wisdom to damage but not for monks, why the hate?.

[silinteresting]

in another post i asked the devs if there was anymore info on wisdom to damage, sad to say
to date no reply but im cool with that. what i did see in the thread and when i spoke to others
in and out of the game was a few people were saying sure but make it so monks dont benifit
in anyway, now this i dont understand.

im hearing the arguement that monks dc'c are wisdom based and giving them wisdom to damage
will make them over powered, ive got to admit im not seeing the problem. do not rogues get int to
damage and it helps there dc's. do not bards get it with char and there dc's ?.

if the above is ok then why the monk hate?.

just thought id ask, nothing against anyone who dose not want to see the above happen i just want to ask why?.

your friend sil :)

[SerPounce]

I assume people think it's about overall balance, that monks are "strong enough" without wis to damage while rogues lagged behind before int to damage. Probably because monks were a strong class for a few months 4 years ago. They're no where near top of the pack right now though so I don't see the big deal particularly given the reduced importance of your hit/dmg stat given the to-hit curve and the numerous bonuses you get to both stats. It's no where near the advantage it would have been in say the lvl cap 20 days.

[Renvar]

In my opinion, it would be unfair to limit monks from getting wisdom to damage but make it available to other classes. (I guess divines and AA rangers would be the other two that would benefit). But both of them would be getting the same DC's and melee damage synergy.

In fact, the primary reason to switch your damage stat from the default is to get synergy with DC's of other class abilities.

[Chai]

This "sure but not for monks" stuff is an example of the self proclaimed game balance experts not understanding addressing balance issues from the top down. Monks are nowhere near the top. Furthermore, the incarnation of monk that is closest is the fury shot monk archer build, but I dont hear about those in the "sure but not for monks" feedback. I have read alot more about disallowing tactics DCs to be on the same stat as damage, which is a melee monk feature, and anyone who believes this will unbalance the top end of the game is likely living in a meta that is not the current, nor the previous meta. Melee, while some can be viable, and even near optimal DPS, havent been optimal all around - especially with survivability. If youre approaching a mob on a monk and going to melee stun it, having another 5 mod on your damage dice isnt going to break the game, or make it much safer for you to be toe to toe with top end mobs while wearing feety pajamas. Ranged and caster will still be the safer option.

[Enoach]

Of the things added in later versions of Dungeons & Dragons one feature I liked was the ability to take a feat to use a different attribute for your melee/range attack rolls.

In my opinion it opens up more build options. It can take M.A.D. classes and simplify them. Of course it should not be cheap which is why I lean towards feats.

[Vish]

On my 30 dg henshin,
I had about 50 dex, and 74 wis
If they go wis to damage then about a +12 dam increase
Improves, doesn't break
Plus you have to look at the ap spread
Can get dex to hit/dam pretty cheap
So how much ap for wis to dam in a separate tree?
Or ap for wis to hit?
That will make or break the choices.

[Hipparan]

I have always wanted to use the Vorpal Strikes feat, but seeing how you need 23 Wisdom to take it, you have to plan your character almost entirely around it. I'd like to see Wis to attack/damage in part to make this feat more available.

[nokowi]

in another post i asked the devs if there was anymore info on wisdom to damage, sad to say
to date no reply but im cool with that. what i did see in the thread and when i spoke to others
in and out of the game was a few people were saying sure but make it so monks dont benifit
in anyway, now this i dont understand.

im hearing the arguement that monks dc'c are wisdom based and giving them wisdom to damage
will make them over powered, ive got to admit im not seeing the problem. do not rogues get int to
damage and it helps there dc's. do not bards get it with char and there dc's ?.

if the above is ok then why the monk hate?.

just thought id ask, nothing against anyone who dose not want to see the above happen i just want to ask why?.

your friend sil :)

It's a general misunderstanding from people who can only think in absolutes. It's possible to achieve even more diversity of builds when a player makes a tough decision between maxing their main stat and also boosting secondary stats. I can tell you from experience that I argued against Dex to damage and assassinate for my build (rogue), so I find any cries of hypocrisy to be intentional misrepresentations, especially by those that supported sharing class abilities both when the majority of class didn't have an ability and try to now argue that it's because everyone else has main stat to damage that sharing abilities is OK. I see a lot of hypocrisy by those that change their argument from thread to thread to continually support shared abilities.

The key to a diversity of useful builds is to make players have tough choices, and multiple stats do a good job of doing this - much more so than trees from devs which tend to have obvious choices much better than anything else, and drastically unequal choices within a particular tier. As a specific example, you can't make a rogue Int build without taking Int to Damage, so you have less than 80 AP when you consider all reasonable Int builds. Without Int to damage (assuming some other equivalent boost), players would have 80 AP to choose all reasonable Int builds, providing more diversity of good choices. Specifically, there is nothing that can compete with main stat to damage, which is why it reduces viable player choices. Prior to Wis to damage, you might have to choose between DC and damage - the choice is gone with main stat to damage.

That being said, I fully expect devs to add Wis to damage as they have said they are going to. My opinion, if it differs from yours, thus has no effect on you and shouldn't be cause for great concern.

[nokowi]

This "sure but not for monks" stuff is an example of the self proclaimed game balance experts not understanding addressing balance issues from the top down. Monks are nowhere near the top. Furthermore, the incarnation of monk that is closest is the fury shot monk archer build, but I dont hear about those in the "sure but not for monks" feedback. I have read alot more about disallowing tactics DCs to be on the same stat as damage, which is a melee monk feature, and anyone who believes this will unbalance the top end of the game is likely living in a meta that is not the current, nor the previous meta. Melee, while some can be viable, and even near optimal DPS, havent been optimal all around - especially with survivability. If youre approaching a mob on a monk and going to melee stun it, having another 5 mod on your damage dice isnt going to break the game, or make it much safer for you to be toe to toe with top end mobs while wearing feety pajamas. Ranged and caster will still be the safer option.

Nobody interested in a discussion made this argument.

The argument is that separate design produces a better game than continually sharing existing abilities (nothing can compete with taking main stat to damage), and that monks can be boosted to the appropriate level without needing to share Wis to damage.

Having another 5 damage won't break the game, but choosing between 2 DC and 5 mod damage gives players choices that will not exist with main stat to damage. It possible to add a few MP in the monk tree (or many other choices) if you feel like extra damage is needed, without taking away the competitive build choice.

[nokowi]

Here is an example for those reading to understand how main stat to damage impacts choices.

Let's say in the latest pass, monks get a DC of 90 and do damage of 1.0




Damage
DC


Multi-Stat
0.8
96


Multi-Stat
0.9
93


Main Stat to Damage
1.0
90


Multi-Stat
1.1
87


Multi-Stat
1.2
84




With main stat to damage, players get one choice (assume a build DC=90, 1.0 damage has equivalent power to other class passes).

With multiple competing stats for DC and damage, players get the choice to build a toon that does 20% higher damage, or 6 higher DC without being overpowered.

