With specifics and in detail: What are the 18/20 cores that need revision?

[Baktiotha]

Leaving the previous thread, which has turned into senseless bickering, and starting a new one in an effort to provide a platform for an evidence based discussion of problematic L18 and L20 cores along with an opportunity to evaluate proposed solutions.

To that end, I will start the discussion by addressing a matter raised in the previous discussion:


I think if people are really honest about the whole matter at hand and stop using "power" in a vague connotation but actually assign it the word they really mean "DPS" then and only then will there be an honest discussion about the changes made in the 18/20 cores.

If a mob has 3500 hit points does it matter if your character is averaging 90 damage per hit as opposed to 95? It will take you, alone, 39 hits to kill the mob at an average of 90 and 37 hits if your average is 95. So you'll swing 2 additional times.

If the damage mitigation on the two characters is the same then of course it matters since the character with less damage output is at greater risk (or the same risk but for longer time).

Now consider what the answer is if the second character is at 10% less risk throughout the entire fight.

You cannot define *power* only in terms of *DPS* -- you must also, at the very least, include *risk*. It is the combination of offense and defense that generates actual *power* because the object is success and those two factors are two of the most significant parts in determining success.

You must also consider the nature of the situation. In a combat the way risk gets minimized might be by selecting ranged instead of melee. Against a spell casting mob it might be MRR or evasion that provides greater weight whereas against a ranged mob it might be the ability to dodge arrows and PRR.

Mitigation in all of its various forms (AC, PRR, MRR, SR, saves, dodge, concealment, incorporeality, healing procs, proximity, other) must be part of the discussion of *power* along with simple damage output (generally, and erroneously, referred to as DPS).

[JOTMON]

The 18/20 cores look just fine, they don't need revision.

[Qhualor]

I asked that question and asked for examples only several times in that other thread. Never got an answer.

[nokowi]

Leaving the previous thread, which has turned into senseless bickering, and starting a new one in an effort to provide a platform for an evidence based discussion of problematic L18 and L20 cores along with an opportunity to evaluate proposed solutions.

To that end, I will start the discussion by addressing a matter raised in the previous discussion:



If a mob has 3500 hit points does it matter if your character is averaging 90 damage per hit as opposed to 95? It will take you, alone, 39 hits to kill the mob at an average of 90 and 37 hits if your average is 95. So you'll swing 2 additional times.

If the damage mitigation on the two characters is the same then of course it matters since the character with less damage output is at greater risk (or the same risk but for longer time).

Now consider what the answer is if the second character is at 10% less risk throughout the entire fight.

You cannot define *power* only in terms of *DPS* -- you must also, at the very least, include *risk*. It is the combination of offense and defense that generates actual *power* because the object is success and those two factors are two of the most significant parts in determining success.

You must also consider the nature of the situation. In a combat the way risk gets minimized might be by selecting ranged instead of melee. Against a spell casting mob it might be MRR or evasion that provides greater weight whereas against a ranged mob it might be the ability to dodge arrows and PRR.

Mitigation in all of its various forms (AC, PRR, MRR, SR, saves, dodge, concealment, incorporeality, healing procs, proximity, other) must be part of the discussion of *power* along with simple damage output (generally, and erroneously, referred to as DPS).

You listed many factors, and the reality is that humans can't separate these many factors correctly.

In my experience, higher DPS reduces risk faster than the increased toughness you get for most content. The exception is building to prevent 1 or 2 shots in top content. The choices they have given us usually do dictate DPS over defense, because higher DPS is better defense. Getting the option for defensive choices (at the expense of offense) is actually pretty rare in DDO. Its one thing I have argued heavily for in each class pass, but to little avail. In my bruntsmash test post-rogue pass, my DPS increased quite a bit because I didn't have to pause to heal with my new fangled DPS.

Crowd control is a variable I would add to player power, however. This assume players are logical enough to admit that a 7 minute run with a 2 minute boss fight is faster than a 9 minute run with a 90 second boss fight, and could be perceived as more powerful.

[Dirtywyrm]

Please avoid "head counting" and other such subjective data within this thread. I am interested in this topic. However I would prefer to hear specific, relevant, factual arguments/discussions about enhancements and their pros and cons. For example; I hope in the future that the Eldritch Knight tree would look more like the Arcane Archer tree, to the exclusion of one another (they should not stack in any way). Specifically the core enhancements should scale directly off spell power instead of a fixed number of dice by wizard/sorcerer level. Being an EK should also limit your ability to cast, as you are focused on close combat and you direct your mystical abilities towards that end. By scaling with SP in this way EK could be used in either a pure or MC build effectively. I realise this is future looking and not necessarily tied to the OP's thread. But it's just an example of the type of discussion that should be presented, instead of deriding one another for facetious arguments.

[Enoach]

Please avoid "head counting" and other such subjective data within this thread. I am interested in this topic. However I would prefer to hear specific, relevant, factual arguments/discussions about enhancements and their pros and cons. For example; I hope in the future that the Eldritch Knight tree would look more like the Arcane Archer tree, to the exclusion of one another (they should not stack in any way). Specifically the core enhancements should scale directly off spell power instead of a fixed number of dice by wizard/sorcerer level. Being an EK should also limit your ability to cast, as you are focused on close combat and you direct your mystical abilities towards that end. By scaling with SP in this way EK could be used in either a pure or MC build effectively. I realise this is future looking and not necessarily tied to the OP's thread. But it's just an example of the type of discussion that should be presented, instead of deriding one another for facetious arguments.

Your EK & AA thoughts are interesting, but I am concerned about your comment of not stacking. I say this because I run a 12/8 Ftr/Wiz AA/EK build where I use the elemental stance to add more elemental damage with my elemental Arrows from AA. Now my Wizard levels are more for defense through buffs as well as feed SP to abilities like Rejuvenation Cocoon and to add a higher Enchantment DC through feat(s) since Turbine went with Wisdom and not Dexterity or Intelligence for the DC modifier.

-----------
Now I agree with the OP that attempting to measure power by a single variable (even it the environment favors that variable) is dangerous.

I also think that class passes like Paladin actually gained less from their 18/20 cores then what they gained by the additional Tree, modifications to level 4 spells and the change that is referred to as Armor-Up.

I also see Bard gaining most of its new power in SWF in the first 3 levels with the Swashbuckler tree.

Now, I do think the Barbarian changes may have gone too far in the over zealousness of trying to add healing to a class known for its DPS. I think it overlooked the combination of Healing Amplification and what it provides with getting healing doing what a Barbarian does best. This either requires reducing both or at least one of these so that it is enough to help but not so powerful that it can be an island of its own with little trade off.

I am very interested in what will come with each class pass as I think the non-traditional melee classes like Druid, Artificer and Wizard/Sorcerer will have an impact on what is available for MC. I would also like to see the other trees that are not class specific that Turbine is thinking about adding in.

I do hope that Turbine also picks up and makes adjustments to the Racial trees and also add in the Racial/Class trees similar to Elf/AA. The Dwarven Defender is something that I think will have a big impact on the Melee Cleric builds.

[Axeyu]

The barbarian FB 18/20 cores need revision. The majority of the DPS the class offers are in them. Skipping them to incorporate something from another class leaves you most often just better off if you play that other class and skip all barbarian levels.

Ranger tempest 18/20 combined with dws 18 is also too much. The tempest cores offers great DPS that you can't really make up for in any other way, and the toughness you gain at the same time makes sacrificing the DPS to gain additional toughness really costly. Add in DWS 18, a -25% fort, -10 AC penalty on bosses for your whole raid or party, how do you beat that exactly? Not to mention that you also gain 10% fort bypass, +2 FE damage and +10 positive spell power. The 30 pts required for it is not really an issue either, as DWS is a top tier tree giving both great DPS and great survivability boosts.

[Dirtywyrm]

Your EK & AA thoughts are interesting, but I am concerned about your comment of not stacking. I say this because I run a 12/8 Ftr/Wiz AA/EK build where I use the elemental stance to add more elemental damage with my elemental Arrows from AA. Now my Wizard levels are more for defense through buffs as well as feed SP to abilities like Rejuvenation Cocoon and to add a higher Enchantment DC through feat(s) since Turbine went with Wisdom and not Dexterity or Intelligence for the DC modifier.


I understand your concern about not stacking with AA. But imagine what would happen when u move from fixed dice to spell power. It would nearly double the chosen elemental damage since they would be the same mechanic. Currently Spellsword doesn't do enough damage on it's own to really be much more than just a splash to top off AA or similar splits. Although spellsword is good at doing something like that, it is no different than picking up a weapon that has that already as an enchantment. And the fact that it currently stacks with AA truly feels like an exploit since the two abilities are cut from the same cloth.

When I think of an Eldritch Knight in general, I envision just that, a knight that uses magic to replace steel not just give it a few extra points. They still shouldn't go beyond medium armor, by using magic to fill the gap. And by reduced casting I mean limit the spells they can use to just buffs/debuffs. It would be more in the vein of being a arcane paladin, but a 70/30 split between damage output and risk (in that order). I know it is a controversial thing to deliberately break a MC build. But there really isn't another way to improve just that tree without making something else a game breaking monster.

In short, Eldritch Knight is good in early heroic content, but falls off the wagon before even reaching epics.

[Enoach]

I understand your concern about not stacking with AA. But imagine what would happen when u move from fixed dice to spell power. It would nearly double the chosen elemental damage since they would be the same mechanic. Currently Spellsword doesn't do enough damage on it's own to really be much more than just a splash to top off AA or similar splits. Although spellsword is good at doing something like that, it is no different than picking up a weapon that has that already as an enchantment. And the fact that it currently stacks with AA truly feels like an exploit since the two abilities are cut from the same cloth.

When I think of an Eldritch Knight in general, I envision just that, a knight that uses magic to replace steel not just give it a few extra points. They still shouldn't go beyond medium armor, by using magic to fill the gap. And by reduced casting I mean limit the spells they can use to just buffs/debuffs. It would be more in the vein of being a arcane paladin, but a 70/30 split between damage output and risk (in that order). I know it is a controversial thing to deliberately break a MC build. But there really isn't another way to improve just that tree without making something else a game breaking monster.

In short, Eldritch Knight is good in early heroic content, but falls off the wagon before even reaching epics.

I do get that with SP the AA Elemental Arrow and EK Spellsword would be a double buff and agree that would be too much power.

I designed my character after the Elven Knights that came to Helm's Deep to help defend against Mordor. Yep my Tolkien Geekdom is cemented, that and my daughters know the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars :)

[HastyPudding]

In my opinion, the top 10 worst offenders in the 18/20 cores are:

1. Radiant Servant
2. Season's Herald
3. Henshin Mystic
4. Eldritch Knight
5. Henshin Mystic
6. Archmage
7. Shintao
8. Warpriest
9. Battle Engineer
10. Divine Disciple.

Upon reflection and rereading my post, I've noticed that all three cleric trees are on my list...

[Enoach]

In my opinion, the top 10 worst offenders in the 18/20 cores are:

1. Radiant Servant
2. Season's Herald
3. Henshin Mystic
4. Eldritch Knight
5. Henshin Mystic
6. Archmage
7. Shintao
8. Warpriest
9. Battle Engineer
10. Divine Disciple.

Upon reflection and rereading my post, I've noticed that all three cleric trees are on my list...

;) I see what you did there (hehehe)

[Baktiotha]

I appreciate the civility but don't see a lot of evidence regarding the cores. I see "I think" but I don't see much game related, data driven explanations for why.

If all of the perspectives are based on "I think" or "my opinion" then everyone is right and everyone is wrong because opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one.

For the discussion to have consequence there needs to be some weight, some evidentiary proof for the perspective that you have. Without that the thread just devolves into a "my opinion is better than your opinion" and that gets us nowhere.

[janave]

FVS - AoV

Vengeful Magic: You gain a +1% Sacred bonus to Spell Critical chance when below 75% health, a +1 Sacred bonus to your spell DC's when below 50% health, and a +50% Sacred bonus Spell Critical Damage Multiplier with Fire, Force, Light, and Physical damage spells when below 25% health.

Basically where you need the buffs most, EE, LE. You do not want to be less than 80% hps at any time, preferably 100%+some safety margin temp hps.
This is one of the most lackluster cores of all time. Basically if you "play it safe" you get nothin, 0, nada from this.

[Axeyu]

I appreciate the civility but don't see a lot of evidence regarding the cores. I see "I think" but I don't see much game related, data driven explanations for why.

If all of the perspectives are based on "I think" or "my opinion" then everyone is right and everyone is wrong because opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one.

For the discussion to have consequence there needs to be some weight, some evidentiary proof for the perspective that you have. Without that the thread just devolves into a "my opinion is better than your opinion" and that gets us nowhere.

Even if one provides proof that the cores makes pure builds have 500% Dps and 95% toughness compared to multiclass, it still comes down to opinion whether or not there is a problem. Some will say thats exactly the way it should be. So I dont know exactly what proof you are asking for, and what you believe it will prove.

[Baktiotha]

Vengeful Magic

Kudos. I understand exactly the issue. Well put. So what would be a potential revision or replacement?

[AzureDragonas]

To specify, most cores needs rework for a simple reason: Core power must be as close as possible to power gained for multiclassing, so both choices would be decent. In caster cases cores means less than for melee/specialists becouse of simple reason - caster levels gives more spells and increases power of rest. Also there are exceptions like assasin where you just can't go on multiclassing on how main trees abilities are designed. Simple examples of how bad cores are designed coule be:

swashbucler:
18: Roll with the Punches: Roll with the Punches: While Swashbuckling, you gain +5 Insight Bonus to Character Dodge Cap, the Slippery Mind feat, +1% Doublestrike, 1% Doubleshot, and +1 Attack Damage.
picking 3 fighter levels you get even more damage, more hp, more defenses and haste boost making this core as *bad choice*
20: Evasive Maneuvers: Evasive Maneuvers: +2 CHA, +2 DEX. While Swashbuckling, you gain the Evasion feat, +1% Doublestrike, 1% Doubleshot, +1 Attack Damage, and the weapon in your main hand gains an additional +1 to its Enhancement bonus.
Offering in lvl 20 core evasion don't payback even close to when you can pick 2 rog levels get same evasion dozen skill points, weapon stance and other goob abilities.

berserker

18: Death Frenzy: Activation Cost: 20 Hit Points. Cooldown: 30 seconds.
Expend 20 hit points to enter a Death Frenzy for one minute:

+4 strength.
+1 critical damage multiplier on rolls of 19-20.
Your melee weapons gain 'Greater Vicious'.(+4d6 damage to your attacks while dealing 1d3 damage to yourself per attack. This damage scales with 100% Melee Power)
Bug: Vicious effect does not affect natural attacks.
Passive: +10 Melee Power

20: Storm's Eye: Activation Cost: 100 Hit Points. Cooldown: 2.5 minutes.
Activate: You gain 25 stacks of Storm's Eye.

Storm's Eye: +1 melee damage. One stack fades away every three seconds.

Passive:

+4 Constitution
+10 Melee Power
When raging your melee attacks have a 5% chance to deal 400 bludgeoning damage. This damage scales with 100% Melee Power.

both cores too strong to even take consideration of splashing. Tested splash build for max str and pure, gap between 2 is too huge.

Battle engineer
18: Infused Armor: Your equipped armor gains an additional +1 to its Enhancement bonus, for a total of +2. Your equipped armor also grants you an additional +5 PRR for a total of +10 and an additional -10% ASF for a total of -20%. (Artificer Infusions are not affected by ASF, but this assists with scroll use.) Your equipped rune arm grants you an additional +8 Universal Spell Power when it is charged to Charge Tier 5, for a total of +40.

20: Master Engineer: You gain +2 Intelligence. The Enhancement bonus of your armor and your equipped weapon in your main hand are each increased by an additional +1, for a total of +3. Your equipped weapon in your main hand is now a Spellcasting Implement, providing a +3 Implement bonus to Universal Spell Power for every +1 Enhancement bonus on the weapon.

After mechanic rework, both cores are so bad that in most cases you will find 15 artificer 5 rogs builds being prob best artificers lifes and yet those ppl don't even spend points in artificer trees in first place. That shows on how bad artificers trees are in first place
...
You can pick any cores and just try compare options you get by splashing and in most cases you will see, that either pure or multiclass is superior without too much cons and pros. To point out prob best designed cores would go to mind rangers tempest, Vanguard, kotc, acrobat where you actualy have to trade x for y, where both x and y are valuable enuogh.

[Baktiotha]

Even if one provides proof that the cores makes pure builds have 500% Dps and 95% toughness compared to multiclass, it still comes down to opinion whether or not there is a problem. Some will say thats exactly the way it should be. So I dont know exactly what proof you are asking for, and what you believe it will prove.

Let's see if anyone provides that sort of evidence and we will try to deal with the reactions afterwards. Prior attempts did not provide that, or if they did I'm not aware of them.

By the way, in the previous thread I asked a question about the reliability of using the results to predict population wide viewpoints. I thought someone made fun of my lack of knowledge. They did so fairly because I am not a statistician.

It did, however, cause me to ask the question -- how big does my sample size need to be. I was surprised to learn that for 8k population if I wanted a 95% confidence and 5% margin of error the survey would need 367 responses and if I raised the population to 800k the number of respondents needed only rose to 384 and if I went to 8m I needed just 385. I found that intriguing.

I then wondered what our results would give in terms of confidence and margin of error and how big a population that might support. Turns out that for 8m population we can get 80% confidence with 10% margin of error with just 41 participants. Our last thread had 59. That's good enough for 85% confidence and 9.5% margin of error.

Now, I'm fairly certain we are not operating with 8m players. So, even in my ignorance, turns out that the results probably do a good job of representing the perspective of all DDO players.

The tool I used is here (https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/).

[Marshal_Lannes]

The 18/20 cores look just fine, they don't need revision.

Agreed. This is a non-discussion.

[Baktiotha]

To specify, most cores needs rework for a simple reason: Core power must be as close as possible to power gained for multiclassing, so both choices would be decent.

<snip>

You can pick any cores and just try compare options you get by splashing and in most cases you will see, that either pure or multiclass is superior without too much cons and pros.

I'm not sure that I accept your structuring of why cores need to be reworked but I'm willing to consider your caveat -- however, neither I nor anyone else should be expected to pick the cores and try to compare options. That is your job. If you want us to consider your proposal that *most* cores need rework then you must convince us that there is some sort of glaring disparity.

You have identified some cores, now show us why they cannot be matched by a multiclass.

Edit: In fairness, you did that to some degree with the examples you gave. As I asked others, what would you suggest as ways to modify the issues you identify?

[Baktiotha]

Agreed. This is a non-discussion.

It may well not be. Those who feel that way are under no obligation to participate. The thread doesn't appear to be gaining much traction, so it may take care of itself and die all on its own. :)

[Baktiotha]

18: Death Frenzy: Activation Cost: 20 Hit Points. Cooldown: 30 seconds.
Expend 20 hit points to enter a Death Frenzy for one minute:

+4 strength.
+1 critical damage multiplier on rolls of 19-20.
Your melee weapons gain 'Greater Vicious'.(+4d6 damage to your attacks while dealing 1d3 damage to yourself per attack. This damage scales with 100% Melee Power)
Bug: Vicious effect does not affect natural attacks.
Passive: +10 Melee Power

Out of curiosity, does the damage done to yourself scale with melee power or only the damage done to the mobs?

[Axeyu]

Let's see if anyone provides that sort of evidence and we will try to deal with the reactions afterwards. Prior attempts did not provide that, or if they did I'm not aware of them.

By the way, in the previous thread I asked a question about the reliability of using the results to predict population wide viewpoints. I thought someone made fun of my lack of knowledge. They did so fairly because I am not a statistician.

It did, however, cause me to ask the question -- how big does my sample size need to be. I was surprised to learn that for 8k population if I wanted a 95% confidence and 5% margin of error the survey would need 367 responses and if I raised the population to 800k the number of respondents needed only rose to 384 and if I went to 8m I needed just 385. I found that intriguing.

I then wondered what our results would give in terms of confidence and margin of error and how big a population that might support. Turns out that for 8m population we can get 80% confidence with 10% margin of error with just 41 participants. Our last thread had 59. That's good enough for 85% confidence and 9.5% margin of error.

Now, I'm fairly certain we are not operating with 8m players. So, even in my ignorance, turns out that the results probably do a good job of representing the perspective of all DDO players.

The tool I used is here (https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/).

Responses to a thread is not a random sample.

[janave]

Kudos. I understand exactly the issue. Well put. So what would be a potential revision or replacement?

My current recommendation would be somewhere along ~

1) Passively:
+2 max caster level on evocation spells
+2 caster level on evocation spells
--------------------------------------------- basically effective 2 spell level, just did notknow how to put this compactly
+20% spell critical multiplier

2) While below 60% hitpoints
+ 30% spell critical multiplier
// additionally - either change sacred bonus +1DC and +1 crit% to some stacking or
// add 3% crit chance for fire, light, force, untyped spell dmg types.

Even the uberest tank FvS will be 1-1,5 shot on LE at 60% hps, so probably a high risk/reward option is justified here.

[Jetrule]

Master Engineer: You gain +2 Intelligence. The Enhancement bonus of your armor and your equipped weapon in your main hand are each increased by an additional +1, for a total of +3. Your equipped weapon in your main hand is now a Spellcasting Implement, providing a +3 Implement bonus to Universal Spell Power for every +1 Enhancement bonus on the weapon.

The ability bonus is far below most capstone bonuses. the +1 hit and damage and 3 spell power is insignificant in terms of most capstones power in today's game. The stat bonus needs to be +4 the + enhancement bonuses could easily be tripled and include passive M.p. r.p. and s.p. + 10 and prr mrr for armor/docent +15.

War priest lvl 18 core get haste spell and
+2 Armor Class
+5 Fire Spell Power
+5 Light Spell Power

War priest lvl 20
Implacable Foe: Activate: You and nearby allies gain 100 Temporary Hit Points and their attacks will deal 10% additional damage. For the next 18 seconds, these bonuses will refresh every 3 seconds on you and each ally that remains in range. These effects will expire 5 seconds after they are no longer refreshed. (Cooldown: 5 minutes)
Passive:

Divine Vessel now triggers on reaching 20 stacks of Divine Conduit, instead of 25.
+2 Constitution
+2 Armor Class
+5 Fire Spell Power
+5 Light Spell Power


Both of these are terrible compared to most any other 18/ 20 core. Could easily be +2 con str and cha. on capstone. Implacable foe is far to short in duration and has a too too long cooldown. Compare to warchanter boast or enlightened spirit tier 4 temp h.p. buff.. crazy inferior. It could be a togle aura buff like enlightened spirit that eats 3 s.p. a tick and doesnt stack with the warlock aura. Haste spell and 2 ac and 5 fire light sp? weak. Perma haste like the lvl 12 perma blur is a easy call. This prestige class tree is lacking mele damage all through it, but one could start by adding +5 m.p. r.p. to these cores much like soul eater. and or adding on hit scalable fire and light damage to favored weapon attacks.

[Baktiotha]

Alright, to provide an example of the type of discussion I hope occurs in the thread I want to discuss AzureDragonas' critique of the Frenzied Berzerker cores.

Key elements of L18 is +4 STR, +1 crit multiplier, 4d6 (avg 14) damage scaling 100% with melee power, +10 melee power. The L20 is +4 CON and +10 melee power.

How comparable is that to taking 6 Fighter and spending 33ap in the Kensei tree? If I do that I can get +1 crit multiplier from L6 core, +10 to damage, +20 melee power, and +1 to crit range. If I spend 35ap I can get two attacks that each have the potential of 500 points of damage and one of them scales 400% with melee power and adds another +1 crit multiplier.

Now, to achieve that I'd need to give up t5 in FB. But, without doing a bunch of math, at least on the surface splashing 6 fighter looks to provide equivalent damage power and all I'm really giving up is 2 points of damage from the lowered STR and 2 HP per level from the lowered CON. And, since I need to spend 30ap to unlock the t5 I do have some STR that I could gain back.

Notice that with 6 fighter levels I am also getting 4 additional feats and that, since 6 fighter limits me to L12 cores in barbarian I could go as far as 12/8 gaining me 4 feats.

So, is it really a situation where the 18/20 cores of FB are too good to give up? Or is it just perception?

Edit: Somebody is going to notice that I made a mistake. F6 gives me 4 feats not 3 and F8 gives me 5 feats not 4. The progression is L1,2,4,5,8.

[Baktiotha]

Responses to a thread is not a random sample.

That's a fair critique.

[Axeyu]

Alright, to provide an example of the type of discussion I hope occurs in the thread I want to discuss AzureDragonas' critique of the Frenzied Berzerker cores.

Key elements of L18 is +4 STR, +1 crit multiplier, 4d6 (avg 14) damage scaling 100% with melee power, +10 melee power. The L20 is +4 CON and +10 melee power.

How comparable is that to taking 6 Fighter and spending 33ap in the Kensei tree? If I do that I can get +1 crit multiplier from L6 core, +10 to damage, +20 melee power, and +1 to crit range. If I spend 35ap I can get two attacks that each have the potential of 500 points of damage and one of them scales 400% with melee power and adds another +1 crit multiplier.

Now, to achieve that I'd need to give up t5 in FB. But, without doing a bunch of math, at least on the surface splashing 6 fighter looks to provide equivalent damage power and all I'm really giving up is 2 points of damage from the lowered STR and 2 HP per level from the lowered CON. And, since I need to spend 30ap to unlock the t5 I do have some STR that I could gain back.

Notice that with 6 fighter levels I am also getting 4 additional feats and that, since 6 fighter limits me to L12 cores in barbarian I could go as far as 12/8 gaining me 4 feats.

So, is it really a situation where the 18/20 cores of FB are too good to give up? Or is it just perception?

Other key element of FB L20 is
When raging your melee attacks have a 5% chance to deal 400 bludgeoning damage. This damage scales with 100% Melee Power.

Storm's Eye: Activation Cost: 100 Hit Points. Cooldown: 2.5 minutes.
Activate: You gain 25 stacks of Storm's Eye.

Storm's Eye: +1 melee damage. One stack fades away every three seconds.

Any comparison that ignores these is deeply flawed.

[Forzah]

Any comparison that ignores these is deeply flawed.

You make a good point but why end it with a remark like this? Even if it's true, just phrase things a little bit more constructively so it will not go in the same (pointless) direction as last thread.

[BigErkyKid]

You make a good point but why end it with a remark like this? Even if it's true, just phrase things a little bit more constructively so it will not go in the same (pointless) direction as last thread.

I'll play, just with melee oriented toons and for revamped classes, no point arguing about outdated trees:

Excessively powerful high cores:

Barbarian: frenzied berserker capstone and healing capacity tied to barbarian.
Rogue: lethality, assassin capstone / cartwheel charge, TA. Past a certain investment in rogue, foregoing those cores is not a good choice.
Warlock: enlightened spirit capstone. It is extremely powerful for a melee oriented toon, to the point that I don't feel there is anything comparable without dropping a lot of warlock levels.

Those for me are the worst offenders. Now, in a good spot more or less:

Fighter: Pure gives some good benefits, the power is well distributed along the cores.
Paladin: truly this is not a tree balancing result, rather that most of the power comes fro Holy Sword anyway.

Underpowered:

Bard: arguably the capstones are a bit weak, as the split with fighter and rogue gives a possible stronger toon than a pure bard, for most purposes. This is true for all but the spell singer capstone, but that tree is not very good anyway.

[Chai]

Alright, to provide an example of the type of discussion I hope occurs in the thread I want to discuss AzureDragonas' critique of the Frenzied Berzerker cores.

Key elements of L18 is +4 STR, +1 crit multiplier, 4d6 (avg 14) damage scaling 100% with melee power, +10 melee power. The L20 is +4 CON and +10 melee power.

How comparable is that to taking 6 Fighter and spending 33ap in the Kensei tree? If I do that I can get +1 crit multiplier from L6 core, +10 to damage, +20 melee power, and +1 to crit range. If I spend 35ap I can get two attacks that each have the potential of 500 points of damage and one of them scales 400% with melee power and adds another +1 crit multiplier.

Now, to achieve that I'd need to give up t5 in FB. But, without doing a bunch of math, at least on the surface splashing 6 fighter looks to provide equivalent damage power and all I'm really giving up is 2 points of damage from the lowered STR and 2 HP per level from the lowered CON. And, since I need to spend 30ap to unlock the t5 I do have some STR that I could gain back.

Notice that with 6 fighter levels I am also getting 4 additional feats and that, since 6 fighter limits me to L12 cores in barbarian I could go as far as 12/8 gaining me 4 feats.

So, is it really a situation where the 18/20 cores of FB are too good to give up? Or is it just perception?

The optimal barbarian build that capstones FB will use t5 in ravager, which is +2 to crit threat, blood strength (aka barbarian healing), 15% DPS to helpless, and immunity to knockdown and slippery surface.

