while maintaining an extra 5 points of AC will unbalance the game. I'm asking how big a shift that could possibly make in order to justify the steep penalty the non-primary casters are saddled with.

So far, all you've done is provide a link to a post that proves my point. The guy you quoted seems to think that casters are already ruling the game, and without any AC.

[Chai]

So "balance" to some means completely screwing over AC builds such as paladin tanks and exploiter rangers at high levels to make sure casters arent attaining a high AC in low level quests, which they can do anyhow without CE. Just when I thought I heard it all, this gets unveiled. The caster doesnt even have 5 BAB until level 10 to sacrifice for 5 AC. By that time they are destroying mobs in firewalls and have displace / stoneskin. Its only really epic quests where casters are so much more powerful than melee builds, due to insane levels of HP inflation + melee damage inflation on even the lowliest of trash mobs, which has nothing to do with 5 points of AC and has everything to do with not having to stand in melee range to inflict damage or insta kill.