If class trees actually had competing choices throughout every individual tier, main stat to damage could work (say if you had to choose between DC and extra damage but could not get both), but the class trees almost always allow you to cherry pick the best of everything.

Multiple competing stats can allow the same build choice as main stat to damage, but can also provide many more options. When you multiply the damage and DC choices for multiple competing stats with the tree choices, you will come up with many more viable builds than if the choices in the trees only interact with one maximum main stat build choice.

[Chai]

Nobody interested in a discussion made this argument.

Oh, they most certainly did make that argument.


The argument is that separate design produces a better game than continually sharing existing abilities (nothing can compete with taking main stat to damage), and that monks can be boosted to the appropriate level without needing to share Wis to damage.

Having another 5 damage won't break the game, but choosing between 2 DC and 5 mod damage gives players choices that will not exist with main stat to damage. It possible to add a few MP in the monk tree (or many other choices) if you feel like extra damage is needed, without taking away the competitive build choice.

Variety means monks, clerics, and FvS, and druid having a seat at the table, and more of the populace being represented by them.

[Chai]

Here is an example for those reading to understand how main stat to damage impacts choices.

Let's say in the latest pass, monks get a DC of 90 and do damage of 1.0




Damage
DC


Multi-Stat
0.8
96


Multi-Stat
0.9
93


Main Stat to Damage
1.0
90


Multi-Stat
1.1
87


Multi-Stat
1.2
84




With main stat to damage, players get one choice (assume a build DC=90, 1.0 damage has equivalent power to other class passes).

With multiple competing stats for DC and damage, players get the choice to build a toon that does 20% higher damage, or 6 higher DC without being overpowered.

If class trees actually had competing choices throughout every individual tier, main stat to damage could work (say if you had to choose between DC and extra damage but could not get both), but the class trees almost always allow you to cherry pick the best of everything.

Multiple competing stats can allow the same build choice as main stat to damage, but can also provide many more options. When you multiply the damage and DC choices for multiple competing stats with the tree choices, you will come up with many more viable builds than if the choices in the trees only interact with one maximum main stat build choice.

Players have more than just that one choice. Most of the minute portion of the playerbase playing monks currently are choosing to max their wisdom and take a 10-12 mod hit on their DPS. No objective argument can be made that shows more variety will exist simply due to losing 12 points per hit on damage. An objective position can be established however, that druids, FvS, monks, and clerics will be more viable due to consolidation of stat, be represented by a higher percentage of the playerbase (even though still a minority) and more actual builds that do actual different things will come out of this, rather than your assertion that multiplying the denominators incorrectly concludes, which is nothing more than a bunch of builds which do the exact same thing, with the one single variable being the choice of spread between DPS stat and DC stat.

That is before we even begin to discuss the actual context of the meta in DDO - in which this limitation is only enforced on one stat, while every single other stat in the game can be consolidated. Which classes are lowest on the power ladder in DDO? Not a coincidence, that its the same classes which use this one stat in which the limitation is enforced.

Your position would be valid in a meta in which no stat were allowed to be consolidated, but it leaks like a siv when applied to the current meta in DDO, where the position is to continue to enforce this limitation on one stat, while all others can be consolidated.

[nokowi]

Players have more than just that one choice. Most of the minute portion of the playerbase playing monks currently are choosing to max their wisdom and take a 10-12 mod hit on their DPS. No objective argument can be made that shows more variety will exist simply due to losing 12 points per hit on damage. An objective position can be established however, that druids, FvS, monks, and clerics will be more viable due to consolidation of stat, be represented by a higher percentage of the playerbase (even though still a minority) and more actual builds that do actual different things will come out of this, rather than your assertion that multiplying the denominators incorrectly concludes, which is nothing more than a bunch of builds which do the exact same thing, with the one single variable being the choice of spread between DPS stat and DC stat.

That is before we even begin to discuss the actual context of the meta in DDO - in which this limitation is only enforced on one stat, while every single other stat in the game can be consolidated. Which classes are lowest on the power ladder in DDO? Not a coincidence, that its the same classes which use this one stat in which the limitation is enforced.

Your position would be valid in a meta in which no stat were allowed to be consolidated, but it leaks like a siv when applied to the current meta in DDO, where the position is to continue to enforce this limitation on one stat, while all others can be consolidated.

In fact MOST of the individual choices players make will be less than the amount you suggest is trivial. I guess we should take those away too...

The issue is really that players have one-dimensional thinking that think main stat to damage is the only way to improve character power, even when I gave direct examples such as adding MP/RP in the core, making existing monk abilities more powerful, or the crazy thought of giving monks something new and shiny. Players will also move to currently weaker classes if these things happen, without main stat to damage being a requirement. Pretending main stat to damage is the only option is a gross misrepresentation.

Class X has Y and is doing better than me, so my class needs Y right? It's how we all got self healing, fast run speed, clickies that replace class roles, etc.

When you continually justify that something is OK because it is not OP, and because someone else has it, all classes end up being able to do exactly the same thing. Class homogenization is moving towards this state. If you have a variety of choices for your class but picking another class gives you the exact same choices, then your class choice makes no difference and class homogenization has gone to it's extreme limit.

Sharing existing abilities is the definition of class homogenization and is a poor substitute for independent design choices, at least from a player perspective.

Whether main stat to damage or multiple stats gives players more choices is independent of what happened to other classes --> the justification needs to be why main stat to damage is better than competing stats with equivalent power. The only real justification for going main stat to damage is if giving players less options is less dev effort, and if reducing player choices while increasing player power is acceptable to players.

[Rys]

Melee monks are fun but there has always been that kinda weirdish hate towards a "new" class, similar to the warlock.

[nokowi]

Melee monks are fun but there has always been that kinda weirdish hate towards a "new" class, similar to the warlock.

Certain players do hate on classes that they believe are over-performing, which is generally the latest class pass, generally because that is their excuse for while they have trouble doing things.

Nobody was hating melee rogues after the rogue pass, so "newness" is not the issue.

I don't really care if monks are more powerful than anything else if they have a unique contribution and don't do everything, I just want more player choices than others in this thread, and I understand what main stat to damage does to a build having gone through that exact process with my own character. Go to the rogue forums and try and find a recent Int build - giving Dex to damage and assassinate almost entirely eliminated the choice between Dex and Int, and made an Int build an inferior version of the Dex build (they now both play largely the same due to shared everything on main stat).

[Rys]

Certain players do hate on classes that they believe are over-performing, which is generally the latest class pass, generally because that is their excuse for while they have trouble doing things.

Nobody was hating melee rogues after the rogue pass, so "newness" is not the issue.

I don't really care if monks are more powerful than anything else if they have a unique contribution and don't do everything, I just want more player choices than others in this thread, and I understand what main stat to damage does to a build having gone through that exact process with my own character. Go to the rogue forums and try and find a recent Int build - giving Dex to damage and assassinate almost entirely eliminated the choice between Dex and Int, and made an Int build an inferior version of the Dex build (they now both play largely the same due to shared everything on main stat).

I was talking about new classes. Not class passes.