The reason why I did not like the suggestion in the previous thread to move the 18 core to 14, is because someone could have everything you outlined in kensai t5 AND at the same time have FB 18 core (which would be at 14, allowing 6 fighter level MC). If the question you ask, is the FB 18 core too good is answered as a yes, then it is good to make players choose between other class t5 and that core. Choosing that core means they have to be comfortable with either FB t5 or ravager t5. They don't get to keep the 18 FB core and go out AND get kensai t5, or get a tempest t5 for twf builds. We would be right back to this eras version of "Blizt" and "monster" builds being optimal and anyone who didn't fully understand multi-classing having a hard time competing.

If the 18/20 cores ARE too good, something other than moving 18 to 14 would need to happen in response to that - but ONLY to the 18/20 cores which are PROVEN to be too good.

[SirValentine]

My question would be slightly more specific. Since the "other" thread was about pure vs. multi-class, level 18 cores aren't relevant to that discussion, only the level 20 capstones. You can take level 18 cores while still multi-classing.

So which capstones are so grossly overpowered capstones that they make multi-classing never worth it, as opposed to an honest opportunity cost of giving up some focused class power to gain multi-classed versatile power? Please, name names. Call them out!

Or, on the flip side, which capstones are still so under-powered that, game-mechanics-wise, it's really not worth going pure, as you gain far more by multi-classing than you can get by staying pure? And, yes, there still are a bunch of those. (And that, in my opinion, is a far worse offense.)

(Another separate measure would be, not to compare capstones with multi-classing, but capstones with each other. Does it strike anyone else as absurd that most "revised" [post-class-pass] capstones give +4 to stats [either +4 to a single stat, or +2 to two], but a certain capstone gives +12? That's what I call unbalanced.)

[Enoach]

...
War priest lvl 18 core get haste spell and
+2 Armor Class
+5 Fire Spell Power
+5 Light Spell Power

War priest lvl 20
Implacable Foe: Activate: You and nearby allies gain 100 Temporary Hit Points and their attacks will deal 10% additional damage. For the next 18 seconds, these bonuses will refresh every 3 seconds on you and each ally that remains in range. These effects will expire 5 seconds after they are no longer refreshed. (Cooldown: 5 minutes)
Passive:

Divine Vessel now triggers on reaching 20 stacks of Divine Conduit, instead of 25.
+2 Constitution
+2 Armor Class
+5 Fire Spell Power
+5 Light Spell Power


Both of these are terrible compared to most any other 18/ 20 core. Could easily be +2 con str and cha. on capstone. Implacable foe is far to short in duration and has a too too long cooldown. Compare to warchanter boast or enlightened spirit tier 4 temp h.p. buff.. crazy inferior. It could be a togle aura buff like enlightened spirit that eats 3 s.p. a tick and doesnt stack with the warlock aura. Haste spell and 2 ac and 5 fire light sp? weak. Perma haste like the lvl 12 perma blur is a easy call. This prestige class tree is lacking mele damage all through it, but one could start by adding +5 m.p. r.p. to these cores much like soul eater. and or adding on hit scalable fire and light damage to favored weapon attacks.

I want to add to this. The Divine Vessel 1d4 Light and 1d4 Fire that is effected by Spell Power is a good ability up to the point that the player does not get to control when it is released. I think this ability should be triggered by the player for release and not just stacked and then released. Doing this will make this ability more in line with other melee AoE attacks.

I agree Implacable Foe has either too short a benefit or too long a cooldown. This needs adjustment. I also think Inflame's cooldown is too long since it is limited by number of uses and should be brought in line with abilities like haste boost which has 10 seconds more cooldown then the uptime of the ability. This will prevent spamming, but at the same time make this ability more useful.

But the #1 thing that needs to be adjusted is the number of available Weapons for Favored. This will make a big difference in the Melee Divine.

[Snorunt]

Out of curiosity, does the damage done to yourself scale with melee power or only the damage done to the mobs?

Currently playing a frenzied right now, it doesn't even seem to actually damage you when using it (I have it and regular frenzy up at all times, as they stack).

[Coyopa]

I appreciate the civility but don't see a lot of evidence regarding the cores. I see "I think" but I don't see much game related, data driven explanations for why.

If all of the perspectives are based on "I think" or "my opinion" then everyone is right and everyone is wrong because opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one.

For the discussion to have consequence there needs to be some weight, some evidentiary proof for the perspective that you have. Without that the thread just devolves into a "my opinion is better than your opinion" and that gets us nowhere.

This is why I never understood why you bothered to start this thread in the first place. The kind of proof you're insisting people provide is exactly the kind of information that no one has, unless they work for Turbine. Seriously, what did you ever expect to accomplish with this thread other than providing another place for ad hominem attacks and petty fighting?

[Baktiotha]

This is why I never understood why you bothered to start this thread in the first place. The kind of proof you're insisting people provide is exactly the kind of information that no one has, unless they work for Turbine. Seriously, what did you ever expect to accomplish with this thread other than providing another place for ad hominem attacks and petty fighting?

Fair question. I'll try to answer.

Let's take the FB example and my questions about if F6 splash achieves nearly the same thing. Even without access to Turbine's information (or even assuming that Turbine has that sort of information) the math geniuses in our community can do a pretty good job of evaluating the DPS (for lack of a better term) of each "build." So it is possible for us to quantify the relative *power* of these two things.

It might be, as was pointed out, that surrendering FB t5 and the missed (by me) chance of damage scaling with melee power ends up pushing FB to a statistically significant advantage over the F6 splash. But right now we do not really know that, we just assert that.

What I hoped to achieve, then, is to move people in the direction of using their skills -- skills that I do not have, but that I know exist in our community -- to evaluate these things.

I know that we can subjectively determine things that we think are too strong or too weak. What I wonder is if we have the skill, collectively, to demonstrate that objectively.

[Baktiotha]

Currently playing a frenzied right now, it doesn't even seem to actually damage you when using it (I have it and regular frenzy up at all times, as they stack).

That is what I remembered from my barbarian life but I never really paid attention. I *think* that the healing procs are large enough that even if the damage is occurring it is getting healed. And, although it costs hp to activate, IIRC the cooldown is fast enough and the healing large enough that, from a practical standpoint, players can keep it running "at all times" as you indicate.

Thanks for replying.

[Hawkwier]

Q: With specifics and in detail: What are the 18/20 cores that need revision?

A: None

And the other thread referred to went from being a baseless plea for power creep, swiftly recognised and rejected by most as such, to an exercise in mutual epeen polishing over 30 odd pages by a few.

Hopefully this thread will not suffer that same thoroughly unimpressive ignominy!

[Baktiotha]

Any comparison that ignores these is deeply flawed.

I don't mind the comparison being flawed, deeply or otherwise. I would mind if nobody pointed out the flaws. That is the purpose of the discussion, to try to capture the essential elements and to compare A with B to see if the two might be roughly comparable or if A pawns B (or B pawns A).

After all, that is really what the previous threads were attempting to do but without the specificity or the work of actually calculating the *power* -- just the assertion of possibility/impossibility of A and B being roughly comparable.

So, here is another of my questions: What is the maximum melee power that a build can attain, what is the "typical" or "easily attainable" melee power and how does "scales with melee power" work. If, for example, the answer to "easily attainable" is 400 then what I would expect that to mean is damage (D) instead of being 1D becomes 5D. If 400 damage scales 100% with melee power then I would expect that when it goes off the damage becomes 5*400=2000. If 400 damage scales 400% with melee power I would expect that when it goes off the damage becomes 17*400=6800. (If melee power is 400 and it scales 400% then melee power is 1600, melee power of 1600 should produce 17D.)

Is that how melee power and scaling works? If so then there is a pretty large delta between 2k and 6.8k.

I appreciate your pointing out the errors I made. You've commented on my lack of knowledge in statistical analysis. Are you among the people that can do the maths required for an actual comparison? If so, could you advance the conversation by doing them for this example?

[Gremmlynn]

To specify, most cores needs rework for a simple reason: Core power must be as close as possible to power gained for multiclassing, so both choices would be decent. The problem with this is that what can be gained from multi-classing varies so widely and is rather undefined. I actually think this is what the dvs were attempting to do with the cores, but were using the absolute most power that could be gained from multi-classing as the benchmark and then erring on the upper side to cover for the undefined part.

[Baktiotha]

But the #1 thing that needs to be adjusted is the number of available Weapons for Favored. This will make a big difference in the Melee Divine.

Isn't this driven by lore? I never was an Eberron guy so I don't know the lore, but I had the impression that the weapon choices were driven by the "deity" providing the power. It would be the same in FR.

From my very rusty memory, those favored weapons almost always sucked. Is the answer to increase the choices or would it be more appropriate to do something like was done in Swashbuckler where the increases were handled withing weapon groupings? I mean, as long as 3 or 4 weapons dominate player "weapon of choice" decisions pretty much anything else is just flavor. Couldn't this be placed in that category -- if you choose the flavor this gives you a bit of a boost on what is otherwise a sucky weapon choice?

Of course, it doesn't address those deities that actually favor a weapon that happens to also be in the "weapon of choice" category. But, life's not always fair. ;)

[Baktiotha]

The problem with this is that what can be gained from multi-classing varies so widely and is rather undefined. I actually think this is what the dvs were attempting to do with the cores, but were using the absolute most power that could be gained from multi-classing as the benchmark and then erring on the upper side to cover for the undefined part.

I think both you and AzureDragonas make good points. Nothing prevents us from approaching the question from both perspectives. We can certainly attempt to identify the intangibles.

Back to my FB and F6 question. Wouldn't heavy armor proficiency, tower shield proficiency, resulting increase in PRR/MRR, access to fighter heavy armor feats and the availability of 4 feats to take those with greatly enhance the defensive side of a build? Those might be "intangibles" in the F6 splash.

If doing a comparison of the *DPS* reveals that FB is significantly better than F6 splash does that hold true once the damage mitigation is taken into account. Does the F6 remain in the fight longer so that the probability of winning the encounter is higher even though the *DPS* is lower -- maybe even significantly lower?

So AzureDragonas makes a reasonable point about relative *power* between PC and MC. You make a reasonable point about incorporating the "intangible" things that a MC provides. If we work at the problem from both perspectives we might be able to arrive at the most informative answer.

[Axeyu]

I don't mind the comparison being flawed, deeply or otherwise. I would mind if nobody pointed out the flaws. That is the purpose of the discussion, to try to capture the essential elements and to compare A with B to see if the two might be roughly comparable or if A pawns B (or B pawns A).

After all, that is really what the previous threads were attempting to do but without the specificity or the work of actually calculating the *power* -- just the assertion of possibility/impossibility of A and B being roughly comparable.

So, here is another of my questions: What is the maximum melee power that a build can attain, what is the "typical" or "easily attainable" melee power and how does "scales with melee power" work. If, for example, the answer to "easily attainable" is 400 then what I would expect that to mean is damage (D) instead of being 1D becomes 5D. If 400 damage scales 100% with melee power then I would expect that when it goes off the damage becomes 5*400=2000. If 400 damage scales 400% with melee power I would expect that when it goes off the damage becomes 17*400=6800. (If melee power is 400 and it scales 400% then melee power is 1600, melee power of 1600 should produce 17D.)

Is that how melee power and scaling works? If so then there is a pretty large delta between 2k and 6.8k.

I appreciate your pointing out the errors I made. You've commented on my lack of knowledge in statistical analysis. Are you among the people that can do the maths required for an actual comparison? If so, could you advance the conversation by doing them for this example?

Better yet, you can use the spreadsheet I've made to do some DPS comparisons yourself.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cv7jhz1qsbt1hx0/DPS%20Calc%20Update%203.7.ods

[AbyssalMage]

Alright, to provide an example of the type of discussion I hope occurs in the thread I want to discuss AzureDragonas' critique of the Frenzied Berzerker cores.

Key elements of L18 is +4 STR, +1 crit multiplier, 4d6 (avg 14) damage scaling 100% with melee power, +10 melee power. The L20 is +4 CON and +10 melee power.

How comparable is that to taking 6 Fighter and spending 33ap in the Kensei tree? If I do that I can get +1 crit multiplier from L6 core, +10 to damage, +20 melee power, and +1 to crit range. If I spend 35ap I can get two attacks that each have the potential of 500 points of damage and one of them scales 400% with melee power and adds another +1 crit multiplier.

Now, to achieve that I'd need to give up t5 in FB. But, without doing a bunch of math, at least on the surface splashing 6 fighter looks to provide equivalent damage power and all I'm really giving up is 2 points of damage from the lowered STR and 2 HP per level from the lowered CON. And, since I need to spend 30ap to unlock the t5 I do have some STR that I could gain back.

Notice that with 6 fighter levels I am also getting 4 additional feats and that, since 6 fighter limits me to L12 cores in barbarian I could go as far as 12/8 gaining me 4 feats.

So, is it really a situation where the 18/20 cores of FB are too good to give up? Or is it just perception?
You are trying to compare a small piece in a very HUGE cog. The problem is you do not "see" how that small piece affects all of the other pieces to make the machine work.

Place to complete builds, with gear, next to each other.
Then do a comparison of what ever metric you wish to use (DPS, Defense, Utility)
Because the game has devolved into "how fast can I kill this so it doesn't kill me" mentality, DPS is the leading metric. Defense and Utility are basically used to supplement DPS (which the original example eluded to, Post #1).

[unbongwah]

Excessively powerful high cores:

Barbarian: frenzied berserker capstone and healing capacity tied to barbarian.
I actually think poor balance between PrEs is a bigger issue than OP's concerns about multiclassing being "gimp" vs pure builds. Barb is the most pronounced example of this: Storm's Eye + T5 Ravager is seen as such a powerful combo that everything else is dismissed as a "flavor" build. OS might as well not exist, apart from the occasional TYWA dwarf holdout. :rolleyes: When builds become that cookie-cutter, your PrEs need rebalancing, IMO.

[Thrudh]

Now, I do think the Barbarian changes may have gone too far in the over zealousness of trying to add healing to a class known for its DPS.

I agree with this, but the self-healing doesn't come from the 18/20 cores. (Well you get 40 Healing Amp from level 20 Ravager).

The 18/20 barbarian cores are very good DPS, which I don't have a problem with. It's the combination of the cores with T5 Ravager self-healing that is the real problem.

In my opinion, they should completely remove ALL self-healing from the barbarian enhancement tree, and then people can make the tough choice to go pure barbarian and get awesome DPS, or to possibly splash a few levels in another class that will help with self-healing or defense.

[Aelonwy]

(Another separate measure would be, not to compare capstones with multi-classing, but capstones with each other. Does it strike anyone else as absurd that most "revised" [post-class-pass] capstones give +4 to stats [either +4 to a single stat, or +2 to two], but a certain capstone gives +12? That's what I call unbalanced.)

I pointed out this issue several times on the Kensai thread. Essentially its completionist without having to do the past lives. Not many people felt this was a problem which just boggles my mind. Some people even commented that it wasn't enough to encourage building a pure fighter. I think I must have lost touch with how the game is played nowadays.

[Gremmlynn]

I think both you and AzureDragonas make good points. Nothing prevents us from approaching the question from both perspectives. We can certainly attempt to identify the intangibles.

Back to my FB and F6 question. Wouldn't heavy armor proficiency, tower shield proficiency, resulting increase in PRR/MRR, access to fighter heavy armor feats and the availability of 4 feats to take those with greatly enhance the defensive side of a build? Those might be "intangibles" in the F6 splash.

If doing a comparison of the *DPS* reveals that FB is significantly better than F6 splash does that hold true once the damage mitigation is taken into account. Does the F6 remain in the fight longer so that the probability of winning the encounter is higher even though the *DPS* is lower -- maybe even significantly lower?

So AzureDragonas makes a reasonable point about relative *power* between PC and MC. You make a reasonable point about incorporating the "intangible" things that a MC provides. If we work at the problem from both perspectives we might be able to arrive at the most informative answer.Actually, my main point is that multi-classing isn't in itself really balanced. The vast majority of builds are inherently poor from the get go due to lack of synergy. While a small number are very good due to a glut of it. Also, which are which really have more to do with happenstance than development with most of the development effort I've seen being used retroactively to curb over the top builds than to support the system as a whole.

Frankly, that's why I stated I think the devs erred on the upper side. I believe they actually want the classes they developed to represent the best the game has to offer in order to better develop challenges to a know quantity, rather than to a vague idea of what the players will come up with to remove any challenge (and then complain about it's lack).

[Gremmlynn]

I pointed out this issue several times on the Kensai thread. Essentially its completionist without having to do the past lives. Not many people felt this was a problem which just boggles my mind. Some people even commented that it wasn't enough to encourage building a pure fighter. I think I must have lost touch with how the game is played nowadays.I think you, like many, just over value completionist.

[Qhualor]

I agree with this, but the self-healing doesn't come from the 18/20 cores. (Well you get 40 Healing Amp from level 20 Ravager).

The 18/20 barbarian cores are very good DPS, which I don't have a problem with. It's the combination of the cores with T5 Ravager self-healing that is the real problem.

In my opinion, they should completely remove ALL self-healing from the barbarian enhancement tree, and then people can make the tough choice to go pure barbarian and get awesome DPS, or to possibly splash a few levels in another class that will help with self-healing or defense.

I would go along with this as long as there are improvements to potions and they got the same thing as Liquid Courage in Kensei.

[Hawkwier]

I agree with this, but the self-healing doesn't come from the 18/20 cores. (Well you get 40 Healing Amp from level 20 Ravager).

The 18/20 barbarian cores are very good DPS, which I don't have a problem with. It's the combination of the cores with T5 Ravager self-healing that is the real problem.

In my opinion, they should completely remove ALL self-healing from the barbarian enhancement tree, and then people can make the tough choice to go pure barbarian and get awesome DPS, or to possibly splash a few levels in another class that will help with self-healing or defense.

I'd be OK with this, provided there is also a major DPS boost that puts barbs unquestionably ahead of anything else DPS-wise.

I argued this at the time of the pass iirc, (clearly inadequately!) as it just seemed like they wanted to create another pally with good DPS and self heals.

Would make 'em more distinctive to play yet keep 'em desirable.

I've pretty much played barb form the start, and currently running 18/1/1 split, which I prefer to the "cookie cutter" pure 20. I don't consider that flavour, but freely admit to a strong personal bias in that regard! :)

The trouble is that there are so many ways to work a complex system that balance is a general aim is laudible but illusory to target precisely.

VS barbs PREs, for example I'd prioritise having 'Locks pact partners turn and consume every last one of them, leaving a wee pile of TP as compensation, before worrying about barb enhancements (which would solve little anyway, but in terms of priority if we had to start somewhere...).

The only way to assure balance more precisely is to reduce the complexity of the system and create balance by specialism and interdependency. In a simple extreme: fighter tank and dpsy, cleric tough and heally, rogue traps sneaky squishy, wizard nuclear squishy. Work together or die trying to solo, folks. Job done. :)

But, for good or ill, we've moved on from that approach long-since, so we have what we have. The best of a bad lot. A bit like democracy as a political system...

To be fair to Turbine though IMO it's been worse than it is now, so at least we are improving from darker times (i.e. pre-barb-pass for me! :) ).

[AnEvenNewerNoob]

I would go along with this as long as there are improvements to potions and they got the same thing as Liquid Courage in Kensei.

Liquid Courage is complete garbage and needs to be revamped.

Other than that I agree!

[Qhualor]

Liquid Courage is complete garbage and needs to be revamped.

Other than that I agree!

We tried.

[sithhound]

Liquid Courage is complete garbage and needs to be revamped.

Other than that I agree!

Right? Look at barb enhancement trees, OS has 100 hamp, Ravager has 90 hamp, even FB has 20 hamp. And all of this is 24/7 hamp, and will stack with each other, so you can easily get 150+ 24/7 hamp, before equipment. Kensai get 50 hamp for 30 sec, and have to drink a pot to activate? Really? ***? How is that balanced?

[Cordovan]

This thread has been far better than the previous one, both in terms of civility and quality of content. I'll be keeping a closer eye on this thread to try to prevent it from turning into personal back and forths and attacks.

[BigErkyKid]

I actually think poor balance between PrEs is a bigger issue than OP's concerns about multiclassing being "gimp" vs pure builds. Barb is the most pronounced example of this: Storm's Eye + T5 Ravager is seen as such a powerful combo that everything else is dismissed as a "flavor" build. OS might as well not exist, apart from the occasional TYWA dwarf holdout. :rolleyes: When builds become that cookie-cutter, your PrEs need rebalancing, IMO.

That's also true. But the two are part of a trend: simplifying build choices.

[Baktiotha]

The problem is you do not "see" how that small piece affects all of the other pieces to make the machine work.

Actually, I do see that. And I am trying, ever so gently, to encourage us all to look at the problem in that way. If I appear naive it is because I hope someone will come back with a response that takes all of the factors and puts them in a way that all of us can see and understand.

I do not have the knowledge to do that nor do I have the inclination. Axeyu suggests that I do the work using the spreadsheet he prepared. I might (to some extent) do that. But, I do not have enough knowledge to actually have confidence in the results I might get. So if I ask Axeyu or some other thread participant if they can do the work it is because I know it is beyond me yet I desire to know the answers.

Even if we restrict ourselves to the 3 major elements you identify and give them weights consistent with our perception that *DPS* is king (thereby ignoring the other "pieces to make the machine work") we will have come closer and be nearer to reaching a consensus. And if we can achieve that we can make the discussion one of value both to our community and, I would hope, to Turbine.

[Baktiotha]

I agree with this, but the self-healing doesn't come from the 18/20 cores.

Interestingly, even without maths being involved, this is actually what the answer came down to when I asked about FB v F6 splash. It wasn't really about differences in *DPS* but was about the loss of t5 barbarian enhancements.

So, maybe, we have actually accomplished something because we have identified what might very well be the actual driver of PC v MC in this case.

I know, somebody will point out that a Barb5 or larger splash can get the t5 enhancement. But it is the combination of the t5 enhancement with the 18/20 core -- the synergy -- that is potent.

Oddly, it is part of my observation in a different thread about what is wrong in the fighter pass -- the lack of adequate self healing. I am certain nobody wants to go back to the days of needing to have a baby-sitter cleric in every group. Clerics, at least, I am sure do not want to be forced into that healbot pigeon hole.

Maybe that rises to the level of consensus and Turbine will take note of it as it considers additional adjustments and tweaks to the game. Cordovan did indicate he was keeping a closer look. We could hope.

[Baktiotha]

Actually, my main point is that multi-classing isn't in itself really balanced.

Well, this isn't the first time I misunderstood a person's main point. :o

[Baktiotha]

I think you, like many, just over value completionist.

Well *I* overvalue completionist. I worked hard to get it, take it at L3 every life, drink universal stat potions when I have them, and feel that I've let my character down if I let his ship buffs run out. I invested in +6 tomes in every stat and +5 skill tomes for every skill and am madly pursuing epic lives with the plan to then madly pursue iconic lives.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with that even though I can accomplish the same things on my alternate account's recently reincarnated, 4th life character or my yet other alternate account's 1st life character. The reality that I overvalue those past lives doesn't compete with the satisfaction I feel when I've achieved them or the buzz that i get from knowing that I am playing a completionist.

:D

[Baktiotha]

I'd prioritise having 'Locks pact partners turn and consume every last one of them, leaving a wee pile of TP as compensation

We did lose the Market tent so it isn't like there's no precedent but do we really need to leave a wee pile of TP. ;)

[AnEvenNewerNoob]

Right? Look at barb enhancement trees, OS has 100 hamp, Ravager has 90 hamp, even FB has 20 hamp. And all of this is 24/7 hamp, and will stack with each other, so you can easily get 150+ 24/7 hamp, before equipment. Kensai get 50 hamp for 30 sec, and have to drink a pot to activate? Really? ***? How is that balanced?

And lets not forget a barb has a 24/7 passive self heal over time to go with all that healing amp! (Ok, self heal when raging.....which is 24/7 if you are doing it right)

I just recently got a barb up to epic levels and was AMAZED at how EASY everything was compared to my pure fighter. Rage, cleave and win. Don't even have to pause to drink a pot!

Liquid courage was a cruel joke on fighters.

My idea for the enhancement was something along the lines of:
Grants +x/+y/+z healing amp per fighter level. 3rd tier: You no longer suffer negative effects from silver flame potions.

Anything would have been netter than what they did. I didn't even bother to take the enhancement it was such a steaming pile of ****.

[Chai]

I agree with this, but the self-healing doesn't come from the 18/20 cores. (Well you get 40 Healing Amp from level 20 Ravager).

The 18/20 barbarian cores are very good DPS, which I don't have a problem with. It's the combination of the cores with T5 Ravager self-healing that is the real problem.

In my opinion, they should completely remove ALL self-healing from the barbarian enhancement tree, and then people can make the tough choice to go pure barbarian and get awesome DPS, or to possibly splash a few levels in another class that will help with self-healing or defense.

Maybe the t5 should add even more heal amp rather than doing actual healing. Now I have the option to chug pots while standing in a consecration or dismiss rage and use UMD/cocoon/ etc.

The major issue here has always been the community demanding self healing during play.

I would also accept 20-30 melee power in those t5s instead. If I cant heal myself like everyone else can. At least I'm unquestionably top DPS. Not parallel to fighter who doesn't need to dismiss rage to heal themselves, but like 15-20% ahead of fighter. Enough ahead of everyone else where someone with a heal spell doesn't mind throwing some healing the barbarian's way and has a vested interest to do so. For instance.

Two self healing fighters do a quest in X minutes.
A barbarian and a FvS get the quest done in the same time. The FvS still contributes damage and killing, but has a vested interest in helping keep the barbarian going full speed.

[Baktiotha]

Right? Look at barb enhancement trees, OS has 100 hamp, Ravager has 90 hamp, even FB has 20 hamp. And all of this is 24/7 hamp, and will stack with each other, so you can easily get 150+ 24/7 hamp, before equipment. Kensai get 50 hamp for 30 sec, and have to drink a pot to activate? Really? ***? How is that balanced?

I don't know, how many ap are required to get the 150+ healing amp and how many are required to get Liquid Courage? That is part of what I would like us to discuss. Not just the +/- differences but the actual cost involved.

I know when I was looking at the proposed barbarian enhancements and the discussion came around to the ample healing amp the rationale was that the cost was prohibitive because you would need to surrender *DPS* options to achieve all of it. At that time the sentiment tended towards the idea that people would forego healing amp for *DPS*.

If the ap decision is not painful and the cost is not great then the 150+ might be out of balance with the 50 sometimes.

Conversely, if the 50 sometimes ap cost is expensive so that people would bypass it if they could then there is an imbalance irrespective of the pain on the barb side.

[sithhound]

Yeah, neither my barb, nor my fighter are my main, and haven't been for awhile, but a few weeks ago, I logged on both of them to farm a few quests. My kensai is sitting at 28, and my FB was er'ed, so only sitting at 22. I couldn't believe how much more dps my FB was throwing out. And the kensai isn't a total gimp, he's 3rd life, orchard geared, T2 TF greataxe. FB is 2nd life, EAGA and mixed geared (old s/s/s, eveningstar, and randgen). Wasn't even in the same ballpark, and kensai had 6 more epic levels.

[AnEvenNewerNoob]

I don't know, how many ap are required to get the 150+ healing amp and how many are required to get Liquid Courage? That is part of what I would like us to discuss. Not just the +/- differences but the actual cost involved.

I know when I was looking at the proposed barbarian enhancements and the discussion came around to the ample healing amp the rationale was that the cost was prohibitive because you would need to surrender *DPS* options to achieve all of it. At that time the sentiment tended towards the idea that people would forego healing amp for *DPS*.

If the ap decision is not painful and the cost is not great then the 150+ might be out of balance with the 50 sometimes.

Conversely, if the 50 sometimes ap cost is expensive so that people would bypass it if they could then there is an imbalance irrespective of the pain on the barb side.

In FB 3 AP gets you 50 HA, self heal over time, 20 hp and 10 prr.

2 AP for the piece of junk liquid courage.

[Jetrule]

The questions in this thread seems to be, "Do barbarians require some nerfing?" And Is there a way to measure the overall power level of each build when at level 30? Have fun with it. I was deceived by the thread title.

[sithhound]

The questions in this thread seems to be, "Do barbarians require some nerfing?" And Is there a way to measure the overall power level of each build when at level 30? Have fun with it. I was deceived by the thread title.

Sorry, I helped take this thread off-topic. Please interprept my threads as kensai revamp didn't work, not as nerf hammer barbs. I've never called for nerfing, as that always alienates someone. I will now bow out of this thread, and let it get back to it's point. Sorry again.

[AnEvenNewerNoob]

Sorry, I helped take this thread off-topic. Please interprept my threads as kensai revamp didn't work, not as nerf hammer barbs. I've never called for nerfing, as that always alienates someone. I will now bow out of this thread, and let it get back to it's point. Sorry again.

I'm also on the "kensai fail" train and not on the "nerf barbs" train!

I think we're just using barb as the most analogous example. (DPS, no blue bar, etc.) of WHY the kensai pass was such a watered down FAIL.

(Don't even get me started on opportunity attack!)

[Baktiotha]

The questions in this thread seems to be, "Do barbarians require some nerfing?" And Is there a way to measure the overall power level of each build when at level 30? Have fun with it. I was deceived by the thread title.

