The Balance Change post

[Mirta]

and for around 500 million XP they can all be yours...

And this is why it hurts when they change things. If I put that much effort into a character they should be overpowered. Things should get easier as you acquire more past lives and gear. Perhaps the past lives should be more valuable to allow for negative balancing of enhancements. Everybody gets 80 points worth of enhancements with no effort at all. How about crit range/damage bonuses be earned through past lives instead of given through enhancements? Not sure how holy sword would fit in there, though.

[nibel]

In all truthfulness they need to nerf past lifes to about 1/3 the power they are today or possibly less. Until they do that we can never have true balance. 1/3 of the current power level may even be too much - it might need a bigger nerf.

Additionally, the significant power gap encourages building one super-character instead of playing alts which is why those people get bored so easily.

This is coming from someone that probably is in the top 100 for # of past lifes across characters in the game.

Agree. Past Lifes need a revamp. I threw a suggestion some time ago (http://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/460516) to make the active portion more powerful while nerfing the passive ones. I also believe that Epic/Iconic past lifes should give no benefit at all while on Heroic range.

[RobbinB]

And the last thing I'd care to rant about...+20 tactical dcs for fighters? On a d20 system? I'm glad it seems like you want to work on giving fighters an area to shine, but I'm not really seeing good things coming from this. I still take stunning blow and use trip on my non-fighter melees...I'm just a little worried giving fighters access to this much dc is going to result in giving mobs higher saves and making tactics on other melees completely worthless. I don't want to see tactics end up like the old ac system where you end up with a small amount of very specific builds who are going to have successful rolls 95% of the time but the majority of builds just end up ignoring tactics because at high levels you end up so far off the bottom of the scale + or -5 dc ends up making no difference at all as you will only have success when your opponent rolls a 1 either way.

Same point I made way earlier in this post. To paraphrase what I think the devs response was it went something like -

1. We don't really expect peeps to take all the available feats - toons with limited numbers of fighter levels will take one or two of the lower level feats and toons that are mostly fighter will probably just take the highest level feat available (lower feats aren't prereqs to higher feats)

2. DC's will not be rebalanced for having these feats - fighters having no-fail combat tactics is not considered op (which makes sense since currently dps is king in DDO and many mobs are immune to this form of cc anyway).

[karatemack]

In all truthfulness they need to nerf past lifes to about 1/3 the power they are today or possibly less. Until they do that we can never have true balance. 1/3 of the current power level may even be too much - it might need a bigger nerf.

Additionally, the significant power gap encourages building one super-character instead of playing alts which is why those people get bored so easily.

This is coming from someone that probably is in the top 100 for # of past lifes across characters in the game.

Your post raises an interesting point... not all of us mean the same thing when we write "balance". I hope the devs never (read: stop) attempt to balance one player's build vs another player's build. Balance the classes, not the builds.

There SHOULD be a gap between the player who has invested the time/money/energy or whatever to become a triple completionist and a first life toon. Yes, that power gap should be significant. The TR system is what keeps many players playing when they're tired of the current endgame. Why is it that everything that is good about DDO and makes it unique in the MMO landscape is seen as a fatal flaw?

Maybe one of the first places to look for balance in DDO again is in the area of quest design. Melee DPS would not be the end-all discussion it is right now if we had more in the quest design than "beat up these waves of mobs". Perhaps the DEVs should run some type of contest to design the best new quest. Offer a year's free sub to the grand prize winner. How many free quest designs would they be provided to mull over at the cost of 1 yr free sub?

[lLockehart]

I will post my feedback on this as I'm noting a large portion of the forum population unsatisfied and over the top whiny over due nerfs.
I've only lurked the forums so far but I've been playing for what, 7, 6 years maybe? along with 2 friends. I consider myself a top player, as in, this is the one MMO where me and my friends really pump our dedication into it and we love it for what it is, a honest, fun filled, gameplay rich action mmo set in the DnD world.

Holy Sword (Paladin)
- This is actually one of the changes I wouldn't mind if it weren't here, (as it's already being nerfed due to the new improved critical) I don't think a 14/6 splash would outdamage a pure ranger, being TWF or Bow with the recent ranger pass, but I can understand and respect the decision, vanguards were really on par with Dps with their superiorly buffed shields, leaving no room for their peer, the Fighter, I honestly think it's balanced now. To the guy shouting about TWF Pally not being on par with rangers... well, yeah that's obviously intended, why shouldn't it be? and even nerfed, it's still a powerful build, it's all about double smites/sacrifices and superior survivability, should it outclass a TWF ranger in terms of DPS? no, never.


Blood Strength
- This was needed and I think the internal cooldown was the best solution.

Two weapon fighting animations have been fixed.
- I haven't seen the change but I'm glad this is being addressed, along with the moving + attacking animation, I trust it will improve Dps and the overall feeling of auto-attacking, I imagine it's hard but if the hitboxes were to be fixed too, it would be fantastic, it's a really good change nevertheless.

TWF not grating melee power.
- Now... I'm not sure about this one, it has been said that it's because the change in the animation rather than the "overperfoming builds" which I honestly have a hard time believing they were but I can accept it, I would personally put 1 melee power/feat just so you feel there's something extra there and not being a dry feat in comparison with others. Rogues also get a little hit but they have really bursty Dps while sneaking so it shouldn't be felt much.

To the people complaining about Monks: Yes, this affects them mostly because they are severely behind, but it's not 10 melee power that made a difference and their viability will need to come from their obvious pass, like all the others.

Manyshot.
Oh... the big change, yes, it has been discussed heavily and personally, I think it's better now, here's why: The original manyshot was better because of its unique aspect, you could proc things up to four times, that's awesome uniqueness there, it gives archers a special feeling that's only available to them. And then the game changed, fury shot was introduced and suddenly, people were 80%-8% a purple named in raids, nerfing furyshot would be nerfing a playstyle so instead, we got hit with this change, I honestly think it's a buff to pure ranger (especially shiradi ones) and people are making a big fuzz over it, pure rangers will now have fun and an overall higher static Dps and can always change to fury and impact raids a little more, you won't be the main guy but you'll be making a difference, and that's okay. Leaving room for building doubleshot and feeling good about it is the best thing here, it actually rewards you the more effort you put into doubleshot, and that's awesome.

Pulverizer change.
- I think this was one of the things that should have been there in the start, if nothing more, it will stabilize the acrobats after the critical "nerf"

Improved Critical change.
- Yes, the other big change, this was heavily needed to reduce the overwhelming powercreep presented in the actual game, now, I'm happy about this but sad about the "unique weapons" being dealt collateral damage from the change, Thief acrobats are the ones more damaged as they rely on special quarterstaves to be on par with the Dps, but there are a ton of weird, unique builds out there that use these weapons with extended critical profiles, they aren't overperfoming, sometimes they aren't even on par with the best builds out there, but they are fun and competitive nonetheless and that's what makes them fun, that's what makes this game great, the amazing feeling of getting a Staff of the Seer, and using it for an acrobat, the newly release Club on TEE, they're all great! and they're all taking a hit... It's sad but it's for the greater good, I always hope the Devs release more weird, niche weapons and maybe they'll have more room for that now, I hope so at least.

Tactical Training and Heavy Armor Training.
- I'm very happy about this, this is exactly on of the things the Fighter class needs more.

Divine Grace
- This was long overdue and needed, I see a lot of people complaining, "but now I can never have the saves needed for EE!!" Like, seriously, my last character was a warlock and I was at about 40/60/70's that's very respectable for a mage, by Barb was at like, 80/40/50 (+15~from raging) this is enough, you don't need to excel at every save, you're not the chosen one, meant for destroying every quest presented to you, you're an adventurer, with strengths and weaknesses, if you want a capable solo character then build for it, but the game doesn't need you to be king in the 3 saves (but hell, you can be with good loot investment alone, with the anti Fort stun belt from ENecro for example)

Eldritch Blast
- This though! this was very needed and I'd even go further, again, I see people discussing how Warlock underperforms on Epic, this is partially true, I think Soul eater is the one tree needing a buff, because of how hard it is to DC cast nowadays, but that's a different problem, the fact that you can take 5 lvls in warlock and go T5 spirit to grab the immortal temp HP is still an incredible boon but I'll keep my argument on the Dps department. My last played Warlcok melted everything with 0 effort on my part (other than my dedication to the Character and the loot) you can run a Fey Warlock in shiradi, maxed cha, twist in Sense weakness/emperor magic/coon, you go t5 tainted and grab the 18th spirit core and bam, you literally melt any content in the game, EE TEE, you jump into the fray of mobs, known for their high dmg output, you fire an aura burst and an Eldrich ball, they get shiradi venomed and it's over, you clear everything and anything with Sonic speed, in the boss realm, you click focus blast and keep up emperor with coon, then you left click... and deal monstrous amounts of damage, god forbid you roll Joy on queen, because then, the game may even crash from the crazy damage text pouring out of the mob's head like rain. This is fun for the first couple dungeons, then you just feel like Tr'ing.

I think this change was aimed for better enjoyability in the game, and personally think it's on spot, the one thing I strongly disagree, is the removal of MMR from the armors, I'm not sure what prompted this change but a heavy or (mildly?) nerf would suffice, it's kinda weird when I played my Pally and was so armored up that I could completely ignore fireballs and whatever was thrown at me, but for other classes that can't pull through the reflex save and rely on their MMR to survive, this seems a bit over the top, more on the line that it feels weird having no bonuses whatsoever, a vaule of like, 10, that wouldn't make much of a difference would still feel better just so you know that wearing X armor is better than no armor regarding magic.

[Severlin]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

[Spoonwelder]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~


So of the original:

Holy Sword (Paladin)
This is now a spell that affects the paladin and buffs whatever melee weapon is being wielded in the main hand.
It no longer persists on your weapon but instead buffs the melee weapon you are holding in your main hand. (Yes, this buffs your two handed weapons.)
It no longer affects missile weapons.
It no longer can be used to buff off hand weapons or shields.
If you change weapons the spell will drop off the unequipped weapon and instead be applied to the newly equipped weapon.

Red text has been stricken per your posts to date......

So now we are down to no noticeable change to Holy Sword (apply to weapon or wielder has no real effective change) except to Shield users.....so you are telling us S&B Pally's are the ones over-performing with Holy Sword now?

Seems to me like we could scrub the Holy Sword change entirely and save any unintended consequences or 'features' that could arise from any change to the spaghetti code.......

Full disclosure - I am running a S&B Vanguard Pally and he is pretty good but he is behind the DPS I did as a 15/5 pally ranger (before the ranger pass). And really this nerf is fairly minor in the grand scheme it just seems to me that you are now clinging to a change for no real reason as you have backed off on all the other impactful components of the spell change.

[Trillea]

So now we are down to no change to Holy Sword except to Shield users.....so you are telling us S&B Pally's are the ones over-performing with Holy Sword now?

Seems to me like we could scrub the Holy Sword change entirely and save any unintended consequences or 'features' that could arise from any change to the spaghetti code.......

No, I actually like the fact that it will follow the paladin through weapon changes, that was a good idea.

[Spoonwelder]

No, I actually like the fact that it will follow the paladin through weapon changes, that was a good idea.
Yes but at the risk of Handwraps now only working on Wednesdays after a full moon....or providing a new avenue for dupers to somehow work their evil magic.......probably not worth the risk if that is the only substantial change that we are getting.

[Nestroy]

(...)
Eldritch Blast
- This though! this was very needed and I'd even go further, again, I see people discussing how Warlock underperforms on Epic, this is partially true, I think Soul eater is the one tree needing a buff, because of how hard it is to DC cast nowadays, but that's a different problem, the fact that you can take 5 lvls in warlock and go T5 spirit to grab the immortal temp HP is still an incredible boon but I'll keep my argument on the Dps department. My last played Warlcok melted everything with 0 effort on my part (other than my dedication to the Character and the loot) you can run a Fey Warlock in shiradi, maxed cha, twist in Sense weakness/emperor magic/coon, you go t5 tainted and grab the 18th spirit core and bam, you literally melt any content in the game, EE TEE, you jump into the fray of mobs, known for their high dmg output, you fire an aura burst and an Eldrich ball, they get shiradi venomed and it's over, you clear everything and anything with Sonic speed, in the boss realm, you click focus blast and keep up emperor with coon, then you left click... and deal monstrous amounts of damage, god forbid you roll Joy on queen, because then, the game may even crash from the crazy damage text pouring out of the mob's head like rain. This is fun for the first couple dungeons, then you just feel like Tr'ing. (...)

Sorry, have to call this mild BS. You rightly acknowledge the culprits for OP Warlocks. But then, these two thingies are exactly the one features of WL that DO NOT GET NERFED. So building WL exactly for t5 tainted using Shiradi will REMAIN the SAME. And ES t5 does not get nerfed either. And you may splash 5 WL to get this.

SO WHAT MAKES WL OP (especially in heroics) DOES NOT GET NERFED. All else, and each and every WL build gets nerfed thoroughly. So if the issue truely was balance, as stated by the devs, the WL nerf is an utter failure. And your arguments go void.

Edit: And I played Shiradi WL in EE and no, the Shiradi WL was not OP. Damage peaked at about 1600 points on crit, the WL did fine on damage over time, but given the sheer hp masses to be faced in EE the mobs had a fair chance to kill the WL before the WL was able to do enough DPS to kill them. Sorry to call you out on this but I doubt your WL experiences in EE.

[sjbb87]

While wait for lamannia....




Tactical Training
Requires Fighter Level 4
You gain +2 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 8
You gain +4 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Mastery
Requires Fighter Level 12
You gain +6 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Supremacy
Requires Fighter Level 16
You gain +8 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Notes: All tactical feats stack for a total of +20. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Tactical Training and forego the +2 but still have access to Tatical Supremacy.


Is that too strong ...
As already told they will leave other classes much lower with tactical feats.
It is better to reduce some of this now than wait a year for another balance pass.
Another point to consider here is 16 Fighter / 4 monks.
It is almost an infinite combo with it
? Stunning Fist
? Stunning Blow
? Stunning Fist
? Improved Trip
? Stunning Fist
With 20 extra dc in addition to past lives, Legendary Tactics, and various other bonuses.
Warning once again, reduce it, before people do build based on these feats
10 dc is enough.



Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Notes: All Heavy Armor feats stack for a total of +30. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Heavy Armor Training and forego the +3 and still have access to Heavy Armor Champion.




Heavy Armor only?

Could to enjoy and improve other feats that are exceeded.
following examples.
Whirlwind Attack
This feat attacks all enemies in a 360 degree arc around the character. This attack deals +4[W] damage. If Are 2wf you hit with both weapons.
Prerequisites: removed : Combat Expertise

Single Weapon Fighting:
While Single Weapon Fighting, you gain +10% Combat Style bonus to attack speed,
3 Melee Power and
improves your melee power by 3%


Improved Single Weapon Fighting
Your Single-Weapon Fighting bonus is increased to a +20% Combat Style bonus to attack speed
an additional 3 Melee Power (for a total of 6)
and improves your melee power by 3%(for a total of 6% .
You now apply 25% more of your appropriate ability score to your damage instead of just your ability score (for instance, you add 1.25 times your Strength as damage).

Greater Single Weapon Fighting
Your Single-Weapon Fighting bonus is increased to a +30% Combat Style bonus to attack speed
4 additional Melee Power (for a total of 10),
improves your melee power by 4%(for a total of 10%)
and 50% more of your appropriate ability score to your damage (similar to Two-Handed Fighting).

Two Handed Fighting
Increases the damage of glancing blow attacks when wielding a two-handed weapon by 10% (from a base of 20% normal weapon damage). Also grants a 3% chance for weapon effects to trigger on glancing blows ,
+3 Combat Style bonus to Melee Power and ),
improves your melee power by 6%
.
Improved Two Handed Fighting
Increases the damage of glancing blow attacks when wielding a two-handed weapon by an additional 10%.
Also increases the chance for weapon effects to trigger on glancing blows by an additional 3% (6%) ,
an additional +3 Combat Style bonus to Melee Power (+6)
improves your melee power by 6%(for a total of 12%).


Greater Two Handed Fighting

Increases the damage of glancing blow attacks when wielding a two-handed weapon by an additional 10% for a total of 50%.
Also increases the chance for weapon effects to trigger on glancing blows by an additional 3% (9%) , a
n additional +4 to Melee Power (+10)
improves your melee power by 8%(for a total of 20%)
.

Two Weapon Fighting
Reduces the to-hit penalty when using two weapons at the same time. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off-hand lessens by 6, resulting in -4/-4 (instead of -6/-10 without this feat). If the off-hand weapon is light, both penalties decrease by another 2 points, down to -2/-2 (instead of -4/-8 without this feat). Two Weapon Fighting also increases the chance to proc an off-hand attack by 20% (applies to unarmed Monk), bringing the total chance to 40%.
+3 Combat Style bonus to Melee Power
and 3% of your Armor Class as Competence Bonus to Shield bonus to Armor Class



Improved Two Weapon Fighting
This feat increases the chance to proc an off-hand attack by 20% (includes unarmedMonk), bringing the total chance to 60%.
+3 Combat Style bonus to Melee Power (6)
and 3%(6%) of your Armor Class as Competence Bonus to Shield bonus to Armor Class

Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Increases the chance to proc an off-hand attack by 20%, bringing the total chance to 80%.
+4 Combat Style bonus to Melee Power (10)
and 4%(10%) of your Armor Class as Competence Bonus to Shield bonus to Armor Class

Oversized Two Weapon Fighting
Now you consider one handed weapon as a light weapon.

Two Weapon Defense
Grants you a +5 bonus to your AC and 5 PRR when you wield two weapons. ( This bonus does not apply when fighting unarmed/with handwraps.) In DDO, this is not implemented as a shield bonus and stacks with the Shield spell.

Two Weapon Blocking
removed : Increases amount of damage you can block when defending with two weapons. ( This bonus does not apply when fighting unarmed/with handwraps.)


You gain 1 Physical Resistance Rating per caracter level while block when defending with two weapons (half if when fighting unarmed/with handwraps)


Greater Weapon Specialization
Adds
+6 damage when using the specified weapon type, that stacks with the bonus from weapon specialization.

Spell Focus
This feat makes it harder for enemies to resist the caster's spells of a particular school by adding +2 to the difficulty class of the spell.

Greater Spell Focus
This feat makes it harder for enemies to resist the caster's spells of a particular school by adding +3 to the difficulty class of the spell. This stacks with Spell Focus.

[Severlin]

No, I actually like the fact that it will follow the paladin through weapon changes, that was a good idea.

This. The new spell is much more player friendly.

Sev~

[Hoglum]

This. The new spell is much more player friendly.

Sev~


Rename it holy hand, haha.

[Krelar]

This. The new spell is much more player friendly.

Sev~

I just had a thought on the new version of the spell.

Currently the spell is a weapon buff and does not get dispelled by beholder's/other things that dispelled your buffs.

With the changes so it is more like a character buff is the spell going to now be dispelled in those situations?

[cdarkmoon]

Help me understand please. The way I am understanding the holysword change with the "testing" that has been done is it will now only NOT effect shield? This was orginaly based on the idea that Vangard Pally builds did to much dps vs their servivability. Seems this dps was mainly focased in the shield department? (why else would you focas the change on this one aspect, after testing of corse) Which has hardcoded limitations in the cooldown department, and requires a full 20 levels of the class to access the better aspects of. With a hefty investment into some sort of stunning dc to be usfull in EE. Which was based on the fact that most Vangards are pure 20 builds that wear heavy armor. Heavy armor in turn is now being "ajusted" to lower said servivability. I will admit when i got the demonic slab and cast holy sword on it i about fell out of my chair. Then I played it sloted. Was not impresed. What looked to be overwhelming seemed off for what you would think the base bdr looked like ah well still looked cool. I gess I need to sum this up. I dont understand why the deves feel the need to attack HS aspect of it appling to shieds. Which is most associated with Vangard which is most associated with 20 lvls of pallidan. Which seems to be on the lower end of perferming (not testing on target dummy) meelee dps.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

seriously? so basically its staying exactly the same.

sure it closes the gap between pally and fighter snb users, but honestly why even bother to change the code at this point.

having it not apply to offhand weapons never solved the core issue of hs anyway, which is that its a spell instead of a t5 or core enhancement, and applies to anything. and by anything i mean any weapon, not anything in your mainhand or offhand which is completely besides the point.

[lLockehart]

Sorry, have to call this mild BS. You rightly acknowledge the culprits for OP Warlocks. But then, these two thingies are exactly the one features of WL that DO NOT GET NERFED. So building WL exactly for t5 tainted using Shiradi will REMAIN the SAME. And ES t5 does not get nerfed either. And you may splash 5 WL to get this.

SO WHAT MAKES WL OP (especially in heroics) DOES NOT GET NERFED. All else, and each and every WL build gets nerfed thoroughly. So if the issue truely was balance, as stated by the devs, the WL nerf is an utter failure. And your arguments go void.

Edit: And I played Shiradi WL in EE and no, the Shiradi WL was not OP. Damage peaked at about 1600 points on crit, the WL did fine on damage over time, but given the sheer hp masses to be faced in EE the mobs had a fair chance to kill the WL before the WL was able to do enough DPS to kill them. Sorry to call you out on this but I doubt your WL experiences in EE.

Well, I did say I'd even go further on the nerf so I'm acknowledging the sheer power and that It'll still be a powerful class and build nonetheless, I'm not sure where my argument is void. Besides, a 20%~damage nerf will affect tier 5 tainted since it's built mainly for damage, the Dc Soul eater remains mostly the same, as do the melee spirit builds, (which didn't need the nerf whatsoever but take collateral damage) Now, as for my experience, I did plow through a lot of things, even on TEE EE, I couldn't solo the second quest but did end up at the shroom lady chambers, Shiradi feylock has been easily the most powerful class to play since Swashie release, (You jump on mobs throwing a single Eldrich ball, and then Eldrich burst and they take 3 instances of damage in 1 second, passive aura, Eball and Eburst, this will spike to like, 4k damage with a strong chance to shiradi venom them, coupled with sense weakness which scales weirdly with improved crit damage, it will clear you most encounters with sheer ease, not to mention, if you have the HH lantern, you proc 3 instances of light damage, all of them with improved crit damage. I think a rough 20% ~ damage nerf does rightfully cut a little DPS back and it's a good thing it does, Soul eater and Melee spirits will remain mostly the same.

[Nestroy]

Well, I did say I'd even go further on the nerf so I'm acknowledging the sheer power and that It'll still be a powerful class and build nonetheless, I'm not sure where my argument is void. Besides, a 20%~damage nerf will affect tier 5 tainted since it's built mainly for damage, the Dc Soul eater remains mostly the same, as do the melee spirit builds, (which didn't need the nerf whatsoever but take collateral damage) Now, as for my experience, I did plow through a lot of things, even on TEE EE, I couldn't solo the second quest but did end up at the shroom lady chambers, Shiradi feylock has been easily the most powerful class to play since Swashie release, (You jump on mobs throwing a single Eldrich ball, and then Eldrich burst and they take 3 instances of damage in 1 second, passive aura, Eball and Eburst, this will spike to like, 4k damage with a strong chance to shiradi venom them, coupled with sense weakness which scales weirdly with improved crit damage, it will clear you most encounters with sheer ease, not to mention, if you have the HH lantern, you proc 3 instances of light damage, all of them with improved crit damage. I think a rough 20% ~ damage nerf does rightfully cut a little DPS back and it's a good thing it does, Soul eater and Melee spirits will remain mostly the same.

Please check again the original post of Severlin:



Eldritch Blast and other enhancements (Warlock)
The spellpower scaling for Eldritch Blast and several enhancements has been reduced.

Spellpower scaling of Warlock Abilities


Ability
Old
New


Eldritch Blast
150%
130%


Eldritch Blast Cone
130%
130%


Eldritch Blast Chain
110%
95%


Eldritch Blast Aura
150%
130%


Stricken (Souleater)
150%
125%


Consume (Souleater)
150%
125%


Eldritch Burst (Enlightened Spirit)
120%
100%


Spirit Blast (Enlightened Spirit)
120%
100%




These are the Blast shapes taking the hit. Tainted Scholar does not take any hit on DPS. All the other enhancement trees get hit, but the easiest most powerful blast shape does get... nothing at all.

And given your Shiradi WL is the most powerful WL build - that build does not get hit by the nerf at all. All else gets hit, Eldritch Ball nothing. Now, please, go, tell me this is a deserved nerf.

Edit: If balancing was of any concern for the devs, why on earth is the single most OP enhancement from Warlock, talking about ST, still unnerfed open for all splashing 5 levels of WL?!

[blerkington]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

Hi,

While I'm sure this will be appreciated by some paladin players, it's things like this which make your claims about testing very, very hard to take seriously.

One moment your testing shows one thing, the next moment apparently it can show exactly the opposite. The way you are handling the rebalance is a complete farce.

Thanks.

[lLockehart]

Please check again the original post of Severlin:




These are the Blast shapes taking the hit. Tainted Scholar does not take any hit on DPS. All the other enhancement trees get hit, but the easiest most powerful blast shape does get... nothing at all.

And given your Shiradi WL is the most powerful WL build - that build does not get hit by the nerf at all. All else gets hit, Eldritch Ball nothing. Now, please, go, tell me this is a deserved nerf.

Edit: If balancing was of any concern for the devs, why on earth is the single most OP enhancement from Warlock, talking about ST, still unnerfed open for all splashing 5 levels of WL?!

Hm... Eblast and Aura take the nerf and they're the most commonly used, T5 tainted uses these as well for their main damage source, I'm not sure I follow.
It's a shame they're also nerfing Stricken and Consume, which I strongly believe they actually needed a buff, even the most dedicated Soul eater in Angel destiny grazing 500 light power will not see good numbers with these abilities, consume meant for 1 use on random trash (for debuff purposes) and for bosses, since it doesn't scale with CL, It'll never be as strong as the vanilla Dots (Niacs bitting cold and Eldar's surge) I played both Tainted and Soul eater and it was an incredibly more difficult playstyle with Soul eater.

[Basura_Grande]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

This is a good decision. Thank you.

[NarutoArgo]

I must say, it looks like just about everyone is missing the point of balance changes. The classes are getting nerfed so to speak, but in a balancing sense. Characters today are way to strong for the quest we are given and the only way to fix it is

1. Do less damage so we don't get faced with number 2

2 take more damage and complain about getting one spotted

Sev and the other devs are trying to balance without making everything one shot is and I think they are doing a fine job. These BALANCE changes are necessary. Everyone's OP build will still be strong after the changes, just not game breaking (hopefully) so quit complaining.

[redoubt]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

So... are vanguards really the dps problem? (They are the only group getting the HS nerf now.)

[Vulkoorex]

So... are vanguards really the dps problem? (They are the only group getting the HS nerf now.)

No love of Paladin S&B. :(

[Severlin]

While I'm sure this will be appreciated by some paladin players, it's things like this which make your claims about testing very, very hard to take seriously.



Keep in kind that we can't test changes until we implement them. That means we can either get builds into your hands early as possible, or hold off on builds and keep them away from the players longer.

All player feedback has indicated that players would prefer us to get things on Lamannia early and listen to player feedback. The thing I am concerned about with your quote above is you are basically telling us we should hold off putting changes on Lamannia and then don't make changes based on player feedback because if we do that, well then our claims are "suspect."

We don't really adhere to this line of thinking. Once we become hesitant to put early builds up for player testing, and once we stop tweaking changes based on player feedback because we are afraid that players will find our discussions "suspect" then the communication between players and devs will completely break down. We don't feel that is healthy for the game.

Sev~

[Mellkor]

So after stating that ranged 14 splash paladins was the driving force for the Holy Sword spell NERF, you have reverted it to pretty much the way it was except for S&B users? Of all the builds to NERF that one needs a nerf the least.

Just change it back to the way it was. And call it a day.

Or if you simply MUST do this, just to save face, then at least remove the 1 second timer on secondary shield bashes.

[Severlin]

So... are vanguards really the dps problem? (They are the only group getting the HS nerf now.)

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

[Grailhawk]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

On the question of "Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles" have you guys looked at Swashbuckler with Skirmisher and Shield Mastery/Improved Shield Mastery/Legendary Shield Mastery vs Swashbuckler with Dashing Scoundrel?

[Steve_Howe]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

Shields really do so much damage that they tip the DPS balance in favor of Vanguards significantly?

I'm really sorry, Sev, but I'm just not seeing it.

It that were true, I'd be seeing boatloads of Vanguards running around Stormreach and Eveningstar but guess what? I'm not.

S&B builds just aren't sexy even with the current version of Holy Sword. My guess (and it's only a guess) is after the Holy Sword change in 28.1, I'll see even fewer Vanguards than I do now.