[Chai]

In fact MOST of the individual choices players make will be less than the amount you suggest is trivial. I guess we should take those away too...

This is incorrect, and not factual whatsoever -and the main method of thinking which invalidates the position you are taking here - and I already explained why once. I will explain it one more time. The feats and AP are the limiting factors. On a FvS for instance, with 7 feats, the player can choose optimal melee or optimal DC, but cannot choose to be both. Same with a cleric and a druid. This is the case even with wis to damage. The monk on the other hand is always going to choose the DC, because 30% (12 mod) on a DC is far more impacting than 12 mod on damage, which doesnt equal anywhere near 30% less DPS. So its not even a choice on a monk. The illusion you are falling for here is restricting monks enforces a choice, where no choice actually exists which doesnt put them right back to the bottom of the barrel.

Once again, understanding the difference between enforcing real choices, versus the illusion of choice, comes into play. The FVS can optimize for melee DPS and still gain alot by casting spells that are either defensive, recovery, or dont require a save. The monk cannot optimize DPS without losing ~30% effectiveness on DCs, but since 12 mod to DC and 12 mod to damage stat have nowhere near the same impact, optimizers will always choose the DC, because 12 mod has a much larger impact on DC than on DPS. Any "monk" who chooses DPS over DC might as well multiclass that "monk" with 18-20 levels of something else.



Whether main stat to damage or multiple stats gives players more choices is independent of what happened to other classes --> the justification needs to be why main stat to damage is better than competing stats with equivalent power. The only real justification for going main stat to damage is if giving players less options is less dev effort, and if reducing player choices while increasing player power is acceptable to players.

Refuted. in full. The minute you said "only" the position to restrict wisdom but not hold back any other stat the same way took the L. Ive now provided 4 other scenarios, which have been glossed over and dismissed, but not addressed.

[nokowi]

I was talking about new classes. Not class passes.

Contrast Warlock 1 year after introduction with Artificer 1 year after introduction and I think you see a much different reaction.

I don't think newness is a big issue, but you are welcome to believe that is the cause of complaints.

[Rys]

Contrast Warlock 1 year after introduction with Artificer 1 year after introduction and I think you see a much different reaction.

I don't think newness is a big issue, but you are welcome to believe that is the cause of complaints.

And I will continue to believe that.

[nokowi]

This is incorrect, and not factual whatsoever -and the main method of thinking which invalidates the position you are taking here - and I already explained why once. I will explain it one more time. The feats and AP are the limiting factors. On a FvS for instance, with 7 feats, the player can choose optimal melee or optimal DC, but cannot choose to be both. Same with a cleric and a druid. This is the case even with wis to damage. The monk on the other hand is always going to choose the DC, because 30% (12 mod) on a DC is far more impacting than 12 mod on damage, which doesnt equal anywhere near 30% less DPS. So its not even a choice on a monk. The illusion you are falling for here is restricting monks enforces a choice, where no choice actually exists which doesnt put them right back to the bottom of the barrel.

Once again, understanding the difference between enforcing real choices, versus the illusion of choice, comes into play.

You have shown is there are choices, which is not something that anyone has disagreed with. You can drop this line of posts.

If you believe 12 mod damage is irrelevant when compared to DC, that damage is something that could be individually boosted to create a greater choice with multiple stat design. During a pass class would be a perfect time to do so, and this type of balance can only happen if these two abilities are separated. If there is no choice now, you will have an equal number of choices to what you have now with main stat to damage, and main-stat doesn't serve any purpose other than boosting damage, which can be done much more simply through MP/RP (that's the entire purpose of creating these abilities on the design side).

If you are not interested in more choices, please explain why some extra MP/RP isn't a better implementation.

[Chai]

Contrast Warlock 1 year after introduction with Artificer 1 year after introduction and I think you see a much different reaction.

I don't think newness is a big issue, but you are welcome to believe that is the cause of complaints.

Comparing apples to sherman tanks.

Artificers were introduced in an era when buffs meant something, and were desired. Raids meant needing boss beaters, and many of us had weapons that when augmented with an arty buff could break DR and be better than our hold over boss beaters.

Warlock was introduced in an era where soloing and self healing AOE builds were the meta, and epics were a different animal when artificers were introduced. There was no EH, EN, EE etc...it was just epics, and all of them were for level 20s only.

If newness wasnt such an issue why were most passes demanded to be nerfed? Of course, youll answer this by bringing up assassins which are there exception there, not the rule. The exception doesnt refute the rule.

I can also refute the assassin comeback anyhow. By the time the devs got to assassin, the pattern based nerf demanding had already removed the overhead the player base would allow before griping, so assassins werent made as powerful as the others. Thus the reason why people didnt gripe about assassins wasnt because newness wasnt an issue, its because newness was such an issue in all previous passes, they has to tone it down.

[Chai]

You have shown is there are choices, which is not something that anyone has disagreed with. You can drop this line of posts.

If you believe 12 mod damage is irrelevant when compared to DC, that damage is something that could be individually boosted to create a greater choice with multiple stat design. During a pass class would be a perfect time to do so, and this type of balance can only happen if these two abilities are separated. If there is no choice now, you will have an equal number of choices to what you have now with main stat to damage, and main-stat doesn't serve any purpose other than boosting damage, which can be done much more simply through MP/RP (that's the entire purpose of creating these abilities on the design side).

If you are not interested in more choices, please explain why some extra MP/RP isn't a better implementation.

bolded is incorrect. the post you quoted and replied to already showed this and outlined why for a second time. How about addressing the 4 examples I already provided that refute the bolded statement.

[nokowi]

bolded is incorrect. the post you quoted and replied to already showed this and outlined why for a second time. How about addressing the 4 examples I already provided that refute the bolded statement.

You said there was no real choice now because DC vs damage was not competitive for monks.

I responded to that statement by saying multiple stat design can change this interaction to make competitive choices, if the two abilities are separated. I thus see a benefit to multiple stat design. Whether you believe this happens now is irrelevant, my statements stand regardless of the current state of the game. Devs would be free to better take advantage of multiple stat choices in their class passes - I have always advocated for better competitive choices.

DDO has a history of railroading design to the point where devs have few good options for balance. Main stat to damage is yet another one of these, as it takes out some really good design choices, gives players fewer different build options, most of which become similar due to main stat synergy. Only one is optimal, leaving players few significantly different build choices.

[Chai]

You said there was no real choice now because DC vs damage was not competitive for monks.

I responded to that statement by saying multiple stat design can change this interaction to make competitive choices, if the two abilities are separated. I thus see a benefit to multiple stat design. Whether you believe this happens now is irrelevant, my statements stand regardless of the current state of the game. Devs would be free to better take advantage of multiple stat choices in their class passes - I have always advocated for better competitive choices.

No need to review what was already stated, just address the 4 examples provided which show the statement you made to be incorrect. Specifically.


DDO has a history of railroading design to the point where devs have few good options for balance. Main stat to damage is yet another one of these, as it takes out some really good design choices, gives players fewer different build options, most of which become similar due to main stat synergy. Only one is optimal, leaving players few significantly different build choices.