Yeah, sorry about that. It is sort of my fault because I picked FB and F6 splash to illustrate something. But the intent is not to just talk about barbarians. The intent is to talk about any/all 18/20 cores and whether there is a problem with them -- either individually or corporately.

It may well be that for a time the discussion focuses on one class or another. I don't think that is intrinsically bad. If it causes a complete derail then it would be. I don't feel that it has, hope that it has not.

[Baktiotha]

Sorry, I helped take this thread off-topic. Please interprept my threads as kensai revamp didn't work, not as nerf hammer barbs. I've never called for nerfing, as that always alienates someone. I will now bow out of this thread, and let it get back to it's point. Sorry again.

No, it was me. And, to make things worse, its my thread. Don't bow out, you've provided good insight.

[Baktiotha]

I think we're just using barb as the most analogous example. (DPS, no blue bar, etc.) of WHY the kensai pass was such a watered down FAIL.

And I think this is the situation as well. I gravitated to the FB v F6 splash because it was easy and, as you say, the most analogous example. I don't think there's anything wrong with us having focused in on one specific perceived problem for the moment. I think that the mere fact that we seem to have had civil discussion around the perception is an achievement.

[Enoach]

Isn't this driven by lore? I never was an Eberron guy so I don't know the lore, but I had the impression that the weapon choices were driven by the "deity" providing the power. It would be the same in FR.

From my very rusty memory, those favored weapons almost always sucked. Is the answer to increase the choices or would it be more appropriate to do something like was done in Swashbuckler where the increases were handled withing weapon groupings? I mean, as long as 3 or 4 weapons dominate player "weapon of choice" decisions pretty much anything else is just flavor. Couldn't this be placed in that category -- if you choose the flavor this gives you a bit of a boost on what is otherwise a sucky weapon choice?

Of course, it doesn't address those deities that actually favor a weapon that happens to also be in the "weapon of choice" category. But, life's not always fair. ;)

This is lore driven, and yes a good portion of the weapons are not the "best" weapons.

However, right now the choices are limited to:

Amaunator - Heavy Mace (Sun Elf, Purple Dragon Knight, Shadar-Kai)
Lord of Blades - Great Sword (Must be WF or BF)
Silver Flame - Long Bow (Eberron Races)
Sovereign Host - Long Sword (Eberron Races)
Undying Court - Scimitars (Elf & Half-Elf)
Vulkoor - Short Swords (Drow)

This means for Cleric, FvS and Paladin the Favored Weapon List has 5 melee and 1 ranged. Adding in more deity options can help expand this list and even create more incentive to use favored weapons. Some low hanging fruit I see would be to add in a Dwarven related deity. If anything add in another one or two deity for the FR side.

I'm not asking for the list to be expanded to "best weapons" I'm just thinking more options are needed and both FR and Eberron are rich with more options. Additionally, with these options a more diverse Domain System (Similar to Warlock Pacts System) can be included.

[Enoach]

I agree with this, but the self-healing doesn't come from the 18/20 cores. (Well you get 40 Healing Amp from level 20 Ravager).

The 18/20 barbarian cores are very good DPS, which I don't have a problem with. It's the combination of the cores with T5 Ravager self-healing that is the real problem.

In my opinion, they should completely remove ALL self-healing from the barbarian enhancement tree, and then people can make the tough choice to go pure barbarian and get awesome DPS, or to possibly splash a few levels in another class that will help with self-healing or defense.

I hope I didn't mislead anyone in thinking the 18/20 cores is where the healing resided, if I did I want to apologize as my point was it is the combination of Healing, Healing Amp and DPS that can be obtained by a pure barbarian that contributes to the problem.

I think the Tier 5 should not be healing as it works now, but possibly work similar to FotW's Fury Made Placid (just the healing part) where it costs a Rage to do so. The healing set to 25% Maximum HP and effected by Healing Amp should make this a powerful ability for healing between fights - That being a trade off of the Raw DPS.

[Baktiotha]

The questions in this thread seems to be, "Do barbarians require some nerfing?" And Is there a way to measure the overall power level of each build when at level 30? Have fun with it. I was deceived by the thread title.

So, a bit of a fuller response to your observation.

We had a post by janave on the weakness of Favored Soul's Angel of Vengeance outlining why the cores are too weak. That was on page 1. On page 2 we have a recommended resolution. The community seems to be alright with the assessment and the suggested solution because there hasn't been any more discussion. I'd say that this is exactly the goal I am striving for.

On page 2 we have a post by you on the weakness of War Priest. We get a response by Enoach and then it dies. (Well, I do make a comment about favored weapons, but it dies.) This indicates to me that there isn't a very big commitment to War Priest cores being adequate and the analysis that they are too weak is likely correct. I should probably be chastised for not prompting you and Enoach for solutions. We did, at least, get a discussion on favored weapons. :D

On page 3 we essentially identified the *real* issue with berserker cores and, while that will lead to a nerf vs buff discussion, I think for the most part everyone has civilly agreed to what they all knew already -- that *DPS* + heals = win. I think it instructive that while there is some suggestion that barb be nerfed a bit the bigger push is for fighters to be buffed. And, consistent with that we have identified at least some of why fighter is perceived as weak in the healing amp discussion.

So I don't think we are actually in a barbarian mode. I do think it has taken us more work to get to the *problem* and to evaluate the *solutions* and I think we haven't actually hit on a *best* solution -- at least from our perspective. OTOH if Cordovan is reading this thread I'm not sure that we need to settle on *a* solution. Turbine, after all, will make the call (if they do anything at all). It might be sufficient simply to have been able to consider various solutions and to have done so in a drama free way.

Now, back to that War Priest problem -- I see the problem you raised, what is your suggested solution (and Enoach, feel free to jump in)?

[Enoach]

I thought I did make some suggestions.

Implacable Foe: Increase the time or Decrease the cooldown. If needed adjust the Temp HP benefit or adjust the refresh rate of the Temp HP

Personally, I would like to see this as 18 seconds (current value), refresh every 2 seconds (current value) but have a 2 minute cooldown.

I think this would make this ability desired for those that want to go Pure Cleric, but still not be a must have.

If however, there is concern this will be used too often, then remove the cooldown and simply give it a number of uses per rest like Inflame.


Then with Inflame:
Reduce the Cooldown to being only 10 seconds more than the active time. Currently this ability is limited by number of uses per rest but then suffers from being only able to be used with a 60 second cooldown.

[Gremmlynn]

I hope I didn't mislead anyone in thinking the 18/20 cores is where the healing resided, if I did I want to apologize as my point was it is the combination of Healing, Healing Amp and DPS that can be obtained by a pure barbarian that contributes to the problem.

I think the Tier 5 should not be healing as it works now, but possibly work similar to FotW's Fury Made Placid (just the healing part) where it costs a Rage to do so. The healing set to 25% Maximum HP and effected by Healing Amp should make this a powerful ability for healing between fights - That being a trade off of the Raw DPS.A stack of CSW pots is all that's needed between fights, it's living to drink them that's the issue IMO.

[Qhualor]

one thing I want to point out before people get settled on the idea that barbarian self healing should be nerfed is to take a look at the barbs in your parties and how they are staying alive in epics. I have said from the very beginning that barb self healing is OP in heroics, but so isn't a great many other things aside from barbs. I have also said that barb self healing isn't as good as some claim it is in epics, which is why you see many of them with a blue bar.

if we go down this road with barbarians and cause the devs to take a look at them again (imo, highly unlikely at this point), than you can expect a forum uproar about warlocks, bards, paladins, mechs, rangers, etc needing to be nerfed back too. never mind the uproar from barb players that like the way things are already. I think this part is very important to understand


... it is the combination of Healing, Healing Amp and DPS that can be obtained by a pure barbarian that contributes to the problem.

I have no problem with removing barb self healing, but the dps would need to stay and better potion healing would need to compensate for the backtrack. remember we still play in a BYOH game and one of the biggest reasons why people stopped playing a barb or wouldn't roll one up was because they lacked good self healing despite their dps. barbs get a nerf than I will be one of those vocal players that starts pointing out what needs to be better balanced with the other classes like mechs and ranged builds killing mobs before you can get to them and warlocks with their AOEs and temp hit points.

[Chai]

A stack of CSW pots is all that's needed between fights, it's living to drink them that's the issue IMO.

The issue with that is the fast paced combat. While youre chugging pots, everyone else is already done fighting the next encounter and is fighting the one after that. If barbarian self healing is nerfed, a significant DPS increase is in order. Otherwise the class goes right back to the bottom of the pile no one wants to play, where it was before it got its revamp, largely due to a community who demands self healing in quests, and barbarian being the hardest class to maintain that, AND maintain its DPS at the same time due to most of the good DPS enhancements being tethered to being raged. Worst recovery class should be best DPS class, and significantly best at that. This would mean MORE DPS in those top cores rather than less, with the understanding that someone would need to trade that powerful DPS to get better self healing through multi-classing.

[Axeyu]

So, a bit of a fuller response to your observation.

We had a post by janave on the weakness of Favored Soul's Angel of Vengeance outlining why the cores are too weak. That was on page 1. On page 2 we have a recommended resolution. The community seems to be alright with the assessment and the suggested solution because there hasn't been any more discussion. I'd say that this is exactly the goal I am striving for.

On page 2 we have a post by you on the weakness of War Priest. We get a response by Enoach and then it dies. (Well, I do make a comment about favored weapons, but it dies.) This indicates to me that there isn't a very big commitment to War Priest cores being adequate and the analysis that they are too weak is likely correct. I should probably be chastised for not prompting you and Enoach for solutions. We did, at least, get a discussion on favored weapons. :D

On page 3 we essentially identified the *real* issue with berserker cores and, while that will lead to a nerf vs buff discussion, I think for the most part everyone has civilly agreed to what they all knew already -- that *DPS* + heals = win. I think it instructive that while there is some suggestion that barb be nerfed a bit the bigger push is for fighters to be buffed. And, consistent with that we have identified at least some of why fighter is perceived as weak in the healing amp discussion.

So I don't think we are actually in a barbarian mode. I do think it has taken us more work to get to the *problem* and to evaluate the *solutions* and I think we haven't actually hit on a *best* solution -- at least from our perspective. OTOH if Cordovan is reading this thread I'm not sure that we need to settle on *a* solution. Turbine, after all, will make the call (if they do anything at all). It might be sufficient simply to have been able to consider various solutions and to have done so in a drama free way.

Now, back to that War Priest problem -- I see the problem you raised, what is your suggested solution (and Enoach, feel free to jump in)?

While that is an issue with the berseker core, its not the only issue. Even without self healing the class would be very binary, either take 18/20 FB core and deal good DPS or dont take them and deal poor DPS and question why you are playing a barbarian in the first place.
Its an old tree at this point, the math is out there.

[Gremmlynn]

The issue with that is the fast paced combat. While youre chugging pots, everyone else is already done fighting the next encounter and is fighting the one after that. If barbarian self healing is nerfed, a significant DPS increase is in order. Otherwise the class goes right back to the bottom of the pile no one wants to play, where it was before it got its revamp, largely due to a community who demands self healing in quests, and barbarian being the hardest class to maintain that, AND maintain its DPS at the same time due to most of the good DPS enhancements being tethered to being raged. Worst recovery class should be best DPS class, and significantly best at that. This would mean MORE DPS in those top cores rather than less, with the understanding that someone would need to trade that powerful DPS to get better self healing through multi-classing.Not in my groups as, if I'm not playing with people I know wont go running ahead while someone is chugging pots, I'm soloing.

That also misses my point that between fight healing isn't the issue in the first place, as even if one does choose to play with that type, lagging behind isn't generally lethal. Taking several times one's total hp pool in an encounter with no good way to add them back in is.

[nokowi]

To respond to the barbarian situation, the core problem seems to be that devs didn't make players choose between self healing and DPS. I don't know what new information we are giving dev's right now, as players certainly commented (myself included) that this was not good design from the get-go. The approach to design needs to be what X will you give up for Y. This has not been the focus in the class passes.

If 20 barbarian gives you the most (toughness/healing), then a 1, 2, 3, 4 splash should be able to give you more dps/functionality but less self healing/toughness (or vice-versa)


As to this thread, I would like to see some knowledgeable players go beat on some kobolds and establish DPS numbers for the builds they believe are OP as pure, and also show the lackluster performance of a few of the competing builds. This gives other players a chance to show better MC or pure builds, and the discussion becomes based on facts rather than opinions. Given the fact of DPS, we can add our opinion of the value of the other parameters. This is just my preference (mostly because player opinion can differ from reality) --> I don't want to discourage or discount those discussing alternatives in the absence of these numbers.

[Grailhawk]

Looking at the core 18 and 20's these are my thoughts.
Bard

Swashbuckler: Kind of weak actually add some extra doublestrike or melee power not too much though, no more then 15 total for both core 18 and 20 combined.

Paladin

Knight of the Chalice: Is good, maybe on the weak side but I have no suggestion, and don't think it needs any changes.

Vanguard: A little to powerful Move some of the alacrity to tier 5's, Cores 6-18 +2% alacrity Capstone +4% add +10% alacrity to a tier 5.

Barbarian

I'm not apposed to the passive healing like a lot of people are I also don't think the Berserker Core 18 and 20 are over powered the issue with this class is that Blood Strength is so much better then anything in the other tier 5's you have to take it once you do that, you then see that Berserker has the best damage out put and go there. Its not even that there is synergy between whats in the Berserker Cores and Blood Strength 20 Melee power vs 60 Healing Amp, the Ravager core 18 and 20 seam more synergistic.

I personally think that Blood Strength needs to be reworked as a class ability for Barbarians. Accelerated Metabolism just removed, and a new tier 5 in Ravager that increases the potency of Blood Strength maybe add some potency increase to Occult Slayer as well in the cores.

Blood Strength (class feature): Each time you land a hit there is a 6% chance you heal positive damage equal to half your Barbarian level. Each time you kill an opponent you are healed for 10 hit points. This healing scales with 100% Melee Power. Blood Strength has a one-second cooldown when you kill an enemy.
Improved Blood Strength (Ravager Tier 5): Your blood strength chance to heal on hit is increased by 6% and each time you kill an opponet you heal for an additional 10 hit ponts.
Resistance (Occult Slayer core 3): ADD: Your blood strength chance to heal on hit is increased by 3%, the on hit healing is increased by half Barbarian level, and each time you kill an opponent you heal for an additional 5 hit points.
Blank Thoughts (Occult Slayer core 12): Your blood strength chance to heal on hit is increased by 5%, the on hit healing is increased by half Barbarian level, and each time you kill an opponent you heal for an additional 5 hit points.


Rogue

Assassin: +1 Insight Crit multiplier is too much IMO change this to something like One Cut on a longer timer that averages out to +50% crit damage so 1 min duration 2 min cooldown.

Acrobat: The Core 18 is overpowered on paper but in practice Staffs are behind other weapons enough that they need this kind of power boost. IMO the 20% Doublestrike in Core 18 should become 10%, Cores 1-6 should add +2% and core 12 +4%. The capstone is fine.

Mechanic: The core 18 has too much of the Trees power, unlike Assassin though I don't think a proper nerf is in order. Swap Improved Detection and Expert Builder. Add to Improved Detection 5/15% alacrity (repeating and thrown/non-repeating). Lower the alacrity in Mechanical Reloader by 5/15% alacrity (repeating and thrown/non-repeating)

Ranger

Tempest: They attack too fast, the capstone needs to have the 25% offhand dobulestrike reduced to 10% or 15%. I don't like that the last 10% offhand proc chance was moved to the core 18 IMO it should be moved out of there and into Dual Perfection.

Stalker: Might have too much melee power in its capstone especially if you lower the amount of OHDS in Tempest capstone.

Archer: IMO the stuff in the AA and Stalker related to Archery is fine.

Fighter

Kensei: The capstone needs to be lowered to 10% doublestrike, distributed the other 5% taken from the capstone into the other cores.

Vanguard: see Paladin do the same thing.

Other classes haven't had a pass yet there trees are seriously under powered all over not just in the core 18 and 20.

[nokowi]

+1 CritMult amounts to +7.5% damage for my DC assassin build. It's the equivalent of +13 Melee Power OR just the +25 damage that barb gets.

Critical hits are a much smaller part of damage when you depend on sneak attack, which doesn't scale with crits.

I have never viewed this as overpowered. Its nothing like what you get for a huge critical multiplier build.


This goes back to perception =/ to reality.

[Grailhawk]

+1 CritMult amounts to +7.5% damage for my DC assassin build. It's the equivalent of +13 Melee Power OR just the +25 damage that barb gets.

Critical hits are a much smaller part of damage when you depend on sneak attack, which doesn't scale with crits.

I have never viewed this as overpowered. Its nothing like what you get for a huge critical multiplier build.


This goes back to perception =/ to reality.

Just because you build one way doesn't mean other don't build another.

+damage and +main stat can be found in a lot of places the assassin itself gives out +10 damage if your not building/playing to exploit one of the best crit profile (if not the best 15-20/x4 with any dagger or kukris, that's better then a Holy Sword Khopesh 16-20/x4) in the game that's on you. I have to question your ability to reason if you cant see how powerful that is or could be.

[nokowi]

Just because you build one way doesn't mean other don't build another.

+damage and +main stat can be found in a lot of places the assassin itself gives out +10 damage if your not building/playing to exploit one of the best crit profile (if not the best 15-20/x4 with any dagger or kukris, that's better then a Holy Sword Khopesh 16-20/x4) in the game that's on you. I have to question your ability to reason if you cant see how powerful that is or could be.

No its not. 1/2 your damage comes from SA and doesn't scale.

Assassin would need 2x as much to break even with those you are trying to compare it with.

If you are trying to claim high level assassin can build without SA damage, you are wrong.

[BigErkyKid]

No its not. 1/2 your damage comes from SA and doesn't scale.

Assassin would need 2x as much to break even with those you are trying to compare it with.

If you are trying to claim high level assassin can build without SA damage, you are wrong.

I suggest you use the dps oracle that someone coded recently. You might be surprised at some of the results and I think they are quite accurate.

This would settle whether the 18 core is too much for assassins.

[Grailhawk]

No its not. 1/2 your damage comes from SA and doesn't scale.

Assassin would need 2x as much to break even with those you are trying to compare it with.

If you are trying to claim high level assassin can build without SA damage, you are wrong.

No, I'm saying you can build in such a way that +1 crit multiplier adds much more then +7.5% damage. Furthermore I'm saying you can build such that even at max sneak attack your not getting 50% of your damage from sneak attack.

[Baktiotha]

While that is an issue with the berseker core, its not the only issue. Even without self healing the class would be very binary, either take 18/20 FB core and deal good DPS or dont take them and deal poor DPS and question why you are playing a barbarian in the first place.
Its an old tree at this point, the math is out there.

I am confused. I made some errors in delineating the key elements of the FB 18/20 cores and asked if F6 splash creates equivalent power and part of the response, and I thought it came from you, was that taking a fighter t5 enhancement prevented taking the barb t5 enhancements which include additional DPS and barbarian healing.

If, in fact, barbarian healing is removed from the equation the F6 splash does appear to give roughly equivalent DPS and the additional 4 or 5 feats gives access to other damage mitigation that can increase survivability which holds the promise of greater utility. That seems to suggest that the actual make or break decision is on the t5 enhancements and not on the 18/20 cores.

Lastly, I understand that the math may be out there. The problem is that I don't have the search fu to look for it and it is inefficient to jump between threads even were I competent enough to find the information. So please help us by posting the maths and the analysis of the maths here in this thread. We need to quantify what is "good" and what is "poor" DPS.

[nokowi]

I suggest you use the dps oracle that someone coded recently. You might be surprised at some of the results and I think they are quite accurate.

This would settle whether the 18 core is too much for assassins.

If you believe in this tool, I would suggest those claiming a problem show so using DPS oracle.

I have my own validated numbers that are much more accurate for rogues than DPS Oracle (last I checked, anyway).

My damage includes all sources such as special attacks, etc not included in DPS oracle.

[nokowi]

No, I'm saying you can build in such a way that +1 crit multiplier adds much more then +7.5% damage. Furthermore I'm saying you can build such that even at max sneak attack your not getting 50% of your damage from sneak attack.

My DC build has the least sneak attack. My destiny depends on SA the least.

Prove your claim with a build and numbers. Use DPS oracle if you wish.

[nokowi]

(+4 to +5 crit mult) = +25% damage on a crit (which happens 30% of the time)

0.25*0.30 = +7.5% damage.


My full calculations agree pretty closely with this, have been validated, and include all sources of damage.

[Hawkwier]

There appears to be a general consensus on taking the nerf bat to barbs here. Or at least barb self healing.

I beg to differ. Somewhat...

Barbs are certainly not the most op class in the game. Look at warlocks first. Then come back and talk barbs, and pallies whilst we're about it.

The pure 20 cookie cutter version may be the easiest power build to build. So what? Aside from a few pioneering exceptions there are very few truly original power builds, with the best being copies from those pioneering few. Any element of the nerf barb argument because they are easy to build just seems like unwarranted snobbery to me. Copying a good power build from the forums is perfectly Ok, but let's not kid ourselves it takes a feat of unparallelled intellect to do so! :)

As for an argument based on barb>>fighter. That is true, but the answer is to revisit the underwhelming fighter pass. It must be, as if the answer is to nerf barbs, then having done that, the next comparison becomes pally>>fighter, and the one after that, ranger>>...

That all said, I would be OK with reduced healing on barbs, but ONLY if there is a major DPS gain to counter that loss. Huge DPS with huge risk is what barbs used to be all about pre-MOTU and EDs, and before just about everyone else other than barbs had access to decent healing without penalties, which almost made barbs a protected species in terms of numbers played. I'd be happy to get back to that pre ED scenario with barbs placed firmly at the top of DPS at a price, but a nerf to healing on its own won't get us there...

*with all due apologies to Pink Floyd ;)

[Axeyu]

I am confused. I made some errors in delineating the key elements of the FB 18/20 cores and asked if F6 splash creates equivalent power and part of the response, and I thought it came from you, was that taking a fighter t5 enhancement prevented taking the barb t5 enhancements which include additional DPS and barbarian healing.

If, in fact, barbarian healing is removed from the equation the F6 splash does appear to give roughly equivalent DPS and the additional 4 or 5 feats gives access to other damage mitigation that can increase survivability which holds the promise of greater utility. That seems to suggest that the actual make or break decision is on the t5 enhancements and not on the 18/20 cores.

Lastly, I understand that the math may be out there. The problem is that I don't have the search fu to look for it and it is inefficient to jump between threads even were I competent enough to find the information. So please help us by posting the maths and the analysis of the maths here in this thread. We need to quantify what is "good" and what is "poor" DPS.

You don't seem to have corrected your conclusions after learning that there is more to the FB 20 core than 10 MP. Also, if you take 6 fighter and take tier 5 in kensei, your 14 barbarian levels are mostly in the way and don't really do much compared to just grabbing another 14 fighter levels.

I posted a tool you can use to get the numbers. If you need more you will have to wait a few days.

[nokowi]

There appears to be a general consensus on taking the nerf bat to barbs here. Or at least barb self healing.

I beg to differ. Somewhat...

Barbs are certainly not the most op class in the game. Look at warlocks first. Then come back and talk barbs, and pallies whilst we're about it.

The pure 20 cookie cutter version may be the easiest power build to build. So what? Aside from a few pioneering exceptions there are very few truly original power builds, with the best being copies from those pioneering few. Any element of the nerf barb argument because they are easy to build just seems like unwarranted snobbery to me. Copying a good power build from the forums is perfectly Ok, but let's not kid ourselves it takes a feat of unparallelled intellect to do so! :)

As for an argument based on barb>>fighter. That is true, but the answer is to revisit the underwhelming fighter pass. It must be, as if the answer is to nerf barbs, then having done that, the next comparison becomes pally>>fighter, and the one after that, ranger>>...

That all said, I would be OK with reduced healing on barbs, but ONLY if there is a major DPS gain to counter that loss. Huge DPS with huge risk is what barbs used to be all about pre-MOTU and EDs, and before just about everyone else other than barbs had access to decent healing without penalties, which almost made barbs a protected species in terms of numbers played. I'd be happy to get back to that pre ED scenario with barbs placed firmly at the top of DPS at a price, but a nerf to healing on its own won't get us there...

*with all due apologies to Pink Floyd ;)

I agree with you Hawk on the current overall power level of barbarian. It's the poor design that is the problem. I would love to see a barb build with more DPS and less self healing than what we have now. Dev's decided to try to make every build have the same DPS, which is in and of itself a design flaw. It ensures less diversity of play.

[Ulfo]

(+4 to +5 crit mult) = +25% damage.

Seems 20% more correct, no? ;)

4/5 =0.8, 1-0,8 = 0.2 :P

[Baktiotha]

one thing I want to point out before people get settled on the idea that barbarian self healing should be nerfed is to take a look at the barbs in your parties and how they are staying alive in epics

So, I want to add in on this. I had and held at L30 for a long time a barbarian. I am certain that she was a suboptimal build because I am not really a student of builds and I absolutely enjoy the freedom that I have to build whatever way I want. But, I did try.

I felt that she was quite formidable and I easily soloed most of the quests that I enjoy on EE, rarely needing to drop to EH. But, when in a group, I found myself struggling to stay alive.

That is because, in my ignorance, my healing depended on me hitting and killing things. If the party killed the mob before I could get in the fight or if I was in the fight but did not register the kill all of a sudden I wasn't seeing the green numbers appear.

Now, please overlook the obvious fact that I don't know a whole lot about how to build a barbarian. But also consider this -- neither do all of those players who do not read the forums, do not access non-Turbine DDO sites, do not look to experience guild leaders and officers for advice. I have no definitive way of knowing, but I rather suspect that group represents the biggest portion of DDO gamers.

We who are participating in the forums are a small minority of the player population (obvious really and supported by the other thread where 69 different accounts -- which we assume are 69 different people -- joined the discussion).

So nerf deserves to be part of the discussion but we should consider all of the consequences. My barb was total awesomeness when she was by herself. But she was just another character when she was in a group.

Now, anecdotally, I was playing my "hurry and get to L30 to etr again" not WAI tree the other day and the leader was a barb. I'd tree at every critical fight and obliterate the mob, sometimes mobs. He got fed up with it and at a critical juncture opened a door releasing more mobs than I could handle then walked away.

I, literally, laughed as I died because I understood his frustration. He needed to be in on the killing because without it I was needing to toss him Lay On Hands and Cocoon and Rejuvenation at Dawn. I understood it because my barbarian had those same feelings -- or rather I had those feelings when playing my barbarian.

I do think that a tweak to shut out *some* DPS in exchange for the healing might be a decent compromise position but I also want us to continue to focus on buffs to fighters (let's be honest, that's really what we are comparing). I also would like us to consider that if we are thinking that it is alright for fighters *not* to have self healing because they can chug pots then what is it that enables pot chugging for fighters but not barbarians? Is it the damage mitigation? If so, does that argue for the F6 splash in order to get the damage mitigation via heavy armor, tower shield, heavy armor feats, etc.?

[nokowi]

Seems 20% more correct, no? ;)

4/5 =0.8, 1-0,8 = 0.2 :P

No, cause crits only happen 30% of the time (with 15-20 crit range). I did the math for you.

[Baktiotha]

Seems 20% more correct, no? ;)

4/5 =0.8, 1-0,8 = 0.2 :P

Actually, this is a perspective issue.

4=1+1+1+1 so if you add another 1 when there were only 4 1's to start with you increased by 25%.

OTOH 5=1+1+1+1+1 so 1 is only 20% of 5.

In this case both are accurate descriptions but it depends on your reference point. And, because the reference point is 4 (the starting value) the most often accepted description is that there is a 25% increase.

Had the value gone down from 5 to 4 there would have been a 20% loss.

That is how this normally works. :)

[nokowi]

I appreciate the opinions of those that believe +1 critmult will do much more than +7.5% damage for an assassin.


Until someone takes the time to take any build and prove this, I will again say that player recommendations are often based on perception rather than reality.


If I am wrong, it should be easy to prove me wrong with a specific build.

[nokowi]

Actually, this is a perspective issue.

4=1+1+1+1 so if you add another 1 when there were only 4 1's to start with you increased by 25%.

OTOH 5=1+1+1+1+1 so 1 is only 20% of 5.

In this case both are accurate descriptions but it depends on your reference point. And, because the reference point is 4 (the starting value) the most often accepted description is that there is a 25% increase.

Had the value gone down from 5 to 4 there would have been a 20% loss.

That is how this normally works. :)

I used the higher of the two, which is the weakest position I could take.

The problem is in assuming every attack is a critical hit.

Perception not equal to reality.

[Baktiotha]

You don't seem to have corrected your conclusions after learning that there is more to the FB 20 core than 10 MP. Also, if you take 6 fighter and take tier 5 in kensei, your 14 barbarian levels are mostly in the way and don't really do much compared to just grabbing another 14 fighter levels.

I posted a tool you can use to get the numbers. If you need more you will have to wait a few days.