Sorry, but that's what I've seen and those are my feelings.

[Mellkor]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

I disagree with this. I have played all 3 styles extensively. Vanguards do not come close to out dpsing TWF or THF builds. The only way you could justify that argument is in situations where a vanguard can survive and keep swinging when THF or TWF can not. But thats not a good reason to nerf S&B, thats the very reason to go S&B over the other styles. Assuming all 3 builds CAN survive and keep swinging, then the vanguard is behind in DPS by a good amount.

[Grailhawk]

Shields really do so much damage that they tip the DPS balance in favor of Vanguards significantly?

I don't think thats what he is saying. He is saying that shields add enough defense that if Vanguard is better DPS then THF or TWF which offer less defense there is no point in playing a THF or TWF when you can be a Vanguard with better defense and better offence

[Robai]

~ Just confirmed, our quarterstaff tests are with Thunderforged weapons.
~ Our build is doing excellent DPS, just behind Tempest but in front of most other builds we've tested.
~ We will be interested to see how your builds do when Lamannia comes back up.

Sev~

The nerf to Improved Critical feat is needed, I think almost everyone agree with that (I mean crit range bonuses from Enhancements, ED, Holy Sword, etc. should NOT be doubled).

The problem with the proposed IC feat nerf is that it will nerf special weapons, which has expanded BASE crit range.
Btw, it will result in a new bug, because the description of Keen (http://ddowiki.com/page/Keen) says that: The base critical threat range of this weapon is doubled.

You tested Thunderforged Quarterstaff, but it doesn't have expanded base crit range and thus won't be nerfed harder than other weapons (I mean it will be nerfed correctly).
So I don't see a point of testing TF Quarterstaff for that matter.

Please check the list of weapons here:
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466482-Crit-range-Nerf-incoming!
(please check both tables, in the second table is the list of correctly nerfed crit ranges)

[Qhualor]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

fighter havent had their pass yet as you obviously know. I would assume even if Vanguard tree was untouched, the fighter pass would still affect Vanguard fighters. note that im not specifically talking about a Vanguard Fighter using a shield. I would assume there would be some changes to the other trees that a Vanguard might dip into and maybe the class itself that could tip the scales.

[Tlorrd]

The best part of this update is when I nerf my credit card.

This ^^

[redoubt]

Keep in kind that we can't test changes until we implement them. That means we can either get builds into your hands early as possible, or hold off on builds and keep them away from the players longer.

All player feedback has indicated that players would prefer us to get things on Lamannia early and listen to player feedback. The thing I am concerned about with your quote above is you are basically telling us we should hold off putting changes on Lamannia and then don't make changes based on player feedback because if we do that, well then our claims are "suspect."

We don't really adhere to this line of thinking. Once we become hesitant to put early builds up for player testing, and once we stop tweaking changes based on player feedback because we are afraid that players will find our discussions "suspect" then the communication between players and devs will completely break down. We don't feel that is healthy for the game.

Sev~

I think you should put the changes on lamania in stages. i.e if you want to nerf TWF, holy sword and heavy armor then you:

1. Week one: put the TWF nerf on lama.
2. Week two: undo the TWF nerf, put in HS nerf.
3. Week three: undo HS nerf, put in armor nerf.
4. Week four: decide which of these 3 changes that all can affect a single build does what you want. If not, then start putting them on in combinations.
5. etc...

If you dump all the changes at once and you find a large synergistic affect, you have a harder time figuring out what is happening. For example, if you reduce defense and offense at the same time you may find that what you though was OP is now at the bottom of the stack because less offense means mobs live longer, which increases incoming damage, but you also reduced defense, so did you just double the incoming damage? Triple it? Square it?

As far as getting things to test to us, yes do that. Also get stuff to us to paper test. Put out your whole list of ideas. I.e. the long list of changes in this post. That is good. What you need to add to it is the time phased approach to testing it. By showing the whole plan, but testing in increments you get multiple benefits. Players can bring obvious things to you attention based on paper, or maybe point out things that you didn't know like how moving while TWF is different than all the other styles. You also get more specific test results.

Put another way:

If you drop all the changes at once you might find that: Paladin TWFr time to complete quest X increases by 78%. This is more change than desired and you are left guessing what happened.

Or, If you drop the changes in stages you might find that:
TWF change creates a dps decrease of 7.2% and results in a 10% increase in quest completion time.
HS change on TWF paladin creates a 12.3% decrease in DPS and a 18% increase in completion time.
When combined these create a 37% decrease in DPS and a 78% increase in completion time.
The math doesn't add up, but as the monsters live longer, LOH become used up faster and sp run out and they fall back on potions and scrolls, thus greatly increasing completion time.

[redoubt]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

I'm on my third Vanguard Paladin life. I've not played them back to back. I've played assassin, swashbuckler, moncher, warlock in between. Moncher is the one I really noticed as lagging behind. Assassin is the one I had to work the hardest with to maintain my usual place in the pack. Warlock is the one I had to work the hardest to keep from dying.

I've not played a non-assassin TWF since the AC changes years ago, so I can't comment on the effectiveness of those builds by contrast, but I'm not seeing the disparity that you are seeing during my gameplay.

As far as balancing Vanguard for paladin and fighter, why? One is a paladin and one is a fighter? Paladin runs with HS and the fighter runs with whatever new goodness you give them in their pass. Please make them different. I for one, do not want more homogenization of builds.

[edana]

On Lama, Spirit blast and Eldritch burst tooltip shown ASF, WAI?

Did not see this mentioned on the current balance list. If it is WAI, why single out these two SLA subject to ASF while most other SLA are not?

Do not understand the logic behind this change (if its WAI), if SLA are subject to ASF, it should be carry across the board and apply to all SLA, don't cherry pick to nerf a class

[blerkington]

Keep in kind that we can't test changes until we implement them. That means we can either get builds into your hands early as possible, or hold off on builds and keep them away from the players longer.

All player feedback has indicated that players would prefer us to get things on Lamannia early and listen to player feedback. The thing I am concerned about with your quote above is you are basically telling us we should hold off putting changes on Lamannia and then don't make changes based on player feedback because if we do that, well then our claims are "suspect."

We don't really adhere to this line of thinking. Once we become hesitant to put early builds up for player testing, and once we stop tweaking changes based on player feedback because we are afraid that players will find our discussions "suspect" then the communication between players and devs will completely break down. We don't feel that is healthy for the game.

Sev~

Hi,

It's responses like this, set in contrast with your very late and short testing period on Lammania, which is why I think the development team has lost a lot of credibility with these recent changes. Don't even bother pretending that player testing is important to you when you give us so little time on Lammania to do that testing.

You should also be able to model the results of your changes mathematically, preferably before you even consider making a change. If you aren't able to do that in a way with good predictive power of how builds perform in game, something is seriously wrong.

At this point I'm not terribly concerned about communication breaking down, because I think the state of it now is already bordering on useless. You have shown us apart from a couple of minor cases, that you'll do pretty much what you want to do, and that is a very unfortunate situation for us when it's being done by a team with a very imperfect understanding of how the game works and how we play it.

You and your team have simply ignored large and important parts of the discussions of some of these changes, misrepresented the degree of their severity, ignored solutions provided by the community which are better than the ones you came up with yourselves, and are now backtracking on others.

I'll say it again; this is a farce.

Thanks.

[slarden]

On Lama, Spirit blast and Eldritch burst tooltip shown ASF, WAI?

Did not see this mentioned on the current balance list. If it is WAI, why single out these two SLA subject to ASF while most other SLA are not?

Do not understand the logic behind this change (if its WAI), if SLA are subject to ASF, it should be carry across the board and apply to all SLA, don't cherry pick to nerf a class

These were always intended to have arcane spell failure

[CeltEireson]

Hi,

It's responses like this, set in contrast with your very late and short testing period on Lammania, which is why I think the development team has lost a lot of credibility with these recent changes. Don't even bother pretending that player testing is important to you when you give us so little time on Lammania to do that testing.

You should also be able to model the results of your changes mathematically, preferably before you even consider making a change. If you aren't able to do that in a way with good predictive power of how builds perform in game, something is seriously wrong.

At this point I'm not terribly concerned about communication breaking down, because I think the state of it now is already bordering on useless. You have shown us apart from a couple of minor cases, that you'll do pretty much what you want to do, and that is a very unfortunate situation for us when it's being done by a team with a very imperfect understanding of how the game works and how we play it.

You and your team have simply ignored large and important parts of the discussions of some of these changes, misrepresented the degree of their severity, ignored solutions provided by the community which are better than the ones you came up with yourselves, and are now backtracking on others.

I'll say it again; this is a farce.

Thanks.

Ahhh so what youre basically saying is for the devs to ignore everything you say and just dump it straight on to live? Because obviously upsetting the customers is their primary goal based on what youre saying, despite the fact that the game closing means theyre out of a job and its looks kind of bad on their resume for any future jobs, and of course none of the team care at all about the game from a professional or job satisfaction point of view.

Yes, makes perfect senses.

[Jetrule]

I wonder if I am too much a flavor of the month player. I started playing DDO in early 2014, My main character is currently playing a pali15/rogue 5 build relying on bonecrusher and will use epic bone crusher. I started playing after raiders boxes were a thing so I have no sireth. He dose have 5 heroic past lives and 3 pdk past lives and 3 double strike etrs. 2 other etrs. I am heavily relying on the mrr and prr from heavy armor and sacred defender stance for mitigation and the enhanced crit range of the bone crusher + holy sword for damage. So this character will be one of the hardest hit by incoming nerfs.

My primary alt is currently a halfling pure warlock E.S./T.S. tanklock build with a couple of arcane etr's, no heroic reincarnations. I keep him at epic levels as a warlock to group up with friends and guildies doing epic content. He is ee viable in groups for most tanking. His lack of dps makes solo ee a chancy prospect for most ee's. He can solo any e.h. quest at any level. He is overpowered for his lack of past lives gear and tomes etc.. But he is not over powered offensively. His medium armor losing the 10 mrr or so is not a big deal the dps may be. I never participated in dupapalooza. my characters have limited access to thunderforged options.

My two currently most played characters They feel like the two characters that are most targeted for nerf..

My old primary alt is a assassin pure rogue with a rogue past life and a double strike etr. He is parked at 28 and just got the new epic slice and dice set which is outstanding dps. He has a assassins kiss and a high priestess blade combo for assassinating. He feels unaffected.

These are the only three characters I play with any regularity. I am very worried for the viability of my main and concerned about the viability of my warlock. I think my rogue will be unaffected as long as he sticks to slice and dice anyway.
So yeah the 2 lr5 stones will work for me. Despite the fact I really liked being a staff fighter and a tank lock I will probably pull out of those builds.

The warlock I get it. He is by my own admission O.P. The staff fighter has weak damage compared to his last life's rogue mech, and I don't think he can stand to lose 2 of his crit range from bone crusher. I would accept the 1 from holy sword. but -3 total to endgame crit range and even -2 to his epic leveling crit range may be the difference between survival and death in many instances. I am most definitely not a player who has characters that never die or "faceroll" E.E. quests. I just wanted to give you the perspective of a midtime - new player on the nerfs.

[Drwaz99]

Hi,

It's responses like this, set in contrast with your very late and short testing period on Lammania, which is why I think the development team has lost a lot of credibility with these recent changes. Don't even bother pretending that player testing is important to you when you give us so little time on Lammania to do that testing.

You should also be able to model the results of your changes mathematically, preferably before you even consider making a change. If you aren't able to do that in a way with good predictive power of how builds perform in game, something is seriously wrong.

At this point I'm not terribly concerned about communication breaking down, because I think the state of it now is already bordering on useless. You have shown us apart from a couple of minor cases, that you'll do pretty much what you want to do, and that is a very unfortunate situation for us when it's being done by a team with a very imperfect understanding of how the game works and how we play it.

You and your team have simply ignored large and important parts of the discussions of some of these changes, misrepresented the degree of their severity, ignored solutions provided by the community which are better than the ones you came up with yourselves, and are now backtracking on others.

I'll say it again; this is a farce.

Thanks.

Words right out of my mouth. Thank you.

[blerkington]

Ahhh so what youre basically saying is for the devs to ignore everything you say and just dump it straight on to live? Because obviously upsetting the customers is their primary goal based on what youre saying, despite the fact that the game closing means theyre out of a job and its looks kind of bad on their resume for any future jobs, and of course none of the team care at all about the game from a professional or job satisfaction point of view.

Yes, makes perfect senses.

Hi,

No, what I'm saying is there should be a longer development cycle for changes of this magnitude.

My main point is there hasn't been enough discussion of these changes, enough modelling, enough time for us to test them, enough details about their testing methods and results, and enough consideration given to alternative solutions.

If you are satisfied with how this is proceeding, that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But there's no need to mischaracterise my position, when what I'm advocating is very far from ridiculous.

Thanks.

[Krell]

I disagree with this. I have played all 3 styles extensively. Vanguards do not come close to out dpsing TWF or THF builds. The only way you could justify that argument is in situations where a vanguard can survive and keep swinging when THF or TWF can not. But thats not a good reason to nerf S&B, thats the very reason to go S&B over the other styles. Assuming all 3 builds CAN survive and keep swinging, then the vanguard is behind in DPS by a good amount.

Agreed. I don't see them leading currently and they will be less effective if this is implemented.

[Lopnel]

Holy Sword (Paladin)
This is now a spell that affects the paladin and buffs whatever melee weapon is being wielded in the main hand.
It no longer persists on your weapon but instead buffs the melee weapon you are holding in your main hand. (Yes, this buffs your two handed weapons.)
It no longer affects missile weapons.
It no longer can be used to buff off hand weapons or shields.
If you change weapons the spell will drop off the unequipped weapon and instead be applied to the newly equipped weapon.

"Holy Swords should be only for melee weapons but should also include off hand weapons when cast. My reasons for this opinion is based on what few feats the paladin has to work with. As it is a spell where the caster looks at their off hand weapon and targets it! Cast it twice?"

Blood Strength (Barbarian Ravager)
The portion of this enhancement that heals the user when they kill an opponent now has a 1 second internal cooldown.

"Reasonable"

Critical Rage (Barbarian Ravager)
The bonus to critical threat range is now a competence bonus.

Two weapon fighting animations have been fixed so there is no longer a weird jump on the fourth animation. This has made the fourth attack slightly quicker.[/B]

"Multiple sources of critical threat ranges should stack as long as those sources are of a different named source of bonus."

Two Weapon Fighting no longer grants melee power.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting no longer grants melee power.
Greater Two Weapon Fighting no longer grants melee power.

"Fixing the animation and causing a slightly faster damage roll is long over due and greatly appreciated."
"Why single out a weapon style? Having 2 weapons attacking at the same time is GOING to produce more damage rolls per second. If you should decide to nerf one weapon style then all weapon styles should equally be nerfed. DPS is based on Race, class, elected feats, elected enhancements and on a major note the quality of weapon(s) being used. I for one appreciate the addition and minor stacking weapon power adjustment as it is relative to LEVEL PROGRESSION as well as the weapon(s) quality."

Doubleshot values over 100% now have a chance of producing a third attack. The chance is equal to the amount the value exceeds 100. A doubleshot value of 130, for example, would always produce one extra shot and have a 30% chance to produce a third shot.

(Doublestrike will still cap at 100 for technical reasons.)

"Appropriate and long overdue and hopefully in the future applied to melee aswell"

Repeating Crossbows and Doubleshot
Fixed a bug where Doubleshot was not being reduced for repeating crossbows. (Doubleshot chance is divided by 3 for repeating crossbows.)

"Should it be meant to reduced this should be stated on the item so players can relate to this. Why hide something people need to know?"

Manyshot
This ability is being redesigned.
For the next 20 seconds you add your (base attack bonus * 4) to your Doubleshot and Ranged Power. This ability puts Ten Thousand Stars on a 30 second cooldown. Cooldown 2 minutes.
(This ability no longer gives a doubleshot penalty when activated.)

"Reasonable. But it appears this is not a nerf but a fuel injected rocket boost to damage rolls and could cause serious lag during both raids and regular dungeons."

Ten Thousand Stars
This ability is being redesigned.
For the next 30 seconds you add your Wisdom ability score to your Ranged Power and you add your monk level * 5 to your Doubleshot. This ability puts Manyshot on a 30 second cooldown. Cooldown 1 minute.
(This ability no longer gives a doubleshot penalty when activated.)

"Reasonable. But it appears this is not a nerf but a fuel injected rocket boost to damage rolls and could cause serious lag during both raids and regular dungeons"

Mechanical Reloader (Rogue Mechanic)
The alacrity for non-repeating crossbows is now 30%. (Was 40%)

"Reasonable."

Pulverizer (Legendary Dreadnought)
The bonus to critical threat range for bludgeoning weapons is now an Insight bonus.

"Multiple sources of critical threat ranges should stack as long as those sources are of a different named source of bonus. Epic feats, epic enhancements, heroic enhancements and base weapon threat ranges SHOULD ALL STACK as these areas are all ways to increase threat range for those that specialize with those weapon types due to level advancement."

Improved Critical
These feats now add a bonus to critical threat range based purely on weapon type.
* Adds +3 to critical threat range for falchion, kukri, rapier, and scimitar.
* Adds +2 to the critical threat range of bastard sword, dagger, great crossbow, greatsword, heavy crossbow, khopesh, light crossbow, long sword, repeating heavy crossbow, repeating light crossbow, short sword, and throwing dagger.
* Adds +1 to all other weapons.

"This is a distinct and separate function to base qualities of weapons. Very reasonable. However it has nothing to do with enhancements and feats and should be appropriately stackable."

Keen
This loot effect now add a bonus to critical threat range based purely on weapon type.
* Adds +3 to critical threat range for falchion, kukri, rapier, and scimitar.
* Adds +2 to the critical threat range of bastard sword, dagger, great crossbow, greatsword, heavy crossbow, khopesh, light crossbow, long sword, repeating heavy crossbow, repeating light crossbow, short sword, and throwing dagger.
* Adds +1 to all other weapons.

"Reasonable and should be completely separate from feats and enhancements."

Armor Changes
The amount of Physical Resist Rating that armor provides has been changed.
* Heavy armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 2) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Medium armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1.5) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Light Armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
Fixed a bug where players were getting Physical Resist Rating for armor with which they were not proficient.

(Note: The Physical Resist Rating and Magical Resist Rating offered by shields remain unchanged.)

As a result of dialing back armor, some fighter only feats that will boost their effectiveness with armor and add to tactical DCs will also be included.

"A loss of even 1% should be reconsidered as each individual monster can deal over whelming damage to a single player and to have mobs of incoming damage along with potential lag. Base PRR should be INCREASED and not nerfed. The increase should be based on armor quality for all types (base level requirement of ANY armor)."

Tactical Training
Requires Fighter Level 4
You gain +2 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 8
You gain +4 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Mastery
Requires Fighter Level 12
You gain +6 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Supremacy
Requires Fighter Level 16
You gain +8 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Notes: All tactical feats stack for a total of +20. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Tactical Training and forego the +2 but still have access to Tatical Supremacy.

"Restricting these feats just to fighter class is inappropriate as all classes may potentially use tactics."

Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Notes: All Heavy Armor feats stack for a total of +30. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Heavy Armor Training and forego the +3 and still have access to Heavy Armor Champion.

"Restricting these feats just to fighter class is inappropriate as all classes may potentially use heavy armor and already must stress heavily on enhancements to be able to do so. PRR and MRR should be based on the level requirement of armors equipped. Without the proficiency of equipped armor the PRR and MRR values should not appropriate. It is in my opinion that the higher quality of armor, regardless of type, should provide qualities of AC, PRR and MRR based on those that FORGED the named or craftable armors and then equated with the level requirements. Feats should increase max DEX, AC and even ablation/absorption of different types of incoming damage"

Divine Grace (Paladin)
Divine Grace now provides a maximum bonus equal to 2 + (Paladin level x 3).

"Very reasonable."

Eldritch Blast and other enhancements (Warlock)
The spellpower scaling for Eldritch Blast and several enhancements has been reduced.

Spellpower scaling of Warlock Abilities


Ability
Old
New


Eldritch Blast
150%
130%


Eldritch Blast Cone
130%
130%


Eldritch Blast Chain
110%
95%


Eldritch Blast Aura
150%
130%


Stricken (Souleater)
150%
125%


Consume (Souleater)
150%
125%


Eldritch Burst (Enlightened Spirit)
120%
100%


Spirit Blast (Enlightened Spirit)
120%
100%



"Why change the Warlock rating. Instead increase appropriated creatures with MRR?"

"Nerfing the DPS of all classes is not a solution to whiney complainers who have no respect to those that work full time and enjoy what they have available already. These people have invested time, resources and research into their WELL DESRERVED, OP, KICK *** builds. And respectfully towards the programmers and developers of this game: consider those that do not have unlimited time to play this game and NEED the shorter duration and larger damage numbers to excite and entertain them due to the already massive HP monsters: in what limited time they have BECAUSE the real world must come first."

[Spoonwelder]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~
Sigh.....someone who is on Lamma please do the tests for Sev & the Devs (new band name?).

I have played both in the past year (Pally/Ranger 15/5 (pre-ranger pass) then some warlock to get completionist back - now Pure Pally)- nearly identical gear - I had tried vangaurd before but it was while rolling some ETRs and it was a messy 15/3/2 Pal/Rng/Fi build that didn't really synergize at all for Vanguard. So I wanted to try a pure Vanguard. There are no real splashes that make a Vanguard build better (IMO) so I think my starting point for a comparison is fair.....

Vanguard is noticeably less DPS than TWF pally (pre ranger pass as well so significantly behind the currently available version) by a fair margin (I'd say 20% or more and this is with HS working)- the shield bash proc rate with the cooldown is not fast enough to equate to offhand attacks and I would much rather have a T3 TF in my offhand vs. shield for pure DPS. I haven't checked recently but I also don't think you get stat mod to the damage. That said you have much higher durability (AC/PRR/MRR of Towershield) I think that is arguably fair for 10-20% DPS shortfall depending on the design goal but I don't think HS needs to be nerfed for shields.

That said I can't argue it being a big factor either way since you are only buffing a shield and that means the nerf is losing (or keeping) for 1W (3d10-Ultimatum) and 5% crit range 5% damage on one swing per second - so maybe a hundred DPS all in....not sure it's worth fighting over but that also implies it's not likely worth making the change for either.

[edana]

These were always intended to have arcane spell failure

Just test SLA on live server, equip sorc with heavy armor, 35% ASF, 0% ASF reduce. Lighting Loop, Shocking Grasp, Lighting bolt, Scorch, fired 25 times each, ZERO ASF Fail, ability fired 100%. (roll dice didnt even show up). When regular spells used, an ASF roll dice show up.

If SLA's ASF is WAI, than do it across the board, apply ASF to all SLA, don't cherry pick to nerf a class.

[Severlin]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

[Livmo]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

No Needle?

http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Needle,_Quill-slinger

Needling for the Needle to be added to stack.

[blerkington]

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Hi,

Your list is missing the heroic and epic versions of the Sapphire Sting.

Thanks.

[redoubt]

Sigh.....someone who is on Lamma please do the tests for Sev & the Devs (new band name?).

I have played both in the past year (Pally/Ranger 15/5 (pre-ranger pass) then some warlock to get completionist back - now Pure Pally)- nearly identical gear - I had tried vangaurd before but it was while rolling some ETRs and it was a messy 15/3/2 Pal/Rng/Fi build that didn't really synergize at all for Vanguard. So I wanted to try a pure Vanguard. There are no real splashes that make a Vanguard build better (IMO) so I think my starting point for a comparison is fair.....

Vanguard is noticeably less DPS than TWF pally (pre ranger pass as well so significantly behind the currently available version) by a fair margin (I'd say 20% or more and this is with HS working)- the shield bash proc rate with the cooldown is not fast enough to equate to offhand attacks and I would much rather have a T3 TF in my offhand vs. shield for pure DPS. I haven't checked recently but I also don't think you get stat mod to the damage. That said you have much higher durability (AC/PRR/MRR of Towershield) I think that is arguably fair for 10-20% DPS shortfall depending on the design goal but I don't think HS needs to be nerfed for shields.

That said I can't argue it being a big factor either way since you are only buffing a shield and that means the nerf is losing (or keeping) for 1W (3d10-Ultimatum) and 5% crit range 5% damage on one swing per second - so maybe a hundred DPS all in....not sure it's worth fighting over but that also implies it's not likely worth making the change for either.

I worry some that people are seeing players with max'd past lives running something like a vanguard and leading the pack and coming to the conclusion that paladin vanguards do too much dps as a result. For example, my current vanguard has:
3xfighter granting +3 attack and +3 to my stunning shield.
3xmonk +3 damage
2xpali +10% hamp
3xranger 6% elemental (and 6/6 if I ever use a bow)
2xrogue 2% dodge (don't need an item in heavy plate)
3xPDK +9prr
6xDivine sphere +18prr
3xArcane sphere: all weapons gain +3 enhancement
3xMartial sphere: 9% doublestrike
Epic completionist (get a 4th twist)

And a bunch of others that help in other ways, but less directly on combat.

I pug a lot and this character runs against a lot of builds with far less development time. Of course it will look better and because I pug a lot it is seen by a lot of players. By contrast, guild only players run in a smaller circle that is likely filled with more equitable character levels.

Just something to keep in mind.

[edana]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


Missing First Blood/Epic First Blood?

[Robai]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

....

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

Thanks! Much appreciated!

Finally I can go to sleep :)

[Sgt_Hart]

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


http://ddowiki.com/page/Threat_range#Named_weapons

It'll help Sev.

[Severlin]

No Needle?

http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Needle,_Quill-slinger

Needling for the Needle to be added to stack.

All repeating crossbows have a 19-20 already. This weapon doesn't have an increased range and Improved Critical will add +2.

Sev~

[Theolin]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

...

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

I think 'Shadow Star' has an unusual crit range

[Saekee]

I think 'Shadow Star' has an unusual crit range
It is bugged. It is supposed to have the normal threat range plus keen. Instead, it is the same as snow star as far as I can tell, but with keen.

[Saekee]

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.
Sev~
?
So if it has keen and you have improved critical, it comes out less? (Like Oathblades and IC: Slashing would make it just 17-20 and mess up its range?)

[lLockehart]

Oh! that was really thoughtful of you guys, I'd imagine it would take too much effort to single out all the weapons but It's really great for all players out there using alternative builds/playstyles (or just the ones that heavily invested for an Epic SoS) thanks for listening. The wiki list is super well organized and should help tons!

In regards to Paladins and holy shields... I'm not very proficient on this matter, only played one vanguard paladin, right after I Etr'ed my THF one, and I didn't outdps my previous life, But! I was on par with it, (I was using the madstone aegis also, so I really tried hard) still, Vanguard should be a mix between Dps and tankieness, It's still going to dish out a lot of damage, I think this change impacts most importantly the Fighter, as of now, It's a no brainer to go Paladin, and that just destroys the uniqueness of playing a Fighter Vanguard, with the change, you actually have to decide, Do I go for a Str build/cc based fighter? or a supportive/more tanky pally that can double proc smites? choices are good and now, both sides are viable. I think it's better, but that's just my very personal opinion, it's been long since I've played a vanguard.

[Severlin]

Missing First Blood/Epic First Blood?

Base range is 19-20 as normal.

Sev~

[Robai]

?
So if it has keen and you have improved critical, it comes out less? (Like Oathblades and IC: Slashing would make it just 17-20 and mess up its range?)

As Sev said:


Named Item: Base Threat Range

Oathblade: 4


So, 17-20 is base.
It has Keen and it's a Long Sword, so +2 to range and thus it will be 15-20 (the same as before).
IC feat don't stack with Keen, so will still be 15-20 with IC.

With +1 bonus (from Enhancements, ED, Holy Sword, etc) it will be: 14-20 (so no longer doubled, i.e. no longer 13-20)

[zeonardo]

Shields really do so much damage that they tip the DPS balance in favor of Vanguards significantly?

I'm really sorry, Sev, but I'm just not seeing it.

It that were true, I'd be seeing boatloads of Vanguards running around Stormreach and Eveningstar but guess what? I'm not.

S&B builds just aren't sexy even with the current version of Holy Sword. My guess (and it's only a guess) is after the Holy Sword change in 28.1, I'll see even fewer Vanguards than I do now.

Sorry, but that's what I've seen and those are my feelings.

This.

I simply can't understand what kind of version of DDO the devs have been playing.
It's such a niche build!
Warlocks cleaving, bards freezing, swashbucklers... hum...swashing the buckle..., broken wolf dps anihilating, monkchers just... sigh
And they had to nerf the poor pali? Poor guys barely saw the light of day after a game-long winter...