As stated before Id be with you on this if you were arguing for zero stats to be able to be consolidated. In the current context of DDO, that ship sailed and wisdom is the last hold out. No logical argument can be made for allowing 5/6 stats to be consolidated but not the 6th.

[PsychoBlonde]

I generally agree that just having wis-to-damage as an open monk feature would tend to turn monks far too much into one-trick ponies.

I'd like to see it on animal form druids and maybe favored souls, particularly since when they fix the attack speed double stacking exploits with animal form there's probably going to be some BIG changes to druid options. I'm fine with needing to forego a capstone on Monk to get it.

[HastyPudding]

If people don't want wisdom-to-damage modifier, then how about a wisdom-to-damage clicky? Sort of like Divine Might or Know the Angles: for 30-60 seconds, you gain 1/2 of your wisdom mod to your damage.

[PsychoBlonde]

As stated before Id be with you on this if you were arguing for zero stats to be able to be consolidated. In the current context of DDO, that ship sailed and wisdom is the last hold out. No logical argument can be made for allowing 5/6 stats to be consolidated but not the 6th.

Since Strength doesn't really give you much in the way of CC or defense (no saving throws), I'd argue that Strength is still an "unconsolidated" stat. You can't get con to hit, either, so it is also "unconsolidated". Cha is not particularly consolidated, either--you have to play a PDK and use a very specific weapon selection which kicks you out of a lot of options. And with divine might giving a boostie to strength instead of damage, it's not a trade-off that works particularly well.

The only stat which is GENUINELY consolidated right now is Int, because ANYBODY can take Harper and with Know the Angles and Insightful Reflexes it can be your go-to stat for major defense, DC's, attack, AND damage.

Every other kind of "consolidated" stat benefit that exists comes with MAJOR trade-offs involved.

[PsychoBlonde]

If people don't want wisdom-to-damage modifier, then how about a wisdom-to-damage clicky? Sort of like Divine Might or Know the Angles: for 30-60 seconds, you gain 1/2 of your wisdom mod to your damage.

I was actually recommending something like this--as long as, like Know the Angles and Divine Might, they're all mutually exclusive.

Or they could do something interesting like you add your wis modifier to sneak attack or some other non-critting damage type.

[nokowi]

As stated before Id be with you on this if you were arguing for zero stats to be able to be consolidated. In the current context of DDO, that ship sailed and wisdom is the last hold out. No logical argument can be made for allowing 5/6 stats to be consolidated but not the 6th.


We can stop here on this one, because I stated that whether or not a design choice is good for monk is independent of those other stats. Falsely linking "because other people have X" is the exact source of homogenization, and you can put yourself into the group of forumites that supported it.

Monk traditionally has some pretty big choices between stats, and it is such a shame to see these removed.

No amount of logic can simplify design to "anything that appears 5/6 times must be better at 6/6 times", especially while arguing against class homogenization in other threads. The truth is that good design is much more complex than this, and devs should be very wary of continually sharing abilities as build diversity is one of the big draws to DDO.

[nokowi]

If people don't want wisdom-to-damage modifier, then how about a wisdom-to-damage clicky? Sort of like Divine Might or Know the Angles: for 30-60 seconds, you gain 1/2 of your wisdom mod to your damage.

I see these as the same for Know the Angles, with hitting an extra button as just an additional annoyance when the play cost (spell points) is trivial even for non spell caster builds.

If it cost a significant chunk of ki to use, I think you might have a winner.

[Chai]

Since Strength doesn't really give you much in the way of CC or defense (no saving throws), I'd argue that Strength is still an "unconsolidated" stat. You can't get con to hit, either, so it is also "unconsolidated". Cha is not particularly consolidated, either--you have to play a PDK and use a very specific weapon selection which kicks you out of a lot of options. And with divine might giving a boostie to strength instead of damage, it's not a trade-off that works particularly well.

Strength is equally consolidated as wisdom, fighters versus monks.

No need for con to hit, when str is the stat that can be increased the most in DDO. Consolidating con to damage opens up the option to guzzle silver flame pots and not take a hit to the damage stat.

Cha is consolidated , as PDK can use it for hit/dmg/DC/will save. bard can use it for damage/DC/will save.


Every other kind of "consolidated" stat benefit that exists comes with MAJOR trade-offs involved.

Not really. Str in armor isnt going to be using wis to AC or getting a high dodge anyhow. try putting some full plate on that monk, see how it works out.


The only stat which is GENUINELY consolidated right now is Int, because ANYBODY can take Harper and with Know the Angles and Insightful Reflexes it can be your go-to stat for major defense, DC's, attack, AND damage.

By degree this claim is correct. As an absolute statement it is incorrect.

[Chai]

We can stop here on this one, because I stated that whether or not a design choice is good for monk is independent of those other stats.

And because you stated it, and repeated it over and over again its just correct? Nope.


Falsely linking "because other people have X" is the exact source of homogenization, and you can put yourself into the group of forumites that supported it.

Thats not falsely linking, thats CORRECTLY linking. DDO history supports me here.


Monk traditionally has some pretty big choices between stats, and it is such a shame to see these removed.

They arent removed. They are added to.


No amount of logic can simplify design to "anything that appears 5/6 times must be better at 6/6 times", especially while arguing against class homogenization in other threads. The truth is that good design is much more complex than this, and devs should be very wary of continually sharing abilities as build diversity is one of the big draws to DDO.

yes it does, because your claim that this will cause class homogenization is once again false. If you disagree, address all 4 of my examples, specifically.

Failing to address my examples specifically for the fifth time, you cannot then make a "no amount of logic" claim, while glossing over those. The logic exists, for any objective observer who wishes to see it, and see how it is glossed over repeatedly.

The claim is incorrect even without the 4 examples. Not only is leaving an entire archetype of classes far behind in the meta a terrible balance decision, its also a terrible business decision,as it makes the game less diverse and causes players to be less interested in an entire subset of possible builds.

The correct "no amount of logic" claim is: No amount of logic can justify holding out on 6th stat not being consolidated, while not batting an eye at 5/6 of the other stats being consolidated.

Youre all about int consolidated rogues, but want to deny wis consolidated monks? Thats right down the checklist first ballot hall of fame flip flopping. Then attempt to claim its independent, simply so you dont have to defend why you are perfectly fine with int consolidated rogues, but are not at the same time cool with wis consolidated monks.

[nokowi]

And because you stated it, and repeated it over and over again its just correct? Nope.

Not necessarily, but in a discussion you would be able to respond to it.



Thats not falsely linking, thats CORRECTLY linking. DDO history supports me here.

And because you stated it, and repeated it over and over again its just correct? Nope.







yes it does, because your claim that this will cause class homogenization is once again false. If you disagree, address all 4 of my examples, specifically.

If you number them for me and respond with something intelligent beyond "asked and answered", "strawman", then sure. This "discussion" seems to be circular and I've answered everything I believe I read.