Yeah, that's a fair critique. I did acknowledge the error however and this is a thread that, hopefully, people will read all the way thru. Additionally, having taken into account the DPS additions to FB that I missed it still looks pretty darn close. For example, you mentioned a 400 point scaling with 100% melee power and I responded by asking how melee power works and wondering if an occasional 400 @ 100 with a base 400 melee power wouldn't be 400*5 and if a 400 @ 400 with a 400 base melee power wouldn't be 400*17. Since I didn't get an answer I concluded that my meager math abilities must accurately describe the situation and that fighter 400 scaling 400% trumped the missed 400 scaling 100%.

While I know that was not the only point you made -- there was also additional crit range/multiplier (don't recall which) -- the net effect in my mind was that it was at best a wash between the FB and the F6 splash.

As I said higher in the thread, I probably will work with your spreadsheet and I was happy that you provided the link. But I probably won't post my results because I am better than most people at math but certainly not at the level of some of our math wizards and I would not have the confidence that my results were reliable.

I do not mind waiting a few days for you to get the time to use the tool yourself. None of this is *must do yesterday* stuff. Heck, we could solve the energy crisis, bring peace to the world, and discover immortality but it will still be up to Turbine to adopt our solutions, do something else, or even to do nothing at all.

In the mean time we will have lowered the angst that developed in the previous thread (and others like it) and will ourselves at least have the satisfaction of knowing we made an honest effort to civilly and cooperatively identify and resolve as many essential issues as we could (presuming that such even exist).

[Baktiotha]

I thought I did make some suggestions.

You did, and in rereading them I remember have seen them. Are those sufficient?

[Grailhawk]

If you believe in this tool, I would suggest those claiming a problem show so using DPS oracle.

I have my own validated numbers that are much more accurate for rogues than DPS Oracle (last I checked, anyway).

My damage includes all sources such as special attacks, etc not included in DPS oracle.


My DC build has the least sneak attack. My destiny depends on SA the least.

Prove your claim with a build and numbers. Use DPS oracle if you wish.


assuming

200 melee power
21d6 +40 Sneak Attack
15-18/x4 19-20/x6 crit profile (base kukris is 15-20x2 knife spec adds 15-20/x3 Leathality is 15-20/x4)


21d6+40 = 113.5 base * 1.5 * 3 = 510.75 avg sneak attack damage per hit

at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier

2.05*3 = 6.15 base damage multiplier

510.75/6.15 = 83.04 base damage need to equal the sneak attack damage

03 PL: Monk
03 EPL: Arcane
01 Harper Enchantment
05 Advancing Blows
14 Ring of Prowess
04 eClaw Set
04 eLitany
34 Total

10 Deadly Strikes
44 Total

So between Int, W*2.5, and Main Stat you need +40 damage mod

13 Know the Angles (60 Int Mod use a GS swap item to make that possilbe)
25 Base Stat Just assume another 60 not to hard to get that for a STR build
12 5[w] weapon
94 Total Base

Here is a build does more the 50% of its damage from base then from Sneak

94*6.15 = 578.1

15-18/x3 19-20/x5 = 0.65 + 0.2(3) + 0.1(5) = 1.85 crit multiplier
1.85*3 = 5.55
94*5.55 = 521.7

578.1/521.7 = .902
1- .902 = 9.7%

Build with +1 Crit multiplier adding more then 7% damage and sneak attack not being 50% of the builds damage.

[Hawkwier]

In the mean time we will have lowered the angst that developed in the previous thread (and others like it) and will ourselves at least have the satisfaction of knowing we made an honest effort to civilly and cooperatively identify and resolve as many essential issues as we could (presuming that such even exist).

Plus, you made a tent joke. That made me chuckle! +1 :)

[Baktiotha]

To respond to the barbarian situation, the core problem seems to be that devs didn't make players choose between self healing and DPS. I don't know what new information we are giving dev's right now, as players certainly commented (myself included) that this was not good design from the get-go. The approach to design needs to be what X will you give up for Y. This has not been the focus in the class passes.

If 20 barbarian gives you the most (toughness/healing), then a 1, 2, 3, 4 splash should be able to give you more dps/functionality but less self healing/toughness (or vice-versa)


As to this thread, I would like to see some knowledgeable players go beat on some kobolds and establish DPS numbers for the builds they believe are OP as pure, and also show the lackluster performance of a few of the competing builds. This gives other players a chance to show better MC or pure builds, and the discussion becomes based on facts rather than opinions. Given the fact of DPS, we can add our opinion of the value of the other parameters. This is just my preference (mostly because player opinion can differ from reality) --> I don't want to discourage or discount those discussing alternatives in the absence of these numbers.

On the healing + DPS see my previous comments about player population and suboptimal builds and keep in mind that I think that this represents the majority of players because they simply do not know *how* to make an optimal build. It could be that the developers thought that making players choose would actually cause players *not* to play barbarians when the point of the pass was to encourage more barbarian, and more PC barbarian, play.

On the method of gathering data, I think we are making honest efforts to gather data rather that simply voice opinions. I'm asking for maths while admitting my own limitations. I think beating on some kobolds might be a good test (we used to beat on training dummies and scrag). And I agree that perception/opinion can differ from reality.

I appreciate your last sentence. I too "don't want to discourage or discount those discussing alternatives in the absence of these numbers."

Thank you.

[nokowi]

assuming

200 melee power
21d6 +40 Sneak Attack
15-18/x4 19-20/x6 crit profile (base kukris is 15-20x2 knife spec adds 15-20/x3 Leathality is 15-20/x4)


21d6+40 = 113.5 base * 1.5 * 3 = 510.75 avg sneak attack damage per hit

at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier

2.05*3 = 6.15 base damage multiplier

510.75/6.15 = 83.04 base damage need to equal the sneak attack damage

03 PL: Monk
03 EPL: Arcane
01 Harper Enchantment
05 Advancing Blows
14 Ring of Prowess
04 eClaw Set
04 eLitany
34 Total

10 Deadly Strikes
44 Total

So between Int, W*2.5, and Main Stat you need +40 damage mod

13 Know the Angles (60 Int Mod use a GS swap item to make that possilbe)
25 Base Stat Just assume another 60 not to hard to get that for a STR build
12 5[w] weapon
94 Total Base

Here is a build does more the 50% of its damage from base then from Sneak

94*6.15 = 578.1

15-18/x3 19-20/x5 = 0.65 + 0.2(3) + 0.1(5) = 1.85 crit multiplier
1.85*3 = 5.55
94*5.55 = 521.7

578.1/521.7 = .902
1- .902 = 9.7%

Build with +1 Crit multiplier adding more then 7% damage and sneak attack not being 50% of the builds damage.



You assume all damage scales, which is not true. If you want to put the top weapons in the game (including the non scaling portion) into your analysis, I will be happy to respond more specifically.

[Baktiotha]

Looking at the core 18 and 20's these are my thoughts.

I appreciate your thoughts and your suggestions. Worthy start points (and continuation points in some cases).

Thanks.

[nokowi]

On the healing + DPS see my previous comments about player population and suboptimal builds and keep in mind that I think that this represents the majority of players because they simply do not know *how* to make an optimal build. It could be that the developers thought that making players choose would actually cause players *not* to play barbarians when the point of the pass was to encourage more barbarian, and more PC barbarian, play.

On the method of gathering data, I think we are making honest efforts to gather data rather that simply voice opinions. I'm asking for maths while admitting my own limitations. I think beating on some kobolds might be a good test (we used to beat on training dummies and scrag). And I agree that perception/opinion can differ from reality.

I appreciate your last sentence. I too "don't want to discourage or discount those discussing alternatives in the absence of these numbers."

Thank you.


My worry is the number of posts when you see my statement of 7.5% damage from +1 critmult. It may take 20 posts to resolve this, and highlights what a problem player (mis)perception is in this discussion. One (or more) of us has a misperception that leads our recommendations to not be on point. It really doesn't matter if its me or somebody else, it shows the weakness of our discussion method.

Most players cant accurately assess the pros/cons of the given choices --> most recommendations will be poor, and at a minimum they will be inaccurate.

Some players clearly believe +1 crit mult is +20-25% more damage. We (hopefully) now know this is not true, and yet these players may have made recommendations based on that misperception.

[Baktiotha]

Just because you build one way doesn't mean other don't build another.

+damage and +main stat can be found in a lot of places the assassin itself gives out +10 damage if your not building/playing to exploit one of the best crit profile (if not the best 15-20/x4 with any dagger or kukris, that's better then a Holy Sword Khopesh 16-20/x4) in the game that's on you. I have to question your ability to reason if you cant see how powerful that is or could be.

Time out. Let's not do that. Everyone has an ability to reason -- we reason from different perspectives and that affects the conclusions we draw. Our responsibility in this thread is to be respectful of one another's viewpoint even if we don't agree. Our added responsibility is to present our viewpoint in a civil way so that we non-threateningly allow others to understand the perspective that we are using in approaching the problem.

I do appreciate the civility thus far in the thread and will ask you to please be more cautious in your other postings.

Thank you.

[Baktiotha]

My DC build has the least sneak attack. My destiny depends on SA the least.

Prove your claim with a build and numbers. Use DPS oracle if you wish.

We are starting to get personal and to take things personal, let's not. The premise of the thread is to discuss things in a mature and civil way. Please respect that.

I know how hard it is to feel you've been attacked or challenged in some way. But let's not resort to retaliatory behavior. Please.

Thank you.

[nokowi]

We are starting to get personal and to take things personal, let's not. The premise of the thread is to discuss things in a mature and civil way. Please respect that.

I know how hard it is to feel you've been attacked or challenged in some way. But let's not resort to retaliatory behavior. Please.

Thank you.

I don't feel attacked, and you are just reading my direct statements incorrectly. That's how my thought process works.

I offered the next logical step in the discussion, and to be honest I don't even know who I am talking to to even have any personal opinions about them.

I have no emotional attachment to being correct. I offered up how to challenge my statements, and that challenge is still in progress. If I am proven wrong, we will have a better understanding of the +1 crit mult. If I am correct, we will also have a better understanding.

If you could let this play out a little, you may yet see some progress.

[Baktiotha]

<snip brilliant work>

Thank you very much. This is exactly the sort of discussion I had hoped would occur. Thank you for presenting the information without being smug or accusatory.

[Baktiotha]

You assume all damage scales, which is not true. If you want to put the top weapons in the game (including the non scaling portion) into your analysis, I will be happy to respond more specifically.

I would prefer if you did that simply because the first set of numbers provides a point. If you assert it is wrong it really is your responsibility to provide the counter point -- not to simply say, in effect, I'm not talking to you until you do it the right way.

It may be that the other poster doesn't know the right way, it may be that they do but intentionally slanted the presentation, but the responsibility of demonstrating that in some concrete way lies with whomever disagrees with them -- not with them.

Does this make sense to you?

[Grailhawk]

You assume all damage scales, which is not true. If you want to put the top weapons in the game (including the non scaling portion) into your analysis, I will be happy to respond more specifically.

Every thing in that post scales and is scaled as it should be. If there is a flaw or mistake point it out please and I will correct it. I've showed all work and started all assumptions.

[Baktiotha]

<snip>

I appreciate that you edited before I finally got to the post. I am hopeful that you edited because the specific discussion was threatening to derail the thread and you did so to mitigate that.

I also appreciate the point about perceptions. I think that we all do understand that and the need to remind ourselves of it is likely to be reduced going forward.

Lastly, irrespective of whether misperception impacted the current structure of enhancement trees the real challenge is not in demonstrating that or even in determining the effect it may have had. The real challenge is to remain polite to one another while we discuss from our different viewpoints so that everyone's input is valued. Collectively we will discover which of those views has the most value and within the bounds of civility we will find that guiding our consensus suggestions regarding each 18/20 core/enhancement tree the we end up discussing.

[Axeyu]

Yeah, that's a fair critique. I did acknowledge the error however and this is a thread that, hopefully, people will read all the way thru. Additionally, having taken into account the DPS additions to FB that I missed it still looks pretty darn close. For example, you mentioned a 400 point scaling with 100% melee power and I responded by asking how melee power works and wondering if an occasional 400 @ 100 with a base 400 melee power wouldn't be 400*5 and if a 400 @ 400 with a 400 base melee power wouldn't be 400*17. Since I didn't get an answer I concluded that my meager math abilities must accurately describe the situation and that fighter 400 scaling 400% trumped the missed 400 scaling 100%.

While I know that was not the only point you made -- there was also additional crit range/multiplier (don't recall which) -- the net effect in my mind was that it was at best a wash between the FB and the F6 splash.

As I said higher in the thread, I probably will work with your spreadsheet and I was happy that you provided the link. But I probably won't post my results because I am better than most people at math but certainly not at the level of some of our math wizards and I would not have the confidence that my results were reliable.

I do not mind waiting a few days for you to get the time to use the tool yourself. None of this is *must do yesterday* stuff. Heck, we could solve the energy crisis, bring peace to the world, and discover immortality but it will still be up to Turbine to adopt our solutions, do something else, or even to do nothing at all.

In the mean time we will have lowered the angst that developed in the previous thread (and others like it) and will ourselves at least have the satisfaction of knowing we made an honest effort to civilly and cooperatively identify and resolve as many essential issues as we could (presuming that such even exist).

I won't deny that the 6 fighter splash can give more DPS, as I have actually not done the calcs for it. The kensei tree is very strong, so it is possible. But that possibility was accounted for in my criticism of the 18/20 FB cores, and I feel that this aspect has not really been adressed. What do the 17 first barb levels provide? It's not that much really, and even less if you are only getting 14 barb levels. So if you do find a way to offset the 18/20 cores, the barbarian levels you have left are a big investment with very small return.
This issue arises soley from that the 18/20 fb cores are providing such a huge amount of a barbarians DPS. That you are comparing them to almost entire kensei tree kind of confirms this.

[nokowi]

I would prefer if you did that simply because the first set of numbers provides a point. If you assert it is wrong it really is your responsibility to provide the counter point -- not to simply say, in effect, I'm not talking to you until you do it the right way.

It may be that the other poster doesn't know the right way, it may be that they do but intentionally slanted the presentation, but the responsibility of demonstrating that in some concrete way lies with whomever disagrees with them -- not with them.

Does this make sense to you?

It does not make sense to me. I'm not sure I understand everything in the post at this time, but I can see that scaling all damage will over-emphasize the effect of a critical multiplier and reject the current numbers. I already have my own numbers that include absolutely everything for my build. I could post these, but that would not prove there is a build with higher damage from +1 critmult.

If he wants me to do it for him, he can feel free to PM me or you. (and then you should not have made this post public) And then I will be happy to try to do as you suggest.

Based on his well thought out first post, and lots of numbers in the second post, I suspect he is able to do this.

[Ulfo]

No, cause crits only happen 30% of the time (with 15-20 crit range). I did the math for you.

I'm talk not about 30% crit range or 7.5% average damage boost, but just about seems incorrect 25% instead 20% damage boost for single crit hit with new crit multiplicator. ;)


Actually, this is a perspective issue.

4=1+1+1+1 so if you add another 1 when there were only 4 1's to start with you increased by 25%.
OTOH 5=1+1+1+1+1 so 1 is only 20% of 5.
In this case both are accurate descriptions but it depends on your reference point. And, because the reference point is 4 (the starting value) the most often accepted description is that there is a 25% increase.
Had the value gone down from 5 to 4 there would have been a 20% loss.
That is how this normally works. :)

Sure, and if we take 1 and 2 instead 4 and 5, difference be more - 50% vs. 100%. :D

[Baktiotha]

If you could let this play out a little, you may yet see some progress.

Fair enough. I'm a bit hyper sensitive given what is happening in the real world and I do feel a certain onus to keep the thread moving in a positive direction.

I am finding it hard myself and I struggle to remember sender/receiver that I learned in my Army days. Sender sometimes thinks they've sent one thing while receiver is getting something different.

In my hyper sensitivity I saw your post as bordering on personal and worried that the other party would do so as well.

Please continue working through the discussion. It is the first one that involves real data even if there are additional factors that should be considered.

[nokowi]

I appreciate that you edited before I finally got to the post. I am hopeful that you edited because the specific discussion was threatening to derail the thread and you did so to mitigate that.

I also appreciate the point about perceptions. I think that we all do understand that and the need to remind ourselves of it is likely to be reduced going forward.

Lastly, irrespective of whether misperception impacted the current structure of enhancement trees the real challenge is not in demonstrating that or even in determining the effect it may have had. The real challenge is to remain polite to one another while we discuss from our different viewpoints so that everyone's input is valued. Collectively we will discover which of those views has the most value and within the bounds of civility we will find that guiding our consensus suggestions regarding each 18/20 core/enhancement tree the we end up discussing.

Almost all my posts are edited for typos, not for content. There was no change in my message or tone - just my usual direct statements.

[Baktiotha]

<snip great post>

I appreciate that perspective. We originally came at all of this from the other thread where the assertions were that it was not possible to build MC to match PC and that the 18/20 were killing MC opportunity. So from a material perspective it matters where the power is coming from because it addresses exactly the original question asked in that other thread.

If the power is coming at 18/20 and causing PC even though MC can approximate the DPS then perhaps the devs did a good job and the real issue is perception -- as another of our contributors has asserted.

Of course, because my math is so horrible it could be that the F6 splash doesn't approximate the DPS and, eventually, we'll see that and I'll be compelled to say, "Oh, ok, thanks for showing what an idiot I am." :o

But, as you observe, at least we'll be able to somewhat definitively answer the question.

[Baktiotha]

It does not make sense to me. I'm not sure I understand everything in the post at this time, but I can see that scaling all damage will over-emphasize the effect of a critical multiplier and reject the current numbers.

<snip>

Based on his well thought out first post, and lots of numbers in the second post, I suspect he is able to do this.

This makes sense, let's see how it goes then. I appreciate the honesty of your reply.

[nokowi]

I'm talk not about 30% crit range or 7.5% average damage boost, but just about seems incorrect 25% instead 20% damage boost for single crit hit with new crit multiplicator. ;)



Sure, and if we take 1 and 2 instead 4 and 5, difference be more - 50% vs. 100%. :D


No real build has x1 crit multiplier when there are juicy crit multiplier options.

Someone intentionally gimping their toon to argue 18 core is too powerful doesn't make any sense, so I don't believe your point is relevant. (no snideness here - added based on OP's perception of how my posts are received)

If you take your damage before taking +1 crit mult, you will see numbers 25% bigger with x5 crit mult (on criticals.)

It is correct to say taking +1 crit mult (with x4 mult pre-option) adds 25% to your scaling critical damage when you choose that option.

[Baktiotha]

Sure, and if we take 1 and 2 instead 4 and 5, difference be more - 50% vs. 100%. :D

That is correct. I suspect you do understand then why when we increase it was 25% and were we to have decreased it was 20%. And I suspect you understand that in each case the net change was 1.

This is the reason why I'm not a math wiz. I too have trouble keeping it straight. :)

[Baktiotha]

Almost all my posts are edited for typos, not for content. There was no change in my message or tone - just my usual direct statements.

You could have let me believe my fantasy couldn't you? ;)

[nokowi]

You could have let me believe my fantasy couldn't you? ;)


Sorry, what you read is what you get :)

[Ulfo]

If you take your damage before taking +1 crit mult, you will see numbers 25% bigger with x5 crit mult (on criticals.)
It is correct to say taking +1 crit mult (with x4 mult pre-option) adds 25% to your scaling critical damage when you choose that option.

Certainly, we already discussed this moment with Baktiotha. 8)


That is correct. I suspect you do understand then why when we increase it was 25% and were we to have decreased it was 20%. And I suspect you understand that in each case the net change was 1.

Your suspicions are correct. :P

Nice paradox, really! :)

[Nuclear_Elvis]

snip...

There's a phrase I use a lot: Kill faster, don't die slower. With the introduction of Champions into the game, there was a significant increase in risk in terms of time spent with mobs still alive in your face, especially with one or more Champions in the mix. The buffs that increase their critical hit/damage could especially be a factor to consider here, as you increase the odds of additional crit hits against yourself with each additional second spent in the face of a Champion that is still alive.

Separate but related thought -- that interestingly, D&D (and DDO) do not appear to have gone to a stratified algorithm like some games did, where damage output lessens as the health/hitpoints of the character or monster are lessened. Which - could be logical, since a Champion, regardless how tough, would logically not hit as hard when it only has 1 hit point, but in DDO it hits just as hard at 1 HP as it does at full health, apparently. In fact, if you're a Half Orc melee, you hit harder as your health lessens!

Having said all of this, and to inject just a slight amount of humor -- perhaps all the trees could be modified to include free "Toughness" feat at the level 18 core :)

[nokowi]

assuming
200 melee power
21d6 +40 Sneak Attack
15-18/x4 19-20/x6 crit profile (base kukris is 15-20x2 knife spec adds 15-20/x3 Leathality is 15-20/x4)


21d6+40 = 113.5 base * 1.5 * 3 = 510.75 avg sneak attack damage per hit

at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier

2.05*3 = 6.15 base damage multiplier

510.75/6.15 = 83.04 base damage need to equal the sneak attack damage

03 PL: Monk
03 EPL: Arcane
01 Harper Enchantment
05 Advancing Blows
14 Ring of Prowess
04 eClaw Set
04 eLitany
34 Total

10 Deadly Strikes
44 Total

So between Int, W*2.5, and Main Stat you need +40 damage mod

13 Know the Angles (60 Int Mod use a GS swap item to make that possilbe)
25 Base Stat Just assume another 60 not to hard to get that for a STR build
12 5[w] weapon
94 Total Base

Here is a build does more the 50% of its damage from base then from Sneak

94*6.15 = 578.1

15-18/x3 19-20/x5 = 0.65 + 0.2(3) + 0.1(5) = 1.85 crit multiplier
1.85*3 = 5.55
94*5.55 = 521.7

578.1/521.7 = .902 (578.1+75.3)/(521.7+75.3) =
1- .902 = 9.7%

Build with +1 Crit multiplier adding more then 7% damage and sneak attack not being 50% of the builds damage.

Original Post


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________



Nokowi Response

This is a great start.
1. Note that offhand attacks have lower stats and benefit less from criticals, while SA remains the same for offhand attacks.
2. Note that some weapon damage does not scale with criticals.

Both of these effects reduce your calculated benefit of higher critical multipliers


For simplicity's sake, I will make some rough assumptions and assume
1. both a primary and offhand attack, with the offhand attack happening 80% as often as the primary.
2. LGS x2 items with tier 1 and tier 3 damage (tier 2 is often used for +7 insightful stat)
[add 12d6 (12*3.5=42) on hit and 11d120 on vorpal (11*60.5*0.05=33.3 )) = +75.3 weapon damage


With x4 base multiplier: at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 6.15 multiplier
Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage
Weapon + Stat damage (main hand) = 94*6.15*1 = 578.1
Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*6.15*0.8 = 369 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75 (19 less damage offhand because of 1/2 stat)
Total damage = 2001.99

With x5 base multiplier: at 15-20/x5 > 15-18/x5 19-20/x7 = 0.65 + 0.2(5) + 0.1(7) = 2.35 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 7.05 multiplier
Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage
Weapon + Stat damage (main hand) = 94*7.05*1 = 662.7
Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*7.05*0.8 = 423 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75 (19 less damage offhand because of 1/2 stat)
Total damage = 2140.59



Damage increase = (2140.59-2001.99)/2001.99 - 1 = 6.9% more damage using all of your numbers with more realistic additions



We can get a more refined number with speed, clicky attacks, etc but I think this is enough to demonstrate 7.5% more damage is pretty darn close to what you will get with +1 crit mult on a build with high sneak attack. I get similar numbers in Shadowdancer with the +4 DC epic feat.

The exact value is certainly not much bigger than I have claimed, so hopefully we can accept this value and move on from this portion of the thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nokowi 2nd response adding seeker



Adding +20 seeker damage takes that 94 damage and turns it into 114 damage on a crit

With x4 base multiplier: at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = [0.65*(94) + 0.2(4)*114 + 0.1(6)*114]/94 = 2.348 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 7.044 multiplier
Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage
Weapon + Stat damage (main hand) = 94*7.044*1 = 662.14
Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*7.044*0.8 = 422.64 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75 (19 less damage offhand because of 1/2 stat)
Total damage = 2139.67

With x5 base multiplier: at 15-20/x5 > 15-18/x5 19-20/x7 = [0.65*94 + 0.2(5)*114 + 0.1(7)*114]/94 = 2.712 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 8.135 multiplier
Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage
Weapon + Stat damage (main hand) = 94*8.135*1 = 764.69
Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*8.135*0.8 = 488.1 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75 (19 less damage offhand because of 1/2 stat)
Total damage = 2307.68



Damage increase = (2307.68-2139.67)/2139.67 - 1 = 7.85% more damage using all of your numbers with more realistic additions


So again, I will reiterate that player perceptions were way off on the value of +1 critmult for assassins, and that listening to their recommendations based on false perceptions could have made the game worse.

[J-mann]

assuming
200 melee power
21d6 +40 Sneak Attack
15-18/x4 19-20/x6 crit profile (base kukris is 15-20x2 knife spec adds 15-20/x3 Leathality is 15-20/x4)


21d6+40 = 113.5 base * 1.5 * 3 = 510.75 avg sneak attack damage per hit

at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier

2.05*3 = 6.15 base damage multiplier

510.75/6.15 = 83.04 base damage need to equal the sneak attack damage

03 PL: Monk
03 EPL: Arcane
01 Harper Enchantment
05 Advancing Blows
14 Ring of Prowess
04 eClaw Set
04 eLitany
34 Total

10 Deadly Strikes
44 Total

So between Int, W*2.5, and Main Stat you need +40 damage mod

13 Know the Angles (60 Int Mod use a GS swap item to make that possilbe)
25 Base Stat Just assume another 60 not to hard to get that for a STR build
12 5[w] weapon
94 Total Base

Here is a build does more the 50% of its damage from base then from Sneak

94*6.15 = 578.1

15-18/x3 19-20/x5 = 0.65 + 0.2(3) + 0.1(5) = 1.85 crit multiplier
1.85*3 = 5.55
94*5.55 = 521.7

578.1/521.7 = .902 (578.1+75.3)/(521.7+75.3) =
1- .902 = 9.7%

Build with +1 Crit multiplier adding more then 7% damage and sneak attack not being 50% of the builds damage.

Original Post


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________



Nokowi Response

This is a great start.
1. Note that offhand attacks have lower stats and benefit less from criticals, while SA remains the same for offhand attacks.
2. Note that some weapon damage does not scale with criticals.

Both of these effects reduce your calculated benefit of higher critical multipliers


For simplicity's sake, I will make some rough assumptions and assume
1. both a primary and offhand attack, with the offhand attack happening 80% as often as the primary.
2. LGS x2 items with tier 1 and tier 3 damage (tier 2 is often used for +7 insightful stat)
[add 12d6 (12*3.5=42) on hit and 11d120 on vorpal (11*60.5*0.05=33.3 )) = +75.3 weapon damage

With x4 base multiplier: at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 6.15 multiplier
Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage
Weapon + Stat damage (main hand) = 94*6.15*1 = 578.1
Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*6.15*0.8 = 369 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75 (19 less damage offhand because of 1/2 stat)
Total damage = 2001.99

With x5 base multiplier: at 15-20/x5 > 15-18/x5 19-20/x7 = 0.65 + 0.2(5) + 0.1(7) = 2.35 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 7.05 multiplier
Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage
Weapon + Stat damage (main hand) = 94*7.05*1 = 662.7
Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*7.05*0.8 = 423 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75 (19 less damage offhand because of 1/2 stat)
Total damage = 2140.59



Damage increase = (2140.59-2001.99)/2001.99 - 1 = 6.9% more damage using all of your numbers with more realistic additions



We can get a more refined number with speed, clicky attacks, etc but I think this is enough to demonstrate 7.5% more damage is pretty darn close to what you will get with +1 crit mult on a build with high sneak attack. I get similar numbers in Shadowdancer with the +4 DC epic feat.

The exact value is certainly not much bigger than I have claimed, so hopefully we can accept this value and move on from this portion of the thread.


Every thing in that post scales and is scaled as it should be. If there is a flaw or mistake point it out please and I will correct it. I've showed all work and started all assumptions.

Not to be nitpicky or anything but both of you missed something major in your analysis, Seeker damage...... that might move things around quite a bit as achieving fairly high seeker damage is pretty possible.

[nokowi]

Not to be nitpicky or anything but both of you missed something major in your analysis, Seeker damage...... that might move things around quite a bit as achieving fairly high seeker damage is pretty possible.

I will add this to the prior post for you.

[J-mann]

I'll play, just with melee oriented toons and for revamped classes, no point arguing about outdated trees:

Excessively powerful high cores:

Barbarian: frenzied berserker capstone and healing capacity tied to barbarian.
Rogue: lethality, assassin capstone / cartwheel charge, TA. Past a certain investment in rogue, foregoing those cores is not a good choice.
Warlock: enlightened spirit capstone. It is extremely powerful for a melee oriented toon, to the point that I don't feel there is anything comparable without dropping a lot of warlock levels.