It's just sad.

[Severlin]

?
So if it has keen and you have improved critical, it comes out less? (Like Oathblades and IC: Slashing would make it just 17-20 and mess up its range?)

Keen has never stacked with Improved Critical.

Sev~

[Livmo]

All repeating crossbows have a 19-20 already. This weapon doesn't have an increased range and Improved Critical will add +2.

Sev~

Pinion made the list and I don't see too much of a difference when I look closely at these 2 weapons side by side:

http://i.imgur.com/VUtlhhd.png

How about adding Seeker +10 to the Needle?

Please (you'll never know unless you ask :) ?

[Des0xyn]

Hey there all, a little late to the party, just some thoughts:

1) We get the nerf to divine grace, although what doesn't change for us is that epic traps/spells still have a dc of 70+ saves. Without divine grace, evasion dex to dmg builds is one way (doesn't stop will saves spells though). The other is MRR (heavy armor caster with skyvault). Or you can just die and be raised. Repeatedly.

Taking a step back, the reasons for players going either extremes is that, we enjoy options to be survivable. Currently, there are options to further increase saves:

- Great fortitude (+2 fort)
- Iron Will (+2 will)
- Lightning reflex (+2 reflex)
- Luck of heroes (+1 all saves)
- Resist Poison (+4 poison)
- Snake blood (+1 reflex, +2 poison)

and

- Insightful reflex (+ int mod to reflex)
- Force of personality (+ cha mod to will)

Of these 8 feats, i dare say, the only 2 worth taking are insightful reflex and force of personality. You can go through the builds on forums, it is so rare that anyone even considers taking the other feats.

We only have 7heroic (8human) + 3epic feats, and it just isn't worth investing those precious feats towards turning a +40 save to +41 if both saves are going to fail at epics. Both insightful reflex, and force of personality can make a decent difference if built for it (+10 to 15 to saves), and thats the impact that divine grace/paladin 2 splashes did too.

Players can only push saves so high in hope to be decent at epics. Even at maxed past lives (+3 rogue, +3bard etc), (divine sphere brace +3), enh, it is hard for some builds to meet the epic saves to get half damage or a chance not to be held helpless.

One consideration during this balance shift, could be working to have these feats scale into epics too. Front loading the feats will make them too powerful at epics such as (I would definitely take a +5 saves at heroics). A coding change could be to scale them like that of the epic destiny past lives, a basic +2 at lvl 10, and increases with every 5 or 10 levels.

This will give us more viable options to tweak builds, to sacrifice feats/dps for survivability.


The other consideration is the 4 mutually excluding feats/stances, combat expertise, power attack, precision and resilience. Most builds can only afford to choose 1 (it is a luxury to spend on a feat that you will only use situationally. Some of the others have mentioned, but the 4 feats aren't equal at the perks they could possibly give:

Power attack (the choice for melee aoe dps):
- -5 to attack roll (irrelevant in today's gameplay)
- +5 dmg (+10 thf)
- Opens cleave
- Open g cleave
- Required for momentum swing twist/lay waste
- Opens imp. power attack +0.5[w]
- enh trees (eg: wf, barb) that enhance it

Precision (the choice if melees have mortal fear, thus disregarding aoe dps and only for boss takedown. Also for ranged, non-cleaving monks, stun/helpless or sneak attack builds):
- bypass 25% fort
- 5% to hit (irrelevant in today's gameplay)

Combat expertise (possible choice for throwers)
- -5 to attack roll (irrelevant in today's gameplay)
- +10% armor
- 3 x spell cooldown
- Opens whirlwind attack (the double spin and pause break in animation, makes it much longer than a double cleave and stops most players from taking it. Mostly only unarmed monks and druids take this)
- Opens imp. combat expertise +20 prr

Resilience
- -5 to attack roll (irrelevant in today's gameplay)
- +4 saves
- 3 x spell cooldown


Given the reduction in PRR and MRR, one option for balance would be to improve upon the 4 choices we have here. Given the current lack of perks for combat expertise and especially resilience, why not just remove the 3 x spell cooldown?

Most melee builds these days even, do have some spells at least from epic destinies/twists. The other group I would see taking it would be those unaffected by the melee perks of power attack and the fort bypass perks of precision, mainly support and casters. This would give them an option besides heavy armor. The current 3 x spell cooldown is just too much of a cost for casters.

Also, maybe for future enh trees, epic destinies, consideration could be given to resilience too, or that it scales into epics. So that we have a viable option to saves too.

7heroic + 3 epic feats is already a limitation on most builds, commonly the breakdown (take a look at most forum builds) is already as such:

Melees:
- 3 x fighting style (swf, thf, twf)
- Improved critical
- 1 of the 4 stances (usually power attack or precision)
- 2 free feats (or cleave/ gcleave)

- Overwhelming crit
- 2 free feats (possibly 1 for saves, ie insightful reflex, or heals, ie quicken/empower heal and blinding speed)

Ranged:
- pbs
- precision
- Improved critical
- rapid shot
- precise shot
- improved precise shot
- 1 free feat

- Overwhelming crit
- Combat archery
- 1 free feat (usually blinding speed)


Caster:
- Maximise
- Quicken
- Enlarge
- Heigthen (dc caster) / Empower (sla caster)
- 3 free feats (Spell pen/focus for dc caster, 2 x Mental toughness for sla dmg casters, extend for longer displacement)

- Epic mental toughness, spell pen/focus
- Ruin
- Great ability

Most builds are just a shuffle around those feats. It is true that rangers/fighters/monks/wizards/artificers have some lee-way to take more feats, but most of the time these feats are also fully used to complete the class build, rather than a luxury to take a situational feat/manyshot/watchful eye/epic dr. Even fighters now will be squeezed tight since their extra feats are mostly going towards the new PRR/MRR and tactics feats. Completionists even have to spend an extra feat to fit it in.

So yes, buffing these more obsolete save feats, won't really result in the player base shoring up on them. But it will give an option to builds to min-max and give up maybe 1 cleave for more decent saves (instead of the marginal increase of +2 or +4 now)

[maddong]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
.........
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

What is the point of the change then? Why even nerf IC if you are going to improve the weapons so that they aren't nerfed?
You are just wasting programming time when you could have done nothing....

[Tlorrd]

What is the point of the change then? Why even nerf IC if you are going to improve the weapons so that they aren't nerfed?
You are just wasting programming time when you could have done nothing....

Exactly

[Propane]

Hello!

Below is some information about a test I just finished up on one of my alts.
This isn't my front line character, but does have decent gear. Working on gaining fate points, so not maximized by any stretch.

Character

1st life dwarf
12FT/6pally/2Rogue Epic 27
Medium Armor - White Dragon Scale T1
98 PRR / 69 MRR / Dodge 12 Live
94 PRR / 49 MRR / Dodge 12 Lammania
Dual Thunder Forged D-axe - Wrath of Flame & 1st Burns
Unyielding Sentinel 4
Divine Might + Power Surge at start of fight -->63 STR (not refreshed during)
53 Melee Power Live / 47 Melee Power Lammania

http://ddoborguild.enjin.com/gallery/m/32775618/det

http://ddoborguild.enjin.com/gallery/m/32775618/deta

Cabal for One - Epic Hard - Gardak Bruntsmash Beatdown
Holding attack button down - moving some to keep in melee ranged

Live (Oct 16th Friday evening)

Time Notes
Sec
41 3 Coccon
36 1 Coccon
40 3 Coccon
39 2 Coccon

Ave 39 sec and ~ 2 Coccon

Lammania (Oct 19 Monday evening)

Time Notes
Sec
42 2 Coccon
38 2 Coccon
48 2 Coccon
43 2 Coccon

Ave ~ 43 sec and ~ 2 Coccon

(sorry can't get screen shots to load)

[Propane]

Exactly

Starts with a clean slate moving forward for new weapons...

[Robai]

What is the point of the change then? Why even nerf IC if you are going to improve the weapons so that they aren't nerfed?
You are just wasting programming time when you could have done nothing....

The crit range for ALL weapons will be nerfed now if you have bonuses to crit range from Enhancements, Epic Destinies, Holy sword, etc.
For example, currently holy sword gives +2 crit range instead of +1, because IC feat erroneously doubles this bonus (IC was supposed to double only the base crit range).

But the nerf was too hard (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466482-Crit-range-Nerf-incoming!) on some named weapons, which had increased BASE crit range, so now Sev fixed that.

[Severlin]

What is the point of the change then? Why even nerf IC if you are going to improve the weapons so that they aren't nerfed?
You are just wasting programming time when you could have done nothing....

Enhancements aren't doubled, nor are future loot weapons.

Sev~

[slarden]

Having a 360 degree AoE ability out damage a cone really isn't balanced. The Warlock using the cone will have to constantly be moving to try to keep monsters lined up and even then will miss some. The point blank AoEs that the Enlighten Spirit uses hit all creature around them; it is much easier to hit more enemies with those.

The cone is the most effective by design; it requires the most positioning to line up well.

Sev~

Then please give the enlightened spirit SLAs a multi-select option.

Cone: 130% scaling to spellpower + light damage
360 AOE: 100% scaling to spellpower + light damage

I find the 360 AOE a burden not a benefit. I have to position myself in the middle of enemies rather than in front/behind to make good use of it.

As it stands the SLAs are worse than base eldritch damage with the cone. What's the point of having an SLA that does less damage than the base eldritch blast attack.

[sjbb87]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


Sireth, Spear of the Sky?

[Krelar]

Sireth, Spear of the Sky?

It was the second one on the list. :p

[FestusHood]

What is the point of the change then? Why even nerf IC if you are going to improve the weapons so that they aren't nerfed?
You are just wasting programming time when you could have done nothing....

Apparently this was easier than changing all the enhancements to not stack with ic. I can see both sides of it. Many of the special weapons which would be affected have been around since before they were thought to be overpowered. Interesting that thunderforged still beats all these special weapons, even though none of them have improved crit profiles. Probably shouldn't use mortal feat weapons for dps testing, that just has to skew the results tremendously, and even more so as the hit points on the target goes up.

[sjbb87]

Vanguards do not come close to out dpsing TWF or THF builds. The only way you could justify that argument is in situations where a vanguard can survive and keep swinging when THF or TWF can not. But thats not a good reason to nerf S&B, thats the very reason to go S&B over the other styles.

This....

On quest EE Vanguards are the kings, almost immortal.
He can easily jump into the middle of the mob and kill all with no problem.

I think that developers can add one more enhancement that add +1 critical and range in tier 5 of vanguard, nor that of any penalty, for example lose the effect of one of these:
Divine Grace
AC from the sheld
PRR from shield

a trade of defensive ability for an offensive


Hi,

It's responses like this, set in contrast with your very late and short testing period on Lammania, which is why I think the development team has lost a lot of credibility with these recent changes. Don't even bother pretending that player testing is important to you when you give us so little time on Lammania to do that testing.

You should also be able to model the results of your changes mathematically, preferably before you even consider making a change. If you aren't able to do that in a way with good predictive power of how builds perform in game, something is seriously wrong.

At this point I'm not terribly concerned about communication breaking down, because I think the state of it now is already bordering on useless. You have shown us apart from a couple of minor cases, that you'll do pretty much what you want to do, and that is a very unfortunate situation for us when it's being done by a team with a very imperfect understanding of how the game works and how we play it.

You and your team have simply ignored large and important parts of the discussions of some of these changes, misrepresented the degree of their severity, ignored solutions provided by the community which are better than the ones you came up with yourselves, and are now backtracking on others.

I'll say it again; this is a farce.

Thanks.

You guys have to know that they are not only working on it ...
Surely these modification to the balance is just one of the things they are worrying ....
They are already working to update 29 to level 30, new feats, quests ...
So we need to make a branstorm and show the proposals, while analyzed they work on other projects.
There's a lot going on at once, so the Lamannia is the test server.

[sjbb87]

It was the second one on the list. :p

ops... not found Spear of the Sky

lol

[FestusHood]

Pinion made the list and I don't see too much of a difference when I look closely at these 2 weapons side by side:

http://i.imgur.com/VUtlhhd.png

How about adding Seeker +10 to the Needle?

Please (you'll never know unless you ask :) ?

Pinion has an expanded crit range. Needle has an extra multiplier. This fix is to restore the expanded crit ranges of those weapons that have them. Crit multiplier is unaffected.

[redoubt]

Pinion made the list and I don't see too much of a difference when I look closely at these 2 weapons side by side:

How about adding Seeker +10 to the Needle?

Please (you'll never know unless you ask :) ?

If you are talking about the IC topic, the repeaters are native 19-20 and bows are native 20. So pinion is on the list because it is not normal for a bow.

[redoubt]

What is the point of the change then? Why even nerf IC if you are going to improve the weapons so that they aren't nerfed?
You are just wasting programming time when you could have done nothing....

I think it is a weird way to do it, but it actually works out when you look closely. The weapons that are being modified have crit ranges larger than the basic version of that weapon type. As such the IC feat is not doubling the weapons crit range, but only adding an amount equal to the basic weapon crit range. With the listed change, those weapons + IC (no other crit mods) will be equal to the pre-change weapon + IC.

So what is the change you ask?

All the other crit modifiers will now no longer be doubled by the IC feat. So for characters with only the IC feat and no other mods, the crit ranges for weapons will be unchanged. For characters with other crit range mods, there will be a reduction in overall crit range.

Does that help?

[Livmo]

Pinion has an expanded crit range. Needle has an extra multiplier. This fix is to restore the expanded crit ranges of those weapons that have them. Crit multiplier is unaffected.


If you are talking about the IC topic, the repeaters are native 19-20 and bows are native 20. So pinion is on the list because it is not normal for a bow.

I have Pinion Envy!

(always been jelouse of that +10 Seeker and felt Needle needs, or should wants that. Don't listen to me, it's the weapon talking....add seeker +10 to the needle...needle +10 seekeer...)

I originally asked for the x3 to be x5 on xbow.

[Standal]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

Sev~

I love the changes that you made to the part I snipped out, but I really want to comment on what I left. If you aren't going to expand critical threat range or multiplier on any named weapons, please never make another named great club, great sword, long sword, or club again unless you just pump the W and effects out the roof. No one will use them. Please focus your efforts on weapons that have the proper crit range.

[SirValentine]

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons.


So the weapons that ALREADY have better-than-normal crit range are now getting even bigger crit range? You're BUFFING crit range on the very weapons where it was the biggest problem to start with?

Color me confused on what this balance pass is supposed to be about.

[FifthTime]

So the weapons that ALREADY have better-than-normal crit range are now getting even bigger crit range? You're BUFFING crit range on the very weapons where it was the biggest problem to start with?

Color me confused on what this balance pass is supposed to be about.

This ^

It seems like the DDO Dev team should be medicated for ADD/ADHD. They can't seem to stay focused on anything for more then a single update, sometimes not even that long.

[cdarkmoon]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~


I disagree. You know I had this reply pretyped on word,but after proofing it I relised it is wasted time. You have not played a Vangard Pally nor do you have any numbers to back up your statment. Dont say its better than a fighter this or a Fighter that. IT IS atm. Prety much any pure 20 anything is better than a 20 fighter. This is pure foolishness, even with xxx people disagreeing with this stament of op shields smashers you hold your corse. While many peeps on here are willing to do YOUR job for you and provide testing numbers and relistic testing results. I have done the testing I have played and seen the results now you can do the same. After all what would i play a shield weilding vangard pally when i can swich to a non pure 15/5 and perform much better in all ways.

[jakeelala]

This ^

It seems like the DDO Dev team should be medicated for ADD/ADHD. They can't seem to stay focused on anything for more then a single update, sometimes not even that long.

The problem is actually not these weapons, in most cases, at all.

The problem is these crit ranges and how they interact with things like SWB and Exploit Weakness for example. Exploit weakness actually gave +2 to crit threat with every hit before, now it should only give +1. This is why they are changing crit profiles and the feat IC itself.

With throwers, a pure Monk (or Bard with Swashbuckler) could get 5-20 Crit range with certain throwing weapons.

[karatemack]

I remember when the ranged pass was being discussed and people kept asking (annoying) the DEVs to include additional crit range. This, unfortunately, seems to be the punitive response. This is the reward for player contribution.

[Vyrzain]

.......................

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


Epic Souleater not making the list?

http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Epic_Souleater

[FifthTime]

I think it is a weird way to do it, but it actually works out when you look closely. The weapons that are being modified have crit ranges larger than the basic version of that weapon type. As such the IC feat is not doubling the weapons crit range, but only adding an amount equal to the basic weapon crit range. With the listed change, those weapons + IC (no other crit mods) will be equal to the pre-change weapon + IC.

So what is the change you ask?

All the other crit modifiers will now no longer be doubled by the IC feat. So for characters with only the IC feat and no other mods, the crit ranges for weapons will be unchanged. For characters with other crit range mods, there will be a reduction in overall crit range.

Does that help?

That only tells me that this "re-balance" doesn't go nearly far enough to actually achieve anything close to balance.

Melee will still be far superior to caster classes.

[Kieriyn]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

It seems like nerfs are being made to cross cutting concerns such as PRR, TWF, etc to compensate for overpowered abilities derived from previous balance passes. Is this really the direction to take to correct problems with specific builds?

Consider the much maligned Fighter, for example. The fighter specific feats are a step in the right direction, but you will still need to sacrifice elsewhere in a class that you already admitted kind of makes you throw your hands up and say, "Oi". And that's just to get back to where you were. Pitching them as special improvements just for fighters is just a nice way of saying that you can give up even more to stay the same, and ignores the feat requirements of the only DPS chain that fighter gets- Kensei (Since most Vanguards will already be Paladins). I doubt that DPS from other classes will fall enough to make this make fighter seem attractive. I suppose they can get in line behind monks for an eventual pass.

[karatemack]

Armor Changes
The amount of Physical Resist Rating that armor provides has been changed.
* Heavy armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 2) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Medium armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1.5) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Light Armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
Fixed a bug where players were getting Physical Resist Rating for armor with which they were not proficient.

(Note: The Physical Resist Rating and Magical Resist Rating offered by shields remain unchanged.)

As a result of dialing back armor, some fighter only feats that will boost their effectiveness with armor and add to tactical DCs will also be included.


How about giving divines the ability to grant MRR via buffs. Perhaps add "adds +10 MRR plus 1 MRR per caster level" to Spell Resistance?

[Baldred]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


What about the Duergar Waraxe of the Weapon Master? I don't see that listed above Sev. As a Dwarven Waraxe user I want to make sure you are adding that to your list as we only have 7 named Dwarven Waraxes in the game, so it would be great if this wasn't the only weapon with a special Crit Range that got overlooked to make an adjustment to.

http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Duergar_Waraxe_of_the_Weapon_Master

Thanks!

[MrWindupBird]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

I think this is a decent idea. More on that in a second.

First though, looks like some people are confused as to what this proposed change to named weapons means. Here's a good way to think about it: all weapons with expanded crit ranges are being adjusted so that their current (on Live) crit ranges (*with Improved Crit feat but before anything else, eg Holy Sword, Divine Crusader, etc) remain the same after the changes to improved crit. It's a middle ground, and helps to preserve the value of existing expanded-range special weapons. It also allows for more granularity in future weapon creation.

For example: Fellblade is an expanded-crit-range longsword- 18-20 x2. However, longswords normally crit 19-20, and the new Improved Critical feat adjusts crit range only based on standard weapon types: it adds +2 to the critical range of all longswords, and does not care whether said longsword is 'special'. The changes quoted above try to preserve the 'specialness' (terrible terminology but bear with me) by doubling unique crit expansion of these named weapons, since they won't receive additional benefit from Improved Critical vs a standard weapon.

Here's some #s to clarify:
Scenario 1: Current Live Fellblade
18-20x2, 15-20x2 with I:Crit (doubles threat range)

Scenario 2: Original Lamma changes: new Improved Crit, no change to Fellblade
18-20x2, 16-20x2 with I:Crit (adds +2 to threat range, since base type is a longsword)

Scenario 3: Newest proposed change: New Improved Crit, updated Fellblade
17-20x2, 15-20x2 with I:Crit (adds +2 to threat range, since base type is a longsword)

So by further expanding Fellblade's crit range, you can bring it back to where it was before changes to Improved Crit.

The same math/rationale applies to all the other weapons listed. The net effect is that these unique expanded-crit weapons will retain their status despite changes to Improved Crit. Note that further expansion via enhancements/EDs etc will be at a 1:2 ratio vs live, because +1 threat range modifications (Crusader, Kensei, Holy Sword, Deepwood, etc) no longer stack with Improved Crit. Ie on Live, Kensei T5 with Fellblade is 13-20x2, and with these changes it will be 14-20x2. This non-stacking-with-Icrit is probably necessary to rein in melee critical damage, and has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.

It's a good idea, it just could have been presented a bit better. This maintains some use for non-Thunderforged weapons like Fellblade and Sireth at end-game, and also provides lots of space for future expanded-crit weaponry.

[Grace_ana]

What about the Duergar Waraxe of the Weapon Master? I don't see that listed above Sev. As a Dwarven Waraxe user I want to make sure you are adding that to your list as we only have 7 named Dwarven Waraxes in the game, so it would be great if this wasn't the only weapon with a special Crit Range that got overlooked to make an adjustment to.

http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Duergar_Waraxe_of_the_Weapon_Master

Thanks!

It's the drow waraxe listed above.

[Hakushi]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

[...]
Sev~

There's one thing I want to say, thank you for your great communication with the players. I think it's the first time the Dev team post a thread with a list of nerfs/balance propositions opened for players to discuss and comment and you are really listening to players feedback. In the past, we always felt the nerfs were forced through our throats and we had nothing to say about it

[Baldred]

It's the drow waraxe listed above.

Thanks for the Clarification Grace_ana, I was looking for Duergar on the list and overlooked that it was listed under Drow.

[AtomicMew]

How about giving divines the ability to grant MRR via buffs. Perhaps add "adds +10 MRR plus 1 MRR per caster level" to Spell Resistance?

A nice and simple idea to give divines back some power. However, I wouldn't put it on the spell resistance spell, as it's too common as a scroll. Perhaps a new spell that isn't scrollable.

[GeoffWatson]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

Shadow Star is 17-20.

Geoff.

[Enderoc]

Holy Sword should be your main non ranged weapon. Improved Critical should give the same bonuses to all weapons. Two handed fighting should at least give melee power to at least the main hand. There should be more ways to increase melee and ranged power through feats that concern both not just THF and SHF.

Magic Resistance should be acquired through spellcasting feats.
Physical Resistance should be acquired through defensive feats.

That is my opinion.

[Enderoc]

Holy Sword should be your main non ranged weapon (unless you have chosen Silver Flame to which it should apply to bows, maybe give extra bonuses dependent on Paladin Level to any favored weapon specifically though still applicable to whatever you are wielding). Improved Critical should give the same bonuses to all weapons. Two handed fighting should at least give melee power to at least the main hand. There should be more ways to increase melee and ranged power through feats that concern both not just THF and SHF.

Magic Resistance should be acquired through spellcasting feats.
Physical Resistance should be acquired through defensive feats.

That is my opinion.

[NarutoArgo]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

This is a terrible idea. Completely defeats the purpose of the changes.

[Grace_ana]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

Need to add:

Sword of Shadow (heroic version)
Epic Storm
Bow of Sinew
Dragon Sword of Acid
Epic Souleater
Luck Blade
Divine Artillery
Cranium Cracker
Leverage (heroic and epic)

Also the plan for great crossbows is off - it should be a +3 with IC, not a +2, because it has an 18-20 crit profile. You have it grouped with things that have a smaller crit profile and the rest of the 18-20 range items under +3. (I am not taking credit for that find; karatemack noticed it.)

[Grace_ana]

I'm still going to complain about the loss of the melee power in the TWF feats. There are several things in the assassin tree that scale with MP as well as the obvious - sneak attack scales with it as well. You can say it's only 6 MP, but when it's scaled for a chunk of your major damage, it's a big deal. When damage is being scaled to 200-400% of MP, 6 MP is huge. It's a nerf to a class that frankly doesn't need nerfs.

I'd also like to see now, not later, how you plan to make adjustments to help assassins and swashbucklers. I'm not a fan of "we are messing up your build and we know it, but I promise we will fix it later." I'd prefer not to wait until later to play my characters.

[sjbb87]

This is a terrible idea. Completely defeats the purpose of the changes.

I agree,that this not going to a good way
Doing this will end up with random loot. And totally goes against previous proposals ....

[Grace_ana]

I might also suggest that if you are going to add tactical feats to fighters, you might want to revise some of the others. The weapon focus and weapon specializatin feats could easily be combined to be an appropriate amount of power for a feat. You should also hold off on the armor and feat changes until after the fighter pass. It's unreasonable to add several must-have feats to fighter when the kensai tree is exceptionally and unnecessarily feat-heavy.

I still think removing MRR is going to shove people to pre-armor up for the reasons I've already stated. It's a huge mistake that will show up on live in about 6 months when people have all changed their toons over.

[AzureDragonas]

This is a terrible idea. Completely defeats the purpose of the changes.

It's the opposite it makes more sense that weapons get theyr own base increase and all effects who gives treat range should stop doubling to the point where most of your attacks are criticals.

Also i think would be best to stop adding treat or multiplayers for swash.

Example snowstar it haves 18-20 and gets from swasbuckling stance other +2 treat range while normal shurikens are 20 Or...
Nightforge Spike 18-20 / x3 stance makes it to 16-20/4x base etc...

How you let this happen if first point on that enchant was to make any **** items competative with 18-20/3x base?

There should be limits of improving on named items couse same as there are 14 pal holy sowrd users 5 lvl eldrict warlocks same goes to bards who let's say go cleric single line and picks 3 bard levels for stance to make some named items reached point beyond stupidity using crusader with treat range.

[Xionanx]

:rolleyes:

I take a fews days off from reading these forums because I got so ****ed at the ranger/manyshot changes.. only to come back and see this heaping pile of rubbish.

Why not just go ahead and remove bows from the game entirely? Clearly you think that the slowest attacking weapon in the game that only had ONE good thing going for it was too powerful so you nerf it again.

I haven't read this entire thread and I won't, I am sure it full of people pointing out things that will never get listened too.. I am going to be content with the fact I deleted the links to these forums from my browser and go back to pretending they dont exist. Maybe this time I will avoid them for more then a few days.

[Vyrzain]

...............

Consider the much maligned Fighter, for example.

The fighter specific feats are a step in the right direction, but you will still need to sacrifice elsewhere in a class that you already admitted kind of makes you throw your hands up and say, "Oi". And that's just to get back to where you were.

Pitching them as special improvements just for fighters is just a nice way of saying that you can give up even more to stay the same, and ignores the feat requirements of the only DPS chain that fighter gets- Kensei (Since most Vanguards will already be Paladins).

I doubt that DPS from other classes will fall enough to make this make fighter seem attractive.

I suppose they can get in line behind monks for an eventual pass.


/agree

My preference is to make / play a ‘Pure’ class to 20. I do not TR and I play this game mainly for Story. Because of these ‘Balance Changes’ I am no longer looking at playing a ‘Pure’ Fighter in our next campaign. I may lose what made the Fighter appealing for said Story.

[sjbb87]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


Please do not make these adjustments based on weapons ....

Make classes based on how they currently live using a pure weapon.
Examples:

live

Rogue:
Daggers adn Staff gain a +1 Competence bonus to Critical Threat Range
15 ~ 20

Balance Change
Daggers and Staff Also gain a +2 Competence bonus to Critical Threat Range
15 ~ 20

Bard:

Dagger, Shortsword, Throwing Dagger, Light Pick: +1 Threat Range
15 ~ 20

Balance Change
Dagger, Shortsword, Throwing Dagger, Light Pick: +2 Range Threat
15 ~ 20

Handaxe +2 Range
15 ~ 20
balance change
Handaxe +4 Range
15-20

Ranger:
+1 Competence bonus to Critical Threat Range

balance change
+2 Competence bonus to Critical Threat Range

Fighter
+1 Competence bonus to Critical Threat Range with your Focus weapons.
balance change
+1 Competence bonus to Critical Threat Range with your Focus weapons.

How is alive
Paladin has 1 Threat Range, +1 Multiplier
to any weapon, I believe that can use a middle way
Continues working to all weapons and shield, but earns only 1 Threat Range and not two like the other classes

[BigErkyKid]

Keep in kind that we can't test changes until we implement them. That means we can either get builds into your hands early as possible, or hold off on builds and keep them away from the players longer.