The claim is incorrect even without the 4 examples. Not only is leaving an entire archetype of classes far behind in the meta a terrible balance decision, its also a terrible business decision,as it makes the game less diverse and causes players to be less interested in an entire subset of possible builds.

It's hard to have a discussion when you willfully ignore my responses. Link where said any build should remain behind. The office pool has started.



The correct "no amount of logic" claim is: No amount of logic can justify holding out on 6th stat not being consolidated, while not batting an eye at 5/6 of the other stats being consolidated.

The logic is that monk doesn't need consolidation as it can gain whatever you want without it. Ignoring any other option but your own preference, and pretending no other option was given, is a good way to maintain long threads. "Insert meaningless catch phrase?"




Youre all about int consolidated rogues, but want to deny wis consolidated monks? Thats right down the checklist first ballot hall of fame flip flopping. Then attempt to claim its independent, simply so you dont have to defend why you are perfectly fine with int consolidated rogues, but are not at the same time cool with wis consolidated monks.

Willful misrepresentation. I support monk DPS to be in line with all other builds, I just disagree that the specific Wis to Damage implementation is best. I ALWAYS supported keeping Dex (stealth abilities) separate from Int (assassinate) abilities, as that creates difficult player choices. The same thing I support now with monk, whose main choice is between DC and damage, not skills vs damage.

Rogue only do 1/2 of their damage from stat (the other half sneak attack), so they need a unique implementation. Applying the same solution to a build that does only 1/2 their damage from main stat as one that does full damage with main stat would be really really unintelligent. Design requires you to understand nuances and to not continually resort to oversimplifications.

[Chai]

We can stop here on this one,

Or not? :p



If you number them for me and respond with something intelligent beyond "asked and answered", "strawman", then sure. This "discussion" seems to be circular and I've answered everything I believe I read.


It's hard to have a discussion when you willfully ignore my responses. Link where said any build should remain behind. The office pool has started.

Irony.

Claiming to not know about the specific examples I gave you, which I have asked you to address multiple times, then in the same post accusations of willfully ignoring your responses.

If you are not familiar enough with my position to address it specifically when asked to do so, please refrain from addressing it at all. I will simply have a field day pointing out the contradictions.

I now have 19 citations of me providing examples, and you claiming you didnt see them, or they dont exist etc...showing precisely who has been willfully ignoring and not responding to that which they cannot refute.

I didnt win the office pool this time btw. I thought it would be quite a few more posts before you claimed to not have seen the examples I have been asking you to address.


Willful misrepresentation.

Nope, accurate representation.

Supporting int consolidated rogues but being against wis consolidated monks is a direct logical contradiction.


I support monk DPS to be in line with all other builds, I just disagree that the specific Wis to Damage implementation is best.

I ALWAYS supported keeping Dex (stealth abilities) separate from Int (assassinate) abilities, as that creates difficult player choices. The same thing I support now with monk, whose main choice is between DC and damage, not skills vs damage.

This information is dated and incorrect. They use int for CC just like monks use wis for CC. THey use int for instakill just like monk uses wis for instakill. They use int for damage just like monk....oh wait....If you supported monk DPS being in in line with others youd support wis to damage consolidation.

Please come back and play DDO and familiarize your self with the current meta. You are claiming that stealth makes people make difficult choices in the context of the current meta in DDO. Theres only one choice for stealth in the current meta in DDO. Dont use it or build for it. That choice isnt too difficult at all.

[nokowi]

Or not? :p

Rather a poor choice to try to have a discussion with you.




Claiming to not know about the specific examples I gave you, which I have asked you to address multiple times, then in the same post accusations of willfully ignoring your responses.

I just asked you to list your 4 things you think I haven't responded to. These are the basic elements of a discussion.






I now have 19 citations of me providing examples, and you claiming you didnt see them, or they dont exist etc...showing precisely who has been willfully ignoring and not responding to that which they cannot refute.

This is not part of a discussion. Having not posted your 19 examples, I could not possibly respond to them nor would they be relevant to this discussion.



Supporting int consolidated rogues but being against wis consolidated monks is a direct logical contradiction.


I believe I was away from the game when they added Harper tree, and was uninvovled in this process. This would be untrue if Rogues have to make important Int vs Dex Choices, which I argued very loudly for them to preserve. You are well aware that I argued against consolidating Dex to Assassinate, DC and Damage and that the choices were between Dex (better damage and stealth) vs Int (assassinate and search/disable).



Not a peep out of you about int consolidated rogues. They use int for CC just like monks use wis for CC. THey use int for instakill just like monk uses wis for instakill. They use int for damage just link monk....oh wait....If you supported monk DPS being in in line with others youd support wis to damage consolidation.

It's not a flip flop to have two different classes preserve choices in different ways.

Here are examples of consistent beliefs:

Class should be balanced to the current level.
Competing class choices should be preserved whenever possible, and even increased.



If you supported monk DPS being in in line with others youd support wis to damage consolidation.

Willful misrepresentation. I clearly talked about how to boost monk DPS without doing so. Specific examples were additional MP/RP and higher numbers for existing abilities. If continually pretending I didn't give other options is central to your efforts, your argument must be very weak.

[Chai]

.

I just asked you to list your 4 things you think I haven't responded to. These are the basic elements of a discussion.
.

Constantly (19 citations) putting the onus on others to point out stuff in their own position you are (incorrectly) attacking demonstrates lack of familiarity and understanding of the position itself. Therefore you cannot attack it. Im 100% positive youve seen them (you quoted 3/4 of them after all) and are purposely ignoring them.


. Rather a poor choice to try to have a discussion with you.

But you keep trying, right up to and until specific examples are given, then ignore and gloss over it repeatedly. 19 citations.

Please come back and play DDO with us. The lack of familiarity with the current meta makes these discussions way too easy. Claiming rogues have to make hard choices between stealth or damage, in the current meta....

Wow, just wow.

I will reply back to you again after you have addressed my 4 examples. You may have the last word. It doesnt equate to having the correct word. This way other people can reply to the thread without being buried in chronic last wording and verbal fencing.

P.S. 108 citations of "willful misrepresentation" accusations being thrown at basically any paragraph which contains logic which cant be addressed or refuted with an actual counterpoint. I'm reading through some of these now. This is far more pattern based than I had originally suspected - with the same 6 people no less.

[goodspeed]

They probably hate monks because of all the cc they were given while stunning blow still blows. They wouldn't even decrease the timer. Then later on they drop the requirements for overwhelming crit so that again more accessible.

Kinda like a PDK bard lol. Personally I think monks went to hell when you actually needed glancing blows around you and needed to maneuver and attack. Ya they said they incrweased the hit range but monks still suck for reach. Add in that EVERY SINGLE MONSTER TWITCHES!!! And you find yourself cussing at the screen that the **** thing read your mind and moved half a heartbeat before you hit stunning fist or jade prison or any other attack. (Really ticks me off when I do it on my ranger with dance of death and the other attack. And those are raps and peshes.