Those for me are the worst offenders. Now, in a good spot more or less:

Fighter: Pure gives some good benefits, the power is well distributed along the cores.
Paladin: truly this is not a tree balancing result, rather that most of the power comes fro Holy Sword anyway.

Underpowered:

Bard: arguably the capstones are a bit weak, as the split with fighter and rogue gives a possible stronger toon than a pure bard, for most purposes. This is true for all but the spell singer capstone, but that tree is not very good anyway.

I disagree that bard is underpowered, relative to the newer cores surely, but I did an analysis of what the pure bard gain vs lost vs the fighter/rog mc and honestly it was pretty even, the mc was slightly better in solo/short man situations, but in a party or raid the pure bard was ahead (as long as he is the only bard in the party), so bard seems to me to have some fairly decent trade offs between pure vs mc. Now I think swash 20 core might be a bit weak, but its 18 is pretty good and wc 18/20 are pretty nice in a full raid. I have no comment on ss as I have never played as one, but in my not so expert opinion it seems a little light unless you want to heal as a bard for some reason.

As for pally, I just see little reason to not either splash it or go 15 on it, splash for saves or 15 or lose a lot of power, but it doesnt bother me that much. Fighter seems fairly ok imo maybe just a bit heavy handed on the mp give out but I like the +1 crit lvl 6 core so.... feels a bit more balanced to me.


Alright, to provide an example of the type of discussion I hope occurs in the thread I want to discuss AzureDragonas' critique of the Frenzied Berzerker cores.

Key elements of L18 is +4 STR, +1 crit multiplier, 4d6 (avg 14) damage scaling 100% with melee power, +10 melee power. The L20 is +4 CON and +10 melee power.

How comparable is that to taking 6 Fighter and spending 33ap in the Kensei tree? If I do that I can get +1 crit multiplier from L6 core, +10 to damage, +20 melee power, and +1 to crit range. If I spend 35ap I can get two attacks that each have the potential of 500 points of damage and one of them scales 400% with melee power and adds another +1 crit multiplier.

Now, to achieve that I'd need to give up t5 in FB. But, without doing a bunch of math, at least on the surface splashing 6 fighter looks to provide equivalent damage power and all I'm really giving up is 2 points of damage from the lowered STR and 2 HP per level from the lowered CON. And, since I need to spend 30ap to unlock the t5 I do have some STR that I could gain back.

Notice that with 6 fighter levels I am also getting 4 additional feats and that, since 6 fighter limits me to L12 cores in barbarian I could go as far as 12/8 gaining me 4 feats.

So, is it really a situation where the 18/20 cores of FB are too good to give up? Or is it just perception?

Edit: Somebody is going to notice that I made a mistake. F6 gives me 4 feats not 3 and F8 gives me 5 feats not 4. The progression is L1,2,4,5,8.

Seriously, we once again just compared x class a levels and 2 ap vs x class b levels and several dozen aps? Come now thats not even remotely fair and you know it. What did the pure barb get for his other 31 ap spend? I can see little way that the 6 fighter splash would be better than just going pure unless you really just must have those feats.

[J-mann]

I will add this to the prior post for you.

Thanks, also 200 mp might be a bit generous, 150 is probably more in line but if someone can provide a likely 200 mp break down that would be interesting.

[J-mann]

I won't deny that the 6 fighter splash can give more DPS, as I have actually not done the calcs for it. The kensei tree is very strong, so it is possible. But that possibility was accounted for in my criticism of the 18/20 FB cores, and I feel that this aspect has not really been adressed. What do the 17 first barb levels provide? It's not that much really, and even less if you are only getting 14 barb levels. So if you do find a way to offset the 18/20 cores, the barbarian levels you have left are a big investment with very small return.
This issue arises soley from that the 18/20 fb cores are providing such a huge amount of a barbarians DPS. That you are comparing them to almost entire kensei tree kind of confirms this.

I dont think the 6 splash can give more dps, again, what did the barb spend that 31 ap extra he has over the 6 splash kensei, when we have established that the barb 18/20 core is close to the kensei power......

[nokowi]

Thanks, also 200 mp might be a bit generous, 150 is probably more in line but if someone can provide a likely 200 mp break down that would be interesting.

200 MP, 60 Str, and 60 Int could be generous. It was easier to just use the OP's numbers to make my point, however.

Dropping melee power from 200 to 150 lowers the 7.85% number to 7.15% improvement from +1 critmult.


For the OP's posted build, % Improvement from +1 critmult = 6.9 + 0.0475*Seeker - (200-MP)*0.014

With 20 seeker and 150 MP,

6.9+0.0475*20-(200-150)*0.014 = 7.15% improvement

[Baktiotha]

Nice paradox, really! :)

When I substitute taught after retiring from the Army I would enjoy putting things like this on the board for a math class. I'd start off saying something like, "Who here believes that 25% is equal to 20%?" Then I'd say, "Well it is. Do you want me to prove it?"

The kids heads would explode. Of course this was middle school math but still. I never had to worry about them thinking that their sub was just there to babysit and we would get the work done that I'd been asked to cover. :)

[Baktiotha]

There's a phrase I use a lot: Kill faster, don't die slower.

<snip>

Having said all of this, and to inject just a slight amount of humor -- perhaps all the trees could be modified to include free "Toughness" feat at the level 18 core :)

That is a nice phrase but the goal is to not die at all. If that happens then killing faster or killing slower becomes moot. In fact, you no longer need to kill faster, however fast you happen to be killing is fast enough.

Having said that, bonus points for the Toughness reference! :D

[Baktiotha]

I dont think the 6 splash can give more dps, again, what did the barb spend that 31 ap extra he has over the 6 splash kensei, when we have established that the barb 18/20 core is close to the kensei power......

You ask a fair question. Simple but obvious answer is that the PC is spending those 31ap in a racial tree, Harper tree or another barb tree. And, there is some indication that the PC is taking t5 in Ravager and 18/20 in FB (the healing + DPS = win). I didn't mean to appear naive or to ignore that issue. It goes somewhat to my original post and the question of how we define *power*.

Certainly in the counterpoint to the F6 splash the other tree ap expenditures should be considered. Note, however, that t5 in Kensei and 31-35ap means no t5 elsewhere and no 18/20 cores. So barb now has freed a minimum of 10ap from wherever they took the barb t5 and at least 20ap from wherever they took the 18/20 cores. And probably they've saved another 10ap because they probably took a second 18 core in whatever the alternate tree was. So the F6 splash is actually cheaper in ap by >5ap.

If that gives roughly equivalent DPS while also providing 4 or 5 selectable feats along with 2 automatic feats (which might be freeing 2 selectable feats if the barb opted for heavy armor or tower shield) plus the defensive benefits of the heavier armor (PRR/MRR/AC primarily), then isn't the MC at least competitive with the PC build?

I don't know the answer and don't have the skills to really find the answer. But I do know to ask the question and to attempt to examine the assertion that the t5+18/20 cores almost compel PC for barbarian. ;)

[BigErkyKid]

I will add this to the prior post for you.

Guys, I am a fan of using hand calcs like this. It shows the assumptions. However, this is precisely what the oracle does. With the added benefit of no mistakes. I know you guys use your own spreadsheets, I suggested the oracle because it is neutral ground.

In any case between 7 and 8% of total damage is pretty high, compared to what is out there in terms of options.

I'm reticent to argue for an assassin nerf, as it really isn't op in general. It is very good in group or very slow play. But all that damage won't save you against fighting the required 5 mobs in that corridor, unless you really take it slow.

Finally, in terms of multi classing, assassin specifically lends itself poorly to it. The most I have seen with some degree of success is people splashing ranger for aoe, but it is a very niche build. It caters to a very specific play style (check the death hammers thread in the specialists section) and I strongly suspect it is somehow invalidated anyway by a pure ranger.

[BigErkyKid]

I disagree that bard is underpowered, relative to the newer cores surely, but I did an analysis of what the pure bard gain vs lost vs the fighter/rog mc and honestly it was pretty even, the mc was slightly better in solo/short man situations, but in a party or raid the pure bard was ahead (as long as he is the only bard in the party), so bard seems to me to have some fairly decent trade offs between pure vs mc. Now I think swash 20 core might be a bit weak, but its 18 is pretty good and wc 18/20 are pretty nice in a full raid. I have no comment on ss as I have never played as one, but in my not so expert opinion it seems a little light unless you want to heal as a bard for some reason.

As for pally, I just see little reason to not either splash it or go 15 on it, splash for saves or 15 or lose a lot of power, but it doesnt bother me that much. Fighter seems fairly ok imo maybe just a bit heavy handed on the mp give out but I like the +1 crit lvl 6 core so.... feels a bit more balanced to .

I would say that right now a 12 bard 6 fighter 2 rogue is, in terms of melee, ahead of pure bard. One of the issues of pure bard is that it ends up being a tad squishy. That's why this split is so appealing. Certainly even more if as you say you are shortmanning or you want to play LE content.

In any case I don't think bard is OP with respect to the new classes.

Finally I want to clarify that I really don't want them to just nerf barbs. I don't think they are in the best spot for end game now. The problem is that a lot of classes are not equally op wrt content at all levels. Some are badly balanced in heroics and crush them, but fall flat in epics. Others do great in lower level epics but suffer in end game.

That's one of my biggest concerns, that some classes and archetypes become suboptimal at different levels. IMHO that shouldn't happen, things need to scale better.

[AzureDragonas]

I won't deny that the 6 fighter splash can give more DPS, as I have actually not done the calcs for it. The kensei tree is very strong, so it is possible. But that possibility was accounted for in my criticism of the 18/20 FB cores, and I feel that this aspect has not really been adressed. What do the 17 first barb levels provide? It's not that much really, and even less if you are only getting 14 barb levels. So if you do find a way to offset the 18/20 cores, the barbarian levels you have left are a big investment with very small return.
This issue arises soley from that the 18/20 fb cores are providing such a huge amount of a barbarians DPS. That you are comparing them to almost entire kensei tree kind of confirms this.

To add to this, build idea of 14 barb 6 fighter kensei is total herecy when you talk about building. At best its flavor build and nothing more because:

a) Barbarian is a class which gives dr which is so outdated you might not even notice it exists, rage, and buffs while raging.. In short more barbarian levels you have stronger his abilities become.
b) Fighter tanky dps with no actual self healing which is compensated by hp boosts, ac boosts and higher than average reachable prr.

And here comes an issue, if you plan on use 1 of 2 main factors of fighter which is his stance for being tanky, you wont be able to rage, meaning you lose core buff of barbarian for core buff of fighter. This trade of is not even worth to consider. Both classes as pure as way stronger than multiclassed version of them in any sense.

btw by simple math, storms eye are short buff of +25 damage + 5% chance for 400 extra (which in my current build after cc on mob i would crit for over 2k if it proc with 100 MP). Even on nonhelpless with 200 melee power at end levels you can do ~1200 extra damage ~ 60 per swing, which puts pure barbarian with active storm eye for +25 base damage and +60 additional damage (not including extra multiplayer on 19-20 and +~36 extra damage from Death Frenzy) so ahead of any multiclass version, that there is no reason to even argue about barbarian multiclassing specialy when all multiclassing to barbarian gives opposite effect, makes class weaker.

[J-mann]

I would say that right now a 12 bard 6 fighter 2 rogue is, in terms of melee, ahead of pure bard. One of the issues of pure bard is that it ends up being a tad squishy. That's why this split is so appealing. Certainly even more if as you say you are shortmanning or you want to play LE content.

In any case I don't think bard is OP with respect to the new classes.

Finally I want to clarify that I really don't want them to just nerf barbs. I don't think they are in the best spot for end game now. The problem is that a lot of classes are not equally op wrt content at all levels. Some are badly balanced in heroics and crush them, but fall flat in epics. Others do great in lower level epics but suffer in end game.

That's one of my biggest concerns, that some classes and archetypes become suboptimal at different levels. IMHO that shouldn't happen, things need to scale better.

Not sure if you missunderstood me, but bard is NOT op in my opinion, in fact I think it is the most well done of the trees (cept I dont know much about Spellsinger dont play them). You are correct that the mc build is better defensively, and likely similar in dps, however, the mc gives up buffs for the party, dc and time on ice, caster levels, and more. I agree, short man or solo Id take the mc, however, in a full party or raid the pure is superior provided there is not already a pure bard. THIS is a good example of trade offs for going pure vs mcing, now imagine if the pure bard got those buffs, did more dps, healed better, and had as good or better defenses, THAT is what some of the newer class passes have resulted in (rngr, rog, barb). the 12/6/2 build trades some raid utility to beef up his personal stats, a fair and balance trade off imo.

[BigErkyKid]

Not sure if you missunderstood me, but bard is NOT op in my opinion, in fact I think it is the most well done of the trees (cept I dont know much about Spellsinger dont play them). You are correct that the mc build is better defensively, and likely similar in dps, however, the mc gives up buffs for the party, dc and time on ice, caster levels, and more. I agree, short man or solo Id take the mc, however, in a full party or raid the pure is superior provided there is not already a pure bard. THIS is a good example of trade offs for going pure vs mcing, now imagine if the pure bard got those buffs, did more dps, healed better, and had as good or better defenses, THAT is what some of the newer class passes have resulted in (rngr, rog, barb). the 12/6/2 build trades some raid utility to beef up his personal stats, a fair and balance trade off imo.

I don't disagree with you.

It is just that at this point "raid optimal" is a bit of a stretch when judging a class / MC. For example, would you rather take +1 tree build (say you already have a bunch) or a fully enchant specced bard / wizard. Well certainly the enchanter brings more to the party, but I doubt anyone would say that it is "better" / "more powerful" than the tree for the game overall.

I would be delighted to admit that they are build for different contents and that's fine, but unfortunately there is no real end game in DDO. So building for it is only affordable for people who are fine getting little out of the game, or people who have a stable of toons (I don't have that kind of time).

So coming back to the bard, I would say that in general terms the typical MC swashie is more powerful than the pure bard for "most that matters", along with making leveling the heck of a lot easier in heroics (traps and evasion earlier). Even eTRs are going to be easier.

As for the overall balance in the bard trees, I don't necessarily agree that they are well done. Spell singer scales terribly into epics, war chanter is nice in concept but the tree is not well designed. A war chanter is supposedly aimed to be played in medium armor (hence the option there), but without swash the DPS falls flat. In order to reach the freeze DCs needed in end game one MUST use cormyrian knight training, but this involves picking suboptimal weapons (particularly once you kiss goodbye to short swords / swash). Even if it is meant to be a MC tree (for example with kensei), it doesn't pack enough on its own.

I played a 12 bard / 8 kensei STR based that could reach nice tactics and DPS, but the AOE freeze (the defining characteristic of the tree) locks you out of t5 of kensei, so I gave it up. At that point I was playing a kensei with buffs, which could be fine, but it had very few points invested in war chanter for a build that was meant to be a war chanter. You could pick the AOE stun, but right now it is surpassed by dire charge for most that matters (current end game mobs do not need freeze). Lower cool down and easier to achieve DC which doesn't require gimping (for a war chanter pumping CHA is gimping).

So no, I don't think that bard PREs have withstood the pass of time very well (overall). And I am aware that I jump back and forth judging for end game and leveling, but this is because I think that properly designed trees / classes should hold its ground in BOTH situations.

We can have this discussion and I am happy to talk about builds, but also I would like to tell the devs that I am very disappointed at the way they are interacting with the community and handling the class redesigns. Often enough, in discussions, I see players being more knowledgeable that the designers and yet lama is a formality and even the PC doesn't seem to have much weight in the decisions. Since the devs don't trust our DPS calcs, we should all agree in some tests (DPS, survivability) that we can use in a proper discussion. We cannot dictate the direction of the game (we can just vote with our pockets if we don't like it), but at least if the devs are misguided they can realize it. Right now I see a lot of wishful thinking.

[Baktiotha]

To add to this, build idea of 14 barb 6 fighter kensei is total herecy when you talk about building.

In my experience it is only heresy because we have decided it is heresy.

Edit: Replacing the entirety of the original post (some of which is quoted below) with this more concise and more readable one.


Yes, you missed a ton of stuff. Rage becomes a more powerful version with barbarian levels. In addition, it provides +10 MP at some point, extra PRR when in med armor...

I won't do your homework, everything is clearly stated in the wiki ;)

Well, I didn't exactly miss them.

What I did miss was the increase from +4 (barbarian rage) to +8 (FB Mighty Rage) and the stacking +2 (FB Tireless Rage). So at L20 the rage that FB is providing is +19 (8 barbarian rage affected by Mighty Rage + 2 Frenzy + 4 Death Frenzy + 3 Power Rage + 2 Tireless Rage) -- effectively +9/+9 hit/damage. Kensei provides +8/+10 hit/damage. This is pretty comparable. Arguably Kensei is better because to hit is less important than to damage and Kensei provides more.

If we roll FB back to L12 we lose Might Rage and Tireless Rage as well as Death Frenzy. We do still have an increase from +4 (barbarian rage) to +6 (Greater Rage) and the total STR increase from raging is +11 (6 barbarian rage affected by Greater Rage + 2 Frenzy + 3 Power Rage) -- effectively +5/+5 hit/damage.

This will stack with Kensei hit/damage so +8/+10 *plus* +5/+5 is +13/+15. This is *better* than either FB or Kensei alone.

I mentioned MP in an earlier post. FB provides 5MP at L6 (Frenzy) and 10MP at L20 (Storm's Eye). This is in addition to the inherent 10MP that barbarians get at L11. Together this provides 25MP.

Kensei gets 20MP with Opportunity Attack but admittedly a short buff at 6sec and 20MP with One Cut. This is 20MP with boost to 40MP.

Like hit/damage the MP can stack. If we roll FB back to L12 we get 5MP (Fenzy) and 10MP (barb 11) *plus* 20MP (Kensei) for passive 35MP -- more than either provides alone. And the 20MP boost is still available.

So in either situation the MC provides more than the PC barbarian.

Neither did I ignore PRR. Barbarian PRR bonuses are easily trumped by PRR increases made simply by moving from medium armor to heavy armor. Some people might even select heavy armor proficiency as a barbarian because of this. Kensei at F6 gives heavy armor proficiency for free and also unlocks 4 feats. For the barbarian that chose heavy armor proficiency it has the effect of providing 5 feats. Fighter has fighter only feats that include boosts to the effectiveness of heavy armor. This more than compensates for not discussing PRR increases available to barbarians.

Which brings me back to the question of PC v MC and whether PC actually provides more *power* than MC. It is relevant within the context of the thread because we are looking at the relative power of the 18/20 cores and whether they might be too strong or too weak. It is relevant to the previous thread because of the assertion that PC denies MC opportunities. And it is relevant within the bigger consideration of what *power* actually represents because it causes us to examine the two items being compared and to focus not only on DPS but also on damage mitigation.

From my perspective, and perhaps that of others, the probable loss of *some* DPS might be balanced by the increase in damage mitigation. If we only define *power* as DPS then it is probable that PC wins. But, if we define *power* ad the synergy between DPS and damage mitigation it could be that MC wins.

Lastly, I suspect what the real answer will be is the synergy between PC and the t5 Ravager healing. So in context with the purpose of this thread we might conclude (as some appear to have done already) that the real issue within barbarian is not in FB cores but in Ravager t5. If that is the case then continued discussion of nerf v buff seems appropriate.

(BTW, if the wiki were that clear I would not be making mistakes, so if I've made any in this post please enumerate them so that we, collectively, can see where and what they are.)

[BigErkyKid]

In my experience it is only heresy because we have decided it is heresy.

I want to consider what rage actually gives a barbarian. Frenzy is +2 STR, Death Frenzy is +4. Power Rage is +3. Rage is +4. Now, I'm not the expert but that is a total of +13 STR which is a net +6 to hit and +6 to damage. OS increases the length of a rage but nothing else increases the STR of a rage.


Before they jump at your throat, go and check a bit more seriously what are the benefits of rage. Hint: it scales with barbarian level. Just a friendly reminder to AT LEAST read the descriptors of the classes before making bold statements.

[Baktiotha]

Really interested in the bard discussion. Last played a bard when cap was 28 but I found Swashbuckler could do a ton of things that Paladin could not do -- and at the time those were being considered the two big red buttons. I played both a PC Swash and an 18/2 with rogue. There was seriously no content that I was afraid of while a group member and very little that bothered me when solo.

At the time I felt Bard>Paladin. The barbarian pass changed the dynamics a bit but what I was experiencing still left me with the impression that Barbarian>=Bard>Paladin. Anyway, that's how I remember the sequence, Bard pass, Paladin pass, Barbarian pass.

I dabbled in SS and never did WC so I can't really talk to those. But I do remember thinking, and still think, that Swash is a late game viable choice and likely a top choice for late game. 32% dodge, evasion, buffs, Irresistible Dance (works on Orange named), instant kill (works on Orange named) along with the commonly available concealment, ghostly, etc. was giving what felt like 90% miss chance (ignoring AC and PRR, in 100 hits dodge reduced that to 68, concealment dropped it 50% to 34, ghostly dropped it 20% to 27 -- so those alone create a 73% miss chance).

In any case, the discussion is interesting and I hope continues.

[Baktiotha]

Before they jump at your throat, go and check a bit more seriously what are the benefits of rage. Hint: it scales with barbarian level. Just a friendly reminder to AT LEAST read the descriptors of the classes before making bold statements.

No, that's good. I at some level knew that but it wasn't clicking. So, at L30 what is the effective STR from the +13 that the rages provide?

I'll go look and try to figure it our, but its going to be faster and more accurate if someone just tells me. :)

Edit: Also, I missed Greater Rage, Tireless Rage and Mighty Rage -- or, are these the same thing as "scales with barbarian level"? If so the net increase is +6 due to TR stacking which is still giving less hit and damage than the Kensei is providing but +4 of it is lost by stopping at L12.

[BigErkyKid]

Really interested in the bard discussion. Last played a bard when cap was 28 but I found Swashbuckler could do a ton of things that Paladin could not do -- and at the time those were being considered the two big red buttons. I played both a PC Swash and an 18/2 with rogue. There was seriously no content that I was afraid of while a group member and very little that bothered me when solo.

At the time I felt Bard>Paladin. The barbarian pass changed the dynamics a bit but what I was experiencing still left me with the impression that Barbarian>=Bard>Paladin. Anyway, that's how I remember the sequence, Bard pass, Paladin pass, Barbarian pass.

I dabbled in SS and never did WC so I can't really talk to those. But I do remember thinking, and still think, that Swash is a late game viable choice and likely a top choice for late game. 32% dodge, evasion, buffs, Irresistible Dance (works on Orange named), instant kill (works on Orange named) along with the commonly available concealment, ghostly, etc. was giving what felt like 90% miss chance (ignoring AC and PRR, in 100 hits dodge reduced that to 68, concealment dropped it 50% to 34, ghostly dropped it 20% to 27 -- so those alone create a 73% miss chance).

In any case, the discussion is interesting and I hope continues.

The to miss is computed as follows (ignoring AC):

natural miss*dodge*conceal*incorp

Natural miss comes the assumptions that mobs miss on a 1 too.

So with 32% dodge, 50% conceal, 10% incorp your to be hit chance is:

(.95)*(.68)*(.5)*(.9)=.29.

So you are hit 29% of the times. Which is good, no one argues. But what were your HPs? and your PRR?

By the way, on a ranger you can get almost the same miss chances. Assume 25% dodge (17 item+3 dodge+3 tempest+3Pls /twist+1haste). You have 25% dodge, 50% conceal, 15% incorp.

(.95)*(.75)*(.5)*(.85)=.3

So a 1% difference in to be missed in a class with more native PRR, more HPs, more DPS, similar healing, better burst DPS - both melee and ranged. Do the songs and spells of the bard make such a big difference? Is this balanced?

The one thing I recognize a lot of people do not realize is that because of the way they stack, miss chances become less important as you stack more and more. For example, elusive target is a rather weak epic feat. Try it on a bard

(.95)*(.68)*(.5)*(.9)*(.95)=0.276

So a 5% extra from elusive is just giving you an extra 1.4% to be missed. Like you would even notice...

[BigErkyKid]

No, that's good. I at some level knew that but it wasn't clicking. So, at L30 what is the effective STR from the +13 that the rages provide?

I'll go look and try to figure it our, but its going to be faster and more accurate if someone just tells me. :)

Edit: Also, I missed Greater Rage, Tireless Rage and Mighty Rage -- or, are these the same thing as "scales with barbarian level"? If so the net increase is +6 due to TR stacking which is still giving less hit and damage than the Kensei is providing but +4 of it is lost by stopping at L12.

Yes, you missed a ton of stuff. Rage becomes a more powerful version with barbarian levels. In addition, it provides +10 MP at some point, extra PRR when in med armor...

I won't do your homework, everything is clearly stated in the wiki ;)

[Axeyu]

I appreciate that perspective. We originally came at all of this from the other thread where the assertions were that it was not possible to build MC to match PC and that the 18/20 were killing MC opportunity. So from a material perspective it matters where the power is coming from because it addresses exactly the original question asked in that other thread.

If the power is coming at 18/20 and causing PC even though MC can approximate the DPS then perhaps the devs did a good job and the real issue is perception -- as another of our contributors has asserted.

Of course, because my math is so horrible it could be that the F6 splash doesn't approximate the DPS and, eventually, we'll see that and I'll be compelled to say, "Oh, ok, thanks for showing what an idiot I am." :o

But, as you observe, at least we'll be able to somewhat definitively answer the question.

Well, no not really. If a 6 fighter / 14 barb is worse than a 20 fighter the same problem remains and the same solutions would remedy it. If the 18/20 cores are so strong that building without them basically makes the class a flavour choice that is a problem with the 18/20 cores and they need revision.

[Ykt]

You listed many factors, and the reality is that humans can't separate these many factors correctly.

1) Does that means this video game is doomed?

2) Are thou the only one who can save us mere mortals, messiah?

[AzureDragonas]

In my experience it is only heresy because we have decided it is heresy.

I want to consider what rage actually gives a barbarian. Frenzy is +2 STR, Death Frenzy is +4. Power Rage is +3. Rage is +4. Now, I'm not the expert but that is a total of +13 STR which is a net +6 to hit and +6 to damage. Edit: As barbarians level the STR bonus increases becoming +8 at L20 with another stacking +2 at L17. OS increases the length of a rage but as far as i know nothing else increases the STR of a rage.

On the to hit side taking Kensei to t5 provides +8 to hit or the equivalent of +16 STR. The effect on the damage side is greater. Taking Kensei to t5 provides +10 damage or the equivalent of +20 STR. This means that Kensei provides just less to hit and equivalent damage (used to say both more to hit and more to damage than rage provides).

Let's take it further. By MC at 12/6/2 (where the 2 can be more barb, more fighter, or something else entirely) the only rage I miss out on is Death Frenzy. So I effectively get the +8 to hit from Kensei and the +6 (use to say +4) to hit from raging for a +14 (use to say +12) to hit and I effectively get the +10 to damage from Kensei and the +6 (use to say +4) to damage from raging for a +16 (use to say +14) to damage. (+6 from raging instead of +10) used to say (It is +4 from raging because my rage STR is no longer +13 but +9 by losing Death Frenzy.)


In here you talk about that you dont loose base damage but you missed 1 issue. you loose blood strength which on my 25 level barbarian with maxed amp heals ~100 on hit and 200 on monster kill, which you just gave up for ~same amount of damage pure barbarian already do by str bonus only.



Now, to make the comparison more complete, Death Frenzy also gives vicious damage of 4d6. That is 14 damage on average and if MP is 200 that is 42 damage. That is an equivalent of 84 STR. So in the direct comparison PC seems to be indicated.


well that extra damage wont make crits it's just bonus damage same as paladins can do dozen light damage on each hit for long time now.



But, PC now includes Storm's Eye which, when it procs, you've indicated generates ~2k damage. That is a 400 point damage scaling at 100% MP meaning you are working with 200MP. On the other hand, Kensei provides A Good Death which has the potential for 500 damage scaling at 400%. With your 200MP that becomes 4.5k damage.


But why you ignored that storms eye gives on active +25 base damage which slowly decays and you can reuse, and ignore that good death works only when enemy is below 30% and with 15s cooldown. In previous life on barbarian i was criting on helpless over 10k base alone, question when you manage land hits like these how good death will be? Current life is already doing more damage and i can't wait to see new record i will reach at end game.



Death Frenzy also provides a +1 crit multiplier which is matched by Strike With No Thought. But Keen Edge also provides a +1 threat range increase, meaning that more criticals are generated.

And here you ignore T5 ravager Critical Rage: +2 treat range while raging. But lets be objective, kensei gives +1 crit multi, while frenzy 19-20/+1x



Lastly, Kensei provides a 500 point vorpal attack scaling with MP, which at 200MP is 1.5k damage.


but if you read carefully, it says you make hit in critical range but it doesnt mean it will be vorpal also it have 20s cooldown. at best if you pick lowest treat range Gaxe, and go for damage, you make 18-20 as fighter and will be once of 3 times vorpal. SO in real world it would be +500 extra damage each minute which scales but at end is not that impressive when you compare storms eye not having any type of cooldown in first place?