All player feedback has indicated that players would prefer us to get things on Lamannia early and listen to player feedback. The thing I am concerned about with your quote above is you are basically telling us we should hold off putting changes on Lamannia and then don't make changes based on player feedback because if we do that, well then our claims are "suspect."

We don't really adhere to this line of thinking. Once we become hesitant to put early builds up for player testing, and once we stop tweaking changes based on player feedback because we are afraid that players will find our discussions "suspect" then the communication between players and devs will completely break down. We don't feel that is healthy for the game.

Sev~

I'll tell you how we players do it, as far as I know.

First we model the maths of the DPS to the best of our knowledge. Usually I start by a quick comparison of critical profiles since those are very easy. Then usually a big spreadsheet follows in which we include all the possible enhancements that affect damage. Some people go as far as including average time of boosts active, but I don't think that's necessarily crucial. Once this is done, we play with different weapons and set ups to see how sensitive the numbers are to gear and assumptions.

Finally, the most thorough try to use a lammania iteration to test whether the theory crafting was correct by comparing relative times at a variety of beatdowns. You already know: CITW, brunt, kobolds. The reason for this last step, at least in my case, is that often there are not WAI features. DDO is plagued with things that you only find out trying because descriptions are vague, sometimes non existent, other times just plain wrong.

You guys should not need lammania to set the balance of power. It should be mathematically modelled. If you don't have a good way of doing it, ask in the PC for the spreadsheets people are using. I would find that sad, though, so please do not let me know. When a big sweeping change like the current one is proposed, it should have been run through all these tests before you give it to us. It is most obvious that it wasn't, since it contained an infinite amount of blunders. First TWF paladins are to be nerfed, then they aren't. Same with ranged paladins. Then named weapons are according to you "better than end game weapons" and hence need to be nerfed, then they aren't. First swash weapons no longer are balanced internally, then they have to be. The same goes for assassin weapons.

This is a list of true examples. This only means you did NOT do your homework before you came talk to us. It is NOT our job to balance this game. We don't have a vision, for the most part, we just try to avoid being nerfed to the ground. You have to know and have tested well what you propose. We might help with some of the rough edges, but it should be completely minor points. This update has show us that you guys do an amazingly sloppy work. You had to backtrack in so many things that if we were to highlight them in red in your first post it would simply shame you.

Do your work. Don't show drafts that are incomplete. Show a coherent proposal. We all make mistakes, but in order for the client to have faith in you, you have to make sure we don't see many of those mistakes. So far you guys have lost a ton of credibility. The dev word is at a all time low because for the most part players have the impression that they know more than you. This is really bad: think of it as little kids feeling they know more than their parents and ignoring and disrespecting them. This is what is happening here and it is BAD for the direction of the game. It is obvious to all of us that you don't really fully grasp all the mechanics of the game. It is alright, you are the policy maker in DDO. You are not a power gamer or a technical expert. Talk things through with your people before you post, chart them, have a good record keeping of your changes and its implications. When you post, it should be golden, it should be Sev's word trumps even the most veteran players.

Right now your statements are not taken with such respect. When you tell me q-staves have the lowest lose of speed when they move, I shake my head in disbelief. So you have never heard of twitching? Don't you know that people MOVE to accelerate attack speed? Don't you know that it has been a well known fact among staff users that you lose your 15% speed while moving, contrary to other THF weapons? When you say rangers cannot self heal so well, don't you know that people are hitting over 400 per cure spell? Have you lost track of the multiplicative essence of the changes you introduced to the game?

I don't expect an answer to this post. Consider it friendly advise because despite my aggressive feedback style, I think you had some brilliant ideas and clearly you are invested in doing a good job. You aren't, but you could. Mechanisms to scale damage up like melee power and good. The changes to hamp are good. MRR is a good idea, just not giving it for free like you did. You have solid foundations, but then you throw them out the window when you introduce your changes. Model your changes. Have an idea of what your end goal is. Model it for the top of the game, then do it for a rookie. Hire interns to check your changes, not players who could be lying to you. Don't show your mistakes to us like this, we are not your family, we have no reason to be supportive. This is taking from your credibility and that is hard to regain.

PS - This came out too paternal / condescending...oh well.

[Eth]

This is a terrible idea. Completely defeats the purpose of the changes.

The purpose was to get rid of IC stacking with other crit range enhancements. That's still the case.

[dunklezhan]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:



In a nutshell, this means that all things that affect crit range are essentially providing a stacking-but-static bonus now, rather than anything getting multiplied anywhere. Is that right?

Consistency is good.*

I do worry about the sheer number of changes involved in adjusting all those weapons, and therefore the propensity for them to go wrong. Couldn't the same thing have been achieved by not changing all those named items and having the IC or Keen effect apply before adding in other crit range bonuses? As in, change nothing abotu the way keen/IC work now, except how it get calculated in with other bonuses?


*which is why I feel slightly uncomfortable about the feat doing explicitly variable things depending on which weapon type it's for. Its exactly the same effect as doubling it... but double is double. +1 to this whilst giving +3 to that just further highlights what poor choices some weapons are (poor old blunts). I do understand what you're going for, but it's going to make my teeth itch every time I look at the feat now, lol :). Straight up doubling made sense to me, it was consistent no matter what weapon you picked up, what was different was simply selecting the specialism you wanted the feat for. Ultimately, I do understand the reasons for the change and adding up is certainly easier for my feeble maths brain than multiplying. I'm certainly not crying doom about it (but then I wasn't crying doom about these named weapons anyway they were still a better crit profile than anything you could get from lootgen)

[sjbb87]

I'll tell you how we players do it, as far as I know.

First we model the maths of the DPS to the best of our knowledge. Usually I start by a quick comparison of critical profiles since those are very easy. Then usually a big spreadsheet follows in which we include all the possible enhancements that affect damage. Some people go as far as including average time of boosts active, but I don't think that's necessarily crucial. Once this is done, we play with different weapons and set ups to see how sensitive the numbers are to gear and assumptions.

Finally, the most thorough try to use a lammania iteration to test whether the theory crafting was correct by comparing relative times at a variety of beatdowns. You already know: CITW, brunt, kobolds. The reason for this last step, at least in my case, is that often there are not WAI features. DDO is plagued with things that you only find out trying because descriptions are vague, sometimes non existent, other times just plain wrong.

You guys should not need lammania to set the balance of power. It should be mathematically modelled. If you don't have a good way of doing it, ask in the PC for the spreadsheets people are using. I would find that sad, though, so please do not let me know. When a big sweeping change like the current one is proposed, it should have been run through all these tests before you give it to us. It is most obvious that it wasn't, since it contained an infinite amount of blunders. First TWF paladins are to be nerfed, then they aren't. Same with ranged paladins. Then named weapons are according to you "better than end game weapons" and hence need to be nerfed, then they aren't. First swash weapons no longer are balanced internally, then they have to be. The same goes for assassin weapons.

This is a list of true examples. This only means you did NOT do your homework before you came talk to us. It is NOT our job to balance this game. We don't have a vision, for the most part, we just try to avoid being nerfed to the ground. You have to know and have tested well what you propose. We might help with some of the rough edges, but it should be completely minor points. This update has show us that you guys do an amazingly sloppy work. You had to backtrack in so many things that if we were to highlight them in red in your first post it would simply shame you.

Do your work. Don't show drafts that are incomplete. Show a coherent proposal. We all make mistakes, but in order for the client to have faith in you, you have to make sure we don't see many of those mistakes. So far you guys have lost a ton of credibility. The dev word is at a all time low because for the most part players have the impression that they know more than you. This is really bad: think of it as little kids feeling they know more than their parents and ignoring and disrespecting them. This is what is happening here and it is BAD for the direction of the game. It is obvious to all of us that you don't really fully grasp all the mechanics of the game. It is alright, you are the policy maker in DDO. You are not a power gamer or a technical expert. Talk things through with your people before you post, chart them, have a good record keeping of your changes and its implications. When you post, it should be golden, it should be Sev's word trumps even the most veteran players.

Right now your statements are not taken with such respect. When you tell me q-staves have the lowest lose of speed when they move, I shake my head in disbelief. So you have never heard of twitching? Don't you know that people MOVE to accelerate attack speed? Don't you know that it has been a well known fact among staff users that you lose your 15% speed while moving, contrary to other THF weapons? When you say rangers cannot self heal so well, don't you know that people are hitting over 400 per cure spell? Have you lost track of the multiplicative essence of the changes you introduced to the game?

I don't expect an answer to this post. Consider it friendly advise because despite my aggressive feedback style, I think you had some brilliant ideas and clearly you are invested in doing a good job. You aren't, but you could. Mechanisms to scale damage up like melee power and good. The changes to hamp are good. MRR is a good idea, just not giving it for free like you did. You have solid foundations, but then you throw them out the window when you introduce your changes. Model your changes. Have an idea of what your end goal is. Model it for the top of the game, then do it for a rookie. Hire interns to check your changes, not players who could be lying to you. Don't show your mistakes to us like this, we are not your family, we have no reason to be supportive. This is taking from your credibility and that is hard to regain.

PS - This came out too paternal / condescending...oh well.

DDO is a game that has many systems, is an extremely complex game, and as I said before the development team this setting many points for the next update, as lvl30, new feats, quest etc. They do not play like us. They are not thinking that it is better to build the character of them .... Of course they do not have our experience of the game ..... they have the experience of developing the game.

[cru121]

Yeah, it kind of is.

If we change Holy Sword to work with shield then Vanguard will out DPS two handed and two weapon builds. Why would anyone put down the shield to use the other styles?

(The other thing to consider is this: Vanguard for Paladin and Vanguard for Fighter need to also be balanced. If we found that Vanguard was still behind we'd boost that tree directly rather than putting the DPS into the Paladin specific Holy Sword.)

Sev~

If vanguard paladin was the problem.. - why not change the shield bonuses granted by Vanguard to competence, so that they don't stack with Holy Sword?

And Holy Sword does not have to be messed with at all, creating special coding for shields or whatever.

[IronClan]

This is a terrible idea. Completely defeats the purpose of the changes.

If the purpose of the changes is to keep Holy Sword, Keen Edge, Ranger, Staff Specialization and other crit range pluses from doubling by taking the IC feat, then no it does not defeat the purpose.

None of the listed weapons are more powerful than Thunderforged with Mortal Fear, even pre-nerf they are inferior. They just allow people to build in a different direction instead of the whole game becoming pure TWF khopeshes to get max MF and Affix procs.

Those changes partially avert complete obsolescence of build inspiring named weapons. They don't go anywhere near far enough but it looks like what we're going to have to settle for with a Dev team that is detached and removed from how people actually play the game who are listening to Forum Version DDO players hell bent on reaching "Balance in Theory" nirvana (sameness and blandness).

Let the Vanillification of DDO commence... We will all use MF and strive for the highest attack rate, any other build direction can p*** up a rope. It doesn't matter if 7 out of 10 players in this thread are opposed, the titanic is on her maiden voyage and there's no stopping progress...

I can't help but point out that Sev is fixing his own misunderstanding of the game by breaking something that has worked fine for 9 years because of something he added that has been problematic for 1 year... I find this offends my sense of propriety... in other words: who are you thinking you need to mess with a 9 year old convention of IC doubling whatever the weapons range is, just to fix something you added but didn't realize the full extent of?

This is all because Paladin TWF with HS to off hand is too good, when it's actually the roughly 35d6 Light damage per hit (7d6 times 1.8 scaled by a Blitz Meleepower of 140 is around 35d6) that makes a TWF Paladin so much better than a Ranger.

[Requiro]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.(...)

Great to hear that. In other place Developer (don’t remember your or Vag) said, that it was a DESIGN part (which made me sad)
I glad that you guys change your minds.


As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.(...)

Don't worry, it only help new players.


I sorted by name your list for better finding:

Named Item: Base Threat Range (sorted version)
Bone Crusher: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Breeze: 3
Carnifex: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Coronation: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Deathnip: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Zephyr: 4
Fellblade: 4
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fossil: 3
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Oathblade: 4
Phospor: 5
Pinion: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Razorend: 4
Rebellion: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Shining Devastation: 3
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Sireth: 5
Snowstar: 5
Staff of the Seer: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Theurgic Stave: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Treason: 4
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Whirlwind: 4
Widowblight: 3

[Xaxx]

Still waiting to see what they're gonna do with swashbuckler core because under current rules weapons are brought to each be about the same and that was what seemed to be the point.... under this proposed *stuff* it will be rapier or go home.... so wheres are the non rapier swash changes since we're going to have this whole massive pile of troll fungus shoved down our throats....

Dagger, Shortsword, Throwing Dagger: +1 Threat Range, +1 Multiplier
Light Mace, Light Hammer, Kama, Sickle, Dart, Shuriken, Throwing Axe, Throwing Hammer: +2 Threat Range, +1 Multiplier
Kukri, Rapier: +1 Multiplier
Handaxe: +2 Range
Light Pick: +1 Range

[EllisDee37]

Still waiting to see what they're gonna do with swashbuckler core because under current rules weapons are brought to each be about the same and that was what seemed to be the point.... under this proposed *stuff* it will be rapier or go home.... so wheres are the non rapier swash changes since we're going to have this whole massive pile of troll fungus shoved down our throats....

Dagger, Shortsword, Throwing Dagger: +1 Threat Range, +1 Multiplier
Light Mace, Light Hammer, Kama, Sickle, Dart, Shuriken, Throwing Axe, Throwing Hammer: +2 Threat Range, +1 Multiplier
Kukri, Rapier: +1 Multiplier
Handaxe: +2 Range
Light Pick: +1 RangeSev did say that swashbucklers and knife builds "with improved critical" will be subject to further changes to help equalize them. We just haven't been given specifics yet.

I'm concerned that they will be tied to the feat, whereas most swashies and knife builds are low BAB classes who can't take the feat until 12 so typically use keen/impact (or both) until then, and since neither get bonus feats they will likely not be able to afford to take multiple versions of IC.

For example, even after taking Improved Critical: Slashing (for widowblight) my swashbuckler still uses light hammers with Impact for undead, constructs and ooze/rusties.


~ The changes to Improved Critical do mess up the balance for Assassins between kukri and daggers, and for Swashbucklers who can take enhancements to normalize weapon types. We are going to implement additional changes so that characters who have the Improved Critical feat will gain extra threat range for under performing weapons to maintain the weapon balance you have live using these builds.

[Requiro]

(...)

All Hail Sev; Destroyer of Flavor, The Homogenizer, fixing his own misunderstanding of the game by breaking something that has worked fine for 9 years because of something he added that has been problematic for 1 year...

Your statement is just rude, and proof your small understanding of Devs work. Especially with Sev that show us that he is able to admit mistake (and correct them), and hear what we want to say (The last one is particularly hard, when you are forced to read so much hate against you...)

With big games like DDO, with lots of coding, chances for unwanted new abilities gone wild is very high. With homogenization with rules like this (no more multiplying critical threat), developing and coding new stuff are just easier.

[red_cardinal_]

Repeating Crossbows and Doubleshot
Fixed a bug where Doubleshot was not being reduced for repeating crossbows. (Doubleshot chance is divided by 3 for repeating crossbows.)

Sev~

TL;DR the whole thread...

Bolt firing speed might be to fast for player characters compared to the Cannith Warforged Artificers. Maybe repeaters should be nerfed or Cannith Warforged Artificers could use a buff.

[EllisDee37]

Sev, some of these named items that are being changed are difficult to grind. (Not just those of us who got ours with raider's boxes; I'm thinking of eSoS in particular.)

When these changes go live, could we get some way to convert our existing named items over instead of having to re-grind new ones?

[N-0cturn]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

*snip*

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

I think this is a wrong decision. Weapons with improved Critical Profile have always been extremely powerful in DDO. I don't see an issue if weapons from Caught in the Web are not the best End Game Choice because they should be worse compared to a ML 28 Raid item like Thunderforged.

For me this defeats one of the main purposes of the change to improved Critical. I guess many vocal players are happy but I doubt this will make the game more balanced or better.

[CaptainPurge]

Part of pure fighters becoming less than suck is tactics. It's really that simple. I am happy to see that they are on the way to tactics gods - and those who know me in game know I've predicted this for years.

[AzureDragonas]

I think this is a wrong decision. Weapons with improved Critical Profile have always been extremely powerful in DDO. I don't see an issue if weapons from Caught in the Web are not the best End Game Choice because they should be worse compared to a ML 28 Raid item like Thunderforged.

For me this defeats one of the main purposes of the change to improved Critical. I guess many vocal players are happy but I doubt this will make the game more balanced or better.



Existance of Mortal Fear from the start was mistake, ability which shreeds half hp just by attacking makes this game most inbalance. We got new items from temple even will get Green steel but TBH will any of these items beats any attack speed MF vielder? I still dont see point of reapers difficulty, where 90% same MF items will be must and quest will be done pretty much as fast for same reason as any EE equivelent. Try use TF mortal fear on those 500k kobolds. Guildie tested on lamania after updates shurikens (around 10secs to do 500k damage) Reaper takes longer only couse bossess will be left who can't de killed like this.

Main issue many people either dont have MF or like me prefer not to play it, you ask why? Where is fun to build any lame character which will work anyway just becouse he uses MF proc to kill trash. I prefer to make strong builds who maybe struggle in epics but they do what is needed do they own damage with own weapons using those weapon crit/multi. But for that reason those weapons must be at least near dps of TF weapons by itself, otherwise what is point to even make new weapons or even invest to tomes trying get those precious ability scores higher.

Best balance to game would be either shutdown of MF with refund of mats so players could remake new weapons or changes which would make mobs more resistnace to it. Quests are hard already, yes there are exceptions in builds who can solo, but most of those who solo as dps uses mortal fear as main source to make speed run, nerfs on survivability makes 0 effect to those builds while in contrary for players like me it makes inpact just becouse in DDO playing fair and square means you gonna be punished most of all...

P.S. level cap gonna be increased you even maybe release new items and weapons, and then comes moment what will be next? Game already have end game items at lvl 28 which makes any higher content pointless, increase hp, damage, saves of monsters it won't make difference MF works same all way, Maybe in future all weapons just to be viable should have MF or there would be new end items with double mortal fear, or better make new effect similiar to vorpal which kills anyone just becouse you rolled 20, after lvl 30? Easiest fix up making MF not so op could be simple add save let's say 40-50 fortitude making MF on higher level content work same as paralyzing arrows now, they can procede but its not 100% they will make effect with no save at all. Lit2 back in days was strong with its 2% chance to trigger and still it was only damage up to 600 to 7k hp mobs, it's not 5% chance half hp shreed, and stop effects like that appearance. Same as casters have to increase spell power dc to do damage, DPS should do same increase damage itself not effects who do all jobs for free to them.

[Touriste]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

Well seems base Sword of Shadow not in there ^^
so not all :)

[alvarego]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
...
Sev~

Someone mentioned this is somehow going against the spirit of balance and noone has understood it apparently so I'll try to explain why I see it as somehow empowering

For starters I have a Sireth and well this change looks good, maybe too good, with this change I would start using my Sireth with 15-20 trreat, because to 'balance' the loss of 2x improved critical you're now giving for free 2/3 of the benefit of old improved critical for free inside the weapon making it now much more powerful that it was in the past *puzzled*, and now improved critical just adds a marginal +1 to threat range to 14-20 ... while enhancement tier 5 of acrobat is way better adding +1 threat and +1 multiplier ... *more puzzlzing*

Don't get me wrong I will love enjoying this but what I try to mean is you're twisting the original rules of D&D feats to make something more confusing, I guess in the first sight it looked like a good idea but then when it came to implement it ... well it just starts to look veeeeery wrong,

my 2 cents

[Qhualor]

I can't help but point out that Sev is fixing his own misunderstanding of the game by breaking something that has worked fine for 9 years because of something he added that has been problematic for 1 year... I find this offends my sense of propriety... in other words: who are you thinking you need to mess with a 9 year old convention of IC doubling whatever the weapons range is, just to fix something you added but didn't realize the full extent of?

you are right. the original devs should have fixed IC 9 years ago than we wouldn't be having this kind of balance pass. its all Sevs misunderstanding for trying to fix what previous devs had been doing for the 7 years prior.

Ironclan, its getting annoying reading your holier than thou posts these days. you changed since you were on the PC. please get off the pedestal.

[Faltout]

Nice! Even though the perfect implementation would be to double the base threat range of a weapon, I understand that this is impossible with the current technology (says something about the technology needing a serious upgrade) and you achieve the same result using a lot of manual work (bound to include lots of mistakes).

However, there were 2 changes I disagreed with and 1 is getting fixed.

Since you are bringing a TON of changes to live, you need to not forget to update all the tooltips for the new abilities. Please don't implement the changes with IC and keen still saying "doubles critical range", manyshot still mentioning the extra arrows, etc.

Also, I hope the change to weapons is retroactive or some device will allow the players to exchange their named weapons for the new ones.

[CaptainPurge]

Existance of Mortal Fear from the start was mistake, ability which shreeds half hp just by attacking makes this game most inbalance. We got new items from temple even will get Green steel but TBH will any of these items beats any attack speed MF vielder? I still dont see point of reapers difficulty, where 90% same MF items will be must and quest will be done pretty much as fast for same reason as any EE equivelent. Try use TF mortal fear on those 500k kobolds. Guildie tested on lamania after updates shurikens (around 10secs to do 500k damage) Reaper takes longer only couse bossess will be left who can't de killed like this.

Main issue many people either dont have MF or like me prefer not to play it, you ask why? Where is fun to build any lame character which will work anyway just becouse he uses MF proc to kill trash. I prefer to make strong builds who maybe struggle in epics but they do what is needed do they own damage with own weapons using those weapon crit/multi. But for that reason those weapons must be at least near dps of TF weapons by itself, otherwise what is point to even make new weapons or even invest to tomes trying get those precious ability scores higher.

Best balance to game would be either shutdown of MF with refund of mats so players could remake new weapons or changes which would make mobs more resistnace to it. Quests are hard already, yes there are exceptions in builds who can solo, but most of those who solo as dps uses mortal fear as main source to make speed run, nerfs on survivability makes 0 effect to those builds while in contrary for players like me it makes inpact just becouse in DDO playing fair and square means you gonna be punished most of all...

P.S. level cap gonna be increased you even maybe release new items and weapons, and then comes moment what will be next? Game already have end game items at lvl 28 which makes any higher content pointless, increase hp, damage, saves of monsters it won't make difference MF works same all way, Maybe in future all weapons just to be viable should have MF or there would be new end items with double mortal fear, or better make new effect similiar to vorpal which kills anyone just becouse you rolled 20, after lvl 30? Easiest fix up making MF not so op could be simple add save let's say 40-50 fortitude making MF on higher level content work same as paralyzing arrows now, they can procede but its not 100% they will make effect with no save at all. Lit2 back in days was strong with its 2% chance to trigger and still it was only damage up to 600 to 7k hp mobs, it's not 5% chance half hp shreed, and stop effects like that appearance. Same as casters have to increase spell power dc to do damage, DPS should do same increase damage itself not effects who do all jobs for free to them.

Are you....nm. Good work on the typing though.

[Eth]

...and noone has understood it apparently...
...using my Sireth with 15-20 trreat...
...making it now much more powerful that it was in the past...


Not sure if you understand it.
Sireth with IC bludgeoning was 15-20 in the past. The proposed change keeps it that way.

Point of these changes is to keep the named weapons as they used to be with IC, but cut the stacking of IC with additional crit range enhancers. You will lose 1 threat range from staff specialisation for example, it will only give +1 instead of +2.

[EllisDee37]

For starters I have a Sireth and well this change looks good, [..] and now improved critical just adds a marginal +1 to threat range to 14-20Sireth will be 16-20x2 with this change, 15-20x2 with Improved Critical, same as it ever was.


I think this is a wrong decision. Weapons with improved Critical Profile have always been extremely powerful in DDO. I don't see an issue if weapons from Caught in the Web are not the best End Game Choice because they should be worse compared to a ML 28 Raid item like Thunderforged.CitW weapons aren't better than thunderforge. This change keeps them at worse than thunderforge, instead of way worse.

[alvarego]

Not sure if you understand it.
Sireth with IC bludgeoning was 15-20 in the past. The proposed change keeps it that way.

Point of these changes is to keep the named weapons as they used to be with IC, but cut the stacking of IC with additional crit range enhancers. You will lose 1 threat range from staff specialisation for example, it will only give +1 instead of +2.

Yes Sireth with IC bludgeoning was 15-20 in the past and with proposed changest keeps it that way, correct, BUT Sireth WITHOUT IC bludgeoning was 18-20 in the past and now will be 16-20 making weapon much more powerful per se.

Same effect would have been got by appliying keen and improved critical first and enhancements after, don't see the point in changing all rules and giving extra powers to weapons to this small correction in the order of effects, same goes for EDs.


Sireth will be 16-20x2 with this change, 15-20x2 with Improved Critical, same as it ever was.

CitW weapons aren't better than thunderforge. This change keeps them at worse than thunderforge, instead of way worse.

Wrong, Sireth was never 16-20/x2, is only the same if you get IC, which is much less appealing now because you're getting 2/3 of the benefit directly on weapon.

[AzureDragonas]

Yes Sireth with IC bludgeoning was 15-20 in the past and with proposed changest keeps it that way, correct, BUT Sireth WITHOUT IC bludgeoning was 18-20 in the past and now will be 16-20 making weapon much more powerful per se.

Same effect would have been got by appliying keen and improved critical first and enhancements after, don't see the point in changing all rules and giving extra powers to weapons to this small correction in the order of effects, same goes for EDs.



Wrong, Sireth was never 16-20/x2, is only the same if you get IC, which is much less appealing now because you're getting 2/3 of the benefit directly on weapon.

would be more precise to count that sireth y indeed was 18-20, but with lets say adding up effects like ravager rage treat +2 and crusaders +1, barbarians was able to reach total of 9-20 treat range with sireth new update would reduce this abomination to 12-20 with -3 penalty

and compared to stuff spec in DC it was 11-20 which also will be fixed to make total of 13-20 with -2 penalty

[Eth]

Yes Sireth with IC bludgeoning was 15-20 in the past and with proposed changest keeps it that way, correct, BUT Sireth WITHOUT IC bludgeoning was 18-20 in the past and now will be 16-20 making weapon much more powerful per se.
OK, got it. But honestly, who makes a build that deals physical damage without taking IC?



Same effect would have been got by appliying keen and improved critical first and enhancements after, don't see the point in changing all rules and giving extra powers to weapons to this small correction in the order of effects, same goes for EDs.


That was my first suggestion to them too and it makes more sense than the current workaround for every named weapon with enhanced crit profile. I can only assume they have issues with the coding that lead to the current approach.

[EllisDee37]

Wrong, Sireth was never 16-20/x2, is only the same if you get IC, which is much less appealing now because you're getting 2/3 of the benefit directly on weapon.I was saying that sireth will be the same as it ever was after improved critical.

[EllisDee37]

That was my first suggestion to them too and it makes more sense than the current workaround for every named weapon with enhanced crit profile. I can only assume they have issues with the coding that lead to the current approach.I just hope it's either retroactive, or there's some way for us to convert our existing weapons into the new versions.

And agreed that the suggestion to just double the base weapon range would be much more elegant.

[NarutoArgo]

If the purpose of the changes is to keep Holy Sword, Keen Edge, Ranger, Staff Specialization and other crit range pluses from doubling by taking the IC feat, then no it does not defeat the purpose.

None of the listed weapons are more powerful than Thunderforged with Mortal Fear, even pre-nerf they are inferior. They just allow people to build in a different direction instead of the whole game becoming pure TWF khopeshes to get max MF and Affix procs.

Those changes partially avert complete obsolescence of build inspiring named weapons. They don't go anywhere near far enough but it looks like what we're going to have to settle for with a Dev team that is detached and removed from how people actually play the game who are listening to Forum Version DDO players hell bent on reaching "Balance in Theory" nirvana (sameness and blandness).

Let the Vanillification of DDO commence... We will all use MF and strive for the highest attack rate, any other build direction can p*** up a rope. It doesn't matter if 7 out of 10 players in this thread are opposed, the titanic is on her maiden voyage and there's no stopping progress...

I can't help but point out that Sev is fixing his own misunderstanding of the game by breaking something that has worked fine for 9 years because of something he added that has been problematic for 1 year... I find this offends my sense of propriety... in other words: who are you thinking you need to mess with a 9 year old convention of IC doubling whatever the weapons range is, just to fix something you added but didn't realize the full extent of?

This is all because Paladin TWF with HS to off hand is too good, when it's actually the roughly 35d6 Light damage per hit (7d6 times 1.8 scaled by a Blitz Meleepower of 140 is around 35d6) that makes a TWF Paladin so much better than a Ranger.