[nokowi]

Constantly (19 citations) putting the onus on others to point out stuff in their own position you are (incorrectly) attacking demonstrates lack of familiarity and understanding of the position itself. Therefore you cannot attack it. Im 100% positive youve seen them (you quoted 3/4 of them after all) and are purposely ignoring them.


Nobody reading this thread but you knows what you are talking about. If you can't source specific things you want people to respond to, you are just intentionally inhibiting discussion.




Please come back and play DDO with us. The lack of familiarity with the current meta makes these discussions way too easy. Claiming rogues have to make hard choices between stealth or damage, in the current meta....

Wow, just wow.


I believe Int to damage was added before Dex to Damage and assassinate DC. My comments about what my thoughts on Int to damage were must be considered in the context of when they were added, not in the context of what the game looks like now. I specifically remember asking for any additional DPS to be in the Shadowdancer Tree, and I specifically remember asking for increased crit multiplier as a solution to keep up with 1/2 stat damage build. Devs said they were not interested in altering epic destiny, and that they had no interest in increasing crit builds. I don't remember ever suggesting Int to damage, even though you made that claim many many times here. Feel free to PM me a link to my comments that make you believe this, and I will share them here so as not to cause you any infraction points. Nothing in my Int vs Dex comments referred to the current game - that's just your own misunderstanding. Those comments showed how I argued against combining all stats before Dex to DC, Damage and Assassinate were implemented during the rogue pass.

Completely consistent with my arguments in this thread, and the opposite of a flip-flop.





I will reply back to you again after you have addressed my 4 examples. You may have the last word. It doesnt equate to having the correct word. This way other people can reply to the thread without being buried in chronic last wording and verbal fencing.

P.S. 108 citations of "willful misrepresentation" accusations being thrown at basically any paragraph which contains logic which cant be addressed or refuted with an actual counterpoint. I'm reading through some of these now. This is far more pattern based than I had originally suspected - with the same 6 people no less.

Name your reward (Otto's Box?) if you can correctly list Chai's 4 examples and are on Sarlona. 3 of 4 are quoted is your hint.


When I used the words Willful misrepresentation, I followed it with what was willful misrepresentation. That's much different than referring to 19 or 108? citations that nobody but you is aware of, talking to imaginary people not involved in a thread, taking up 10 pages of a thread claiming my opinion doesn't count when 20 other people also disagree with your "nobody will be affected" statement, or other diversionary tactics when you have trouble in a discussion.

Referring to 4 examples that nobody knows what you are talking about as a requirement of discussion is just you avoiding a discussion you are having trouble backing up. If you were interested in discussion, you would respond to a request to advance the discussion with the 4 things you think I haven't addressed.

The best thing you could do is leave if you are going to insert requirements that nobody can possibly achieve. Actually, the best thing would be to not post in threads beyond your own preference if you are not interested in discussion.

[PsychoBlonde]

Kinda like a PDK bard lol. Personally I think monks went to hell when you actually needed glancing blows around you and needed to maneuver and attack. Ya they said they incrweased the hit range but monks still suck for reach.

It was higher for a while but it's lower again now from what I've seen. It's so bad that my monk character can't hit anything whatsoever while sneaking.

[nokowi]

If newness wasnt such an issue why were most passes demanded to be nerfed? Of course, youll answer this by bringing up assassins which are there exception there, not the rule. The exception doesnt refute the rule.


I said that people complain about builds they perceive to be OP.

Complaints about Paladin stopped when that was no longer considered to be true. Complaints about Warlock persist, (it is no longer new), because it is still perceived to be OP.

Warlock itself is no longer new - the proof is right there for you.

Making an absolute statement (because something is new people will complain about it) in fact only requires one instance to be incorrect. Now you have two. More precisely, we see that "being perceived to be OP" trumps "being New" for complaints.

[nokowi]

You may have the last word. It doesnt equate to having the correct word.

I predicted you would not post 4 unknown things you want me to reply to, and that nobody would be able to do so, even with the reward of an Otto's Box.

Both of these things do make me correct. So far I'm 2 for 2.

[AzureDragonas]

in another post i asked the devs if there was anymore info on wisdom to damage, sad to say
to date no reply but im cool with that. what i did see in the thread and when i spoke to others
in and out of the game was a few people were saying sure but make it so monks dont benifit
in anyway, now this i dont understand.

im hearing the arguement that monks dc'c are wisdom based and giving them wisdom to damage
will make them over powered, ive got to admit im not seeing the problem. do not rogues get int to
damage and it helps there dc's. do not bards get it with char and there dc's ?.

if the above is ok then why the monk hate?.

just thought id ask, nothing against anyone who dose not want to see the above happen i just want to ask why?.

your friend sil :)

Not sure how about monks being already OP?

If you or others are incapable of building actually good monk and that's your basis why monks would need even more buffing then you need to make actual readying and research on what monks actually capable. If you are lazy to do that let me give you a hand:

# Monk is a melee with highest miss chance in game
# AC comparable to tanks
# 1 of highest overall saves in game
# melee with most cc abilities in game
# instakill abilities which are better than assasins have
# Let's not ignore their dual bonuses comparable to T5 tempest at lvl 1
# healing capabilities
# free MP source comparable to blitz ed
# Have sneak damage boosts on top of helpless damage (which again are only class in game which actually can properly use it)

What you and rest short sighted people are asking is to make strongest melee class even before pass, to be buffed even further after pass which made them even more broken in comparison. Requests like these should be either water downed by exceptions so only those who are actually behind get buffed or prerequisites should be as high that monks would have to actually make tradeoff, like T4 enchantment (which would limit available points in monk trees), and which would be accessable easier for others.

[Niminae]

Requests like these should be either water downed by exceptions so only those who are actually behind get buffed or prerequisites should be as high that monks would have to actually make tradeoff, like T4 enchantment (which would limit available points in monk trees), and which would be accessable easier for others.

A fair limitation would be to build Wis-to-hit and Wis-to-damage into the Enhancement trees of the Divine classes which are currently at the very bottom of the meta.

Currently a melee which isn't a Paladin but wants Divine Might has to take either Paladin or Cleric/FvS levels and spend some AP in the appropriate tree. If they want KtA they have to spend AP in Harper. Offering a Monk Wis-to-hit and Wis-to-damage at the tradeoff cost of a Monk capstone and a few AP seems like a fair option that still manages to address the main issue with Wis-to-hit and Wis-to-damage which is that Divine classes don't have it.

[Chai]

Not sure how about monks being already OP?

If you or others are incapable of building actually good monk and that's your basis why monks would need even more buffing then you need to make actual readying and research on what monks actually capable. If you are lazy to do that let me give you a hand:

# Monk is a melee with highest miss chance in game
# AC comparable to tanks
# 1 of highest overall saves in game
# melee with most cc abilities in game
# instakill abilities which are better than assasins have
# Let's not ignore their dual bonuses comparable to T5 tempest at lvl 1
# healing capabilities
# free MP source comparable to blitz ed
# Have sneak damage boosts on top of helpless damage (which again are only class in game which actually can properly use it)

What you and rest short sighted people are asking is to make strongest melee class even before pass, to be buffed even further after pass which made them even more broken in comparison. Requests like these should be either water downed by exceptions so only those who are actually behind get buffed or prerequisites should be as high that monks would have to actually make tradeoff, like T4 enchantment (which would limit available points in monk trees), and which would be accessable easier for others.