When it is all churned together I suspect that barb is still ahead in DPS. However, when the elements of damage mitigation are taken into account the question remains. To rephrase it slightly in light of the heresy observation, regardless of whether it is heresy or not, is the MC generally analogous to the PC?

The answer may not resolve whether FB 18/20 is good or bad but it will certainly answer if MC is still a reasonable choice.

BTW, I'd like you to consider those last 2 character levels and the character classes that could possibly be used there. Also consider the racial choices and how that impacts the discussion -- for example, if half-orc is used for more STR or if Morninglord is used for access to 2 10k heals.

Not sure if you be able to cast that while raging and "when the elements of damage mitigation", sounds like defense stance which prevents raging in first place. Also have you tried drinking silver flame pots with pure barbarian? i told how much he can regen, even serious wounds potions heals close to 100. While main kite of barbarian is raging, slashing with massive damage and healing far enough to stay full hp in group of mobs while cleaving is it really worth throw that away, do you really think that secondary effects which are inferior to what pure barbarian gets are worth?

P.S. by any sort of splash you already throwing away best effects you get from barbarian either is healing/crit range/helpless damage or massive damage boost with extra damage which easily can scale on barbarian

[Knobull]

I can play DDO just fine on two cores. (AMD Athlon X2).

[Chai]

Not in my groups as, if I'm not playing with people I know wont go running ahead while someone is chugging pots, I'm soloing.

That also misses my point that between fight healing isn't the issue in the first place, as even if one does choose to play with that type, lagging behind isn't generally lethal. Taking several times one's total hp pool in an encounter with no good way to add them back in is.

Lagging behind isn't lethal, but if you ever wondered how a new player can get xp/favor from a quest 10+ times and still not know the quest, its because it was completed for them before they ever knew which direction to go.

People continue to want to lay all these restrictions on barbarian which every single other class doesn't have to deal with. Why does a barbarian have to trade off having to dismiss a rage which a lot of their DPS is tethered to in order to heal or having to chug potions, when no other class in the game has to make this trade off, especially in epics. That would be as absurd as rogues having to dismiss a sneak attack stance where they can now pop a scroll, and don't get sneak damage until they go back into the stance, and cant UMD when in the stance.

If the character is a one trick pony when its raged, the one trick should be something it performs better than everyone else - and significantly better at that.

[nokowi]

1) Does that means this video game is doomed?

2) Are thou the only one who can save us mere mortals, messiah?


I simply made an argument that players perspective of assassin damage from overhwelming critical was way off. I defended that with facts and information and without personal attacks. My perception was proven correct. (Erky is still welcome top go use DPS oracle to prove my perception wrong - it is less accurate than my own personal calculations)

This is what should happen in a thread, and we all have better information because of it.

Stop the snide comments. This thread is not about who is right or wrong. I don't deserve your mocking tone for making a fact based contribution to the thread, and it doesn't belong in a discussion thread where players are focused on the issues.


What it means is that if devs simply listen to what players ask for when doing the class passes, the changes made may be based on misperception of reality. Nerfing assassin core because most players thought overwhelming critical does some huge amount of damage (far greater than 7.5% by their own statements) is a good example of what could go wrong.

Players notice changes in damage at the 5-10% range, depending on the player (go try the +10 MP action clicky and tell me if you can notice the difference). Overwhelming critical fits in the slightly noticeable range of damage improvements. If you believe assassin is too good, and you think it needs a nerf, you could discuss how remove +1 critmult gets you towards that goal. This would be a tough argument to sell if, in another thread, you argue melee assassin is not powerful enough (compared to mechanic). That was directed towards Erky, who has made this exact argument with regards to melee assassin.

Assassin does not need to be a good multiclass build. It is DC based and has a unique play style in the game. If you don't like it because it doesn't roll over everything in the game (and you hope some multiclass splash build will do this), like your other FOTM build, then you should not play assassin. Making it like everything else would be a negative to the game.

Devs, please don't ruin the fun I have because someone else finds melee assassin too difficult. Thanks!

[AnEvenNewerNoob]

Be nice kids. Dad's watching.

[nokowi]

Lagging behind isn't lethal, but if you ever wondered how a new player can get xp/favor from a quest 10+ times and still not know the quest, its because it was completed for them before they ever knew which direction to go.

People continue to want to lay all these restrictions on barbarian which every single other class doesn't have to deal with. Why does a barbarian have to trade off having to dismiss a rage which a lot of their DPS is tethered to in order to heal or having to chug potions, when no other class in the game has to make this trade off, especially in epics. That would be as absurd as rogues having to dismiss a sneak attack stance where they can now pop a scroll, and don't get sneak damage until they go back into the stance, and cant UMD when in the stance.

If the character is a one trick pony when its raged, the one trick should be something it performs better than everyone else - and significantly better at that.

Barbarian does not need a nerf in my opinion, so when we talk about what is too good, think in terms of rebalancing over nerfing.

Barbarian needs more intelligent design.

1. If my barbarian can't survive in the content i am running, I should have the option to make a more defensive build that does less damage. This ability to adjust fills out the gaps between EN/EH/EE players who can roll through one setting but not compete in the next setting.
2. If I simply revel in HUGE damage numbers, I should have the option to make a barbarian with greater damage output (10-30%), at the expense of defense/healing. I should be able to build a character that goes too far and is ineffective without constant supplemental healing.


What my suggestions do is allow a player to make a build that fit their play preferences. In the current system, the top build either works for you or doesn't work for you.

[BigErkyKid]

(Erky is still welcome top go use DPS oracle to prove my perception wrong - it is less accurate than my own personal calculations)

No it is not less accurate. There are no different ways to do the calculations, it is simply making sure you add all the bonuses correctly. I trust more a program to do that. Not because it is hard, rather because it is tedious. I usually simplify to exclude seeker in my DPS calculations because I am lazy, not because I am stupid. Finally, it is more "neutral" than personal excel spreadsheets. But either way I don't really care how you guys do it, it is not rocket science.



What it means is that if devs simply listen to what players ask for when doing the class passes, the changes made may be based on misperception of reality. Nerfing assassin core because most players thought overwhelming critical does some huge amount of damage (far greater than 7.5% by their own statements) is a good example of what could go wrong.

7.5% is a hefty amount of damage. I am not saying it should be nerfed, but dismissing it as little is not true. This game is built around adding small bonuses to get big effects. The +1 crit on any one handed is similar to the crit multiplier available in the 6th level core of fighter and it is a very appealing MC option that I foresee some people will build towards. For example, battle clerics.


This would be a tough argument to sell if, in another thread, you argue melee assassin is not powerful enough (compared to mechanic). That was directed towards Erky, who has made this exact argument with regards to melee assassin.

Again, no need to get defensive. I am not arguing for nerfs. I do think that a mechanic is easier to play and far easier to level and in general speedier in completions. I also think that a mechanic is better at soloing / short manning raids. But those are considered facts by the majority. That an assassin has a role as a DPSer in some context (or assassinating portal keepers and what not) can be argued, but it is not contradicting in the least my other argument. Let me repeat: if you read my comments, I explicitly said I do not see the need (as of today) to nerf assassins.


Assassin does not need to be a good multiclass build. It is DC based and has a unique play style in the game. If you don't like it because it doesn't roll over everything in the game (and you hope some multiclass splash build will do this), like your other FOTM build, then you should not play assassin. Making it like everything else would be a negative to the game.

No one said assassin should be multiclass, as understood by the rogue that assassinates. What is being debated here is whether the trees offer sufficient possibilities for multi classing vs MC being obviously flavor. The assassin tree is not very MC friendly. Typically the TA tree was very heavy multiclass, but that was hurt by a lot by the appeal of the 18th level core in TA.


Devs, please don't ruin the fun I have because someone else finds melee assassin too difficult. Thanks!

I think you will agree with me this last comment is not needed in a discussion that is meant to be kept civil. No need for the "I am more l33t than u".

[BigErkyKid]

Barbarian does not need a nerf in my opinion, so when we talk about what is too good, think in terms of rebalancing over nerfing.

Barbarian needs more intelligent design.

1. If my barbarian can't survive in the content i am running, I should have the option to make a more defensive build that does less damage. This ability to adjust fills out the gaps between EN/EH/EE players who can roll through one setting but not compete in the next setting.
2. If I simply revel in HUGE damage numbers, I should have the option to make a barbarian with greater damage output (10-30%), at the expense of defense/healing. I should be able to build a character that goes too far and is ineffective without constant supplemental healing.


What my suggestions do is allow a player to make a build that fit their play preferences. In the current system, the top build either works for you or doesn't work for you.

Agreed.

I have been chastised for saying that barbarian is not a top end game build, but I stand by it.

The problem is not the level of power, rather the background design of the class.

[Grailhawk]

2. LGS x2 items with tier 1 and tier 3 damage (tier 2 is often used for +7 insightful stat)
With x4 base multiplier: at 15-20/x4 > 15-18/x4 19-20/x6 = 0.65 + 0.2(4) + 0.1(6) = 2.05 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 6.15 multiplier
With x5 base multiplier: at 15-20/x5 > 15-18/x5 19-20/x7 = 0.65 + 0.2(5) + 0.1(7) = 2.35 crit multiplier x (3.00 from 200 MP) = 7.05 multiplier

Which LGS weapons are you using not Daggers of Kukris, those do not come out at 15-20/x5 they come out at 15-20/x4 with Lethality, you seam to not understand that from my first post.

18-20/x2 Kukirs base
15-20/x2 Improved Critical
15-20/x3 Knife Spec
15-20/x4 Leathality
15-18/x4 19-20/x6 Overwhelming and Devastating Critical



Weapon + Stat damage (off hand) = 75*7.044*0.8 = 422.64 --> 94 damage becomes 94-(25+13)/2 = 75


Your also doing this wrong Main stat is 60 Stat of 60 has mod of 25
94 - 25 = 69
25/2 = 12.5 (offhand only get 50% of stat mod)
69+12 = 81

81 != 75



Sneak attack damage = 510.75*1.8 attacks = 919.35 damage
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage


That seams ok lets use it.

So now with corrections we get
Main hand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(3)(94) + 0.2(3)(3)(114) + 0.1(5)(3)(114) = 559.5
Offhand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(3)(81) + 0.2(3)(3)(101) + 0.1(5)(3)(101) = 491.25 * 0.8 = 393.0
Total: 2007.39

Main hand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(3)(94) + 0.2(4)(3)(114) + 0.1(6)(3)(114)] = 662.1
Offhand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(3)(81) + 0.2(4)(3)(101) + 0.1(6)(3)(101) = 582.15 * 0.8 = 465.72
Total: 2182.71

1 - 2182.71/2007.39 = 0.873 ~ 8.7%

Once math was correct even your build is doing > 7.5% from the +1 crit multiplier increase.

[nokowi]

7.5% is a hefty amount of damage. I am not saying it should be nerfed, but dismissing it as little is not true. This game is built around adding small bonuses to get big effects. The +1 crit on any one handed is similar to the crit multiplier available in the 6th level core of fighter and it is a very appealing MC option that I foresee some people will build towards. For example, battle clerics.



7.5% is barely noticeable. You likely won't notice the difference if you kill a boss in 60 seconds or 56 seconds.

Please go try the +10 MP clicky and report back to us your actual perception during play, instead of simply assuming 7.5% is big. If your actual play perceptions differ, I would like to hear them.

I can tell you that at the time I switched from rapier to dagger was a 7-8% improvement in damage, and that it was barely noticeable in my own experience. I have used the +10 MP action clicky, and the damage boost was small, if even noticeable.

I can also tell you that 30% haste boost (+30% damage) is definitely noticeable and makes me feel more powerful.

[Gremmlynn]

Looking at the core 18 and 20's these are my thoughts.
Bard

Swashbuckler: Kind of weak actually add some extra doublestrike or melee power not too much though, no more then 15 total for both core 18 and 20 combined.

Paladin

Knight of the Chalice: Is good, maybe on the weak side but I have no suggestion, and don't think it needs any changes.

Vanguard: A little to powerful Move some of the alacrity to tier 5's, Cores 6-18 +2% alacrity Capstone +4% add +10% alacrity to a tier 5.

Barbarian

I'm not apposed to the passive healing like a lot of people are I also don't think the Berserker Core 18 and 20 are over powered the issue with this class is that Blood Strength is so much better then anything in the other tier 5's you have to take it once you do that, you then see that Berserker has the best damage out put and go there. Its not even that there is synergy between whats in the Berserker Cores and Blood Strength 20 Melee power vs 60 Healing Amp, the Ravager core 18 and 20 seam more synergistic.

I personally think that Blood Strength needs to be reworked as a class ability for Barbarians. Accelerated Metabolism just removed, and a new tier 5 in Ravager that increases the potency of Blood Strength maybe add some potency increase to Occult Slayer as well in the cores.

Blood Strength (class feature): Each time you land a hit there is a 6% chance you heal positive damage equal to half your Barbarian level. Each time you kill an opponent you are healed for 10 hit points. This healing scales with 100% Melee Power. Blood Strength has a one-second cooldown when you kill an enemy.
Improved Blood Strength (Ravager Tier 5): Your blood strength chance to heal on hit is increased by 6% and each time you kill an opponet you heal for an additional 10 hit ponts.
Resistance (Occult Slayer core 3): ADD: Your blood strength chance to heal on hit is increased by 3%, the on hit healing is increased by half Barbarian level, and each time you kill an opponent you heal for an additional 5 hit points.
Blank Thoughts (Occult Slayer core 12): Your blood strength chance to heal on hit is increased by 5%, the on hit healing is increased by half Barbarian level, and each time you kill an opponent you heal for an additional 5 hit points.


Rogue

Assassin: +1 Insight Crit multiplier is too much IMO change this to something like One Cut on a longer timer that averages out to +50% crit damage so 1 min duration 2 min cooldown.

Acrobat: The Core 18 is overpowered on paper but in practice Staffs are behind other weapons enough that they need this kind of power boost. IMO the 20% Doublestrike in Core 18 should become 10%, Cores 1-6 should add +2% and core 12 +4%. The capstone is fine.

Mechanic: The core 18 has too much of the Trees power, unlike Assassin though I don't think a proper nerf is in order. Swap Improved Detection and Expert Builder. Add to Improved Detection 5/15% alacrity (repeating and thrown/non-repeating). Lower the alacrity in Mechanical Reloader by 5/15% alacrity (repeating and thrown/non-repeating)

Ranger

Tempest: They attack too fast, the capstone needs to have the 25% offhand dobulestrike reduced to 10% or 15%. I don't like that the last 10% offhand proc chance was moved to the core 18 IMO it should be moved out of there and into Dual Perfection.

Stalker: Might have too much melee power in its capstone especially if you lower the amount of OHDS in Tempest capstone.

Archer: IMO the stuff in the AA and Stalker related to Archery is fine.

Fighter

Kensei: The capstone needs to be lowered to 10% doublestrike, distributed the other 5% taken from the capstone into the other cores.

Vanguard: see Paladin do the same thing.

Other classes haven't had a pass yet there trees are seriously under powered all over not just in the core 18 and 20.Interesting, though I'd have to spend some time mixing and matching things to see what sort of possibilities these changes could open up. One thing that does stick out though is the change to Blood Strength to an auto-grant. Mostly because it doesn't suggest at what point it would apply. If at Barb 1, it would be silly easy to decide to take at least 1 level of barb on pretty much any non-paladin melee build. So, how many levels of barb would be required for it would be a big factor IMO.

[BigErkyKid]

7.5% is barely noticeable. You likely won't notice the difference if you kill a boss in 60 seconds or 56 seconds.

Please go try the +10 MP clicky and report back to us your actual perception during play, instead of simply assuming 7.5% is big. If your actual play perceptions differ, I would like to hear them.

I can tell you that at the time I switched from rapier to dagger was a 7-8% improvement in damage, and that it was barely noticeable in my own experience. I have used the +10 MP action clicky, and the damage boost was small, if even noticeable.

I can also tell you that 30% haste boost (+30% damage) is definitely noticeable and makes me feel more powerful.

Let me put it in another way. People use devastating critical, howl of the north, overwhelming critical, and the rest; and those are +1 crit multiplier on 19-20! So a +1 crit multiplier over a 5/20 dice rolls IS powerful wrt to what the game is offering.

Finally, now I read that the number was corrected to 8.5%. Either way, it is a substantial amount of DPS for a core.

[nokowi]

I think you will agree with me this last comment is not needed in a discussion that is meant to be kept civil. No need for the "I am more l33t than u".

Sorry for the perceived tone. I'll try better here:

Arguing something is OP in one thread (+1 critmult here), while arguing the melee assassin needs a buff in another means that you should suggest an increase in power if you want critmult replaced.

I do not want you to try to change assassin in a way that reduces my fun (by removing all its limitations through mutliclass).

Assassin is a niche build, and loved by those in that niche, and should continue to fit that niche. It doesn't need to be mainstream at the expense of those that like the niche.

[BigErkyKid]

If at Barb 1, it would be silly easy to decide to take at least 1 level of barb on pretty much any non-paladin melee build. So, how many levels of barb would be required for it would be a big factor IMO.

Simply scale it by barb level, I'd say.

[Grailhawk]

Interesting, though I'd have to spend some time mixing and matching things to see what sort of possibilities these changes could open up. One thing that does stick out though is the change to Blood Strength to an auto-grant. Mostly because it doesn't suggest at what point it would apply. If at Barb 1, it would be silly easy to decide to take at least 1 level of barb on pretty much any non-paladin melee build. So, how many levels of barb would be required for it would be a big factor IMO.

I do think Barb 1 is the right answer if my numbers are too strong for Barb 1 then cut them in half and have an upgrade at barb 10 or 12.

Also I'm not sure but doesn't Blood Strength require being Raged? If so that's should be enough to remove a lot of multiclass options, as any class with CSW or better will pass on a 1 level dip for blood strength.

[nokowi]

Let me put it in another way. People use devastating critical, howl of the north, overwhelming critical, and the rest; and those are +1 crit multiplier on 19-20! So a +1 crit multiplier over a 5/20 dice rolls IS powerful wrt to what the game is offering.

Finally, now I read that the number was corrected to 8.5%. Either way, it is a substantial amount of DPS for a core.


You read wrong. The final number is between 7.15% and 7.85% depending on whether you think a rogue can get 150 or 200 MP. You could average the two and call it 7.5% if you are not worried about who is right or wrong and arguing over 0.5% differences. I have no desire to fixate on if the number is 7%, 7.5%, or 8%, so lets move on from here instead of filling 30 pages with wasted space.


Once again, until you go play the game with a 7.5% damage boost and report back to us, your argument for "what you think" the damage boost will feel like is as suspect as your original "what you think" damage increase would be for +1 critmult. We have to base this discussion on your actual perceptions rather than your guesses. Please go do this, and report back to us.

[BigErkyKid]

Sorry for the perceived tone. I'll try better here:

Arguing something is OP in one thread (+1 critmult here), while arguing the melee assassin needs a buff in another means that you should suggest an increase in power if you want critmult replaced.

I do not want you to try to change assassin in a way that reduces my fun (by removing all its limitations through mutliclass).

Assassin is a niche build, and loved by those in that niche, and should continue to fit that niche. It doesn't need to be mainstream at the expense of those that like the niche.

I don't want the crit replaced, as things stand. I am just saying it is powerful, that's all. I think we are all nervous because the moment something is highlighted as powerful demands of nerfs come along. I am not trying to do that here in the least.

I don't think a multiclass assassin should be better than a pure, but at the same time I like trees that offer some benefits that are less back loaded. That's what we are discussing here.

DDO should be all about making trade offs. Give up DPS for self heals / mitigation. Or the reverse. I would like melee non TA rogues to be susceptible of that game via MC as well. Maybe they already are (ask the guy who plays the death hammer build). But there is a lot in that PrE encouraging you into a particular style / build.

For me the real issue was the TA revamp, and the other stuff I posted in my original opening post on what cores I think are a too backloaded.

[BigErkyKid]

Once again, until you go play the game with a 7.5% damage boost and report back to us, your argument for "what you think" the damage boost will feel like is as suspect as your original "what you think" damage increase would be for +1 critmult. We have to base this discussion on your actual perceptions rather than your guesses. Please go do this, and report back to us.

I don't need to, I built specifically for kensei trying to grab those crit multipliers. I know how they add up.

For example, compare a toon with a falchion (kukri equivalent):

benchmark (devastating and overwhelming crit):
0*(1/20)+1*(13/20)+2*(4/20)+4*(2/20)=1.45 effective hits
+1 crit range
0*(1/20)+1*(12/20)+2*(5/20)+4*(2/20)=1.5 effective hits
+1 crit multiplier
0*(1/20)+1*(13/20)+3*(4/20)+5*(2/20)=1.75
both crit enhancers
0*(1/20)+1*(12/20)+3*(5/20)+5*(2/20)=1.85
Now a +1 crit multiplier on top of the previous
0*(1/20)+1*(12/20)+4*(5/20)+6*(2/20)=2.2

Main damage (not sneak) is coming from interacting this with seeker and base damage (stat, deadly, etc).

So roughly speaking your main damage 1.85/2.2=.84 without the last crit multiplier.

I mean seriously this is how damage is achieved in DDO when you don't build sneak, adding crit multipliers and enhancers to a good base damage. By your logic, the 6th core from fighter is "not noticeable". But I doubt anyone would agree with you.

I don't want to get overly stuck on this, but things have to be put in perspective. Out of the blue saying 7-8% is not much is not informing well the discussion. This is what DDO is about: 8% here, 5% there, etc.

[Grailhawk]

The final number is between 7.15% and 7.85% depending on whether you think a rogue can get 150 or 200 MP.

Your build if we drop the 200 MP to 150 MP

So with only 150 melee power
Sneak attack damage 21d6 + 40 = 113.5 * 1.5 * 2.5 = 425.63 * 1.8 = 766.13
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage (this dosn't scale with melee power to my knowlage)

Main hand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(94) + 0.2(2.5)(3)(114) + 0.1(5)(2.5)(114) = 466.25
Offhand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(81) + 0.2(2.5)(3)(101) + 0.1(2.5)(5)(101) = 409.375 * 0.8 = 327.5
Total: 1695.42


Main hand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(94) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(114) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(114)] = 551.75
Offhand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(81) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(101) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(101) = 485.125 * 0.8 = 388.1
Total: 1841.52

1 - 1841.52/1695.42 = 0.0861 = 8.6%

Almost no change and still > 7.5%

[nokowi]

I don't need to, I built specifically for kensei trying to grab those crit multipliers. I know how they add up.



If you are going to participate in the discussion, then participate in the discussion rather than trying to defend that you a right. This means using actual data, such as your actual perception in-game, rather than your guess for what your perception will be. I put my head on a chopping block with the 7.5% number at the beginning of the thread. I have certainly shown I am willing to do this.


When we talk about a level 18 rogue cores power, and the effect of critmult on that build, that discussion revolves around a build with very high sneak attack.


Your Kensai number shave nothing to do with this thread. I have already made the statement that +1critmult would be much bigger for builds that don't rely on sneak attack (it wa spart of my original argument for why you ar eover-valuing +1critmult for rogue 18), and your reply is not based on the current discussion.

[nokowi]

Your build if we drop the 200 MP to 150 MP

So with only 150 melee power
Sneak attack damage 21d6 + 40 = 113.5 * 1.5 * 2.5 = 425.63 * 1.8 = 766.13
Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage (this dosn't scale with melee power to my knowlage)

Main hand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(94) + 0.2(2.5)(3)(114) + 0.1(5)(2.5)(114) = 466.25
Offhand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(81) + 0.2(2.5)(3)(101) + 0.1(2.5)(5)(101) = 409.375 * 0.8 = 327.5
Total: 1695.42


Main hand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(94) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(114) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(114)] = 551.75
Offhand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(81) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(101) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(101) = 485.125 * 0.8 = 388.1
Total: 1841.52

1 - 1841.52/1695.42 = 0.0861 = 8.6%

Almost no change and still > 7.5%


Again, why are you all fixating on 7.5% vs 8.6%? I gave much better numbers that included offhand attacks and non scaling damage, both of which lower your number. Please read them if you want to make an argument using numbers. You left on non-scaling weapon damage that I included.

Is this thread really just about who is right? Please move on.

Those that argued +1 critmult was MUCH bugger than 7.5% are really going to argue over 7.5% vs 8.6%?

All my statements about players using misperception in their recommendations stand. My point was made by all those that disagreed with me early in this thread.

[Grailhawk]

I don't want to get overly stuck on this, but things have to be put in perspective. Out of the blue saying 7-8% is not much is not informing well the discussion. This is what DDO is about: 8% here, 5% there, etc.

Right so lest compare +1 crit multiplier to say 10 Melee Power (10 Melee Power is a big boost for any non capstone enhancement I cant think of any that have more?)

Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage

Melee power at 160
Sneak attack damage 21d6 + 40 = 113.5 * 1.5 * 2.6 = 442.65 * 1.8 = 796.77
Main hand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.6)(94) + 0.2(2.6)(3)(114) + 0.1(2.6)(5)(114) = 484.9
Offhand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.6)(81) + 0.2(2.6)(3)(101) + 0.1(2.6)(5)(101) = 425.75 * 0.8 = 340.60
Total: 1757.81

At +1 Crit Multiplier (150 Melee power)
Main hand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(94) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(114) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(114)] = 551.75
Offhand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(81) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(101) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(101) = 485.125 * 0.8 = 388.1
Total: 1841.52

1841.52/1757.81 - 1 = 0.047 = 4.7%

a +1 crit multiplier is nearly 100% (82.9% to be exact) better then 10 melee power.

[Grailhawk]

Again, why are you all fixating on 7.5% vs 8.6%? I gave much better numbers that included offhand attacks and non scaling damage, both of which lower your number. Please read them if you want to make an argument using numbers. You left on non-scaling weapon damage that I included.

Is this thread really just about who is right? Please move on.

Those that argued +1 critmult was MUCH bugger than 7.5% are really going to argue over 7.5% vs 8.6%?

All my statements about players using misperception in their recommendations stand. My point was made by all those that disagreed with me early in this thread.

Fair enough, but its still more powerful than just about any other not +1 crit multiplier enhancement in the game it all on its own has too much power. If you want to make a case that its power should be redistributed that's fine I won't agree of disagree with that I don't really think its needed but +1 crit multiplier is way to strong a buff IMO, your not going to change my mind on that.

[BigErkyKid]

If you are going to participate in the discussion, then participate in the discussion rather than trying to defend that you a right. This means using actual data, such as your actual perception in-game, rather than your guess for what your perception will be. I put my head on a chopping block with the 7.5% number at the beginning of the thread. I have certainly shown I am willing to do this.

I have already said that I know that those increases in power are noticeable based BOTH on maths (and comparing to what the game currently offers in crit enhancers) AND on my perception (I multi classed for kensei when it came out).



When we talk about a level 18 rogue cores power, and the effect of critmult on that build, that discussion revolves around a build with very high sneak attack.

Yes, and that's why it is only 8%. Because Assassin has such high SA that base damage pales. But the BASE damage of the assassin is already high, in part (a big part) because of that critmult. And in a context where SA does not apply (it is not 100% uptime / types of mobs, etc). Then the value of this critmult will shine again.



Your Kensai number shave nothing to do with this thread. I have already made the statement that +1critmult would be much bigger for builds that don't rely on sneak attack (it wa spart of my original argument for why you ar eover-valuing +1critmult for rogue 18), and your reply is not based on the current discussion

Read my comment above. The assassin, under ideal conditions, has uber DPS atm. This is BOTH because of SA and because it packs the based crit profile in the game. Which matters most is a matter, as I discussed, of whether SA is up or not.

So I do think it pertains to the discussion.

But the numbers are up there, we could move on in the discussion.

[BigErkyKid]

Right so lest compare +1 crit multiplier to say 10 Melee Power (10 Melee Power is a big boost for any non capstone enhancement I cant think of any that have more?)

Weapon effect damage = 75.3 * 1.8 = 135.54 damage

Melee power at 160
Sneak attack damage 21d6 + 40 = 113.5 * 1.5 * 2.6 = 442.65 * 1.8 = 796.77
Main hand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.6)(94) + 0.2(2.6)(3)(114) + 0.1(2.6)(5)(114) = 484.9
Offhand with x3 multiplier: [0.65(2.6)(81) + 0.2(2.6)(3)(101) + 0.1(2.6)(5)(101) = 425.75 * 0.8 = 340.60
Total: 1757.81

At +1 Crit Multiplier (150 Melee power)
Main hand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(94) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(114) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(114)] = 551.75
Offhand with x4 multiplier: [0.65(2.5)(81) + 0.2(4)(2.5)(101) + 0.1(6)(2.5)(101) = 485.125 * 0.8 = 388.1
Total: 1841.52

1841.52/1757.81 - 1 = 0.047 = 4.7%

a +1 crit multiplier is nearly 100% (82.9% to be exact) better then 10 melee power.

Exactly. We need context! And this is a perfect example.

[nokowi]

I don't want to get overly stuck on this, but things have to be put in perspective. Out of the blue saying 7-8% is not much is not informing well the discussion. This is what DDO is about: 8% here, 5% there, etc.