The reason I say it is pointless is because it takes what isn't supposed to be doubled by IC and go ahead and basically doubles it anyways. Which defeats the purpose of not doubling that Sev was trying to accomplish

[Ykt]

Holy Sword will persist after TR.

[Mellkor]

This....

On quest EE Vanguards are the kings, almost immortal.
He can easily jump into the middle of the mob and kill all with no problem.

I think that developers can add one more enhancement that add +1 critical and range in tier 5 of vanguard, nor that of any penalty, for example lose the effect of one of these:
Divine Grace
AC from the sheld
PRR from shield

a trade of defensive ability for an offensive


I think you misunderstand...

I am saying that TWF and THF builds already out DPS vanguards by a good amount (maybe 20ish %?). No reason to nerf them further just because they can survive where the other builds cannot. Everything is as it should be among paladins, IMO.

In other words, vanguards already trade dps for better survivability. Why nerf them even more? In fact I am almost sure the PRR and MRR changes as proposed will kill vanguards in EE content.

So sad to see this complete reversal from the Dev's.

[Eth]

Holy Sword will persist after TR.

Stacks up to 3 times.

[Tom.JonesJr]

Pinion made the list and I don't see too much of a difference when I look closely at these 2 weapons side by side:

http://i.imgur.com/VUtlhhd.png

How about adding Seeker +10 to the Needle?

Please (you'll never know unless you ask :) ?

The difference is that repeating crossbows will receive a +2 where the longbow will only get a +1 with IC.

[Lonnbeimnech]

I think this is a wrong decision. Weapons with improved Critical Profile have always been extremely powerful in DDO. I don't see an issue if weapons from Caught in the Web are not the best End Game Choice because they should be worse compared to a ML 28 Raid item like Thunderforged.

For me this defeats one of the main purposes of the change to improved Critical. I guess many vocal players are happy but I doubt this will make the game more balanced or better.

The main purpose was to nerf the double expanded crit range of various enhancements, not to nerf twink gear.

[Tom.JonesJr]

I think 'Shadow Star' has an unusual crit range

Yes, but this is due to the fact that Shadow Star has Keen I on it. IC should not stack with Keen.

[unbongwah]

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.
While I appreciate you folks addressing our concerns about named weapons with larger-than-normal crit ranges, I'm not sure why you don't just revert Improved Crit back to its pre-U19 functionality: i.e., it only applies to the base weapon threat range; any crit range bonuses (Keen Edge, Holy Sword, etc.) are applied after Imp Crit. This spares you the effort of messing with a whole bunch of static crit range bonuses (and possibly introducing new bugs / unintended consequences); just fix the crit bugs introduced when U19 came out. Or is there some reason why this approach is easier to code?

[Seikojin]

Existance of Mortal Fear from the start was mistake, ability which shreeds half hp just by attacking makes this game most inbalance. We got new items from temple even will get Green steel but TBH will any of these items beats any attack speed MF vielder? I still dont see point of reapers difficulty, where 90% same MF items will be must and quest will be done pretty much as fast for same reason as any EE equivelent. Try use TF mortal fear on those 500k kobolds. Guildie tested on lamania after updates shurikens (around 10secs to do 500k damage) Reaper takes longer only couse bossess will be left who can't de killed like this.

Main issue many people either dont have MF or like me prefer not to play it, you ask why? Where is fun to build any lame character which will work anyway just becouse he uses MF proc to kill trash. I prefer to make strong builds who maybe struggle in epics but they do what is needed do they own damage with own weapons using those weapon crit/multi. But for that reason those weapons must be at least near dps of TF weapons by itself, otherwise what is point to even make new weapons or even invest to tomes trying get those precious ability scores higher.

Best balance to game would be either shutdown of MF with refund of mats so players could remake new weapons or changes which would make mobs more resistnace to it. Quests are hard already, yes there are exceptions in builds who can solo, but most of those who solo as dps uses mortal fear as main source to make speed run, nerfs on survivability makes 0 effect to those builds while in contrary for players like me it makes inpact just becouse in DDO playing fair and square means you gonna be punished most of all...

P.S. level cap gonna be increased you even maybe release new items and weapons, and then comes moment what will be next? Game already have end game items at lvl 28 which makes any higher content pointless, increase hp, damage, saves of monsters it won't make difference MF works same all way, Maybe in future all weapons just to be viable should have MF or there would be new end items with double mortal fear, or better make new effect similiar to vorpal which kills anyone just becouse you rolled 20, after lvl 30? Easiest fix up making MF not so op could be simple add save let's say 40-50 fortitude making MF on higher level content work same as paralyzing arrows now, they can procede but its not 100% they will make effect with no save at all. Lit2 back in days was strong with its 2% chance to trigger and still it was only damage up to 600 to 7k hp mobs, it's not 5% chance half hp shreed, and stop effects like that appearance. Same as casters have to increase spell power dc to do damage, DPS should do same increase damage itself not effects who do all jobs for free to them.

MF has its place, much like lit2 does. Unique.


Someone mentioned this is somehow going against the spirit of balance and noone has understood it apparently so I'll try to explain why I see it as somehow empowering

For starters I have a Sireth and well this change looks good, maybe too good, with this change I would start using my Sireth with 15-20 trreat, because to 'balance' the loss of 2x improved critical you're now giving for free 2/3 of the benefit of old improved critical for free inside the weapon making it now much more powerful that it was in the past *puzzled*, and now improved critical just adds a marginal +1 to threat range to 14-20 ... while enhancement tier 5 of acrobat is way better adding +1 threat and +1 multiplier ... *more puzzlzing*

Don't get me wrong I will love enjoying this but what I try to mean is you're twisting the original rules of D&D feats to make something more confusing, I guess in the first sight it looked like a good idea but then when it came to implement it ... well it just starts to look veeeeery wrong,

my 2 cents

Strong in heroics, same in epic. :)


I just hope it's either retroactive, or there's some way for us to convert our existing weapons into the new versions.

And agreed that the suggestion to just double the base weapon range would be much more elegant.

I hope the stone of change becomes the stone of fixing as well. I have a ton of bugged out items that I don't want to lose/rework for.

[Seikojin]

While I appreciate you folks addressing our concerns about named weapons with larger-than-normal crit ranges, I'm not sure why you don't just revert Improved Crit back to its pre-U19 functionality: i.e., it only applies to the base weapon threat range; any crit range bonuses (Keen Edge, Holy Sword, etc.) are applied after Imp Crit. This spares you the effort of messing with a whole bunch of static crit range bonuses (and possibly introducing new bugs / unintended consequences); just fix the crit bugs introduced when U19 came out. Or is there some reason why this approach is easier to code?

Not so much easier, but less buggier. Abilities/Enhancements/Destinies are doubling their bonus from IC, or not applying with it. Not applying with it is a hack and may be causing other bugs (increasing crit chance more than designed or less).

[Grace_ana]

The reason I say it is pointless is because it takes what isn't supposed to be doubled by IC and go ahead and basically doubles it anyways. Which defeats the purpose of not doubling that Sev was trying to accomplish

Actually, it exactly doubles what is supposed to be doubled by IC, which is the base threat range of that particular weapon.

[FifthTime]

Actually, it exactly doubles what is supposed to be doubled by IC, which is the base threat range of that particular weapon.

So now it gets a free doubling of crit range on already powerful weapon, and then additional increases with IC?

Warlock gets another hard nerf to it's DPS, yet melees cry and whine and don't get a nerf to theirs. Figures.

This pass will accomplish nothing. Melee will still be miles ahead of casters in all aspects of the game.

[unbongwah]

Not so much easier, but less buggier. Abilities/Enhancements/Destinies are doubling their bonus from IC, or not applying with it. Not applying with it is a hack and may be causing other bugs (increasing crit chance more than designed or less).
Yes, and that's the bug I'm taking about. Prior to U19, bonuses to crit range were applied after Improved Crit. [The only two I remember from back then are Kensei and Pulverizer.] After U19, competence bonuses were applied before Imp Crit and were thus doubled by the feat (or Keen / Impact weapons). [Crit Rage was applied after IC, but it was an untyped bonus, so it would stack with competence bonuses like Pulverizer; hence the preference for mauls over greataxes for an LD barb like Zoda.]

It just seems to me it would be a lot easier to simply say, "Improved Crit doubles your weapon's base threat range" like it always has. Instead, there's going to be a long list of static bonuses in the feat descriptions; and they're going to have to "fix" a whole bunch of named weapons for a problem they're introducing by changing how IC works.

[Kieriyn]

...

It just seems to me it would be a lot easier to simply say, "Improved Crit doubles your weapon's base threat range" like it always has. Instead, there's going to be a long list of static bonuses in the feat descriptions; and they're going to have to "fix" a whole bunch of named weapons for a problem they're introducing by changing how IC works.

You will also need to remember to apply the fudge factor to every new item that you wish to have an enhanced crit range.

[Kompera_Oberon]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

Why non-shield? Are Sword & Board builds doing more DPS than Two Weapon Fighting builds in your extensive tests? Shield bash is "overperforming"?


The other things that players communicated to us when we started talking about class updates:

Shields didn't offer enough benefits to offset the loss of DPS.

[CThruTheEgo]

While I appreciate you folks addressing our concerns about named weapons with larger-than-normal crit ranges, I'm not sure why you don't just revert Improved Crit back to its pre-U19 functionality: i.e., it only applies to the base weapon threat range; any crit range bonuses (Keen Edge, Holy Sword, etc.) are applied after Imp Crit. This spares you the effort of messing with a whole bunch of static crit range bonuses (and possibly introducing new bugs / unintended consequences); just fix the crit bugs introduced when U19 came out. Or is there some reason why this approach is easier to code?

This is what I don't understand. The only thing that won't work as it did previously, is enhancement and ED crit range bonuses will not be doubled by imp crit. So instead of changing enhancement and ED crit range bonuses, they change everything else about crit ranges, including imp crit and base weapon stats. lolwut!?

Enhancement and ED crit range bonuses are not being changed in any way, and yet, they seem to be the target. Well Turbine, you missed the target by a mile. If nothing else, this whole process is humorous to watch.

[snook59]

Can you please post a link to the changes if they have changed since the original post?

Thanks,
confused by it all

[Jetrule]

So now it gets a free doubling of crit range on already powerful weapon, and then additional increases with IC?

Warlock gets another hard nerf to it's DPS, yet melees cry and whine and don't get a nerf to theirs. Figures.

This pass will accomplish nothing. Melee will still be miles ahead of casters in all aspects of the game.

Melees with several types of crit enhancers will be getting 1-4 less crit range because Improved crit will no longer be doubling the bonuses to crit range of holy sword or critical rage or advanced sneak attack or knife specialization or keen edge or celestial champion or pulverizer...... the list goes on. for example right now on live you can make a barbarian ranger with 2 standard crit range thunder forged rapiers have a standing crit range of 7-20 in divine crusader destiny. after the nerf it will be 11-20. Roughly a 15% dps decrease in practice. If the barbarian critical rage changes to competence bonus then it will be 12-20 but the same build could then get x1 crit damage multiplier from tempest instead and do just fine.

[AzureDragonas]

MF has its place, much like lit2 does. Unique.

Makes sense if not 1 issue. Devs made mistakes which leaded to a point where ppl were able cheat mats and now half server runs with TF, i even know person who have multiple MF shurikens for separate reasons. Now make count with new updates shurikens have chance to double by dex and double by doubleshoot bonus and we have what highest attack speed throwable in game which also can multiple up to 4 times with each attack and on top of that add imp. precise which lets you attack multiple targets also. MF maybe have its place but not then half server have it and you can buy dozens TF ignots in ah like it was with timers. Wanna make balancing MF either must be removed completly or redesign with dc check which wont make soloing EE content for half dps build as walkup. We require rebalance couse casters and dps have huge gasp, something similiar to casters are shiradi which also have 7% chance to procede in 1 of 50+ random effects.

This thread talks about rebalance need on dps, but you ignore fact what MF and certain builds are too much broken and no one cares, same with that druid wolf ranger build where you have single line speed make up to 4 attacks each time and just equip MF.

DPS lines are not as broken as certain builds and defenitly MF as it is now after so much cheating done.

Lets devs make balance to make melee dps lines weaker and die easier in quests with lower prr mrr.
Lets make archers with bow lowest dps in game (they beat only artificers atm) and ignore crossbows and shurikens which do constant dps twice as high.
So in the end there would be more challanging quests for casters except for (warlocks, shiradi) who are light years behind already not to feel totally useless. But are we solving main issue this way and not pretending this will help?

1. Reconsider making each line unique and not stackable like druid/ranger single+dual
2. Leave manyshoot and stars same as they are with no penalty so at least then they could outdps corssows and shurikens for short time during burst, couse atm you killing bows making them to cc line when other classes can kill quicker without that
3. Remake MF if you dont wanna remove it so there would be save and we wont have to see how op somone with x MF weapons each life can clear entire dungeon as walkup.
4. And warlock nerfs are needed why they have no dc on bursts while sorcorers have to raise DC at maximum so at least sometimes they could do full damage as warlocks do all time.
5. Increase DC feats why we still have to waste feat slot for +1DC while ed gives +3DC, make those feats WORTH to take and invest so at least 90% of working casters at epics we see wont be shiradi.
6. Stop making those Exploits and fix them asap [Strength of Spirit: When you hit with a melee attack, or cast a spell on an ally, or cast an offensive spell on an enemy, you gain 1 Spirit. Each of these three categories triggers only once every three seconds. You can have up to 30 Spirit. Spirit decays at a rate of one every 9 seconds.] Why cleric aura regenerates nonstop isn't its same with fury archers. Treefolks are greatest melee based dps atm and they can spend more than half quest in that form just by healers aura generated charges. You wont make us believe it should work this way.

[JOTMON]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~


ohboy...
Not sure where to go with this...

While it addresses the issue with stacking threat range and the current changes for keen/improved crit on these specific named items it doesn't help the underlying issue of every other non-named weapons that are in the game.
every other quarterstaffs and light blunt weapons are still detrimentally affected.

I am concerned the result here is the appearance of a fix since these listed items get put back to where they belong, but is this creating a trap effect where anyone with these weapons now has nowhere to go.
Moving forward into new gear that are dependant on new niche items being created to accommodate these players that are built around these weapons.
Cant just pickup any generic or regular crafted versions of newer weapons since the base on the new stuff is still 20 x2.. with IC/Keen of +1.... while other weapons like falchions and kukiris have a 18-20x2 and ic/keen of +3
The impression I am left with is current builds appear fine, but have nowhere to go, they are dead builds but just don't know it yet.

Reserving judgement for the time being and just walking away from this whole issue.. bury my head in the sand...
(soon to come.. Rise of the Falchions from the ashes of the sticks).

[Kompera_Oberon]

Can you please post a link to the changes if they have changed since the original post?

Thanks,
confused by it all

Better yet, update the OP to incorporate the changes you've decided to make.

[Seikojin]

This is what I don't understand. The only thing that won't work as it did previously, is enhancement and ED crit range bonuses will not be doubled by imp crit. So instead of changing enhancement and ED crit range bonuses, they change everything else about crit ranges, including imp crit and base weapon stats. lolwut!?

Enhancement and ED crit range bonuses are not being changed in any way, and yet, they seem to be the target. Well Turbine, you missed the target by a mile. If nothing else, this whole process is humorous to watch.

Imp crit is bugged. Any ability with clean code gets doubled when applied to an item from improved crit. So instead of making every ability to expand threat give +.5 they can fix IC and all abilities can give +1, stacking. Or +2 non-stacking.


Makes sense if not 1 issue. Devs made mistakes which leaded to a point where ppl were able cheat mats and now half server runs with TF, i even know person who have multiple MF shurikens for separate reasons. Now make count with new updates shurikens have chance to double by dex and double by doubleshoot bonus and we have what highest attack speed throwable in game which also can multiple up to 4 times with each attack and on top of that add imp. precise which lets you attack multiple targets also. MF maybe have its place but not then half server have it and you can buy dozens TF ignots in ah like it was with timers. Wanna make balancing MF either must be removed completly or redesign with dc check which wont make soloing EE content for half dps build as walkup. We require rebalance couse casters and dps have huge gasp, something similiar to casters are shiradi which also have 7% chance to procede in 1 of 50+ random effects.

This thread talks about rebalance need on dps, but you ignore fact what MF and certain builds are too much broken and no one cares, same with that druid wolf ranger build where you have single line speed make up to 4 attacks each time and just equip MF.

DPS lines are not as broken as certain builds and defenitly MF as it is now after so much cheating done.

Lets devs make balance to make melee dps lines weaker and die easier in quests with lower prr mrr.
Lets make archers with bow lowest dps in game (they beat only artificers atm) and ignore crossbows and shurikens which do constant dps twice as high.
So in the end there would be more challanging quests for casters except for (warlocks, shiradi) who are light years behind already not to feel totally useless. But are we solving main issue this way and not pretending this will help?

1. Reconsider making each line unique and not stackable like druid/ranger single+dual
2. Leave manyshoot and stars same as they are with no penalty so at least then they could outdps corssows and shurikens for short time during burst, couse atm you killing bows making them to cc line when other classes can kill quicker without that
3. Remake MF if you dont wanna remove it so there would be save and we wont have to see how op somone with x MF weapons each life can clear entire dungeon as walkup.
4. And warlock nerfs are needed why they have no dc on bursts while sorcorers have to raise DC at maximum so at least sometimes they could do full damage as warlocks do all time.
5. Increase DC feats why we still have to waste feat slot for +1DC while ed gives +3DC, make those feats WORTH to take and invest so at least 90% of working casters at epics we see wont be shiradi.
6. Stop making those Exploits and fix them asap [Strength of Spirit: When you hit with a melee attack, or cast a spell on an ally, or cast an offensive spell on an enemy, you gain 1 Spirit. Each of these three categories triggers only once every three seconds. You can have up to 30 Spirit. Spirit decays at a rate of one every 9 seconds.] Why cleric aura regenerates nonstop isn't its same with fury archers. Treefolks are greatest melee based dps atm and they can spend more than half quest in that form just by healers aura generated charges. You wont make us believe it should work this way.

I understand the first point on MF and duped ingredients, however duping isn't a mistake on turbine or devs shoulders. A community that shields those who cheat and refuse to report exploits as bugs is how we end up with rampant duping and exploitable bugs in live on day 1.

Druid and Monk are next year I believe.

This paragraph loses me:
Lets devs make balance to make melee dps lines weaker and die easier in quests with lower prr mrr.
Lets make archers with bow lowest dps in game (they beat only artificers atm) and ignore crossbows and shurikens which do constant dps twice as high.
So in the end there would be more challanging quests for casters except for (warlocks, shiradi) who are light years behind already not to feel totally useless. But are we solving main issue this way and not pretending this will help?

And for the rest:
1. Crit? Most are. Attack chain? Most are, druid and monk melee will be in their own time since they are bigger issues.
2. MS and 10k have been broken in design from day 1. These fixes help, but not in the way people would like. My suggestion is passive doubleshot, no doubleshot penalty, and a 12 second clicky that does 4 shots at once.
3. Meh, MF is trash sweeper, so yeah it has that place. Great to get ingredient dupers to waste time. Means nothing against a boss.
4. Spell versus abilities, but I agree, it would make sense for warlock abilities to proc saves.
5. Next time on passes for classes...
6. Trees are more than a years worth of fixes. Last time it was touched it was made worse.

[FlyMage]

First of all many thanks to Sev and other developers for laying out these proposals in advance, with reasoning. This has stimulated me to make my first foray onto a forum. I apologise that only read about one-third of the posts before commenting; this is because I realised that more were being added faster than I was reading them…
Overall I approve of the changes and critique of specific details below should be read in that light.
Critical profiles and Imp Crit: I approve of the principle. Where I have a problem is with some class enhancements that seem specifically designed to normalise several weapons to give players a flavour choice, but are undone by the proposed changes. I’m thinking of Swashbuckling and Knife Specialisation, though there may be others. To focus on Knife Spec as an example: at present the enhancement boosts both daggers and kukris, but in such a way that they become equal. The proposed change alters this; kukris are unaffected but daggers (with Imp Crit) are reduced. This will not affect rich/multi-life players who will just build t3 TF kukris and carry on largely unaffected, but it certainly will affect everyone else, and it will affect all the named daggers, many of which are in recent content (how many named kukris are there?). Daggers are among the weakest weapons in the game; I assume Knife Spec is intended to allow Assassins – not an over-performing class by any reckoning – the flavour of using daggers while getting performance reasonably competitive with decent weapons. The proposed change rather spoils that. Fortunately a simple solution presents: add to Knife Spec and additional +1 threat range if you also have Imp Crit. That would remove the problem…
Armour: (1) Definitely need to cut back on benefit, but is this going too far? I’d retain a little MRR. (2) Is the problem really with [heavy] armour generally or specifically with Shadow Plate, which seems to me grossly over-effective relative to all other options (including other heavy armours). Probably a bit of both. (3) Also, I do not like the change to an even more BAB-based formula: (i) effectiveness should be based on proficiency; BAB is an unrelated metric to do with hit chance. It is also related to level whereas PRR/MRR are percentage reductions and do not need to scale numerically with level (ii) the goal, I assume, is to reduce the inclination of ‘light/no armour classes” to wear medium/heavy armour. However such classes have to make a big investment – multiple feats and/or enhancements, ASF, etc to get there. If you took away the big prize of Shadow Plate I think a modest reduction in PRR and a larger reduction in MRR would do the job. The present proposal heavily penalises Eldritch Knights and similar and I think likely to reduce build diversity by enforcing a “follow your class stereotype” build straitjacket.
TWF: not over-performing in my experience/estimation. Possibly you have some specific builds in mind, in which case it might be better to focus on them rather than on all TWF. Others have commented in detail on hit-box issues (so small that you miss a lot if manoeuvring) and single-target basis (vs TWF multi-target options, which multiply effective dps) that lead to big differences between in-quest dps and vs-dummy dps. While an animation-speed increase (which I assume means an attacks-per-second increase) might reasonably compensate for a melee power reduction, I think the animation resets if manoeuvring. If that’s right, the increase in animation speed will only help those who can stand still and slug it out (and vs-dummy dps), leaving a nerf for the lighter, faster, TWF users. I think this is the opposite of who you intend to target with this change.
Dps for tanks: tanks don’t (necessarily) need more dps they need one or more of (i) better party tactics; (ii) reduced dps for others (provided in part by the proposed changes); (iii) increased threat; (iv) more dps. I feel that providing more dps would be the worst option as “balance” has to mean a trade-off between desirable features, e.g. defence and offense. High –defense characters (and ability to attack at a distance is a defense…) should have dramatically lower dps than the “glass cannons” just as their defences are dramatically stronger. Of course one could adjust other parameters – in ancient PnP heavy-armour types moved at half the speed of light/no armour…
Balance: while these changes are generally desirable, as noted above, they only address weapon issues. Casters are still out in the cold, at least DC casters are. I’ve tried repeated builds/rebuilds on my pale master and I just don’t see a way he can contribute significantly in later EH content, let alone EE, except in Shiradi. This is not the place to detail that, but there is another big balancing job out there. All that casters get out of the present proposals is less defence if they choose to invest in armour...

[Vorthian]

Sev,

Are there plans or on-going discussions on reducing the AP cost to access the Elven AA tree? With the recent changes this is now a tree players may want to invest in to get the capstone, where previously 32 pts was the goal. Sinking 14 APs into opening the tree requires some very difficult choices elsewhere, which is good, but in this new world 14 APs may be overly restrictive.

-Vorthian

[Warrax23]

Greetings.

We've seen a lot of community feedback, both public and private, about our ongoing plans for balance. These are some changes we are considering to increase game balance.

As with any post that outlines power reductions (aka nerfs) I am sure there will be a lot of players looking for explanations and our thoughts and results on balance that led to these changes. I will be following up this post with more details that talk about why some of these changes are being implemented.

***

Holy Sword (Paladin)
This is now a spell that affects the paladin and buffs whatever melee weapon is being wielded in the main hand.
It no longer persists on your weapon but instead buffs the melee weapon you are holding in your main hand. (Yes, this buffs your two handed weapons.)
It no longer affects missile weapons.
It no longer can be used to buff off hand weapons or shields.
If you change weapons the spell will drop off the unequipped weapon and instead be applied to the newly equipped weapon.

Blood Strength (Barbarian Ravager)
The portion of this enhancement that heals the user when they kill an opponent now has a 1 second internal cooldown.

Critical Rage (Barbarian Ravager)
The bonus to critical threat range is now a competence bonus.

Two weapon fighting animations have been fixed so there is no longer a weird jump on the fourth animation. This has made the fourth attack slightly quicker.

Two Weapon Fighting no longer grants melee power.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting no longer grants melee power.
Greater Two Weapon Fighting no longer grants melee power.

Doubleshot values over 100% now have a chance of producing a third attack. The chance is equal to the amount the value exceeds 100. A doubleshot value of 130, for example, would always produce one extra shot and have a 30% chance to produce a third shot.

(Doublestrike will still cap at 100 for technical reasons.)

Repeating Crossbows and Doubleshot
Fixed a bug where Doubleshot was not being reduced for repeating crossbows. (Doubleshot chance is divided by 3 for repeating crossbows.)

Manyshot
This ability is being redesigned.
For the next 20 seconds you add your (base attack bonus * 4) to your Doubleshot and Ranged Power. This ability puts Ten Thousand Stars on a 30 second cooldown. Cooldown 2 minutes.
(This ability no longer gives a doubleshot penalty when activated.)

Ten Thousand Stars
This ability is being redesigned.
For the next 30 seconds you add your Wisdom ability score to your Ranged Power and you add your monk level * 5 to your Doubleshot. This ability puts Manyshot on a 30 second cooldown. Cooldown 1 minute.
(This ability no longer gives a doubleshot penalty when activated.)

Mechanical Reloader (Rogue Mechanic)
The alacrity for non-repeating crossbows is now 30%. (Was 40%)

Pulverizer (Legendary Dreadnought)
The bonus to critical threat range for bludgeoning weapons is now an Insight bonus.

Improved Critical
These feats now add a bonus to critical threat range based purely on weapon type.
* Adds +3 to critical threat range for falchion, kukri, rapier, and scimitar.
* Adds +2 to the critical threat range of bastard sword, dagger, great crossbow, greatsword, heavy crossbow, khopesh, light crossbow, long sword, repeating heavy crossbow, repeating light crossbow, short sword, and throwing dagger.
* Adds +1 to all other weapons.

Keen
This loot effect now add a bonus to critical threat range based purely on weapon type.
* Adds +3 to critical threat range for falchion, kukri, rapier, and scimitar.
* Adds +2 to the critical threat range of bastard sword, dagger, great crossbow, greatsword, heavy crossbow, khopesh, light crossbow, long sword, repeating heavy crossbow, repeating light crossbow, short sword, and throwing dagger.
* Adds +1 to all other weapons.

Armor Changes
The amount of Physical Resist Rating that armor provides has been changed.
* Heavy armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 2) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Medium armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1.5) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Light Armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
Fixed a bug where players were getting Physical Resist Rating for armor with which they were not proficient.

(Note: The Physical Resist Rating and Magical Resist Rating offered by shields remain unchanged.)

As a result of dialing back armor, some fighter only feats that will boost their effectiveness with armor and add to tactical DCs will also be included.

Tactical Training
Requires Fighter Level 4
You gain +2 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 8
You gain +4 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Mastery
Requires Fighter Level 12
You gain +6 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Supremacy
Requires Fighter Level 16
You gain +8 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Notes: All tactical feats stack for a total of +20. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Tactical Training and forego the +2 but still have access to Tatical Supremacy.

Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Notes: All Heavy Armor feats stack for a total of +30. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Heavy Armor Training and forego the +3 and still have access to Heavy Armor Champion.


Divine Grace (Paladin)
Divine Grace now provides a maximum bonus equal to 2 + (Paladin level x 3).

Eldritch Blast and other enhancements (Warlock)
The spellpower scaling for Eldritch Blast and several enhancements has been reduced.

Spellpower scaling of Warlock Abilities


Ability
Old
New


Eldritch Blast
150%
130%


Eldritch Blast Cone
130%
130%


Eldritch Blast Chain
110%
95%


Eldritch Blast Aura
150%
130%


Stricken (Souleater)
150%
125%


Consume (Souleater)
150%
125%


Eldritch Burst (Enlightened Spirit)
120%
100%


Spirit Blast (Enlightened Spirit)
120%
100%



I will be following up this post with some details on our thoughts on balance and design.