Its not the strongest melee class by far. Most well rounded yes, but not most OP. Its also not well represented by the player base. So either its not the strongest, or is DDOs best kept secret and everyone else but a few stragglers missed out? Ill address each individually...

# Monk is a melee with highest miss chance in game mostly negated in the current meta
# AC comparable to tanks effectiveness of AC heavily nerfed years ago
# 1 of highest overall saves in game this they do well
# melee with most cc abilities in game most different buttons, yes. Most effective CC? No
# instakill abilities which are better than assasins have was nerfed several years ago - assassins have better DC
# Let's not ignore their dual bonuses comparable to T5 tempest at lvl 1 not even remotely comparable
# healing capabilities much of which is negated in the current meta
# free MP source comparable to blitz ed devs had to throw them a bone somewhere and MP is their tool for scaling and balancing melee damage - fighters also got alot of MP in AP and tied into feats
# Have sneak damage boosts on top of helpless damage (which again are only class in game which actually can properly use it) rogues have better, and rangers have similar, both can get CC to "properly use it"

[Chai]

I predicted you would not post 4 unknown things you want me to reply to, and that nobody would be able to do so, even with the reward of an Otto's Box.

Both of these things do make me correct. So far I'm 2 for 2.

You were 2 for 2 before today on this kind of thing. Youve offered "rewards" 2 other times and re-negged on both times when provided with what you challenged for. There was nothing in your "offer" that persuaded me that this time would be different.

You should just pay the ottos box now, because I already provided those 4 examples once and asked you to address them multiple times. Its not on me to provide them twice or more.

I will be back to celebrate once wisdom to damage is added to DDO.

[Vish]

Meta, meta, meta
Monks and clerics

Where's my ottos?

[nokowi]

You were 2 for 2 before today on this kind of thing. Youve offered "rewards" 2 other times and re-negged on both times when provided with what you challenged for. There was nothing in your "offer" that persuaded me that this time would be different.

You should just pay the ottos box now, because I already provided those 4 examples once and asked you to address them multiple times. Its not on me to provide them twice or more.

I will be back to celebrate once wisdom to damage is added to DDO.

My statement was that nobody BESIDES YOU understands what you are talking about (including me), backed up by offering a reward for anyone that can do so.

No, I have never offered a reward and not paid up. I have zero use for whatever TP are called today, and providing strong evidence that nobody has a clue what 4 points you are talking about is well worth the price if I am wrong. I will gladly pay it. To be correct someone would actually have to know what 4 things you are talking about. That's unlikely, so I will not be reneging if I don't hand out an Otto's box for something that was never done. Feel free to go ahead and add it to your imaginary list of things I didn't actually do. When you talk about a list of 109 things in a future thread, we will know how meaningless the comment is.

You have spent 5x the effort not being clear of whatever 4 points you think I have not addressed when compared to just responding with them when asked. The majority of your efforts are in not furthering a discussion. If you think I am being obstructionist, you could prove it by providing what I asked for and seeing if I respond.

I clearly communicated multiple multiple times I have no idea what 4 things you don't think I addressed. Making up requirements to prevent a discussion from progressing serves no purpose other than avoiding a discussion. Continuing to ignore my response to your request makes your motivations quite clear.

When you can't defend your own comments (saying I have to agree with your solution for Wis to Damage) if I want to bring Monk up to par, while ignoring the converse - you must agree with my solutions (MP/RP,better existing abilities) if you want Monk to be up to par, shows a gigantic lack of logic. When you impose different conditions on others than on your self, your arguments become very very weak. Demanding I respond to 4 things you won't even clearly list is such an example. If I did this in reverse, you would be up in arms with your catch phrases. I would suggest you start by trying to meet the same expectations you expect of others.

Continually making up things (saying I needed Int to damage, saying I never paid up on an offer, etc) is a tactic for people who don't have a good argument, as is railroading a thread.

[Jyhdif]

I believe all wisdom-based classes should get wis to hit and damage. This would be a huge boost to cleric and pure druids and a nice boost for monks. It would also greatly help multiclass wisdom characters, like good 'ol clonks. The best geared and triple-completionist characters likely dont have a problem with damage, to-hit and CC for any class they run, and this change would not add much for them (they would probably still max dex for AC and reflex and get a small boost to hit and damage compared to their existing attack bonuses). For the rest of us middle-of-the-roaders, being able to single-stat a cleric or monk and still be able to hit and damage without serious secondary stat gear would be useful while we work towards better gear and past lives.

I don't see this as imbalancing as fighters and barbarians get the same stat to hit, damage and cc, as do rogues (traps and int from either Harper or Mechanic + KtA), Paladins can run either str or charisma with PdK or both and get a boost to str from charisma from DM and a Chr boost to tactics from PdK, and Bards can use PdK for the Cha to hit (albeit having to run with PdK).

Casters clearly get the same stat to damage and CC, for most spells.

I see this adding to build diversity, not subtracting from it. For monks, dexterity will likely remain a double stat because of AC and evasion (without insightful reflexes). Investment will still be required to get multiple stats maxed, but arguably newer and more casual players can focus first on their to-hit/damage/CC stat and then build up their defense stat (or the other way around as they wish).

To-hit and CC for melees should be a single stat, as it is not a trade-off -- you can't CC if you can't hit things and you can't CC if you can hit things but don't have high DCs. If you trade one for the other, you can't do CC at all. Not being able to hit things reliably in higher level and difficulty content voids all CC for monks. Maxing two stats just to reliably melee CC (besides dire charge) is unique to monks (and perhaps pure druid melees using animal form CC and no fire scimis, but those have other problems too -- bard warchanters can run with PdK for chr to hit).

[nokowi]

Meta, meta, meta
Monks and clerics

Where's my ottos?

:)

The offer is real if its worth your time to figure out.

[Chai]

You have spent 5x the effort not being clear of whatever 4 points you think I have not addressed when compared to just responding with them when asked. The majority of your efforts are in not furthering a discussion. If you think I am being obstructionist, you could prove it by providing what I asked for and seeing if I respond.


I was actually very clear on those points, and asked you to address them. You quoted 3 of them and failed to address them, and now claim yet again you dont know what they are. You continue to make this claim over page after page, burying the waffling and lack of addressing them in post after post. This too, is pattern based, and why we cant have nice things.

I will continue to call you on this each time it occurs, as it proves lack of familiarity of the position you believe you are attacking.

I strongly recommend not boiling this over into the weekend (yet another pattern based behavior that needs to be corrected on these forums, which I have quite a few citations of). Just address them now - Im 100% positive you know precisely what they are and are intentionally avoiding addressing them because this cant be done without poking all kinds of holes in the position that the 6th stat shouldn't be allowed to join the other 5 in the current meta. Other people have addressed them.