Maybe we can agree on these:

1. It's barely perceptable in-game
2. It is something
3. It should be considered in the context of the alternatives, using factual information about how big it is, and how big the alternatives are.


If you can agree to these 3 things, we don't need to worry about proving who is wrong or right.

[nokowi]

Exactly. We need context! And this is a perfect example.

We only need context if players would test out +10/20 MP.

We could try +20 MP on your build. On my build, +10 MP would accomplish the same thing, so my actual in game perceptions are correct for purpose of the discussion.

[BigErkyKid]

Maybe we can agree on these:

1. It's barely perceptable in-game
2. It is something
3. It should be considered in the context of the alternatives, using factual information about how big it is, and how big the alternatives are.


If you can agree to these 3 things, we don't need to worry about proving who is wrong or right.

I don't agree on 1. For two reasons: i) on a mob that you cannot SA it will be more than 8% (substantially). And from a perception based standpoint, the BIG numbers you get with x3 or with x4 are quite different, so I bet ANYONE can see that when playing.

That said, I agree with 2 and 3.

For example, would it be bad to move down this to the 12th core? Or to compute a MP equivalent and distribute this along the cores as opposed of dumping it all in the 18th?

[nokowi]

I have already said that I know that those increases in power are noticeable based BOTH on maths (and comparing to what the game currently offers in crit enhancers) AND on my perception (I multi classed for kensei when it came out).




Yes, and that's why it is only 8%. Because Assassin has such high SA that base damage pales. But the BASE damage of the assassin is already high, in part (a big part) because of that critmult. And in a context where SA does not apply (it is not 100% uptime / types of mobs, etc). Then the value of this critmult will shine again.




Read my comment above. The assassin, under ideal conditions, has uber DPS atm. This is BOTH because of SA and because it packs the based crit profile in the game. Which matters most is a matter, as I discussed, of whether SA is up or not.

So I do think it pertains to the discussion.

But the numbers are up there, we could move on in the discussion.

Assassins not getting sneak attack have less damage than all other good builds. Arguing a core ability is too good when they don't get sneak attack makes no sense. I can go build an only +1 critmult assassin build, but arguing the 18 core is too good for this build (huge % increase in damage) is silly.

[nokowi]

I don't agree on 1. For two reasons: i) on a mob that you cannot SA it will be more than 8% (substantially). And from a perception based standpoint, the BIG numbers you get with x3 or with x4 are quite different, so I bet ANYONE can see that when playing.

That said, I agree with 2 and 3.

For example, would it be bad to move down this to the 12th core? Or to compute a MP equivalent and distribute this along the cores as opposed of dumping it all in the 18th?

Well let's agree with 2 and 3 and move on then.

My assassin nearly always gets sneak attack because that's the most effective build (and play style). Your experience could certainly be different.

[nokowi]

For example, would it be bad to move down this to the 12th core? Or to compute a MP equivalent and distribute this along the cores as opposed of dumping it all in the 18th?

You need to clearly spell out what you can get instead of +1 critmult through multiclassing.

Its premature to suggest a change without first considering the alternatives.

[Gremmlynn]

Lagging behind isn't lethal, but if you ever wondered how a new player can get xp/favor from a quest 10+ times and still not know the quest, its because it was completed for them before they ever knew which direction to go.

People continue to want to lay all these restrictions on barbarian which every single other class doesn't have to deal with. Why does a barbarian have to trade off having to dismiss a rage which a lot of their DPS is tethered to in order to heal or having to chug potions, when no other class in the game has to make this trade off, especially in epics. That would be as absurd as rogues having to dismiss a sneak attack stance where they can now pop a scroll, and don't get sneak damage until they go back into the stance, and cant UMD when in the stance.

If the character is a one trick pony when its raged, the one trick should be something it performs better than everyone else - and significantly better at that.Um, we are actually agreeing more than not here. My point was mostly that between combat healing is of minor concern and where it comes from unimportant. It's healing during combat that matters. So adding things that are, basically, better versions of sucking down a dozen CSW pots between fights is of no major importance.

[nokowi]

And from a perception based standpoint, the BIG numbers you get with x3 or with x4 are quite different, so I bet ANYONE can see that when playing.



Perception is not reality. Players might choose +1 critmult to see bigger numbers, but they may be choosing something less effective because of their fixation on big numbers.

Misperception should not be the basis for changing cores.

[Saekee]

for the assassin 18 core, I would prefer a multiselector: either crit multiplier (as is) or MtF can extend to double its effects (DCs, MP, duration post-sneak, etc.)

[nokowi]

for the assassin 18 core, I would prefer a multiselector: either crit multiplier (as is) or MtF can extend to double its effects (DCs, MP, duration post-sneak, etc.)

That's certainly an interesting idea, but probably not one we should explore at this point in the discussion.

This thread is supposed to be based on comparing 18/20 abilities vs multiclass options.

We need to discuss the alternatives we have now to direct any future changes.

[Gremmlynn]

I do think Barb 1 is the right answer if my numbers are too strong for Barb 1 then cut them in half and have an upgrade at barb 10 or 12.

Also I'm not sure but doesn't Blood Strength require being Raged? If so that's should be enough to remove a lot of multiclass options, as any class with CSW or better will pass on a 1 level dip for blood strength.12 was what I was thinking, as that's the number of character levels needed for tier 5's.

No, it doesn't. At least it didn't last time I played a barb as I'm one of those oddballs that doesn't burn a rage every time I see a baby kobold, so would notice.

[Baktiotha]

The to miss is computed as follows (ignoring AC):

Unless this is a 25%=20% situation it should not matter what the method used happens to be. Each factor applies sequentially to the remaining hits otherwise they would not be stacking.

I chose 100 hits because that allows me to ignore AC which we would normally expect to be checked before any other factor *and* it allows me to convert to percentages without dealing too much with. I agree that the order of operation is dodge, concealment, ghostly (incorporeal).

If 100 attacks would hit and dodge is 32% then only 68 of those attacks will actually hit. Concealment at 50% will reduce the number of actual hits to 34. Ghostly of 20% will reduce the 34 to 34-6.8=27.2 (I rounded the hits down to 27 but maybe we should round up assuming it is either a complete miss or it hits, maybe as a glancing blow). The net effect of the three damage mitigations is to reduce the number of attacks that would have hit from 100 to 27 (or 28) yielding a 73% (or 72%) miss chance.

I intentionally used easy to work numbers so the math would be easy. So how is it that we are getting to different conclusions? I could argue in favor of it being only 72% mitigation due to needing to count a partial hit fully (as I say, maybe as a glancing blow) but I cannot see how you got down another % to 71%.

I think it is because you are working with a d20 with auto miss on 1 so initial chance is .95. This, however, is incorrect because of AC. At some AC levels it will be true that mobs never miss. At higher AC levels the mobs *will* miss. So it is necessary to consider mitigation only with respect to the attacks that actually *will* otherwise hit.

For your calculation to be correct you would need to figure the effect of AC on the .95 of attacks *first*. By not including that (and it is variable based on mob CR and other factors) it leads to what I believe is an error in your suggested math.

Keep in mind that this *must* be so otherwise we would not any of us ever wear armor of any type. In fact, when combined with AC and the auto miss on 1 the actual impact of dodge, concealment, ghostly (incorporeal) might well be in the range of 90% defenses.

[Baktiotha]

1) Does that means this video game is doomed?

2) Are thou the only one who can save us mere mortals, messiah?

As with others, let's avoid these types of postings. The do not serve any constructive purpose.

[Baktiotha]

In here you talk about that you dont loose base damage but you missed 1 issue. you loose blood strength which on my 25 level barbarian with maxed amp heals ~100 on hit and 200 on monster kill, which you just gave up for ~same amount of damage pure barbarian already do by str bonus only.

:)

I did not, actually, miss that issue. To the contrary, elsewhere in the thread I talk about that very issue. And, in the revised so that it hopefully reads better version of my post I make explicit note of that.

And, within the context of this thread and what I hope it achieves what you observe is extremely important. It is important because it validates that any perceived issue with barbarian 18/20 core or with the cores driving PC and discouraging MC really is an issue with the synergy of the Ravager t5 enhancement.

In doing so you help drive this point home both to the thread's participants and to Cordovan (who is supposed to be watching the thread). That ought to result in communication of that to Turbine.

It also ought to continue to drive a nerf v buff discussion to help inform Turbine regarding player perceptions (although which Turbine might choose, or neither even, is up to them). As an example, Turbine might decide that everything is fine the way it is *because* Turbine wants PC > MC.

[Baktiotha]

well that extra damage wont make crits it's just bonus damage same as paladins can do dozen light damage on each hit for long time now.


But why you ignored that storms eye gives on active +25 base damage which slowly decays and you can reuse, and ignore that good death works only when enemy is below 30% and with 15s cooldown. In previous life on barbarian i was criting on helpless over 10k base alone, question when you manage land hits like these how good death will be? Current life is already doing more damage and i can't wait to see new record i will reach at end game.


And here you ignore T5 ravager Critical Rage: +2 treat range while raging. But lets be objective, kensei gives +1 crit multi, while frenzy 19-20/+1x


but if you read carefully, it says you make hit in critical range but it doesnt mean it will be vorpal also it have 20s cooldown. at best if you pick lowest treat range Gaxe, and go for damage, you make 18-20 as fighter and will be once of 3 times vorpal. SO in real world it would be +500 extra damage each minute which scales but at end is not that impressive when you compare storms eye not having any type of cooldown in first place?

Good observations. I'm not intentionally ignoring these issues. I'm hoping that Axeyu is going to find the time to run his calculator and give us the actual numbers.

What I am saying is that on the surface, without running numbers, 12/6 looks like it can provide very similar DPS with better damage mitigation which might translate to more actual *power* for the build. I agree completely that factors like you mention *must* be part of the discussion. I just don't have the math skills to make those calculations whereas I believe other posters do.

I am trusting that in the discussion of this that they, when the get the opportunity, will either completely refute my premise or that they will in some way or ways validate it.

And, I don't care which way that goes. I only chose FB PC v FB/Kensei MC as an example to show the type of discussion I hoped would happen in the thread.

[Baktiotha]

Be nice kids. Dad's watching.

And me. Do you know how much actual gaming I've missed out on since this thread started? My own fault, I really want the thread to work. :)

[Qhualor]

whats the miss chance against spells, debuffs and AOEs?

I know whats going to be said. best case scenario you will have Ioun stones, Mantles, never ending DW pots, absorption items and ? so the damage will be minimal if anything, right?

[Baktiotha]

<snip>

Without commenting on any class in particular, I think that this sort of approach is the appropriate one. Of course, that is just my opinion so is only worth what it is worth. And, because I recognize Turbine may have different objectives, I am willing to accept if it is not the case with some or all of the classes.

[Baktiotha]

7.5% is barely noticeable.

I think this is just a perspective issue. If I offered you a loan at 0% or the same loan at 7.5% which would you choose? It is all driven by the values of each person and whether it is a significant difference or an insignificant difference depends on what perspective a person holds.

I was taught that in writing it was not necessary for me to include things like, "I think" or "In my opinion." However in discussions like these it is important because it makes clear that something is not an absolute and that it is acceptable if the others participating see the object in a different light.

It would have been better for the one to say, "I can see that 7.5% makes a significant difference" and for the other to have said, "I don't think 7.5% is really that significant." It is a bit more work and we can philosophically debate whether we should caveat our writing, but I'm going to ask that we do so in appropriate ways in order to avoid the appearance of being argumentative rather than engaging in discussion.

[Baktiotha]

Your experience could certainly be different.

It appears that it has been worked out. It takes me a while to catch up on 3 pages of posts, reply to the ones that are conversations I am in, and try to make sure we are sticking to the principle of the thread that we all remain civil.

Carry on. :D

[Chai]

Barbarian does not need a nerf in my opinion, so when we talk about what is too good, think in terms of rebalancing over nerfing.

Barbarian needs more intelligent design.

1. If my barbarian can't survive in the content i am running, I should have the option to make a more defensive build that does less damage. This ability to adjust fills out the gaps between EN/EH/EE players who can roll through one setting but not compete in the next setting.
2. If I simply revel in HUGE damage numbers, I should have the option to make a barbarian with greater damage output (10-30%), at the expense of defense/healing. I should be able to build a character that goes too far and is ineffective without constant supplemental healing.


What my suggestions do is allow a player to make a build that fit their play preferences. In the current system, the top build either works for you or doesn't work for you.

You actually can make a barbarian that does less damage and is more defensive. Ive seen a few on sarlona running around with shields and shield mastery feats. Its not part of the class however, as those feats are available to all.

The DR which still scales at PnP levels could be made to scale with DDO levels for starters...

[J-mann]

You actually can make a barbarian that does less damage and is more defensive. Ive seen a few on sarlona running around with shields and shield mastery feats. Its not part of the class however, as those feats are available to all.

The DR which still scales at PnP levels could be made to scale with DDO levels for starters...

DR could be useful again if they redid the formula so that DR applies after prr, then it would matter. Currently in LE content DR is just a drop in the bucket.

[Baktiotha]

I agree. I don't normally care about my DR. I do take it if it is easily attained or is on an item or what not, but I don't do much to build for it or try to increase its value through use of enhancements or feats. Reducing pre-calculation damage is not as effective as post-calculation damage.

If I have DR20 and PRR to reduce damage 50% then 100 points of damage is 80 (DR) to 40 (PRR). If done the otherway it is 50 (PRR) to 30 (DR).

[Qhualor]

The DR which still scales at PnP levels could be made to scale with DDO levels for starters...

this was brought up during the barb pass and a lot of players wanted to have barb DR scale, but Sev said it was too problematic to balance it. he said whatever they tried to do, it was either too powerful or too weak.

[nokowi]

DR could be useful again if they redid the formula so that DR applies after prr, then it would matter. Currently in LE content DR is just a drop in the bucket.

This should be done immediately, with barbarian levels adding to DR. This is a better approach to character toughness because it doesn't tie healing to DPS (which really pushes you into top DPS builds over other functionality).

I'm not sure if devs would be willing to reprogram this type of thing - it would have been logical to do this at Armor Up.

[nokowi]

I think this is just a perspective issue. If I offered you a loan at 0% or the same loan at 7.5% which would you choose? It is all driven by the values of each person and whether it is a significant difference or an insignificant difference depends on what perspective a person holds.

I was taught that in writing it was not necessary for me to include things like, "I think" or "In my opinion." However in discussions like these it is important because it makes clear that something is not an absolute and that it is acceptable if the others participating see the object in a different light.

It would have been better for the one to say, "I can see that 7.5% makes a significant difference" and for the other to have said, "I don't think 7.5% is really that significant." It is a bit more work and we can philosophically debate whether we should caveat our writing, but I'm going to ask that we do so in appropriate ways in order to avoid the appearance of being argumentative rather than engaging in discussion.

I think i get your point, but we have to be careful with percentages. You might be paying 2x as much for your mortage and 8x as much for your house with a 7.5% vs 0% loan rate, so that was a poor example.

A better much better example is if you will notice the difference between taking down a mob in 60 seconds or 56 seconds. I have directly experienced a 7-8% increase in damage (when switching form rapier to dagger, and when using +10 MP boost), so I can say my ACTUAL game experience is that its barely perceptible. I have a big problem with people arguing how big the 7.5% number "looks" without actually trying this kind of boost and having an actual in-game experience. We saw that player perceptions were way off for +1 critmult, it shouldn't be surprising that perceptions of what 7.5% damage will feel like will also be way off.

In this case the only appropriate discussion, is for players to try 7-8% damage boost before commenting on their perception of this level of power.

[J-mann]

This should be done immediately, with barbarian levels adding to DR. This is a better approach to character toughness because it doesn't tie healing to DPS (which really pushes you into top DPS builds over other functionality).

I'm not sure if devs would be willing to reprogram this type of thing - it would have been logical to do this at Armor Up.

Funnily enough, when prr was originally released, they screwed up the damage formula internally so that prr WAS applied prior to dr, but this was considered overpowered by the devs because sometimes you can take 0 damage. Of course this was before the current dev team and their trend toward one/two shotting for "challenge". Im not sure how hard it is to introduce mechanics into ddo but autoattacks doing ks of damage is just plain stupid imo.

[nokowi]

You actually can make a barbarian that does less damage and is more defensive. Ive seen a few on sarlona running around with shields and shield mastery feats. Its not part of the class however, as those feats are available to all.


I'd be interested to see how much "tougher" they are with the loss of healing through increased DPS.

I don't think its currently possible to choose too much DPS (and have low self healing because of this).

I will admit I don't enjoy the zerg barbarian play, so this is not my area of expertise.

[J-mann]

I think i get your point, but we have to be careful with percentages. You might be paying 2x as much for your mortage and 8x as much for your house with a 7.5% vs 0% loan rate, so that was a poor example.

A better much better example is if you will notice the difference between taking down a mob in 60 seconds or 56 seconds. I have directly experienced a 7-8% increase in damage (when switching form rapier to dagger, and when using +10 MP boost), so I can say my ACTUAL game experience is that its barely perceptible. I have a big problem with people arguing how big the 7.5% number "looks" without actually trying this kind of boost and having an actual in-game experience. We saw that player perceptions were way off for +1 critmult, it shouldn't be surprising that perceptions of what 7.5% damage will feel like will also be way off.

In this case the only appropriate discussion, is for players to try 7-8% damage boost before commenting on their perception of this level of power.

Sure, id agree that in one mob its not that noticeable, but it certainly is across a quest, at least I certainly notice.

[nokowi]

Funnily enough, when prr was originally released, they screwed up the damage formula internally so that prr WAS applied prior to dr, but this was considered overpowered by the devs because sometimes you can take 0 damage. Of course this was before the current dev team and their trend toward one/two shotting for "challenge". Im not sure how hard it is to introduce mechanics into ddo but autoattacks doing ks of damage is just plain stupid imo.

The way damage spikes it would be tough to make DR useful in all content. I would be OK with any implementation (PRR, dodge, etc) that increases barbarian toughness but reduces self healing. Reducing the self healing (without gimping barbs) is the key to having more diverse builds.

I'll let those who play barbarians give the input into if barbs need to end up at a more/less/similar level of defense.

[nokowi]

Sure, id agree that in one mob its not that noticeable, but it certainly is across a quest, at least I certainly notice.

Have you tried this specifically, or is this your perception based on seeing the 7.5% number?


Would you notice the difference between a quest that took 300 seconds and one that took 279 seconds? For some people the answer is actually no. I would be interested in having people watch two TV shows for this long (without telling them why) and then see if they knew which one they watched longer.

5-10% is the minimum level people usually perceive, depending on the person.

[Baktiotha]

The 7.5% bit is getting a little to much like A v B with neither actually focusing in on pursuing an answer just A repeating their position with B repeating *their* position. I see both sides. I would definitely build for the 7.5% increase whether I consciously observed it or not. That is because in that 1 quest (one that I maybe haven't even played yet or know exists) that extra 7.5% could be the thing that saves my life.

Does it matter if it takes 60s instead of 56s? Yes, if in that 4s delta the mob hits me for my last HP.

So, let's just let it go. Players can choose for themselves. Each of you has made your position (repeatedly) clear. Given that there can be those differences between builds, what does it say about *power* and how does that affect examinations of the strengths or weaknesses of the 18/20 cores?

[Gremmlynn]

The 7.5% bit is getting a little to much like A v B with neither actually focusing in on pursuing an answer just A repeating their position with B repeating *their* position. I see both sides. I would definitely build for the 7.5% increase whether I consciously observed it or not. That is because in that 1 quest (one that I maybe haven't even played yet or know exists) that extra 7.5% could be the thing that saves my life.

Does it matter if it takes 60s instead of 56s? Yes, if in that 4s delta the mob hits me for my last HP.

So, let's just let it go. Players can choose for themselves. Each of you has made your position (repeatedly) clear. Given that there can be those differences between builds, what does it say about *power* and how does that affect examinations of the strengths or weaknesses of the 18/20 cores?I think you are missing his point. I also agree with him, but that said, I will say it does make a difference for some players.

To me, and it seems at least one other person, if I can't notice the difference in game play I have a hard time caring one way or the other. For others I've noticed that if it makes a difference "on paper" then it matters, sometimes matters a lot.

This is likely why I feel many over value completionist and others see it as being almost essential. I've run multiple quests without ship buffs (the old one's) and not really noticed the difference. Frankly, it often wasn't worth the bother for me to go back to the ship to get them.

[Baktiotha]

I think you are missing his point. I also agree with him, but that said, I will say it does make a difference for some players.

To me, and it seems at least one other person, if I can't notice the difference in game play I have a hard time caring one way or the other. For others I've noticed that if it makes a difference "on paper" then it matters, sometimes matters a lot.

This is likely why I feel many over value completionist and others see it as being almost essential. I've run multiple quests without ship buffs (the old one's) and not really noticed the difference. Frankly, it often wasn't worth the bother for me to go back to the ship to get them.

I understand his point. But I also understand that philosophical differences in how we approach the game are only useful to others that share our same philosophy.

This is fairly evident in the discussion regarding how or where increases in DPS come from and whether that increase is of sufficient importance that it actually affects the result.

A mob with 13hp is killed in 2 hits whether the character is doing 7 damage per hit or 12 damage per hit. Everyone can see that 12>7 and the math folks can even give the difference a magnitude. But, if all mobs had 13hp there would be zero actual difference between characters doing 7 points of damage and those doing 12 because they both would always need 2 hits to kill the mobs.

Of course in DDO mobs don't all have the same hp and damage isn't a constant (even though we use average values and discuss it as if damage were constant). If we changed the damage in the above example to average damage and assume that the average represents a range from 1 to N then N is going to be >= 13 for both. But the number of times that N>=13 is more for the character averaging 12 damage than the one averaging 7. So we conclude that players will generally prefer the *power* of the 13 average and will, consequently, build for that.

What the discussion showed us is that build and play style sometimes makes this choice less certain. If the 7 damage also has an arsenal of abilities that effectively cause even 1 point of damage to kill the mob we would expect some part of the community to choose that rather than opting for the build doing the greater damage. So we try not to draw absolute conclusions but rather we attempt to understand the information in light of our experience with and expectations of the player base but with an equal understanding that there will be exceptions to our generalized conclusions and that we need to both respect and allow for both.

[Baktiotha]

So, a bit of a fuller response to your observation.

We had a post by janave on the weakness of Favored Soul's Angel of Vengeance outlining why the cores are too weak. That was on page 1. On page 2 we have a recommended resolution. The community seems to be alright with the assessment and the suggested solution because there hasn't been any more discussion. I'd say that this is exactly the goal I am striving for.

On page 2 we have a post by you on the weakness of War Priest. We get a response by Enoach and then it dies. (Well, I do make a comment about favored weapons, but it dies.) This indicates to me that there isn't a very big commitment to War Priest cores being adequate and the analysis that they are too weak is likely correct. I should probably be chastised for not prompting you and Enoach for solutions. We did, at least, get a discussion on favored weapons. :D

On page 3 we essentially identified the *real* issue with berserker cores and, while that will lead to a nerf vs buff discussion, I think for the most part everyone has civilly agreed to what they all knew already -- that *DPS* + heals = win. I think it instructive that while there is some suggestion that barb be nerfed a bit the bigger push is for fighters to be buffed. And, consistent with that we have identified at least some of why fighter is perceived as weak in the healing amp discussion.

So I don't think we are actually in a barbarian mode. I do think it has taken us more work to get to the *problem* and to evaluate the *solutions* and I think we haven't actually hit on a *best* solution -- at least from our perspective. OTOH if Cordovan is reading this thread I'm not sure that we need to settle on *a* solution. Turbine, after all, will make the call (if they do anything at all). It might be sufficient simply to have been able to consider various solutions and to have done so in a drama free way.

Now, back to that War Priest problem -- I see the problem you raised, what is your suggested solution (and Enoach, feel free to jump in)?

We are now in to page 11 of this thread. Are we any closer to answering the original post than we were when I posted on page 4?

I think we have discussed Bard and gotten at least some suggestions of War Priest. Others?

[nokowi]

The 7.5% bit is getting a little to much like A v B with neither actually focusing in on pursuing an answer just A repeating their position with B repeating *their* position. I see both sides. I would definitely build for the 7.5% increase whether I consciously observed it or not. That is because in that 1 quest (one that I maybe haven't even played yet or know exists) that extra 7.5% could be the thing that saves my life.

Does it matter if it takes 60s instead of 56s? Yes, if in that 4s delta the mob hits me for my last HP.

So, let's just let it go. Players can choose for themselves. Each of you has made your position (repeatedly) clear. Given that there can be those differences between builds, what does it say about *power* and how does that affect examinations of the strengths or weaknesses of the 18/20 cores?

It says this thread will be based on players perceptions of what they think they will perceive over what they actually do.

I made a comment based on my actual perception. Others did not.

A>>B

In a discussion, you have to validate and argue your viewpoint and your support for that view. Guesses have far less weight than actual experiences, and this strength or weakness of a position should be part of the discussion.


What this has to do with the cores is whether or not 7.5% power increase from an 18 core is of the level needing a nerf. If your conclusion is simply that we all have our own opinions, then we don't need a discussion thread. Make the rules of your thread that you post an opinion without any supporting evidence and that nobody can response to any one else's comments.

Threads go bad when people insist on being right at the expense of the discussion. All I asked others to do is go get an experience in-game and report back. I didn't invalidate them having their own opinion, I just asked them to have one based on the actual game. Given that it has been shown how poor player guesses are in this very thread, this was a reasonable request. I didn't insist that I was correct, I just pointed out the weakness of arguing for something you have not tested, and asked for better.

If this is an opinion thread and not one for rational discussion, please modify the OP. I'm interested in discussion not unsupported opinions (because I don't want devs to make decisions based on this). PM me if you want me to leave the thread, and I will be happy to let you continue on without my interruptions.

[nokowi]

Argument (+1 critmult at 18 is OP for assassin)
Nokowi It's only 7.5% damage increase
Reply: Its far greater than 7.5% damage increase
Data: Its actually in the 7-8% range, depending on build

Argument: 7.5% is still a big deal
Nokowi: Some people can't even perceive a 7.5% increase. Is the level of power for a nerf one that is barely perceptable?
Reply: "I" would notice. (not I tried it, and did notice)
OP: It's more damage therefore it means something
Nokowi: "More" is not the level needed to argue for a nerf. "It's something" is a losing argument for a nerf.
Nokowi: +1 skill for 1 AP is something, that doesn't mean we need to nerf it.

[Qhualor]

The problem with this discussion is that it's focused too much on 18/20 cores and not including many other things that contribute to character power as a whole. Disregarding the whole thing and only focused on 1 aspect leads to incomplete data. Other things that need to be considered..

1. Healing
2. Defense
3. A variety of group combinations/solo
4. Dps from other sources that add to 18/20 cores
5. Playstyle
6. Types of mobs fighting/DR
7. How many mobs fighting at once
8. Gear/weapon
9. Past lives
10. Ship/party/personal buffs

Some you can sit down with your dps calculations and figure in while others is just impossible to calculate. Looking at one aspect should only be considered a starting point.

[nokowi]

The problem with this discussion is that it's focused too much on 18/20 cores and not including many other things that contribute to character power as a whole. Disregarding the whole thing and only focused on 1 aspect leads to incomplete data. Other things that need to be considered..

1. Healing
2. Defense
3. A variety of group combinations/solo
4. Dps from other sources that add to 18/20 cores
5. Playstyle
6. Types of mobs fighting/DR
7. How many mobs fighting at once
8. Gear/weapon
9. Past lives
10. Ship/party/personal buffs

Some you can sit down with your dps calculations and figure in while others is just impossible to calculate. Looking at one aspect should only be considered a starting point.

We are having enough trouble with just DPS. I disagree. I think we should start with DPS and then add to that once DPS differences are resolved/discussed fully. DPS power is pretty straightforward. We will all value those other things differently, depending on attitude, build, and play style.

People can prove my 7.5% opinion weak by showing all other level 18 cores add less damage than 7.5%. That would be a fact based argument for nerfing the +1 critmult assassin 18 core.

[nokowi]

Looking at one aspect should only be considered a starting point.

Very true, but we are not there yet.

[nokowi]

One Cut: Activate: Your currently equipped primary weapon gains x1 Critical Damage Multiplier for 15 secs.(Cooldown: 1 minute) Passive: +20 Melee Power and Ranged Power.

We already established +20 MP ALONE was +7.5% damage for the 200 MP build (10 MP =7.5% dmg for Shadowdancer DC build). It seems Kensai 18 is OP and needs a nerf before assassin 18.

[Baktiotha]

Argument (+1 critmult at 18 is OP for assassin)
Nokowi It's only 7.5% damage increase
Reply: Its far greater than 7.5% damage increase
Data: Its actually in the 7-8% range, depending on build

Argument: 7.5% is still a big deal
Nokowi: Some people can't even perceive a 7.5% increase. Is the level of power for a nerf one that is barely perceptable?
Reply: "I" would notice. (not I tried it, and did notice)
OP: It's more damage therefore it means something
Nokowi: "More" is not the level needed to argue for a nerf. "It's something" is a losing argument for a nerf.
Nokowi: +1 skill for 1 AP is something, that doesn't mean we need to nerf it.