Sev~

Yay, more nerfs. This encouraged people to play why? "Man I just got my char all pimped out finished up my raids and destiny" my toon is great I love playing it... oh.. now it's nerfed.. I get to start over" that isn't going to keep people around. When you start "ABUSING" your hard core players over and over, that's not a wise move. BUT I don't work for turbine so do whatever ya like dude.

[FestusHood]

Yes, and that's the bug I'm taking about. Prior to U19, bonuses to crit range were applied after Improved Crit. [The only two I remember from back then are Kensei and Pulverizer.] After U19, competence bonuses were applied before Imp Crit and were thus doubled by the feat (or Keen / Impact weapons). [Crit Rage was applied after IC, but it was an untyped bonus, so it would stack with competence bonuses like Pulverizer; hence the preference for mauls over greataxes for an LD barb like Zoda.]

It just seems to me it would be a lot easier to simply say, "Improved Crit doubles your weapon's base threat range" like it always has. Instead, there's going to be a long list of static bonuses in the feat descriptions; and they're going to have to "fix" a whole bunch of named weapons for a problem they're introducing by changing how IC works.

There are other things doubled by improved crit currently besides just the static enhancement bonuses. Things like sniper shot, and the tier 5 swashbuckler thing that adds +1 to range on every non crit. I don't know about momentum swing, does it's threat range bonus also get doubled? I don't know exactly what changed, but i'm assuming they do. Or maybe not. Maybe it would actually be tougher to dig down and figure out why it's different now than before.

[unbongwah]

There are other things doubled by improved crit currently besides just the static enhancement bonuses. Things like sniper shot, and the tier 5 swashbuckler thing that adds +1 to range on every non crit.
Yes, and these would all be things which are no longer doubled. It's going to happen regardless; I just think my solution is a lot cleaner than Turbine's approach of adding a whole bunch of static crit range bonuses.

[Thrudh]

Ave 39 sec and ~ 2 Coccon
Ave ~ 43 sec and ~ 2 Coccon

Your toon is unplayable now! :) :)

[bracelet]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
.
etc.
.
(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

This is an excellent change. In fact I think this accomplishes more toward your goals than just doubling the base range. I think people are having trouble understanding why this change is different from "not doing anything". But it is, and here is why:

1) It removes entirely from the game the multiplicative effect of the Improved Critical feat. There are two separate issues as to why this was a problem. The first is that for all intents and purposes, adding +1 to a weapon's crit range automatically added +2 because everyone using the weapon in any serious way, takes IC for it. This tied the devs hands on handing out crit range increases. The second problem was purely a bug. IC should not have been doubling all the other enhancers. It no longer does and that is fine -it shouldn't have been doing that anyway. The devs can be a bit freer about handing out range extending enhancements in the future.

2) It does not devalue the existing named weapons. This is critically important and why several people started pointing this out more forcefully in the last day or so. Had the ranges not been extended on the named items, so that they were brought back to their former power, they would have devalued the effort put into obtaining them, and would have made them much less desirable. This would have directly lowered game activity. This is profoundly not what the devs want. Furthermore, if this issue was not addressed now, it likely never would have been ever again. Nobody likes messing with loot, especially retroactively (I assume this is retroactive). All that other stuff: PRR, MRR is easy to tweak and could be in future. Loot is not.

So to be clear, on a subject that is difficult to get clarity on, this is not leaving things exactly the same as some have suggested. This has removed the multiplicative effect of IC going forward on both base ranges, and on enhancers, and, with this most recent concession, it has not nerfed some of the most valuable loot in the game that people spent significant time acquiring, and which people will continue to spend significant time trying to acquire.

Personally this is really the only thing I cared about. Breaking loot is bad. Messing with PRR / MRR etc is what it is. That stuff is easy to dial up or down in future updates.

I do think it kinda sucks that Vanguard loses crits on their shields, but it all could have been a lot worse.

[Vhayre]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:
Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5
Bone Crusher: 3
Epic Bone Crusher: 5
Pinion: 3
Mutineer's Blade: 5
Deathnip: 3
Tiefling Assassin's Blade: 4
Whirlwind: 4
Rebellion: 4
Drow Bastard Sword, Dagger, Khopesh, Longsword, and Shortsword: 4
Drow Waraxe, Light Mace, Warhammer, Great Axe, Maul and Quarterstaff: 3.
Drow Rapier and Scimitar: 5
Carnifex: 3
Silver Longbow: 3
Elemental Bloom (and Epic): 3
Oathblade: 4
Sickle of Sypheros: 3
Snowstar: 5
Theurgic Stave: 3
Ratcatcher: 4
Nightforge avanger blade and stiletto: 4
Nightforge spike: 5
Treason: 4
Breeze: 3
Unwavering Ardency: 3
Coronation: 3
Phospor: 5
Razorend: 4
Epic Zephyr: 4
Epic Thornlord: 3
Epic Collapsible Shortbow: 3
Epic Mirage: 5
Epic Bow of the Elements: 3
Epic Staff of Nat Gann: 3
Bow of Sinew: 3
Cutthroat's Smallblade (top heroic weapon) and Epic Cutthroat's Smallblade: 4
Luminous truth and Epic Luminous Truth: 3
Chieftain's Spear: 3
Forester's Brush Hook: 3
Forgotten Light: 3
Fellblade: 4
Sapphire Sting and Epic: 3
Death's Touch: 3
Devourer's Reaping: 3
Tharkuul's Bane: 3
Widowblight: 3
Mornh, Hammer of the Mountains: 3
Staff of the Seer: 3
Braisingstar: 3
Fossil: 3
Star of Irian: 3
Bonesplitter: 3
Shining Devastation: 3

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

Thank you for looking into this :)

The list is missing Cranium Cracker, Epic Cranium Cracker, Luck Blade and Dragon Sword of Acid as far as I can tell. Also, what is Fossil?

[Livmo]

sev,

are there plans or on-going discussions on reducing the ap cost to access the elven aa tree? With the recent changes this is now a tree players may want to invest in to get the capstone, where previously 32 pts was the goal. Sinking 14 aps into opening the tree requires some very difficult choices elsewhere, which is good, but in this new world 14 aps may be overly restrictive.

-vorthian

ty!

[Systern]

Repeating Crossbows and Doubleshot
Fixed a bug where Doubleshot was not being reduced for repeating crossbows. (Doubleshot chance is divided by 3 for repeating crossbows.)



May I ask why? When doubleshot procs on a repeater, you get 1 extra missile, not a complete 3 missile volley. The stat doesn't give triple the benefit to repeaters, so why penalize it by reducing its opportunity to 1/3rd?

I haven't done any testing since the repeater animation changes a few updates back, but prior to that the overall rate of fire between bows and repeaters were comparable. Over the course of a minute, a bow would shoot about the same number of arrows as a repeater would shoot bolts. Even with the animation changes, repeaters do not fire three times as many bolts in a minute than a bow, so I don't understand why the "compensation" is so heavy-handed.

[EllisDee37]

I haven't done any testing since the repeater animation changes a few updates back, but prior to that the overall rate of fire between bows and repeaters were comparable.Testing with three of my alts:

Level 16 Ranger (14/1/1 ranger/rogue/fighter (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/423116))
BAB 15
Rapid Shot (autogranted by ranger levels)
Ranged Attack Speed Bonus: 6% (Speed VI boots)
Bow of Sinew: 21 arrows in 20 seconds

Level 15 Rogue (13/1/1 rogue/barb/fighter (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466344-Dual-box-openers?p=5701831&viewfull=1#post5701831))
BAB 11
Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload
Mechanical Reloader (+40% attack speed, soon to be lowered to +30%)
Ranged Attack Speed Bonus: 6% (Speed VI boots)
Great Crossbow: 29 bolts in 20 seconds

Level 7 Rogue (6/1 rogue/paladin (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466344-Dual-box-openers?p=5701828&viewfull=1#post5701828))
BAB 5
Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload
Ranged Attack Speed Bonus: 0%
Light Repeating Crossbow: 51 bolts in 20 seconds


For all three, "Ranged Attack Speed Bonus:" is copied exactly from what the character sheet says. I would think rapid shot, rapid reload and mechanical reloader would show up there but it appears to only include gear effects.

EDIT: These tests discount doubleshot entirely, just counting "shot" animations. The light repeater shot 17 times @ 3x per shot.

[Mahatu]

On the subject of warlock changes, can eldrtich wave be changed so that is does not require a target to cast, much like other cone spells? As it stands it can be really frustrating to use as if a mob moves just slightly to far to the side you get the "not facing the target" message and the spell goes on cooldown with no effect.

[Nestroy]

On the subject of warlock changes, can eldrtich wave be changed so that is does not require a target to cast, much like other cone spells? As it stands it can be really frustrating to use as if a mob moves just slightly to far to the side you get the "not facing the target" message and the spell goes on cooldown with no effect.

Same for aura bursts, please!

[axel15810]

Devs I just want to throw a comment in here and say that I hope you don't retract any proposed changes unless you've shown to be wrong in your calculations or have been proven by players to have overlooked something.

Please do what's best for the game in the long term despite the short term negative feedback here. Also I hope you are getting feedback from other places as well because I think overall players are on board with these changes and a lot of the complaining I feel is coming from a very small but vocal minority of forum posters and I believe the vast majority of threats to quit/cancel subs are much more bark than bite. I hope you don't let that sway you from making the changes that are best for class balance in DDO.

[Steve_Howe]

Need to add:

Sword of Shadow (heroic version)
Epic Storm
Bow of Sinew
Dragon Sword of Acid
Epic Souleater
Luck Blade
Divine Artillery
Cranium Cracker
Leverage (heroic and epic)

Also the plan for great crossbows is off - it should be a +3 with IC, not a +2, because it has an 18-20 crit profile. You have it grouped with things that have a smaller crit profile and the rest of the 18-20 range items under +3. (I am not taking credit for that find; karatemack noticed it.)

This.

[Peter_Stauffenberg]

I wonder if these feats should be open to all classes.

Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Notes: All Heavy Armor feats stack for a total of +30. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Heavy Armor Training and forego the +3 and still have access to Heavy Armor Champion.

*****

You need to use heavy armor to get the benefit from the feats. The level requirement could be level x in the class that have heavy armor mastery (paladin, cleric etc.).

One big benefit of fighters is the abundance of feats so they can easily take these feats. Clerics, paladins are more feat starved so they can't take some of these feats without sacrificing something other important.

Still, I think it should be POSSIBLE for other classes than fighter to put effort into PRR and MRR via feat usage.

Maybe the feats should have the lower tiers as prerequisite or having to take one of the lower 2 to unlock the upper 2. Otherwise most players would just pick the highest tier to get the best bonus for using just 1 feat.

[EllisDee37]

Need to add:

Sword of Shadow (heroic version)
Epic Storm
Bow of Sinew
Dragon Sword of Acid
Epic Souleater
Luck Blade
Divine Artillery
Cranium Cracker
Leverage (heroic and epic)

Also the plan for great crossbows is off - it should be a +3 with IC, not a +2, because it has an 18-20 crit profile. You have it grouped with things that have a smaller crit profile and the rest of the 18-20 range items under +3. (I am not taking credit for that find; karatemack noticed it.)Divine Artillery, heroic and epic, has the standard 18-20x2 great crossbow crit profile.

[Systern]

Testing with three of my alts:

...snipped...


For all three, "Ranged Attack Speed Bonus:" is copied exactly from what the character sheet says. I would think rapid shot, rapid reload and mechanical reloader would show up there but it appears to only include gear effects.

EDIT: These tests discount doubleshot entirely, just counting "shot" animations. The light repeater shot 17 times @ 3x per shot.

Just jumped on Lammania and made a Ranger, following Arcane Archer Path, and talked to the Guide to get it to level 20. No AP spent on Enhancements.
Starter Bow, 100 arrow stack, cast jump and watched the timer as I held down the lmb for 1 minute.

After 1 minute, 64 shots fired.

I went to Fred and swapped out Exotic Weapon Prof: Khopesh (why is this in the Arcane Archer Path?) for Quick Draw, since the wiki says that it should be the equivalent to Rapid Reload for bows...

After 1 minute, 64 shots fired. No noticeable difference from having this feat.


Deleted the character, and made an Artificer (Crossbow path), again got to 20, only gear was the starter Heavy Repeater, and a conjured stack of bolts. No Enhancements. Used the timer on Resist Acid.

After 1 minute, 46 volleys - 138 bolts used.


Difference in Rate of Fire: 215.6%

I'm unsure if Ranged Alacrity will scale both weapons equally. The Shoot/Reload animation for bows seems to be about 50/50, while the animation on a repeater feels more like 33/66.
Also considering a Repeater's burst-y nature, and for example when shooting a breakable the first bolt kills the target and the other 2 silently have an "invalid target", Repeaters have a higher percentage of missiles that aren't "On-Target" and actually dealing damage than bows. (Yes, I realize that when launching 36 bolts at a critter to kill it, the last 2 not doing damage is a really low percentage.)

Anyway, I'm convinced now, even more so than before, that a 67% reduction in doubleshot is too much.

[EllisDee37]

Anyway, I'm convinced now, even more so than before, that a 67% reduction in doubleshot is too much.What are you thinking, 50%? I could probably get behind that.

[CThruTheEgo]

What are you thinking, 50%? I could probably get behind that.

/seconded.

Thank you Ellis and Systern for doing some detailed testing and sharing both results as well as conditions. I agree 1/3 benefit is too much. Half seems much more appropriate.

How about it Sev?

[Kieriyn]

Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Severlin mentioned that fighters get so many feats that they many times are forced to take less than desirable choices. Typically those extra feat slots end up being taken up by Toughness by default, so I was trying to quantify how these feats measured up to that baseline choice. The best reference that I could find (which may be out of date), was Sirgog's thread here. https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/376843-Hitpoints-versus-PRR-Which-helps-your-character-more Based upon that article, a Fighter with 70-140 PRR that takes Heavy Armor Master and Champion is slightly better off than taking Toughness, Whereas Heavy Armor Training and Combatant end up being weaker. That's about what I guessed, which means that my fighter that's about to lose 26 PRR can use 2 feats on Master and Champion, lose 44 HP, and end up with 5 less PRR. That's a dreadful solution, which only reinforces my question from earlier- Why are we looking to fix balance issues introduced by individual class passes by changing cross cutting concerns that affect all classes? You probably won't see the same volume of replies on the effects on fighters because, frankly, most people stopped playing them long ago. That doesn't mean that it's any less urgent. Take for example, the classic Kensei build of a TWF Khopesh build. That fighter will lose 7 MP, 26 PRR, and 1 off of his crit profile exclusive of destiny (4 if he is in DC). Folks that created their toons and stuck with them while everyone else TR'd into Swashbucklers, Paladins, etc as each class was boosted will now be nerfed further as you attempt to balance the class specific changes using changes to universal mechanics. A possible unscheduled, class specific fix in 2016 or 2017 is so far out as to be complete vaporware at this point. Is it possible to at least mitigate the PRR changes by making the fighter specific feats be autogranted at certain levels.

[Vyrzain]

................

Folks that created their toons and stuck with them while everyone else TR'd into Swashbucklers, Paladins, etc as each class was boosted will now be nerfed further as you attempt to balance the class specific changes using changes to universal mechanics.
A possible unscheduled, class specific fix in 2016 or 2017 is so far out as to be complete vaporware at this point.
Is it possible to at least mitigate the PRR changes by making the fighter specific feats be autogranted at certain levels.


Please give Fighters the new PRR and MRR FEATs for free.

Maybe even open them to the other classes that my ware heavy armor if said Class wants to use a FEAT slot on them or to splash into Fighter to get these for free.

[EllisDee37]

Please give Fighters the new PRR and MRR FEATs for free.

Maybe even open them to the other classes that my ware heavy armor if said Class wants to use a FEAT slot on them or to splash into Fighter to get these for free.My first thought is that that would be ridiculous. But on second thought, better PRR/MRR might be an elegant way to balance out fighters and paladins. One mitigates through resistance, the other through better saves.

I'm not saying the feats as outlined should be autogranted; I don't even remember the specific numbers, much less have analyzed them. But assuming there are some magic numbers to balance fighter PRR/MRR with pally saves, I could see putting those magic numbers into the feats and then autogranting them to fighters and letting other classes take them by spending a feat. Sort of like monk forms, but without requiring 1 fighter level.

Maybe autogrant them at odd fighter levels above 6. Maybe make them offer a little per feat, but autogrant a bunch of them. Like +5 at levels 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19. Or whatever. My thinking on starting at 7 is that you couldn't get both the autogranted fighter feats and holy sword.

One note for devs to consider: I've recently been brainstorming what my completionist's fighter life will be. All my completionist lives are pure builds. Despite being a pure fighter build, and before the introduction of these new fighter feats, I was already short of feat slots and having to make hard cuts. Basic concept is vanguard using bastard swords:

5 right off the bat for the focus/specialization line for slashing weapons
IC slashing of course, but I'd also like to add in bludgeon and thrown if possible (these are first 2 cuts)
improved trip, for sure (costs 2 feats)
stunning blow
pa / cleave / great cleave
precision and improved sunder, for sure. undead beware!
dragonmark of ddoor
shield mastery, improved mastery & bash
THF / ITHF / GTHF
bastard sword

That's up to 22, 24 if I go with three ICs instead of just slashing. As a pure human fighter I get 19 during heroics. So I already need to trim 3 out of my wish list even after I toss out the extra Improved Crit styles, and before these new fighter feats.

[FestusHood]

6. Stop making those Exploits and fix them asap [Strength of Spirit: When you hit with a melee attack, or cast a spell on an ally, or cast an offensive spell on an enemy, you gain 1 Spirit. Each of these three categories triggers only once every three seconds. You can have up to 30 Spirit. Spirit decays at a rate of one every 9 seconds.] Why cleric aura regenerates nonstop isn't its same with fury archers. Treefolks are greatest melee based dps atm and they can spend more than half quest in that form just by healers aura generated charges. You wont make us believe it should work this way.

I hadn't really thought about it before, but here is a simple way to fix this. Aura ticks no longer count as spells beyond the first tick.

[Vorthian]

I hadn't really thought about it before, but here is a simple way to fix this. Aura ticks no longer count as spells beyond the first tick.


Ditto for warlock auras, or just have all auras turn off in changed form.

[bloodnose13]

i would like to notice that vanguards being described as a "tanks that have too much dps" is complete BS, i play a paladin tank that invested always heavly into defender tree (the tree devs reduced to batmans utility belt for all of splashes and/or prestiges, check it if oyu want most of kotc and vanguards have defender stance on, and those that dont were away for a while and dont know they can) most of points always went into defender who gets 1 ability for dps that does exactly nothing (yes reprisal im talking about you) rest of points always goes into vanguard to get at least some shield bash chance and maybe 1 attack to have some +w bonus. removeing shields out of holy sword hits vanguards? boo hoo defender gets hit even more as it lowers their dps even more, as for immortal vanguards, again devs fault, before new enchancements defender had REQUIREMENTS to take enchancements, those were removed to make it more splasher friendly in turn we have a tree that is bloated with defence and has no offensive abilities in it. to make is more funny no matter how much % of hate generation tanks will get they will always lose aggro if everyone in party does 100 times more damage than they do, to simplify it, if you do 1 damage and everyone does 10 then even 500% hate wont help you. tanks need dps too, and diffrences in dps between classes and weapons should not be measured in 100s of % but in 10s. same should be for defensibility.

so what could be done to stop this overpoweredness? first of all make all of the same enchancements doing same thing in diffrent trees NOT STACK, currently its possible just as paladin to take same enchancement from vanguard and from defender and thats just in class, more can be done when splashing in fighter?? ever wondered how those high prr/ac characters are created? look at those...

second thing is that defender prestiges in both fighter and paladin should be reworked, into something that can stand on its own and cant be exploited by other builds to use them as a source of extra survivability, if devs woudl want some ideas for that i have long list of ideas what could be done with them. there should be a visible diffrence between paladin with shield and fighter with shield and not just visual. and vanguard tree should be made into a tree available to all classes, warpriest cleric vanguard? sounds nice?

another thing maybe its time to scale dps and survivability down to the weakest not the strongest and then scaling down enemies to fit, as example when ac underwent its changes, and became todays high 200+ as tank values, a value of 1 ac went down to nothing, remember the time when the defender stance was made to block rage? remmeber why? becouse of 2 ac penalty....... what is 2 ac today? in same way 1 point of prr/mrr is nearly worthless.


-----------------

as for warlock changes, i think one more change is due, to change chain blast into equivalent of multishot, with limit of how long it can be used and put it on cooldown between those times, as long as chain will be free for constant use warlocks will be overpowered.

[Kieriyn]

My first thought is that that would be ridiculous. But on second thought, better PRR/MRR might be an elegant way to balance out fighters and paladins. One mitigates through resistance, the other through better saves.

I'm not saying the feats as outlined should be autogranted; I don't even remember the specific numbers, much less have analyzed them. But assuming there are some magic numbers to balance fighter PRR/MRR with pally saves, I could see putting those magic numbers into the feats and then autogranting them to fighters and letting other classes take them by spending a feat. Sort of like monk forms, but without requiring 1 fighter level.

Maybe autogrant them at odd fighter levels above 6. Maybe make them offer a little per feat, but autogrant a bunch of them. Like +5 at levels 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19. Or whatever. My thinking on starting at 7 is that you couldn't get both the autogranted fighter feats and holy sword.

One note for devs to consider: I've recently been brainstorming what my completionist's fighter life will be. All my completionist lives are pure builds. Despite being a pure fighter build, and before the introduction of these new fighter feats, I was already short of feat slots and having to make hard cuts. Basic concept is vanguard using bastard swords:

5 right off the bat for the focus/specialization line for slashing weapons
IC slashing of course, but I'd also like to add in bludgeon and thrown if possible (these are first 2 cuts)
improved trip, for sure (costs 2 feats)
stunning blow
pa / cleave / great cleave
precision and improved sunder, for sure. undead beware!
dragonmark of ddoor
shield mastery, improved mastery & bash
THF / ITHF / GTHF
bastard sword

That's up to 22, 24 if I go with three ICs instead of just slashing. As a pure human fighter I get 19 during heroics. So I already need to trim 3 out of my wish list even after I toss out the extra Improved Crit styles, and before these new fighter feats.

I just logged in and saw that the patch is going live on the 22nd, so further suggestions are most likely moot-at least for this pass. I seriously hope that some thought is put into this anyway, as it's extremely disheartening to be a fighter right now. I guess I'll wait for the patch, evaluate, and see if I finally give in and TR into a Paladin.

[archerforever]

With the new patch coming, breaking all criticals and procs builds, Thunderforged stuff REALLY NEED A REWORK !!!!

Actually Thunderforged weapons are only good for 2 things...
- Casters spell power/lore/DC
- And Mortal Fear for fighters. Everything else is BAD...

The idea is to nerf Mortal Fear because it s just ridiculous and to up other interesting effects in TF weapons. (because many are just trash).
To have something balanced between all kind of weapons, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 effects don't have to proc on criticals. Because all weapons don't have the same natural critical range and attack speed !!!!
Of course changes are needed for our actual TF stuff, i m not saying that I have THE solution but TF weapons have to be REWORKED this is sure !!!
and yes, find a way to get all materials spent back...

Here is my suggestion, leave a comment if you like or dislike it and say why.

https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12122934_10205981471110753_6204761315322132147_n.j pg?oh=6a6eb6110ba867c57992406cb37714c8&oe=56CF8462
https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12108185_10205981472310783_7720805629550695165_n.j pg?oh=772f87e63271f091a6f673382bbaee7f&oe=56CED7A6
https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12115840_10205981472470787_7157901314378598468_n.j pg?oh=71481c3aa9d9394b344660453a49af98&oe=5685F2EC
https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12109165_10205981472670792_3597320974945767442_n.j pg?oh=0dbe4bdfdedc78cf9853795164ac1d90&oe=56D30F69
https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12088543_10205981472830796_898403711964989910_n.jp g?oh=e361ccfe7a808c4f48d934c27ff45260&oe=56C8483C
https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12106747_10205981473270807_1919170833268932342_n.j pg?oh=510afb22714479b81ee7a55677cc254a&oe=56D331D4
https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/1508212_10205981473390810_4580338810698501974_n.jp g?oh=33a3cf2e9c8b0b15b81d8ea17d9b0cab&oe=5692C4BE
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/1601061_10205981473670817_7676500143958221270_n.jp g?oh=b2a7d73a5e5f0c838a1de22cd2fd208c&oe=56D10A47&__gda__=1451945810_52ee497ede73f5c1e9249ee14c0acc0 4

Thanks for your attention

[Grace_ana]

With the new patch coming, breaking all criticals and procs builds, Thunderforged stuff REALLY NEED A REWORK !!!!

Actually Thunderforged weapons are only good for 2 things...
- Casters spell power/lore/DC
- And Mortal Fear for fighters. Everything else is BAD...

The idea is to nerf Mortal Fear because it s just ridiculous and to up other interesting effects in TF weapons. (because many are just trash).
To have something balanced between all kind of weapons, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 effects don't have to proc on criticals. Because all weapons don't have the same natural critical range and attack speed !!!!
Of course changes are needed for our actual TF stuff, i m not saying that I have THE solution but TF weapons have to be REWORKED this is sure !!!
and yes, find a way to get all materials spent back...

Here is my suggestion, leave a comment if you like or dislike it and say why.


I appreciate the time you put into this, but this would be exceptionally overpowered, IMO.

[Clemeit]

Huge new feat options for fighters. Some of these new feats look promising. I won't, however, be purchasing a Lesser Heart of Wood just to make use of them.

I think we'd all really like to see Lesser Hearts in our inventories when we log back in... I don't think we should all have to buy them when so much is being changed.

[Propane]

Hello!

I did a little more testing on another alt - I wanted to see how Many Shot would work for burst DPS on a melee centered character
Just getting ready to do a TR/ETR (lucky me)

1st life elf
12 ranger (34 ap in DWS - Teir 5 - 21 ap in tempest) / 8 bard (25 in warchanter) / epic 8

Back to Cabal for One - E Normal - Gardak Bruntsmash beat down.

Range Test
Pinion T1 - all spells and songs I can muster...

On Lamannia-

ManyShot - dropped health bar to below K - shot more arrows 54 sec kill
ManyShot - dropped health bar to below D - shot more arrows 45 sec kill
ManyShot - dropped health bar to below K - shot more arrows 46 sec kill
ManyShot - dropped health bar to below K - shot more arrows 52 sec kill

On Live

Same as above
ManyShot - kill at end ~20 sec
ManyShot - dropped health bar to below D - shot more arrows 52 sec kill
ManyShot - kill at end ~20 sec
ManyShot - dropped health bar to below D - shot more arrows 50 sec kill

Ouch - perfered Live...

So after this test, I wondered if Manyshot was more DPS than melee...

Did two tests with dual wielding Sacrificial Daggers - without any of the clickys from the DWS tree - just straight up attack - dropped him 2 times in under 20 sec...

Conclusion - Manyshot for burst damage will be much less DPS than normal melee...

[archerforever]

Conclusion - Manyshot for burst damage will be much less DPS than normal melee...

As you said, for a melee focused build. I m just hoping that, if u are trying the same thing on a ranged focused build, the new manyshot is not so bad.

[unbongwah]

Conclusion - Manyshot for burst damage will be much less DPS than normal melee...
Did you have any Doubleshot bonuses on your Lama test toon? Remember that the DS penalty is going away, so it will now be vital to add those to any "real" archer builds, as well as the usual feats etc.

In any case, the goal all along has been to nerf burst DPS while buffing sustained DPS for archers to compensate. We know that got the nerf part right; let's hope the buff part works too...

[blerkington]

Conclusion - Manyshot for burst damage will be much less DPS than normal melee...

Hi,

The changes to manyshot are a real kick for the classic ranger who both melees and uses their bow, among others.

It's quite priceless that the change is being introduced in the middle of the ranger pass, making some ranger builds considerably less effective and less enjoyable to play. Why go to the trouble of developing a new enhancement tree for hybrid melee/ranged builds, only to so heavily nerf the core feat around which that style is built?

I'm hoping that someone will see sense on this after it goes live and more people become aware of the effect of the change. There have already been a number of good proposals to allow manyshot to retain its bursty goodness without that being at the expense of doubleshot the rest of the time, while also not boosting bow combat disproportionately.

The key is allowing people to build one way or another, and that is where the current proposal to change manyshot is so lacking. We have developers patting themselves on the back for dealing with the problem of very uneven DPS during the full two minute cycle for an archer, but their solution has damaged two other perfectly legitimate build types.

What was very revealing about the manyshot discussion is how it suddenly became about how adrenaline recharge in FoTW worked once a decent number of people were starting to voice their concerns about changes. That worked very well, both as a threat to make players ease off complaining and a distraction from the details of the discussion.

I think the developers are unable to understand the fact that not all archers play in Fury, and that feats which are common to all archers should not be balanced on the assumption that they do. Same issue with slaying arrow; not a particularly powerful ability at all if outside of Fury, but quite powerful within it.

If, even now that the damage output for melees has increased so much, they still think adrenaline works too well with manyshot and slayer arrows, then perhaps they should be looking at rebalancing how that part of FoTW works rather than everything else.

Or then again don't; and just leave it as it is, so we have the choice of building melees who are also occasional bow users, full-time archers who build for burst, and constant damage output archers too.

Their laziness of approach has really harmful consequences for two popular builds types, and there is absolutely no reason for it to be that way when other, better solutions are available.

Thanks.

[Vellrad]

Ugh, so turbine is really unable to change competence bonus non doubling, so they need to change IC and named weapons, while already having non-stacking Ravager crit range that works exactly how they want all the other crit range bonuses work in game...
You know how it sounds?

[Hipparan]

Thoughts on named weapons and threat range:

~ We definitely do not, going forward, want Improved Critical to affect any bonuses to threat range for named weapons.

~ We are also sensitive to players who don't want to see existing weapon lose relative power.

We will be increasing the threat range of the following named weapons. I am including the new threat range which is increased to compensate for the loss of improved critical. Keep in mind that this will be on top of the threat range Improved Critical adds for weapon type, so with that feat Epic Sword of Shadows, as an example, would have a threat range of 6 and become 15-20.

I apologize for the short hand in listing the threat range - that number represents the base range of the weapon and should be increased enough to match the previous range with Improved Critical. As a side effect this will make some weapons more powerful if your character does not have Improved Critical.

Named Item: Base Threat Range

....

Fossil: 3

....

(I believe we have all named items with a base threat range higher than their weapon type with this list.)

Sev~

Hold on, what is Fossil? As an amateur paleontologist I must know!

[Walking_Ride]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

Will that be included in tomorrows update 28 patch 1 ? Or do i have to wait for the next update, so that i can properly play my twf paladin again ?

[Dirtywyrm]

Armor Changes
The amount of Physical Resist Rating that armor provides has been changed.
* Heavy armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 2) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Medium armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1.5) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Light Armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
Fixed a bug where players were getting Physical Resist Rating for armor with which they were not proficient.

(Note: The Physical Resist Rating and Magical Resist Rating offered by shields remain unchanged.)

As a result of dialing back armor, some fighter only feats that will boost their effectiveness with armor and add to tactical DCs will also be included.
Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Notes: All Heavy Armor feats stack for a total of +30. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Heavy Armor Training and forego the +3 and still have access to Heavy Armor Champion.




So as a pure fighter build that is effective even in high level content due to feat selection, I'm now going to have to forgo my competence to avoid being squishy by selecting a pile of armor mastery feats? I thought you guys were going to improve fighters, not make them weaker. Taking away defense and critical hits, adding ungodly amounts of feat selections just to mitigate the nerf bat... What's wrong with you? I have no complaints about the previous barb, paly, bard, or warlock power levels. I understand that puts me in the minority. But please stop killing my fighter.

[Eth]

Hold on, what is Fossil? As an amateur paleontologist I must know!

Never heard of that weapon either.

What is this? I MUST KNOW!

[EllisDee37]

~ The changes to Improved Critical do mess up the balance for Assassins between kukri and daggers, and for Swashbucklers who can take enhancements to normalize weapon types. We are going to implement additional changes so that characters who have the Improved Critical feat will gain extra threat range for under performing weapons to maintain the weapon balance you have live using these builds.Where did we land on this for Thursday? Is my sickle swashbuckler screwed?

Also, related: Why would you require Improved Crit to normalize the weapons? What about keen/impact weapons? Aren't they valid choices?

[Ayseifn]

Any chance of allowing more than 100 Doublestrike to be meaningful? Right now it's possible to build for a lot more than 100% and with more gear increasing that stat coming out over time it'll just get easier and easier and be possible on more and more builds.



So as a pure fighter build that is effective even in high level content due to feat selection, I'm now going to have to forgo my competence to avoid being squishy by selecting a pile of armor mastery feats? I thought you guys were going to improve fighters, not make them weaker. Taking away defense and critical hits, adding ungodly amounts of feat selections just to mitigate the nerf bat... What's wrong with you? I have no complaints about the previous barb, paly, bard, or warlock power levels. I understand that puts me in the minority. But please stop killing my fighter.

The fighter pass will still happen, this is just a bone thrown to fighters in the interim. Previously fighters(mainly) got the changes to weapon spec/focus feats as well as the Vanguard tree and whatever else while the fighter pass was never mentioned as being cancelled.

[Rilok]

Manyshot
This ability is being redesigned.
For the next 20 seconds you add your (base attack bonus * 4) to your Doubleshot and Ranged Power. This ability puts Ten Thousand Stars on a 30 second cooldown. Cooldown 2 minutes.
(This ability no longer gives a doubleshot penalty when activated.)


Sev~

Have not tested this personally but this seems like a different ability than the name implies altogether, Manyshot not you might get 3 if you are built well for double shot and are lucky. It does seem like it will help sustain DPS by leaving double shot chance debuff out of the equation but in the same stroke we go from 4 arrows per shot to "Maybe 3", might as well call it "Could get triple shot, maybe" I understand balance is trying to be achieved but how about trying something to bring it back closer to D&D, Possibly along the lines of making it a 2,3,4 shot (based on BAB as it currently is) burst on a 10-12 second cooldown. Test it out on cool down time and adjust on test server.

Edit: for concerns about FoTW refilling adrenaline......put all projectiles from this cooldwn based single volley on 1 attack roll so it can only proc once per Manyshot volley. (not sure how possible this is in comparison to interferring with standard double shot procs, but tossing it out there) If need be consider all the damage as consolidated but multiplied by number of intended projectiles, taking added effects into account.

[raeslys]

Armor Changes
The amount of Physical Resist Rating that armor provides has been changed.
* Heavy armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 2) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Medium armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1.5) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
* Light Armor now increases Physical Resist Rating by (base attack bonus * 1) and no longer adds Magical Resist Rating.
Fixed a bug where players were getting Physical Resist Rating for armor with which they were not proficient.

(Note: The Physical Resist Rating and Magical Resist Rating offered by shields remain unchanged.)

As a result of dialing back armor, some fighter only feats that will boost their effectiveness with armor and add to tactical DCs will also be included.

Tactical Training
Requires Fighter Level 4
You gain +2 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 8
You gain +4 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Mastery
Requires Fighter Level 12
You gain +6 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Tactical Supremacy
Requires Fighter Level 16
You gain +8 to the DC of all tactical feats.

Notes: All tactical feats stack for a total of +20. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Tactical Training and forego the +2 but still have access to Tatical Supremacy.

Heavy Armor Training
Requires Fighter Level 2
You gain +3 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Combatant
Requires Fighter Level 6
You gain +6 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Master
Requires Fighter Level 10
You gain +9 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Heavy Armor Champion
Requires Fighter Level 14
You gain +12 Physical Resistance Rating and Magical Resistance Rating while wearing heavy armor.

Notes: All Heavy Armor feats stack for a total of +30. The lower level feats are not prerequisites for the higher level feats so a higher level fighter could save a feat if he/she wanted to skip Heavy Armor Training and forego the +3 and still have access to Heavy Armor Champion.


Uhmm, I think that is not a good idea for balancing the game, it's hard to survive in EE in some quest, some mob have a heavy damage in aoe spells, if mrr you have to look for boulds with evation and high reflex, this chage do it that the game lose variety of choice (IMOO), any want do it a melle dps to just get beaten.

And the feat...This is a garbage, you hava spend 4 feats for get 30 prr/mrr, may with 2 feat of 15 prr/merr each can be best option and universal, not only for fighters, you forget paladin tanks (same for tactical feat, a good idea but too many feats).

[lyrecono]

First of all many thanks to Sev and other developers for laying out these proposals in advance, with reasoning. This has stimulated me to make my first foray onto a forum. I apologise that only read about one-third of the posts before commenting; this is because I realised that more were being added faster than I was reading them…
Overall I approve of the changes and critique of specific details below should be read in that light.

Snipped

Armour: (1) Definitely need to cut back on benefit, but is this going too far? I’d retain a little MRR. (2) Is the problem really with [heavy] armour generally or specifically with Shadow Plate, which seems to me grossly over-effective relative to all other options (including other heavy armours). Probably a bit of both. (3) Also, I do not like the change to an even more BAB-based formula: (i) effectiveness should be based on proficiency; BAB is an unrelated metric to do with hit chance. It is also related to level whereas PRR/MRR are percentage reductions and do not need to scale numerically with level (ii) the goal, I assume, is to reduce the inclination of ‘light/no armour classes” to wear medium/heavy armour. However such classes have to make a big investment – multiple feats and/or enhancements, ASF, etc to get there. If you took away the big prize of Shadow Plate I think a modest reduction in PRR and a larger reduction in MRR would do the job. The present proposal heavily penalises Eldritch Knights and similar and I think likely to reduce build diversity by enforcing a “follow your class stereotype” build straitjacket.

snipped

Dps for tanks: tanks don’t (necessarily) need more dps they need one or more of (i) better party tactics; (ii) reduced dps for others (provided in part by the proposed changes); (iii) increased threat; (iv) more dps. I feel that providing more dps would be the worst option as “balance” has to mean a trade-off between desirable features, e.g. defence and offense. High –defense characters (and ability to attack at a distance is a defense…) should have dramatically lower dps than the “glass cannons” just as their defences are dramatically stronger. Of course one could adjust other parameters – in ancient PnP heavy-armour types moved at half the speed of light/no armour…



Armor:
Scaling with BAB is done to make sure you wouldn't get a huge bonus at level 1 but grew into it as you level up, the idea is sound.
Too bad they choose bab over, for example level, because it shoehorns certain classes into certain roles, a fighter with a bow is now better protected then a ranger
The other problem i have with the changes is, fighter and paladin aren't the only ones affected, i see plenty of barbs, clerics, wizards and druids in platemail, they're gone be screwed over by this.

DPS for tanks
1, doesn't work, many don't use voice chat let alone speak the same language well enough, assuming their ego even allows for it. see *1 for more on this
2, that won't go over well, taking mobs down on the lv 30EE quests crossed tedious a long time ago and is bordering boring atm
3, Wouldn't take this in a 1000 years, why would i take an enh that emulates dps for that 1 boss in that 1 raid 5 years ago? (e.g. vod/tod)
4, The game was fine as it was before the changes. When i pug, my main barb takes all the agro because the sword and board pally only has 2 past lives and is working on a arcane destiny.
When i raid with channel members i have to work very hard to pull the agro of the tank because his is fully build tank is at the peak of his capabilities. I think this is why many tanks fail today, they're up against people who have put in the effort in building, gearing and playing their dps toons.
5, (your "heavy armor users should move slower" comment), the dev's tried that with the defensive stances, it failed because they were to slow to reach the mob to grab agro before it died.

*1 What i get from you and some other vocal minorities is that apparently have to go back to the classical party, a tank, a healer, a trapper and a glass cannon (sorc/wiz).
I'm really sorry, but ddo isn't pen and paper, we face far more monsters, we get poisoned/diseased/cursed/damaged on a rate no cleric can keep up with, we move far faster then pnp because we don't have 8 hours to emulate snails going through a dungeon, we face more monsters then a sorcs spell points could ever handle, etc.
I keep hearing the excuse of "group tactics", how many groups do you see running with a cleric of fvs? how many of those enjoy babysitting the group? How many of those are competently enough to do that job?
How long is it ok to wait for a healer? how long until people log out to play another game? aren't these "party tactics" ideas a bit selfish?

All in all, all the changes to bring it back to that will be detrimental to the game, i have played games like that, they were grind fests, doing 2 dungeons a day isn't on my wishlist thank you very much.
If people want to play like that, find people that like that too and go play like that, stop forcing people to play it your way

[Vanhooger]

Not enough, lost interest in this game, playing something else atm.

[Propane]

Did you have any Doubleshot bonuses on your Lama test toon? Remember that the DS penalty is going away, so it will now be vital to add those to any "real" archer builds, as well as the usual feats etc.

In any case, the goal all along has been to nerf burst DPS while buffing sustained DPS for archers to compensate. We know that got the nerf part right; let's hope the buff part works too...

I had some - have a screen shot at home (doesn't help me now...) maybe 30% or so....

I will miss the FUN of gabbing the bow for Manyshot during the hard fights for a burst of DPS, but the numbers just don't work out...

When I am 90% dead or for a mob on a perch - Manyshot will be ok - but no longer my go to FUN button....



The new system for ManyShot seems... clunky... the extra arrow from time to time throughs off the flow...

I much rather have seen a simple / clean speed increase... instead of a double shot %, just ratchet up the speed, faster and faster... even for manyshot.. make it fast enough to get the same number of arrows fired in the time allowed....

I wonder if 1 arrow at a time moving stupid fast is better than 2 or 3 arrows moving at "normal" speed...

[Kompera_Oberon]

One big benefit of fighters is the abundance of feats so they can easily take these feats. Clerics, paladins are more feat starved so they can't take some of these feats without sacrificing something other important.

This is very much a commonly assumed fallacy.

Fighters have more Feats as their only class ability. They get a total of 11 from 1-20, plus what I'll call the stock 7 that everyone gets for being alive. That's a total of 18.

A Paladin gets the stock 7, plus 2 Deity based Feats. And then they get 11 other class based abilities. That's a total of 20.

You can argue the relative value of things, but numerically Paladins have more class abilities than Fighters. And can cast spells (counted as 1 class ability) and Lay on Hands (also counted as 1 class ability) which add a huge amount of utility plus self-healing to the class.

Calling the Fighter's class ability to buy 18 things from the very limited list of all things Feats "an abundance" is really stretching things. And removing a large amount of PRR from armor and then offering Fighters the sweet, sweet ability (that's sarcasm, in case the text didn't convey it properly) to be taxed 4 Feats just to get back to where they were is laughable game design. It only severs to further erode the Fighter's sole class ability by reducing the amount of flexible Feat options by 4.


Severlin mentioned that fighters get so many feats that they many times are forced to take less than desirable choices.
There's a solution to that, and it doesn't involve creating Fighter-only Feats which are simply a tax on the Fighter's Feat total. Fix the Feat list! It was imported almost directly from PnP, where even there there were a great number of Feats which no one ever took because they were simply sub-standard compared to other Feats.

These are the things which a "Balance pass" should be addressing. The Feat list, the weapon list, and other things which will see player build diversity grow rather than shrink.

[elvesunited]

The biggest problem with the PPR and MRR drops is that they are going to hit the weaker characters the hardest. MRR and PRR are diminishing returns. The more points you put into them the less benefit each additional point provides. So paladins and fighters will be weakened. But the real damage will go to low hp builds for whom the PPR and MRR from armor is the lion's share of thier damage mitigation. Instead of improving balance this change actual weakens balance.

The damage reduction to warlock doesn't bug my warlock as much as the idea that Special Abilities under Warlock may soon be subject to Arcane Spell Failure. One is balancing DPS which causes grumbles but no real gameplay changes. The other completely disrupts a build making much hard won bound to character equipment useless.

Manyshot and Thousand star changes will lower dps. Though it doesn't look too bad. And even I who took advantage of it thinks they needed to do something about manyshot adrenaline slayer arrow. Really I'm more concerned about potential Arcane Archer changes and the possibility that slayer arrow might be rendered from a must have to a not worth the AP.

[karatemack]

Doubleshot Pass

Double the amount of doubleshot granted by all existing sources. Then increase the number of arrows possible from doubleshot to 4.

[Thrudh]

Not enough, lost interest in this game, playing something else atm.

I'm betting your sig has more to do with you losing interest in this game than these changes


Triple Heroic & Epic completionist. Eroic : 39/39 - Epic : 34/36 - Iconic : 12/12.

I'd be bored and off-playing another game too, if I had zerged through all those lives, and found at the end, no quest challenges me anymore, and there's not much to do at end-game anyway.

[Gideon999]

On the PRR/MRR thing, I agree with what it seems 90% of the people here said :

Too big a swing with the bat. I am just not getting a pure fighter up to epics, and have found that with HEAVY investment in defense I can get to the point where I can tank EH and some EE content, though with horrible DPS. Now I am going to have to spend 4 feats I am using on DPS and tactical feats (which make fighters interesting in my opinion) to get that same level of functionality back, or rather just to live long enough to hit something.

This seems like a heck of a big hit to me. Right now, spells kick my tail all over the place (duo'd the cultess in front of the deathwyrms raid door to flag for that raid and literally had to kill her with a throwing axe since her cone spells were hitting me for 4-500 damage. And thats the explorer zone, not even a proper quest. And thats with about 75MRR, greater resists and ship buffs along with the shiradi skill that gives 15% absorption. With no MRR that damage would be closer to 750 or so, or 1000 on the high side which to me is a almost a one hit kill. And that boss has 30,000 or so HP. So yeah, took a LONG time to kill her and my party make (a lightning sorc) ran out of mana and SP pots that she was literally using echoes of power to fuel her lightning bolt SLA as her only attack.

I get that that is a level 29 raid zone, so it should be tougher than average, but that still puts it close to EH and EE level 20-23 quests as far as difficulty, which isn't too far off where I am now.

I implore you to rethink this change at least. Leave the PRR scaling, that's not such a big deal I think, and actually makes some fluff sense in that a fighter would get better with his armour as he gets more experience, but the MRR bit is essential, and mitigating that damage with nothing but 30-50 points of resist spells and ship buffs does not help much.

[Kompera_Oberon]

The fighter pass will still happen, this is just a bone thrown to fighters in the interim. Previously fighters(mainly) got the changes to weapon spec/focus feats as well as the Vanguard tree and whatever else while the fighter pass was never mentioned as being cancelled.

So you agree with this methodology of "We're going to break it now, and we promise to change it again later, which may or may not fix it. At some unscheduled far future date. That date may or may not ever come to pass, because we tend to get distracted with other pet projects (like this one which broke it!) which always get jumped to the front of the line."

Is that what you're saying?

[EllisDee37]

I think I'm going to go pull out all of my enhance-crit-range named weapons (eg: Carnifex, Whirlwind, etc...) from my various TR caches just to make sure they don't miss out on an auto-update tomorrow morning.

[nibel]

I think I'm going to go pull out all of my enhance-crit-range named weapons (eg: Carnifex, Whirlwind, etc...) from my various TR caches just to make sure they don't miss out on an auto-update tomorrow morning.

I don't think it will be necessary. It is not the weapons themselves that are being changed, but a feat. That only requires you to log in to change.

[Ayseifn]

So you agree with this methodology of "We're going to break it now, and we promise to change it again later, which may or may not fix it. At some unscheduled far future date. That date may or may not ever come to pass, because we tend to get distracted with other pet projects (like this one which broke it!) which always get jumped to the front of the line."

Is that what you're saying?

I'm of the belief that heavy armour was too strong and needed a global nerf. Wizards and sorcs were wearing it, rogues were wearing it, barbarians were wearing it, etc. Maybe they went too far and HA needs a bit of a buff to balance it but it did need a nerf.

When we have a better baseline for what HA is it'll be easier to do the fighter pass as there'll be a balanced standard for it that won't likely change and no Sword of Damocles dangling over your head like paladin nerfs have been ever since their pass.

[Runerock]

Heading toward 1500 posts. You can do it!

[EllisDee37]

I don't think it will be necessary. It is not the weapons themselves that are being changed, but a feat. That only requires you to log in to change.The weapons themselves are being changed. Specifically, named weapons with greater than normal crit range are getting more base crit range so that they add up to the same profile they have now on live after taking improved critical. Here's the list (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466433-The-Balance-Change-post?p=5707815#post5707815).

That's why I said I think I'm going to pull out any weapon from that list I have in any tr cache.

(A few are missing from that list, and were pointed out later in the thread. Hopefully the missing ones got added.)

[elvesunited]

I'm of the belief that heavy armour was too strong and needed a global nerf. Wizards and sorcs were wearing it, rogues were wearing it, barbarians were wearing it, etc. Maybe they went too far and HA needs a bit of a buff to balance it but it did need a nerf.

When we have a better baseline for what HA is it'll be easier to do the fighter pass as there'll be a balanced standard for it that won't likely change and no Sword of Damocles dangling over your head like paladin nerfs have been ever since their pass.

Wizards, Sorcerors, and Rogues were wearing it because they were sick of being "one shot"'d by enemy spellcasters. Builds evolve to counter the opposition. PPR and MMR helped make some low hp builds more viable and resulted in more variety. Now there will be less.

[Kompera_Oberon]

I'm of the belief that heavy armour was too strong and needed a global nerf. Wizards and sorcs were wearing it, rogues were wearing it, barbarians were wearing it, etc. Maybe they went too far and HA needs a bit of a buff to balance it but it did need a nerf.

The problem with a global change is that when you paint with such a broad brush you're bound to run into unintended consequences. To impact things which were in no way the target of or the reason for the changes in the first place.

Here are Severlin's own words on the intent of this "balance pass":

Our current measure of melee effectiveness is Swashbuckler. Classes like Bard and Paladin have good spells, and strong class abilities. They can expect, if they build entirely towards melee, to deal out good melee DPS. Barbarian, Rogue and Ranger's basic class abilities aren't quite as strong, so characters built entirely toward melee will do a little more DPS. Fighter has very little basic class utility (their competitive advantage is extra feats, and they run out of strong feats) so we have our work cut out for us to balance fighters.


With that as an intent, you'd expect that classes which were delivering greater melee damage than a Swashbuckler would have that capability reduced, and classes which were delivering less melee damage than a Swashbuckler would have that capability either unchanged or increased. But this isn't what is happening at all.

To give a personal example, and with the caveat that my objection to these changes is not just all about me, my main is a L20 Cleric in a Warpriest spec. Yes, all 20 levels in Cleric. Its sole distinguishing factor is survivability, as with its 136 PRR and 64 MRR at the level cap it could withstand the attention of a raid monster or a critter in an EE dungeon long enough for the DPS delivery characters to either take the aggro or kill the monster.

I don't think anyone would say that my build is "overperforming," over powered, or whatever. And yet this patch is going to hurt my character's performance. It will lose 30 MRR and I think about the same in PRR. Its ability to take a few hits from a raid mob or an EE mob will go down significantly. And of course it will be taking a lot more damage from spells as well. The rather pitiful DPS it deals is also going to go down. And if you believe Severlin's own words on the subject none of this was intended at all, but it's still going to happen.

Why? Because the devs can't be bothered to address the actual issues at hand and target their changes to address their own stated intent for the changes. Instead they have decided to shake up the entire box of puzzle pieces and see if a new picture might magically appear to solve the problems they seem to be incapable of solving by examining each puzzle piece individually and fixing them as needed.

[nibel]

The weapons themselves are being changed. Specifically, named weapons with greater than normal crit range are getting more base crit range so that they add up to the same profile they have now on live after taking improved critical. Here's the list (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466433-The-Balance-Change-post?p=5707815#post5707815).

Oh, thanks. I didn't saw that list.

[Clemeit]

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

"Holy Sword no longer affects off-hand, and it no longer works on throwing weapons!"
*1 day later*
"Holy sword actually will affect throwing weapons again."
*1 day later*
"Ah screw it, we'll make it work with off-hand weapons again. Just not shields."

So.... why don't you just make it work with shields again and we can all go home.

======

Fighters... yeah. I'm totally going to give up EIGHT FEAT SELECTIONS to get my PRR back to where it already was and gain a little more stunning blow DC that won't help me in epics anyways.
If those were condensed down into, say, 2 feats granting 15 PRR/MRR each, and 2 feats granting +10 Tactical DC each, then yeah, I mean I might be interested.

======

Why are we pounding PRR into the ground with the nerf bat? I ran EE Ghosts of Perdition the other day and was getting pounded by non-champion mobs hitting me for 350-450 per hit! This was with 212 PRR and 60 DR mind you... I died nearly instantly. But yeah, I mean I guess we should lower player's PRR.

On the other hand... this is an end-game EE quest, so I was pretty happy to see that even such a heavily geared toon couldn't just run through with his eyes closed. It's a toss up here!

======

Many of the other changes look nice. I see that there are some balancing issues that need to be addressed, but this update seems very rushed for something that is so terribly important.

As for the 8 hour down-time tomorrow... well... at least it's more realistic then in the past when we were promised 3 hour down-times that turned out to be 6-8 hours. But wow that's still a long down-time as compared to other games; some of which don't even need to go down to update.


It's not all bad though! I like DDO, and I think I speak for quite the majority when I say that a single balancing pass such as this won't make me stop playing. I might throw down my toys for a little while as I sit in the corner and pout, but I'll be back. I appreciate all the hard work the developers put into this game, and I loop forward for what they have to offer in the future.

P.S. A +20 heart sitting in my inventory would make me forget all about that down-time... :)

[FlaviusMaximus]

...Epic Sword of Shadows: 4
Sireth: 5...


Good changes.

Also, glad you guys are cutting back on the crit ranges in general. Thanks for listening to player feedback.

[nibel]

Pinion made the list and I don't see too much of a difference when I look closely at these 2 weapons side by side:

http://i.imgur.com/VUtlhhd.png

Standard crossbow is 19-20/x2. Needle is 19-20/x3.
Standard longbow is 20/x3. Pinions is 19-20/x3 (now 18-20/x3).

Both versions with Improved Critical are 17-20/x3.

[Ayseifn]

Any chance of buffing Divine Grace or at least dropping Divine Might to tier 1 with 1/1/1 progression?

With this change I can just go 18 whatever for the 18 core ability, 1 monk, 1 FvS and get +4 to all saves, +3 save vs magic, and Divine Might cheaper than getting just Divine Might on a /2 paladin(6 AP vs 11 AP). Also don't need to twist in turn undead, can pick up metamagics and also get a monk feat. Basically instead of /2 paladin becoming weaker instead I just don't see the point of it at all any more, at least for melees.


The problem with a global change is that when you paint with such a broad brush you're bound to run into unintended consequences. To impact things which were in no way the target of or the reason for the changes in the first place.

Here are Severlin's own words on the intent of this "balance pass":


With that as an intent, you'd expect that classes which were delivering greater melee damage than a Swashbuckler would have that capability reduced, and classes which were delivering less melee damage than a Swashbuckler would have that capability either unchanged or increased. But this isn't what is happening at all.

To give a personal example, and with the caveat that my objection to these changes is not just all about me, my main is a L20 Cleric in a Warpriest spec. Yes, all 20 levels in Cleric. Its sole distinguishing factor is survivability, as with its 136 PRR and 64 MRR at the level cap it could withstand the attention of a raid monster or a critter in an EE dungeon long enough for the DPS delivery characters to either take the aggro or kill the monster.

I don't think anyone would say that my build is "overperforming," over powered, or whatever. And yet this patch is going to hurt my character's performance. It will lose 30 MRR and I think about the same in PRR. Its ability to take a few hits from a raid mob or an EE mob will go down significantly. And of course it will be taking a lot more damage from spells as well. The rather pitiful DPS it deals is also going to go down. And if you believe Severlin's own words on the subject none of this was intended at all, but it's still going to happen.

Why? Because the devs can't be bothered to address the actual issues at hand and target their changes to address their own stated intent for the changes. Instead they have decided to shake up the entire box of puzzle pieces and see if a new picture might magically appear to solve the problems they seem to be incapable of solving by examining each puzzle piece individually and fixing them as needed.




Basic armor offers too much mitigation for its cost. While we are happy that armored characters are relevant again, we want to cut back on it a bit.


That's the issue at hand, HA proficiency offered so much for so little investment. You could even ignore taking the proficiency feat for a while too and still get a lot of the benefits and no downsides on certain builds.

I'm sure when clerics get their pass they'll have a buff to their preferred armour type(heavy) just like every class has so far, it's a similar issue with punchy monks. They'll have to take the nerf and wait til their pass before things get better, and just like monks the devs are probably reluctant to make changes to the cleric tree until they can do it all in one pass lest they have to nerf the change they just made here.

Oh and paladins and fighters* are also losing 30 PRR/MRR too, and I wouldn't call pure fighter nor certain paladin builds over performing either.

Do you have any better ideas to fix issue this other than just not nerfing it until the cleric/fighter passes though? I'm struggling to see any way to do it, tie the MRR and maybe PRR bonus to pally/fighter/cleric levels and it's still almost zero investment for those characters, tie it to a particular save and then you'd have some ridiculous low hanging exploitable fruit. BAB, a certain skill, and almost everything I can think of wont really work to make it equitable to what evasion has with its AP, dex/int and/or cha investment as well as the associated gear on a d20 roll instead of always on mitigation.