I'm fine with the first case argument because it contains premise, position 1, position 2, data. The data resolves which of position 1 or position 2 is accurate.

I am not fine with the second case argument. There is no way to get a data driven answer to "7.5% is still a big deal."

The first discussion set has a place in the thread, the second does not.

Even acknowledging that perception colors our "reality" we still must understand that people have and are entitled to different points of view.

With respect to the question of nerf to assassin the data at 7.5% is sufficient. Even if it were -7.5% people who perceive the need for nerf are unlikely to be convinced -- although at a negative value it would argue strongly against the nerf.

By continuing the discussion purely based on where people set their thresholds (more is something v more is not enough) we don't achieve anything. More than that, it is Turbine who will decide if it merits nerf or not.

In my view you have done what is necessary to support your position that it is only ~7.5%. Whether that is enough to justify a nerf or not isn't really something we are likely to settle. It certainly is not enough to push the majority of people into that position and seems to fall into the category of creating angst for some and not for others -- indicating it is probably a good compromise between a higher value (presumably desirable to rogue builders) and a lower value (presumably desirable to nerf proponents).

[Baktiotha]

The problem with this discussion is that it's focused too much on 18/20 cores and not including many other things that contribute to character power as a whole.

IMO nokowi's reply to this deserves consideration.

It is within the framework of the discussion to bring the other elements into a discussion -- and they have been brought in at various times. But DPS in a vacuum is a reasonable starting point.

I think it is alright to demonstrate something like this: For every class and tree there is an optimal build that does D damage. We could then sort D sub 1, D sub 2, etc. to show relative DPS power. Now, I know that this is simplistic because there are various ways to provide DPS and some classes do DPS in ways that don't mirror melee or ranged combat.

But we could use something of that nature as a start point. And we could look at the raw data and draw some initial impressions.

What would be dangerous would be to say that build B needs buff or nerf because of where it sits relative to build Z.

This is, in essence, the crux of the PC v MC discussion wrt FB and F6. Is there a melee power difference and if so is it offset by the damage mitigation so that when both factors are considers MC>=PC? Or, is PC still so far ahead that it effectively argues against ever selecting MC for the barbarian class?

[nokowi]

I'm fine with the first case argument because it contains premise, position 1, position 2, data. The data resolves which of position 1 or position 2 is accurate.

I am not fine with the second case argument. There is no way to get a data driven answer to "7.5% is still a big deal."

The first discussion set has a place in the thread, the second does not.

Even acknowledging that perception colors our "reality" we still must understand that people have and are entitled to different points of view.

With respect to the question of nerf to assassin the data at 7.5% is sufficient. Even if it were -7.5% people who perceive the need for nerf are unlikely to be convinced -- although at a negative value it would argue strongly against the nerf.

By continuing the discussion purely based on where people set their thresholds (more is something v more is not enough) we don't achieve anything. More than that, it is Turbine who will decide if it merits nerf or not.

In my view you have done what is necessary to support your position that it is only ~7.5%. Whether that is enough to justify a nerf or not isn't really something we are likely to settle. It certainly is not enough to push the majority of people into that position and seems to fall into the category of creating angst for some and not for others -- indicating it is probably a good compromise between a higher value (presumably desirable to rogue builders) and a lower value (presumably desirable to nerf proponents).


I put the 7.5% in the context of not being OP compared to other 18 cores (I looked up only one 18 core, Kensai 18, and it showed this).

This is data and has a place in the discussion. It is not simply an opinion of the value of 7.5%.

These results can now be used when comparing with other 18 core discussions.

My objection is your dismissal of important data as just opinions. (The results are now useful to the discussion beyond assassin 18 change, as they give us data points for comparing cores).

[Baktiotha]

One Cut: Activate: Your currently equipped primary weapon gains x1 Critical Damage Multiplier for 15 secs.(Cooldown: 1 minute) Passive: +20 Melee Power and Ranged Power.

We already established +20 MP ALONE was +7.5% damage for the 200 MP build (10 MP =7.5% dmg for Shadowdancer DC build). It seems Kensai 18 is OP and needs a nerf before assassin 18.

:)

Now you see the importance of perception.

What we are not doing, and maybe we should be doing, is considering what Turbine's position appears to be. In various places I've seen suggestions wrt melee classes that the DPS power when compared class-by-class should be something like this: Barbarian>(Fighter/Paladin*/Ranger**/Monk)>Rogue where * is "except against unholy" and ** is "except against favored."

Now, I don't know if that's really an accurate depiction or if players agree with it or not but if that mindset exists at Turbine then what defines the need for nerf or buff is whatever moves a class within that hierarchy.

The consequence is that the effective 15% boost to fighter might argue for a buff while the 7.5% boost to rogue might argue for nerf because of the relative position in actuality between fighter and rogue and because of the most efficient way to restructure the sort to mirror the master plan.

I wonder, however, whether the community could even agree on Barbarian>(Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Monk)>Rogue. And, if it did, could it agree on the sort order and conditions for the classes in parentheses?

[Grailhawk]

Argument: 7.5% is still a big deal
Nokowi: Some people can't even perceive a 7.5% increase. Is the level of power for a nerf one that is barely perceptable?
Reply: "I" would notice. (not I tried it, and did notice)
OP: It's more damage therefore it means something
Nokowi: "More" is not the level needed to argue for a nerf. "It's something" is a losing argument for a nerf.
Nokowi: +1 skill for 1 AP is something, that doesn't mean we need to nerf it.

Your ignoring the one that goes, +1 Crit multiplier is nearly 100% (8.6%) better then an enhancement that increases melee power by 10. (4.5%)

An enhancement that increases melee power by 10 is pretty big and hard to leave on the table, +1 Crit Multiplier is a bigger buff and even harder to leave on the table, It does not belong on the core 18 or 20 if you don't want to kill of multi classing. Like i said before though if you want to distribute its power out to other enhancements that's fine though, I feel its not needed.

[Grailhawk]

One Cut: Activate: Your currently equipped primary weapon gains x1 Critical Damage Multiplier for 15 secs.(Cooldown: 1 minute) Passive: +20 Melee Power and Ranged Power.

We already established +20 MP ALONE was +7.5% damage for the 200 MP build (10 MP =7.5% dmg for Shadowdancer DC build). It seems Kensai 18 is OP and needs a nerf before assassin 18.

I agree with this actually, Fighter core 18 needs to have some of that MP distributed down to other enhancements or or just nerfed out right. I was just thinking about the Active part of One Cut when writing my first post and had forgotten about the 20 MP.

[nokowi]

Argument (+1 critmult at 18 is OP for assassin)
Nokowi It's only 7.5% damage increase
Reply: Its far greater than 7.5% damage increase
Data: Its actually in the 7-8% range, depending on build

Argument: 7.5% is still a big deal
Nokowi: Some people can't even perceive a 7.5% increase. Is the level of power for a nerf one that is barely perceptable?
Reply: "I" would notice. (not I tried it, and did notice)
OP: It's more damage therefore it means something
Nokowi: "More" is not the level needed to argue for a nerf. "It's something" is a losing argument for a nerf.
Nokowi: +1 skill for 1 AP is something, that doesn't mean we need to nerf it.
OP; You should have stopped at 7.5% (simply accepting the comment that 7.5% damage was a big deal)
Nokowi: 7.5% damage increase is not big when compared to other 18 cores. Now we have a basis for what is "big" and not big.

I see the last couple statements as progression of thought, belonging in a discussion.

[Qhualor]

This is, in essence, the crux of the PC v MC discussion wrt FB and F6. Is there a melee power difference and if so is it offset by the damage mitigation so that when both factors are considers MC>=PC? Or, is PC still so far ahead that it effectively argues against ever selecting MC for the barbarian class?

MP was boosted in barb because some claimed that their dps was low in comparison to the bard and paladin passes prior due to lack of self healing and defense and also because barbarian has always been considered THE raw dps class and should have better dps than any other class in that respect. there were even some that said raging had lost its benefit and that is why we saw some of the changes with this class in enhancements and granted feats.

barbarian has never been considered a good splash class or a class to multiclass in except for

bard that has good synergy
usually would see a 18 fighter/2 barb
TRs taking at least 1 level for the run speed

I don't think its really fair to compare pure barbarian to a multiclass build since it does not have any real history of players multiclassing with it other than the 3 big ones I listed.

[Grailhawk]

:)

Now you see the importance of perception.

What we are not doing, and maybe we should be doing, is considering what Turbine's position appears to be. In various places I've seen suggestions wrt melee classes that the DPS power when compared class-by-class should be something like this: Barbarian>(Fighter/Paladin*/Ranger**/Monk)>Rogue where * is "except against unholy" and ** is "except against favored."

Now, I don't know if that's really an accurate depiction or if players agree with it or not but if that mindset exists at Turbine then what defines the need for nerf or buff is whatever moves a class within that hierarchy.

The consequence is that the effective 15% boost to fighter might argue for a buff while the 7.5% boost to rogue might argue for nerf because of the relative position in actuality between fighter and rogue and because of the most efficient way to restructure the sort to mirror the master plan.

I wonder, however, whether the community could even agree on Barbarian>(Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Monk)>Rogue. And, if it did, could it agree on the sort order and conditions for the classes in parentheses?


You will never get players to agree on an order, and honestly the devs shouldn't rely on the players to create that order. Thats something they should have decided on themselves internally on (and should probably share with us). Note that you also need to create orders like that for Defense, Healing, Crowd Control, and AoE DPS not just single target DPS.

[nokowi]

I agree with this actually, Fighter core 18 needs to have some of that MP distributed down to other enhancements or or just nerfed out right. I was just thinking about the Active part of One Cut when writing my first post and had forgotten about the 20 MP.

To be fair to dev's I think they just kind of added power wherever to get the current pass to where they wanted it (with some thought but not a consistent approach). More specifically, I doubt all 18 cores add X% to damage, and this approach to adjustments will likely not work if my first sentence is true.

When comparing multiclass options, we would need to look at the power of the 18 core, as well as the equivalent power boost from multiclassing. If these are similar, then we should have a diversity of builds on a pure DPS basis. Not every pure will benefit from multiclass in the same way, necessitating this approach.

If DPS is quite different, we need to look at "other abilities" to see if they make up the gap.

[Qhualor]

We are having enough trouble with just DPS. I disagree. I think we should start with DPS and then add to that once DPS differences are resolved/discussed fully. DPS power is pretty straightforward. We will all value those other things differently, depending on attitude, build, and play style.

People can prove my 7.5% opinion weak by showing all other level 18 cores add less damage than 7.5%. That would be a fact based argument for nerfing the +1 critmult assassin 18 core.

that's what I'm saying. starting with base numbers that players can mutually agree on and than adding onto those numbers by figuring in the variables that will alter those dps numbers is a fine way to go about it. starting with healing or starting with gear that not everyone will agree on doesn't make sense.

[Baktiotha]

Your ignoring the one that goes, +1 Crit multiplier is nearly 100% (8.6%) better then an enhancement that increases melee power by 10. (4.5%)

An enhancement that increases melee power by 10 is pretty big and hard to leave on the table, +1 Crit Multiplier is a bigger buff and even harder to leave on the table, It does not belong on the core 18 or 20 if you don't want to kill of multi classing. Like i said before though if you want to distribute its power out to other enhancements that's fine though, I feel its not needed.

This is where I think that the points being made about looking beyond DPS come into play. In the discussion of PC v MC a refusal to examine other types of *power* might be leading to poor conclusions.

That is the purpose of my PC FB barbarian v MC FB/Kensei. Do the added elements (4 or more feats, AC, PRR) compensate for the (presumed) drop in DPS. Is there even an actual DPS drop?

The most common answer doesn't relate to cores at all or to PC v MC. The most common answer relates to a totally unrelated tree and the t5 healing enhancement.

This says that the core isn't the issue. It is not what is driving PC choices and it is not what is prohibiting MC choices. The real issue is Ravager t5 and Blood Strength.

Having actually demonstrated that pretty well just anecdotally based on how often people mention that I've forgotten about it, it is reasonable to then ask if the solution both to the fighter class and to the MC question isn't one of self-healing. And in doing that it is reasonable to ask whether a nerf to barbarian or a buff to fighter is the better way to resolve things.

So we actually are examining -- at least in this one case -- three separate types of power, determining which is the actual driver for player choices, and able to see what we might recommend doing to restore balance.

[nokowi]

You will never get players to agree on an order, and honestly the devs shouldn't rely on the players to create that order. Thats something they should have decided on themselves internally on (and should probably share with us). Note that you also need to create orders like that for Defense, Healing, Crowd Control, and AoE DPS not just single target DPS.

They really tried to make them all the same DPS, which is why you see the "other" department such as useful bard buffs completely neglected, and why they forced themselves into similar self healing for all.

[Baktiotha]

You will never get players to agree on an order, and honestly the devs shouldn't rely on the players to create that order. Thats something they should have decided on themselves internally on (and should probably share with us). Note that you also need to create orders like that for Defense, Healing, Crowd Control, and AoE DPS not just single target DPS.

I agree that *we* should not create the order. What I think we might be able to do is effectively guesstimate the order guiding Turbine. (We were able to reverse engineer the order in which defenses were checked, as an example.)

Were we discussing power relative to those other factors I agree. And perhaps at some point we will be discussing those things.

[nokowi]

This is where I think that the points being made about looking beyond DPS come into play. In the discussion of PC v MC a refusal to examine other types of *power* might be leading to poor conclusions.

That is the purpose of my PC FB barbarian v MC FB/Kensei. Do the added elements (4 or more feats, AC, PRR) compensate for the (presumed) drop in DPS. Is there even an actual DPS drop?

The most common answer doesn't relate to cores at all or to PC v MC. The most common answer relates to a totally unrelated tree and the t5 healing enhancement.

This says that the core isn't the issue. It is not what is driving PC choices and it is not what is prohibiting MC choices. The real issue is Ravager t5 and Blood Strength.

Having actually demonstrated that pretty well just anecdotally based on how often people mention that I've forgotten about it, it is reasonable to then ask if the solution both to the fighter class and to the MC question isn't one of self-healing. And in doing that it is reasonable to ask whether a nerf to barbarian or a buff to fighter is the better way to resolve things.

So we actually are examining -- at least in this one case -- three separate types of power, determining which is the actual driver for player choices, and able to see what we might recommend doing to restore balance.

Without unique contributions to a group from individual abilities, winning DDO has been as simple as DPS+Healing> damage taken, in the least amount of time. The game design since the first melee pass has dictated this.

Healing/defense only matters if you can't meet the above formula on the difficulty setting you run. Once you meet the = sign, only DPS matters (other than flavor).

Also, If you run LE Shroud and find your max defense build can't survive, you simply gear for all DPS for this content.

Either way, a player truly optimizing has few real choices, and none of them conform to the players preferences (a given build either works for you, or it doesn't).

[Baktiotha]

They really tried to make them all the same DPS

Is there some basis for this assertion, a comment by a dev, producer, etc. for example?

[nokowi]

Is there some basis for this assertion, a comment by a dev, producer, etc. for example?

That's exactly what they said in the 2015 Players Council. More specifically, they used bard as their desired DPS goal.

[Qhualor]

Is there some basis for this assertion, a comment by a dev, producer, etc. for example?

good luck trying to find the quote because I know it was said in a relatively roundabout way several times during the early class passes in more than 1 thread. it wasn't just about dps, but everything else that is included with dps like the list I posted earlier in this thread. the devs are trying to make the classes that are getting a pass relatively on par with other classes that have had their passes.

[nokowi]

good luck trying to find the quote because I know it was said in a relatively roundabout way several times during the early class passes in more than 1 thread. it wasn't just about dps, but everything else that is included with dps like the list I posted earlier in this thread. the devs are trying to make the classes that are getting a pass relatively on par with other classes that have had their passes.

= All the same

[nokowi]

I would like barbarian to be top melee DPS in the game, say 20% more than anyone else (when built for all DPS), with the need for constant outside healing when grabbing agro on tough opponents. Bartbarians should eat up most trash (non champ) mobs without the need for outside healing.

This gives a healer and the barb individual roles.

Of course you should have the option for a more defensive, self-sufficient build through multiclassing, likely at the expense of (DPS, run speed, or something important).


The fact that players cant even choose a role (max dps, healer, etc) speaks volumes about the design choices made in the last 2 years.

My OPINION is that their design philosophy that nobody should have to (fill X role), led to the reality that nobody can have X role.

This is bad for the game. While nobody should be forced into a role, but they should have the option to fill one.

[Grailhawk]

They really tried to make them all the same DPS, which is why you see the "other" department such as useful bard buffs completely neglected, and why they forced themselves into similar self healing for all.

I don't think I agree with this when looking at DPS: Bard < Paladin < Barbarian < Rogue < Warlock (AOE only) < Ranger >= Fighter.
It really wasn't until you look at the Ranger and Fighter passes that they seamed to have come to a level of try not to out do what came before.

Where you might have a point is in defense and healing they have been doing some work to try and homogenize the classes access to healing and defense but this is really speaking to the fact that they don't want the game to be so difficult its impossible to solo

[Grailhawk]

The fact that players cant even choose a role (max dps, healer, etc) speaks volumes about the design choices made in the last 2 years.

My OPINION is that their design philosophy that nobody should have to (fill X role), led to the reality that nobody can have X role.

This is bad for the game. While nobody should be forced into a role, but they should have the option to fill one.

I think its more that there's no point in having a dedicated role, you could still build to be a healbot, buffbot, Max DPS no Survival, or Tank but there's no point most of the time (maybe tanks have a point in like 1% of content)

I disagree that its bad for the game though as its a better situation then being forced to group and forced to fill a role.

[nokowi]

I don't think I agree with this when looking at DPS: Bard < Paladin < Barbarian < Rogue < Warlock (AOE only) < Ranger >= Fighter.
It really wasn't until you look at the Ranger and Fighter passes that they seamed to have come to a level of try not to out do what came before.

Where you might have a point is in defense and healing they have been doing some work to try and homogenize the classes access to healing and defense but this is really speaking to the fact that they don't want the game to be so difficult its impossible to solo

Intent is not result.

In 2015, they looked at melee rogue DPS at level 20 and said it was fine (they said it was the same as others with passes). I was astonished, as melee rogue was doing about 1/3 of paladin DPS at the time in end game. I told them DPS would need to be 2-3x what is was pre-pass for a Shadowdancer build (and asked for destiny changes to help). They did their own analysis (mostly ignoring mine) and we see melee rogue damage was approximately doubled in the rogue pass. It was done in the cores and not in the destiny (that in my opinion needed it).

My direct experience is that they have trouble balancing DPS. If they were willing to "adjust" right after release, they could have still met their goals. Players don't accept "nerfs", so we end up with unbalanced DPS even after that was the primary goal of the passes.

[nokowi]

I think its more that there's no point in having a dedicated role, you could still build to be a healbot, buffbot, Max DPS no Survival, or Tank but there's no point most of the time (maybe tanks have a point in like 1% of content)

I disagree that its bad for the game though as its a better situation then being forced to group and forced to fill a role.

I specifically said you shouldn't be forced into a role, but should have the option.

What part of that statement are you disagreeing with?


The choice was not

1. have roles and be forced into them
2. have no roles

There was a

3. allow roles but make them optional (useful but not required)

[Grailhawk]

I specifically said you shouldn't be forced into a role, but should have the option.

What part of that statement are you disagreeing with?


The choice was not

1. have roles and be forced into them
2. have no roles

There was a

3. allow roles but make them optional (useful but not required)


The fact that players cant even choose a role (max dps, healer, etc) speaks volumes about the design choices made in the last 2 years.

You absolute can build for max DPS, or healer or bufbot or tank its just not a good idea.

In other words we are in option 3 we just don't do it.

[nokowi]

You absolute can build for max DPS, or healer or bufbot or tank its just not a good idea.

In other words we are in option 3 we just don't do it.

Saying we have an option that doesn't work (and did in the past) shows that they didn't design for us to have useful roles.

I don't think you can rightly claim we have the option, when the option doesn't work effectively. They drove roles straight out of the game by making them ineffective.

Let's at least say players should have a workable build to call it an option.

[BigErkyKid]

Saying we have an option that doesn't work (and did in the past) shows that they didn't design for us to have useful roles.

I don't think you can rightly claim we have the option, when the option doesn't work effectively. They drove roles straight out of the game by making them ineffective.

Let's at least say players should have a workable build to call it an option.

For some roles it is actually possible to build dedicated toons. For example see the tank that is capable of standing against le raid bosses.

Healer is a dead role, as in difficult content mobs deal too much damage for a heal to react.

Buffer is dead, since buffs have been neglected for years.

CC is viable and desired but parties can do without it and it's a pain to build for.

DPS in single target is probably greatest in a melee rogue sneak attacking.

My issue is that probably all those roles can be filled way better by some of the aberrations there are out there.

Monkcher can deal the best single target damage and burst damage in the game from a safe distance.

Tree build has the best aoe burst you can hope in melee.

Sustained damage and self heals are probably greatest on a golden shiradi.


So three considerations:

Roles are most useful in top difficulty content. Imo it is fine letting the tr game be a solo game and building an end game that pretty much requires roles.

Without fixing the elephants in the room speaking of balance is a joke.

They really need to beef up racial trees and lower cores to allow for more build options. I see the too many cookie cutters.

[GroundhogDay]

I would like barbarian to be top melee DPS in the game, say 20% more than anyone else (when built for all DPS), with the need for constant outside healing when grabbing agro on tough opponents. Bartbarians should eat up most trash (non champ) mobs without the need for outside healing.

This gives a healer and the barb individual roles.

Of course you should have the option for a more defensive, self-sufficient build through multiclassing, likely at the expense of (DPS, run speed, or something important).


The fact that players cant even choose a role (max dps, healer, etc) speaks volumes about the design choices made in the last 2 years.

My OPINION is that their design philosophy that nobody should have to (fill X role), led to the reality that nobody can have X role.

This is bad for the game. While nobody should be forced into a role, but they should have the option to fill one.

I strongly disagree, the barbarian you're talking about is the one we had for years and that nobody played, so much it deserved a complete remake.
If my barbarian had to chose between soloing content or have the best aoe dps in my stable, i would tr it before you can say solongandthanksforthefishes.

Having to wait for a healer is the most boring thing i've ever experienced in this game. Still, when running LE quests a healer is still very nice, not so long ago in a LE memoirs an underlevel druid kept the party alive and well during the whole quest (granted, it was a pug, and most of the party seemed a little on the green side), so roles are still somewhat defined.

What i think you're missing is that "roles" are a little more fluid now, just because you're a cleric you don't need to just heal, you can do all sort of things, and build as many different clerics as you want. I'm experimenting with a clr15/pal5 s&b tywa dwarf to fill, as you might say, two roles, tank & healer. See? I can still chose roles, if i want to.

[GroundhogDay]

Without fixing the elephants in the room speaking of balance is a joke.


https://s32.postimg.org/60ro4774l/z_Usq_EOG.jpg

[nokowi]

I strongly disagree, the barbarian you're talking about is the one we had for years and that nobody played, so much it deserved a complete remake.
If my barbarian had to chose between soloing content or have the best aoe dps in my stable, i would tr it before you can say solongandthanksforthefishes.

Having to wait for a healer is the most boring thing i've ever experienced in this game. Still, when running LE quests a healer is still very nice, not so long ago in a LE memoirs an underlevel druid kept the party alive and well during the whole quest (granted, it was a pug, and most of the party seemed a little on the green side), so roles are still somewhat defined.

What i think you're missing is that "roles" are a little more fluid now, just because you're a cleric you don't need to just heal, you can do all sort of things, and build as many different clerics as you want. I'm experimenting with a clr15/pal5 s&b tywa dwarf to fill, as you might say, two roles, tank & healer. See? I can still chose roles, if i want to.

Barbarian was top DPS when cap was 20, and they needed some heals to "tank" a raid. They were well liked and used by top players.

Needing heals while grabbing agro in a raid is different than not being able to solo quests. When cap was 20, you could solo quests with a barbarian as well as most other builds.



What is different today? You couldn't even get agro today with your barb for any length of time (in a good party), because all the builds have the same DPS. If you used intim to get agro, it would be no better than letting the boss randomly attack someone, because you are not any tougher than anyone else. There is no reason to center heals on the barb because their DPS is no more valuable than any one else's. Calling your DPS barb a "role" when there are no other viable options shows that players have lost track of what a role is.

A role is giving up something in order to excel in a specific (useful) area. What did the Max DPS barb give up compared to other barb builds (not healing, not fast movement, nothing...) What special area are they excelling in (none).

Most of the builds Erky listed do not do this either.

Buffbot is nto a role, becaus eit serves no useful purpose.

Healbot is not currently a role because it serves no useful purpose. In the case of healbot, allowing a high DPS build that is weaker would actually give healbot a role. So we see there is no design flaw in makign a healbot, but there is a design flaw in making a max DPS build.

Anyone who likes what we have now would be able to play the same build they do now, so please stop with the statements how you will be forced back into some dark past. What I propose is 20% more DPS at the loss of survivability as a "role" option for a max DPS build.

[Qhualor]

I strongly disagree, the barbarian you're talking about is the one we had for years and that nobody played, so much it deserved a complete remake.
If my barbarian had to chose between soloing content or have the best aoe dps in my stable, i would tr it before you can say solongandthanksforthefishes.

Having to wait for a healer is the most boring thing i've ever experienced in this game. Still, when running LE quests a healer is still very nice, not so long ago in a LE memoirs an underlevel druid kept the party alive and well during the whole quest (granted, it was a pug, and most of the party seemed a little on the green side), so roles are still somewhat defined.

What i think you're missing is that "roles" are a little more fluid now, just because you're a cleric you don't need to just heal, you can do all sort of things, and build as many different clerics as you want. I'm experimenting with a clr15/pal5 s&b tywa dwarf to fill, as you might say, two roles, tank & healer. See? I can still chose roles, if i want to.

umm, barb was a very popular class to play up until cap was raised to 25 and a common tank in raids. the reason why they were played less after the raise was because of the significant increase in damage in epics that actually affected all classes, we completely lost any sort of trinity game with other classes able to be much more self sufficient and ranged dps was the preferred way to play in quests.

roles? the only time I ever see anyone play a "role" is in Legendary raids where there is a tank for the boss and sometimes there is a healer that is not always a cleric. while I certainly appreciate outside help regardless of what class I play, we are too ingrained today as a BYOH game and roles are all but extinct.

[Hawkwier]

umm, barb was a very popular class to play up until cap was raised to 25 and a common tank in raids. the reason why they were played less after the raise was because of the significant increase in damage in epics that actually affected all classes, we completely lost any sort of trinity game with other classes able to be much more self sufficient and ranged dps was the preferred way to play in quests.

roles? the only time I ever see anyone play a "role" is in Legendary raids where there is a tank for the boss and sometimes there is a healer that is not always a cleric. while I certainly appreciate outside help regardless of what class I play, we are too ingrained today as a BYOH game and roles are all but extinct.

Qhualor makes a very salient point there.

We can tinker with balance all we like on paper, but even if we did get it "right" (whatever that is), we are missing the human nature element...

As an example, if Barb DPS is increased at the expense of self healing, then there is more than a fair chance that barbs become excluded from PUGs by BYOH elitism/soloists.

This happened implicitly in the past to a great extent, and possibly explicitly too to a lesser extent.

Toon development has moved on too far from Pre-ED days to turn the clock back.

Roles, like punk, and that Norwegian Blue, are dead, however we may lament their passing.

For good or ill the game has moved on. You'd need to offer DPS that dwarfed tree builds to make giving up self healing even worth considering, and even then, it probably wouldn't suffice. Ultimate DPS just isn't an attractive enough goal anymore, when other classes can attain ENOUGH dps and still be self sufficient.

As has been said many times, we now run as a collective of soloists, rather than a team of specialists. The genie is out of the bottle, and without a radical overhaul on self healing across the entire game, theoretical change on any specific class simply lacks the scope to effect the necessary cultural change in the player base.

Another laudable aim founders on the rocks of practicality, I'm afraid. :(

[nokowi]

As an example, if Barb DPS is increased at the expense of self healing, then there is more than a fair chance that barbs become excluded from PUGs by BYOH elitism/soloists.

This happened implicitly in the past to a great extent, and possibly explicitly too to a lesser extent.

Toon development has moved on too far from Pre-ED days to turn the clock back.

Roles, like punk, and that Norwegian Blue, are dead, however we may lament their passing.




I asked for players to have the OPTION for more dps and less self sufficiency.

A class becomes extinct (for all but flavor) when it has NO options that work, not when one option is seen as inferior.

If nobody chooses 20% more DPS, no harm is done.

The more I keep saying the same thing (options!) and seeing ALL OR NONE responses, the more I realize this game is dead for anyone who wants group play.


It's not a choice of
1. solo friendly
2. group friendly

It's possibly to do both, even though devs had made little effort to allow group synergy. Stop being sheep and ask for better!