*yes they can claw back the PRR, still a big nerf and now they need to invest build points in the form of feats to get it where it was.

[Walking_Ride]

Some follow up news from the Lamannia thread:

~ Two Weapon Fighting Paladins are slightly behind where we want them in our Lamannia tests and in the player testing we've seen. We plan to boost them by allowing Holy Sword to work with non-shield off hand attacks. With the Improved Critical bug fixed this extra off hand damage will no longer increase the DPS of those builds too far.

Sev~

Will that be included in todays update 28 patch 1 ? Or do i have to wait for the next update, so that i can properly play my twf paladin again ?

[JOTMON]

"Holy Sword no longer affects off-hand, and it no longer works on throwing weapons!"
*1 day later*
"Holy sword actually will affect throwing weapons again."
*1 day later*
"Ah screw it, we'll make it work with off-hand weapons again. Just not shields."

So.... why don't you just make it work with shields again and we can all go home.

~snip~


not throwing weapons, never worked for throwing weapons.. by intent which I still don't understand.
~the fiasco was about bows and TWF and it was resolved another way... so they say...




~snip~
P.S. A +20 heart sitting in my inventory would make me forget all about that down-time... :)

apparently we are getting coupons for two +5 lesser hearts per account.
~so its great for the one character accounts especially for those that don't need to LR anything because they don't' have paladin and are not affected..
~decent for the single character player who was affected and wants to fix their only toon.
~Good bonus for the multi-boxers who have 12 free accounts because they were intuitive enough to roll up multiple accounts instead of purchasing character slots.
~Its a screw you to players that have purchased and expanded their stables with extra characters and have multiple affected toons.
at the end of the day we will take what we get and ultimately adapt and change.. I see alt accounts in my future instead of account investment..

[PNellesen]

I'm sure when clerics get their pass they'll have a buff to their preferred armour type(heavy) just like every class has so far, it's a similar issue with punchy monks. They'll have to take the nerf and wait til their pass before things get better, and just like monks the devs are probably reluctant to make changes to the cleric tree until they can do it all in one pass lest they have to nerf the change they just made here.

Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this so-called "Cleric pass". I've actually enjoyed playing my pures over the past few months, I just have a feeling that's going to change now. Maybe the armor changes won't be as bad as I expect - we'll have to see. It's not like we (or I, at least) had much chance to test them on Lammania in "game-realistic" situations... (sigh)

[Steelstar]

Will that be included in todays update 28 patch 1 ? Or do i have to wait for the next update, so that i can properly play my twf paladin again ?

Per the release notes:
(https://www.ddo.com/en/update-28-patch-1-release-notes)


Holy Sword's effect has been changed to: "While you are enchanted with Holy Sword, any weapons in your hands gain +1 to their Enhancement bonus and +1 Competence Bonus to Critical Threat Range and Critical Damage Multiplier. This does not apply to shields, orbs, or Rune Arms."

[grausherra]

P.S. A +20 heart sitting in my inventory would make me forget all about that down-time... :)

That would cut into heart sales after they change everything on us, so it isn't happening. Don't forget, you are just a wallet!

[JDCrowell]

That would cut into heart sales after they change everything on us, so it isn't happening. Don't forget, you are just a wallet!

Truth.

New class releases and is highly powerful! The masses spend money to get it!

Turbine: "Sales of the new class have waned, but subscribers are back up. Time to nerf it so they buy hearts in the store!"

Premium classes are now on par with Free classes. Isn't that what everyone wanted? True balance? I'm no fan of Pay to Win or anything, but if I spend money on something, it had better be more powerful and fun than what is offered for free. Just sayin....

[FlyMage]

Armor:
Scaling with BAB is done to make sure you wouldn't get a huge bonus at level 1 but grew into it as you level up, the idea is sound.
Too bad they choose bab over, for example level, because it shoehorns certain classes into certain roles, a fighter with a bow is now better protected then a ranger
The other problem i have with the changes is, fighter and paladin aren't the only ones affected, i see plenty of barbs, clerics, wizards and druids in platemail, they're gone be screwed over by this.

DPS for tanks
1, doesn't work, many don't use voice chat let alone speak the same language well enough, assuming their ego even allows for it. see *1 for more on this
2, that won't go over well, taking mobs down on the lv 30EE quests crossed tedious a long time ago and is bordering boring atm
3, Wouldn't take this in a 1000 years, why would i take an enh that emulates dps for that 1 boss in that 1 raid 5 years ago? (e.g. vod/tod)
4, The game was fine as it was before the changes. When i pug, my main barb takes all the agro because the sword and board pally only has 2 past lives and is working on a arcane destiny.
When i raid with channel members i have to work very hard to pull the agro of the tank because his is fully build tank is at the peak of his capabilities. I think this is why many tanks fail today, they're up against people who have put in the effort in building, gearing and playing their dps toons.
5, (your "heavy armor users should move slower" comment), the dev's tried that with the defensive stances, it failed because they were to slow to reach the mob to grab agro before it died.

*1 What i get from you and some other vocal minorities is that apparently have to go back to the classical party, a tank, a healer, a trapper and a glass cannon (sorc/wiz).
I'm really sorry, but ddo isn't pen and paper, we face far more monsters, we get poisoned/diseased/cursed/damaged on a rate no cleric can keep up with, we move far faster then pnp because we don't have 8 hours to emulate snails going through a dungeon, we face more monsters then a sorcs spell points could ever handle, etc.
I keep hearing the excuse of "group tactics", how many groups do you see running with a cleric of fvs? how many of those enjoy babysitting the group? How many of those are competently enough to do that job?
How long is it ok to wait for a healer? how long until people log out to play another game? aren't these "party tactics" ideas a bit selfish?

All in all, all the changes to bring it back to that will be detrimental to the game, i have played games like that, they were grind fests, doing 2 dungeons a day isn't on my wishlist thank you very much.
If people want to play like that, find people that like that too and go play like that, stop forcing people to play it your way

Thanks for the insightful comments. I could quibble – that was my first ever post, so hardly “vocal” – but on the whole I recognise your points; there are divergent views on many of their issues which often come down to how one weighs one factor against another. I’ll just pick up on one point, which is regarding “party tactics”.

For me a tank is a party function, taking aggro. Classically, they need others to kill the monsters in timely fashion, presumably high-dps types. This is a symbiotic relationship. If the high-dps types can handle the aggro themselves (strong defences, good self-healing, whatever) they are self-sufficient and don’t need a tank, the symbiosis then breaks down and the tank feels useless. Conversely if the tank has good dps he/she doesn’t really need the high-dps help (maybe luxury rather than necessity). Recognising the two-way relationship, the high-dps type could (should?) help by, for example, letting the tank grab aggro before wading in and/or spreading their dps out or getting some threat reduction. From a personal perspective – and YMMV – my high-situational-dps-but-squishy assassin tries to do all of these as he really, really doesn’t want aggro so he does everything I can think of to help the tank keep it. Obviously his raw dps suffers a bit – but that’s the point.

Your comments focused on clerics - there are doubtless things that clerics and other casters can do to help – group tactics has many dimensions – but I did not have healbots in mind when I mentioned tactics. On the other hand, I do think that inter-dependency is key to group play and a distinctive feature of D&D. The alternative is to have a mob of self-sufficient individuals running around each doing their own thing, albeit perhaps in the same general vicinity. That’s OK too, and I recognise that some prefer to play that way, however I’d prefer that the extra effort required for coordination provided a return in superior overall performance (though not so much that you HAD to do it - I certainly don't want to force anyone down one particular path, but I do think you need some such benefit in order to provide a situation where more party-oriented and synergistic (vs solo) roles can thrive, or at least survive). That’s not quite harking back to the classical PnP party, though I can see it could look like that. Incidentally, another distinctive role feature in ancient PnP (I only played up to 2nd edition) was that aoe attacks were the exclusive province of caster – all weapons were exclusively single-target. The proliferation of aoe or multi-target weapon effects is one of many aspects that has diminished the role of offensive casters (plenty more to say on that but probably off-topic here).

[Arekane]

(Edited: I apologize as I cut and paste the wrong draft into this post... Sev~)

Balance has been once of the top topics of conversation in the community for a while now, and we've said that we need to implement some balance changes, so I am writing this post to discuss our plans. We have seen feedback that players want more insight into our long-term balancing plans, and hear more about why we've been doing the things we've been doing. I've even had some players poke fun at my "over performing" terminology. Let's start by talking about our plans past and present, and how it fits into our long-term goals for balance and itemization.

Game and class balance is an ongoing process. Our goal is to have a more balanced game, but we understand this is a refining process that involves continual re-evaluation. That means if your favorite class is slightly behind (or in front) after a pass, we are fully capable and willing to tweak more. We expect designs will be fine-tuned based on player testing and observations.


***

Our current measure of melee effectiveness is Swashbuckler. Classes like Bard and Paladin have good spells, and strong class abilities. They can expect, if they build entirely towards melee, to deal out good melee DPS. Barbarian, Rogue and Ranger's basic class abilities aren't quite as strong, so characters built entirely toward melee will do a little more DPS. Fighter has very little basic class utility (their competitive advantage is extra feats, and they run out of strong feats) so we have our work cut out for us to balance fighters.

(Our only complaint about Swashbuckler is that Coup de Grace is too easy to pull off for a Bard, and it makes the ability really good for a class with great magical mitigation and Crowd Control. That's fairly low on our list of concerns, though, and Bard builds aren't dominating the playing field. It's more of a design nitpick.)

Swashbuckler was already finished when I came aboard, and it was very popular. We decided that other than some bugs revolving around Single Weapon Fighting that Swashbuckler would be the default level of power we would strive for with our passes. Part of it was that it gave melee equal footing with the Manyshot ranged builds and casters, and part of it was that players felt at the time that melee was not competitive.

The other things that players communicated to us when we started talking about class updates:



Armored characters were well behind Evasion builds.
Shields didn't offer enough benefits to offset the loss of DPS.
On-hit effects were “useless” at end game because they didn't scale.


There were also some design considerations we had:



There were few important DPS stats except for crit.
There was no good way to give characters an incremental increase in magic damage mitigation. Saving throws offer binary protection (you either make your Saving Throw or you don't), and are subject to bad luck.
Spellpower was an excellent tool for gradual increase in power, and melee and ranged had no equivalent.
There was no good way for abilities to scale into epic levels as a default.
Temporary hit point abilities were considered "terrible".



Our overall design was to introduce some powerful stats that allowed a solid foundation for incremental power increase for both class balance and itemization. We introduced the melee and ranged equivalent to Spell Power since a similar stat already existed in game. We introduced the magic equivalent to Physical Resistance Rating since a similar stat already existed in-game. We tied on-hit damage scaling to these new stats so on-hit effects would scale into epic levels. We used these new stats to provide a gradual level-based scale for epic levels that could be used to scale various abilities.

When we look at the bigger picture, we've tried to pretty much keep to that design when working through character passes.

Here are our current goals and design challenges:



Two Weapon Fighting builds are dealing too much DPS. This is generally because on-hit effects now scale with melee power, and we've relaxed many internal cooldown limits on to-hit effects. We expected Two Weapon Fighting builds to scale quickly when we changed on-hit effects, and balanced the fighting style feats to compensate, but that was a world before Assassin and Tempest were updated, and players largely equated Two Weapon Fighting to those trees. Now that those are updated we can look at re-adjusting the two weapon fighting feats.
We have a problem with 14 Paladin hybrids being better than other options due to Holy Sword, yet a severe nerf to Holy Sword would drag down Two Handed Fighting and Vanguard paladins a little too much.
Ravager barbarians have too much self healing for the DPS they are capable of.
Basic armor offers too much mitigation for its cost. While we are happy that armored characters are relevant again, we want to cut back on it a bit.


Essentially the changes we've posted above are bug fixes and balance changes that not only continue this plan, but also address concerns, both public and private, of the player base about game balance and difficulty.

In the changes above we have also added a number of fighter only feats that will give them some powerful options for both active mitigation through tactical feats and abilities, and passive mitigation through the use of armor. This is not meant to replace the fighter pass.

We look forward to your feedback.

Sev~

I don't really think you thought anything out correctly. You need to not put these patches out like this but instead sit down and figure out where you want the balance to be at and then release it in one patch.

What you have done to warlock was stated in another post, you only put it out to increase revenue and took no consideration to the game balance.

You have to look at the game itself as a whole not parts and pieces just to temporarily make complainers happy. Go back to the basics of D&D and set it so that no matter what, the way a person builds their character is up to them and can make it weak or powerful.

I have a few Warlocks but I made them partially overpowered in order to solo if needed but not too much as to take over in a group. If people are complaining about over powered characters then they need to either group with like minded or readjust their game play.

I think the developers need to sit back and (on paper) start over to get everything balanced to their satisfaction and then bring it to the community for possible adjustments. Then release it in the test environment (if needed offer incentives for testing).

As it stands this game is starting to become like others (that basically went down the drain) in the way that the DEVS are making changes after release for no real reason except to make a few people happy.

I do believe some of the changes may be needed but at the very least consult the whole community first and test for a long time before releasing it so you will make the people who fund your pay either happy or satisfied that you did the best for the game to continue,

[EllisDee37]

From the release notes:


Swashbuckling now grants double the range bonus if you have the relevant Improved Critical feat.
Knife Specialization now grants double the range bonus if you have the relevant Improved Critical feat.What about if instead of the feat, the weapon has keen/impact? Does it still get double the bonus?

[losian2]

That would cut into heart sales after they change everything on us, so it isn't happening. Don't forget, you are just a wallet!

Alright guys seriously.. come on.

You don't get a free pile of stuff when something that *needs adjusting* is adjusted.

If you built a dozen characters around an obviously broken holy sword then hey, congrats, you milked it while you could. The devs have been VERY generous historically with freebies when they have made adjustments. Lots of games wouldn't give squat, and the community has a very big "you adjusted my out of whack build?? well I want something for it!" mindset.

Adjustments are necessary, especially in a game as complex as DDO. If you are sour about it then hey, don't immediately build a character entirely around the next broken aspect of the flavor of the month. I know it's a novel concept, but you don't have to design characters to exploit whatever particular thing is ridiculously powerful unintentionally and then cry a river when it's fixed. :(

The posts have been downright aggressive and mean to the devs for no reason, and it's kinda childish. Nobody complained about wanting free hearts when they added holy sword and "changed everything," because all the folks whining quickly scrambled to min-max and abuse it, but now that it's been adjusted to a more reasonable level, everyone complains..

[Clemeit]

not throwing weapons, never worked for throwing weapons.. by intent which I still don't understand.
~the fiasco was about bows and TWF and it was resolved another way... so they say...

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I understand that they didn't want to double nerf TWF (losing Holy Sword and losing 6 melee power), but for vanguards, losing Holy Sword on the shield kinda really sucks. Especially cause so many paladins are vanguard...



apparently we are getting coupons for two +5 lesser hearts per account.
~so its great for the one character accounts especially for those that don't need to LR anything because they don't' have paladin and are not affected..
~decent for the single character player who was affected and wants to fix their only toon.
~Good bonus for the multi-boxers who have 12 free accounts because they were intuitive enough to roll up multiple accounts instead of purchasing character slots.
~Its a screw you to players that have purchased and expanded their stables with extra characters and have multiple affected toons.
at the end of the day we will take what we get and ultimately adapt and change.. I see alt accounts in my future instead of account investment..

Right there with you here! This is dumb. Each character getting a BtC +5 Heart, and then a coupon or two for an additional +5 Heart to be used on a single character of your choice would be much better. I have a couple characters that are split between 3 classes, so I'll have to use BOTH +5 Hearts just to fix ONE of the the characters, leaving the rest in the dust...

Or they could just make +5 Hearts 75% off in the DDO Store... that would fix my issue, but not help those people who have 10+ characters to fix... Uhg, bad situation.

[Lanadazia]

i was reading a few pages in here, but not having the time to check 50+ pages to see if my question was asked already

i never rolled a pure archer /pewpew build. i had manyshot on 2 lifes as a tempest ranger and used it occasionally with a lit2 greensteel bow.
so. whats the point of manyshot now? i don't understand that new thing.
that doubleshot got suppressed when using manyshot was totally ok, since you shoot up to 4 arrows. but now you won't ever shoot 4 arrows at once again, not even once during the whole manyshot procress, right?
cause doubleshot only makes you shoot 2 arrows. or is there doubleshot higher than 100%? like if you got 100% doubleshot its 2 arrows and 110% would be 2 arrows +10% chance for a 3rd one?
still with that formula the damage output of manyshot is getting cut down alot, especially with 3 or 4 arrows shot

also this is a nerf to proc-weapons like lit2, the calomel bows (http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Calomel_Weapons) or the thunderforged weapons and the proc-augments
what overall isn't only a big hit on the pure arrow damage dealt, but also on the procs.
right now i don't know what type of bow would fit that new manyshot best. especially since bows fire very slow and you produce alot of hits with twf this seems off.
my guess is, that the manyshot now isn't worth switching weapons, buffing up and doing it, cause you'd have just as many hits with twf, or even more?





BTW - destroying the threat range, burst damage of manyshot and taking away melee power from 2wf will make tempest rangers mediocre. Before the recent changes I hadn't played mine for years. And it seems it's time to put him back in the dusty locker again.


i was thinking the same thing. i had a tempest ranger twice during my numerous TRs and it was alot of fun, not uber-dps like other classes, but some good damage output. twf is single target damage, aswell as the bow without the appropriate feats and the according line-up of enemies, hence i thought the manyshot was balanced. tempest rangers are mostly single target damage, but got more utility and a little burst compared to a regular fighter

[Clemeit]

That would cut into heart sales after they change everything on us, so it isn't happening. Don't forget, you are just a wallet!

Amen to this.

They could do a 75% off Heart of Wood sale... that way they could pull in revenue and make people happy at the same time.



Alright guys seriously.. come on.

You don't get a free pile of stuff when something that *needs adjusting* is adjusted.

Meh. Actually, historically, we do. So.

But no, I agree with ya here. We could just re-roll those 6-12 characters that are no longer optimal. Sure. But not everyone has (1) that sort of time on their hands, or (2) that sort of patience. Turbine is "Powered by [their] Fans". Well if you irritate enough fans, there's no more power. I understand that not everyone thinks that their should be any sort of handouts for this balancing change. That's fine. But unfortunately, enough people do that if they don't give out some free stuff, there will be negative - if short-term - consequences.

I don't, however, believe that irritating fans will create any sort of long-term negative effects, other than forum ranting. I don't think anyone would actually quit DDO because of some balancing.

[Clemeit]

or is there doubleshot higher than 100%? like if you got 100% doubleshot its 2 arrows and 110% would be 2 arrows +10% chance for a 3rd one?

Yes. Doubleshot values over 100% do roll-over. So what you said here is correct.

In fact, this is touched on on the main post for reference.


Doubleshot values over 100% now have a chance of producing a third attack. The chance is equal to the amount the value exceeds 100. A doubleshot value of 130, for example, would always produce one extra shot and have a 30% chance to produce a third shot.
Sev~

[JOTMON]

Per the release notes:
(https://www.ddo.com/en/update-28-patch-1-release-notes)


Can you clarify the Holy sword.
It never used to work with throwing weapons, based on this text it is vague towards throwing weapons, which start in your hand..
and only explicitly rejects orbs shields and rune arms..


Holy Sword's effect has been changed to:
"While you are enchanted with Holy Sword, any weapons in your hands gain +1 to their Enhancement bonus and +1 Competence Bonus to Critical Threat Range and Critical Damage Multiplier. This does not apply to shields, orbs, or Rune Arms."

[Steelstar]

Can you clarify the Holy sword.
It never used to work with throwing weapons, based on this text it is vague towards throwing weapons, which start in your hand..
and only explicitly rejects orbs shields and rune arms..


Holy Sword's effect has been changed to:
"While you are enchanted with Holy Sword, any weapons in your hands gain +1 to their Enhancement bonus and +1 Competence Bonus to Critical Threat Range and Critical Damage Multiplier. This does not apply to shields, orbs, or Rune Arms."

Yes, in U28.1 it should work on Thrown weapons.

[Kompera_Oberon]

"Holy Sword no longer affects off-hand, and it no longer works on throwing weapons!"
*1 day later*
"Holy sword actually will affect throwing weapons again."
*1 day later*
"Ah screw it, we'll make it work with off-hand weapons again. Just not shields."

So.... why don't you just make it work with shields again and we can all go home.

Seriously. Especially since they are well aware that shields reduce DPS:


Shields didn't offer enough benefits to offset the loss of DPS.

[oweieie]

What exactly happened to golem hearts?

[unbongwah]

or is there doubleshot higher than 100%? like if you got 100% doubleshot its 2 arrows and 110% would be 2 arrows +10% chance for a 3rd one?
Correct. So let's see what you can do on a pure AA rgr now at lvl cap:

20% AA Capstone
10% Doubleshot ED feat
+9% Primal EPL Doubleshot
+5% Shadow Arrows
+8% Dynamistic Quiver (http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Epic_Dynamistic_Quiver)
+2% guildbuff
54% base Doubleshot
20% max Killer
74% "charged" Doubleshot
112% Manyshot (BAB 28 w/Div Power or Tensers)
186% Doubleshot for 20 secs

So you'll be getting 2.85 arrows on avg per shot. That's lower than 4x Manyshot, but remember you're also getting +112 Ranged Power, so that's more like 2.85 * 2.12 = 6.04 "regular" arrows. It's more complicated than that, since you have to factor in your Ranged Power from other sources, but you get the idea.

Also remember that by eliminating Doubleshot penalties, you're getting the full benefit of that 54/74% Doubleshot during MS's 100-sec cooldown; whereas before you only got it half the time (effectively 27/37% Doubleshot).

The builds which will suffer from this change will be the ones who only use bows for Manyshot, because they won't have made the investment in Doubleshot. After all, there was no point before. So unless they dramatically alter their builds, they'll only get the +112% DS +112 RP from MS; but that's still 2.12 * 2.12 = 4.49 "regular" arrows.

EDIT: one advantage to this change is DC becomes a more attractive ED for archers, since the +50% Doubleshot from Zeal of the Righteous is actually useful. And your crit profile will be: 20/x3 base -> 19-20/x3 IC:Ranged -> 18-20/x3 DWS core -> 17-20/x3 Celestial Champion -> 17-20/x4 AA Shadow Arrows -> 17-18/x4 19-20/x5 Overwhelming Crit.

[JOTMON]

Yes, in U28.1 it should work on Thrown weapons.

Good to know, thanks for the clarification.

[redoubt]

Yes, in U28.1 it should work on Thrown weapons.

Holy Sword is not just a way to put Vanguards back in a hole...

DPS testing shows vanguards 25-40% behind DPS melee. So the question becomes:

With less MRR and PRR do you now have to back out of combat more and further widen the gap between S&B and THF/TWF? Do you need to spend more resources to heal than those do? How much longer does it now take to kill a mob, kill a boss or run a quest?

I disagree with the Dev evaluation that Vanguards were ahead (or even tied) with TWF/THF. As said by Sev, why would anyone ever put down a shield if you did as much or more DPS? The game was not brimming with S&B characters as it would have been if the DPS was where the Devs think it is. BUT!!! I will be logging into my level 14 Vanguard soon to test these things out. (Was gonna try on Lama, but, well... that wasn't allowed.)

[Kompera_Oberon]

That's the issue at hand, HA proficiency offered so much for so little investment. You could even ignore taking the proficiency feat for a while too and still get a lot of the benefits and no downsides on certain builds.

I'm sure when clerics get their pass they'll have a buff to their preferred armour type(heavy) just like every class has so far, it's a similar issue with punchy monks. They'll have to take the nerf and wait til their pass before things get better, and just like monks the devs are probably reluctant to make changes to the cleric tree until they can do it all in one pass lest they have to nerf the change they just made here.

Oh and paladins and fighters* are also losing 30 PRR/MRR too, and I wouldn't call pure fighter nor certain paladin builds over performing either.

Do you have any better ideas to fix issue this other than just not nerfing it until the cleric/fighter passes though?

You summed it up in your last quoted sentence. The right thing to do would not be to nerf the hell out of everyone, but either:

- Complete the class passes and then take another look at things
OR
- Nerf selectively to address that DPS "overperforming" DPS issue when compared to the "baseline" of Swashbuckler which Severlin outlined.

Reducing PRR/MRR does nothing to reduce DPS, unless you count the reduction brought about by time spent healing instead of fighting. This was a change which could have waited for the class passes which this set of changes managed to jump the line on and only further push back.

Classes and builds which were in no way "overperforming" should not be penalized now while awaiting some far off and oft promised but seldom delivered class pass. Your fantasy of "I'm sure when clerics get their pass they'll [be done right]" is just that, a fantasy. Until that blue moon comes to pass I've got to deal with the reality that my preferred character has been nerfed for no rational reason at all. The failure of the devs to target changes to address actual issues has been legend with this update.

[CThruTheEgo]

What exactly happened to golem hearts?

This thread (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/465937-**Multiple-Golem-s-Hearts**) explains it all (first post summarizes everything). Assuming they are actually working as the devs intend them to, they are just above worthless now.

[FestusHood]

The builds which will suffer from this change will be the ones who only use bows for Manyshot, because they won't have made the investment in Doubleshot. After all, there was no point before. So unless they dramatically alter their builds, they'll only get the +112% DS +112 RP from MS; but that's still 2.12 * 2.12 = 4.49 "regular" arrows.



I have an archer build that just hit 20. He is 9 ranger/6 monk/5 rogue. Wisdom high for 10k. 9 ranger for past life and empower healing. 6 monk for 10k. Tier 5's are in mechanic. Uses int for damage from harper. 2% standing doubleshot (from ship buff).

I challenge anyone to describe an actual character that was made more dysfunctional by this patch than mine.

Mind you, i'm not complaining, or demanding a heart or anything.

[Lanadazia]

Correct. So let's see what you can do on a pure AA rgr now at lvl cap:

20% AA Capstone
10% Doubleshot ED feat
+9% Primal EPL Doubleshot
+5% Shadow Arrows
+8% Dynamistic Quiver (http://ddowiki.com/page/Item:Epic_Dynamistic_Quiver)
+2% guildbuff
54% base Doubleshot
20% max Killer
74% "charged" Doubleshot
112% Manyshot (BAB 28 w/Div Power or Tensers)
186% Doubleshot for 20 secs

So you'll be getting 2.85 arrows on avg per shot. That's lower than 4x Manyshot, but remember you're also getting +112 Ranged Power, so that's more like 2.85 * 2.12 = 6.04 "regular" arrows. It's more complicated than that, since you have to factor in your Ranged Power from other sources, but you get the idea.


so how likely is it, for that situation to happen? i guess you have to cut back at alot of other stuff to get that high doubleshot, only to support manyshot. for a pure ranger this might be ok, but not for a splash..
with maximum doubleshot and the extra ranged power, the total arrow damage is higher, but still you lose alot of your procs.
old manyshot was "lower arrow damage, alot of procs" the new one is "higher arrow damage, fewer procs"
not sure if i like this. i guess not, cause if you build for procs, thats substantial**

[FestusHood]

DPS testing shows vanguards 25-40% behind DPS melee.



What tests?

[PNellesen]

so how likely is it, for that situation to happen? i guess you have to cut back at alot of other stuff to get that high doubleshot, only to support manyshot. for a pure ranger this might be ok, but not for a splash..
with maximum doubleshot and the extra ranged power, the total arrow damage is higher, but still you lose alot of your procs.
old manyshot was "lower arrow damage, alot of procs" the new one is "higher arrow damage, fewer procs"
not sure if i like this. i guess not, cause if you build for procs, thats substantial**
Was able to play with it for a few minutes this afternoon on my 18Rng/1F/1Rog. That was his split when MotU dropped, and I've not done a thing to him since (no TRs/ETRs/LRs), other than redo his enhancements for both the original enhancement pass and then more recently the Ranger pass.

I'll just say that my initial impressions of the Manyshot changes is "unfavorable". Maybe that'll change if I decide to try to rework him yet again, or maybe I'll just do that ETR/TR I've been thinking about instead...

[FestusHood]

This thread (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/465937-**Multiple-Golem-s-Hearts**) explains it all (first post summarizes everything). Assuming they are actually working as the devs intend them to, they are just above worthless now.

What was the cooldown before the fix? Was it 30 seconds? This means that as long as you are being hit more than 50 times every 30 seconds they should be improved. Course you could always slot 12 of them to increase your chances.