If you want to call others on furthering the discussion, you have to do the same. Address the examples. Or refrain from not furthering the discussion by disingenuously claiming over and over again that you havent seen them. I have solid evidence to the contrary.

[nokowi]

I see this adding to build diversity, not subtracting from it. For monks, dexterity will likely remain a double stat because of AC and evasion (without insightful reflexes). Investment will still be required to get multiple stats maxed, but arguably newer and more casual players can focus first on their to-hit/damage/CC stat and then build up their defense stat (or the other way around as they wish).


I believe Chai just told us AC doesn't matter, as that isn't really one of the strengths of monks.

+1 to DC and mod damage is way more important than +1 to reflex save, so there is no real trade off there. I believe Chai also told us the trade-off was already too weak, so adding mod to damage just further distances the choice. I believe the argument he made was the trade off is so weak that we might as well give Wis to damage.

I don't find your comments to be consistent with the specific Chai posted, but that may because your comments seem to be more inclusive, including things like new players for which some of these things might matter.

[nokowi]

I was actually very clear on those points, and asked you to address them. You quoted 3 of them and failed to address them, and now claim yet again you dont know what they are.

If I quoted a comment, I probably thought I was addressing it with the words after the quote. Figuring out which 3 comments you think I didn't address is impossible because it involves reading your mind. In the last few threads, I have had to repeat my exact comments multiple times for you when you thought I didn't answer something, almost always with the exact same answer, and occasionally with a clarification. The reason I can't answer you 4 things is because it is impossible to determine which 4 things you think I didn't answer. Nor can ANYBODY on the forums.



Address the examples.

What examples?




I have solid evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure you think you do, but that does not make it true. Go ahead and show us your evidence. I will then clarify how you once again misunderstood or misrepresented my actual comments, or even outright fabricated things. Just like you made false claims that I needed Int to damage, and that I haven't paid up on an offer, we we see more direct fabrications, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings on your part. Only one of these three things can happen accidentally.

[Chai]

If I quoted a comment, I probably thought I was addressing it with the words after the quote. Figuring out which 3 comments you think I didn't address is impossible because it involves reading your mind.

It doesnt involve reading my mind. It involves reading the thread before attacking the position.

I now have sufficient evidence to conclude that you are disagreeing simply due to the forum name on the post. How do I know this?

Test 1. 2 forum names - same exact post. You agreed with one while disagreeing with the other. I won the office pool on that one. The other person thought that with the exact same text, there was no way... :p
Test 2. Used text from one of your own recent posts. You furiously disagreed with it. Yes, you disagreed with your own post, simply due to another poster's name being on the post, whom youre extremely biased toward.

Maybe I will join back in when this starts being a discussion again. For that to occur, its clear that some other posters will need to provide their feedback and not have it buried in chronic last wording.

[silinteresting]

Not sure how about monks being already OP?

If you or others are incapable of building actually good monk and that's your basis why monks would need even more buffing then you need to make actual readying and research on what monks actually capable. If you are lazy to do that let me give you a hand:

# Monk is a melee with highest miss chance in game
# AC comparable to tanks
# 1 of highest overall saves in game
# melee with most cc abilities in game
# instakill abilities which are better than assasins have
# Let's not ignore their dual bonuses comparable to T5 tempest at lvl 1
# healing capabilities
# free MP source comparable to blitz ed
# Have sneak damage boosts on top of helpless damage (which again are only class in game which actually can properly use it)

What you and rest short sighted people are asking is to make strongest melee class even before pass, to be buffed even further after pass which made them even more broken in comparison. Requests like these should be either water downed by exceptions so only those who are actually behind get buffed or prerequisites should be as high that monks would have to actually make tradeoff, like T4 enchantment (which would limit available points in monk trees), and which would be accessable easier for others.

i would like to point out i never said i couldnt build a very good monk i can, i would like also to point out
i dont play monks( well once in a blue moon maybe). i play bards there much more fun if you know what
your doing. im not short sighted either im long sighted according to my optician. i got to admit i dont believe
monks are the strongest melee class either but hey ho whatever.

what im trying to do here is understand why people think the way they do about monks and wis/dam from
your reply here i understand you now your against it and youve explained why. for this thankyou.

your friend sil :)

[Forzah]

It doesnt involve reading my mind. It involves reading the thread before attacking the position.

I now have sufficient evidence to conclude that you are disagreeing simply due to the forum name on the post. How do I know this?

Test 1. 2 forum names - same exact post. You agreed with one while disagreeing with the other. I won the office pool on that one. The other person thought that with the exact same text, there was no way... :p
Test 2. Used text from one of your own recent posts. You furiously disagreed with it. Yes, you disagreed with your own post, simply due to another poster's name being on the post, whom youre extremely biased toward.

Maybe I will join back in when this starts being a discussion again. For that to occur, its clear that some other posters will need to provide their feedback and not have it buried in chronic last wording.

In all honesty, I too have no clue which four examples you are referring to.

Just list the four examples so Nokowi can reply to them. It's not that difficult.

Please also explain when something does and does not count as adressing a point, so other people understand what addressing a point means in your world.

[silinteresting]

If people don't want wisdom-to-damage modifier, then how about a wisdom-to-damage clicky? Sort of like Divine Might or Know the Angles: for 30-60 seconds, you gain 1/2 of your wisdom mod to your damage.

i understand where your coming from here and its not a bad idea but it does not
address the problem of wisdom to damage as a permant feature like all the other
stats. nice reply tho.

your friend sil :)

[silinteresting]

A fair limitation would be to build Wis-to-hit and Wis-to-damage into the Enhancement trees of the Divine classes which are currently at the very bottom of the meta.

now this i could live with, the question is tho if this is implemented and wis/dam is put into say
a cleric/soul tree then how high do we put it?. if its put into the cores like monk get with dex
then needing a 3 soul/cleric splash does mean that trade off's would need to be found as no capstone
for the class trying for wis/dam. then again if it was put into tier 5 of some tree or another then a even
bigger trade off needs to happen. oh the dilemma's.

your friend sil :)

ps if they put this into the warpriest tree then maybe clonks would rise again, who knows right.

[silinteresting]

I generally agree that just having wis-to-damage as an open monk feature would tend to turn monks far too much into one-trick ponies.

I'd like to see it on animal form druids and maybe favored souls, particularly since when they fix the attack speed double stacking exploits with animal form there's probably going to be some BIG changes to druid options. I'm fine with needing to forego a capstone on Monk to get it.

now i like this even more, druids getting wis/dam in their 3rd tree perhaps.
nice idea since druid when sorted will need something i guess.

your friend sil :)

[AzureDragonas]

# Monk is a melee with highest miss chance in game mostly negated in the current meta

If you talk about neglating by displacment? Sure everyone gets affected by it, but only monk have shadowveil on top of massive dodge without locking himself in shadowdancer ed thus being single melee dps capable of reaching highest miss chance



# AC comparable to tanks effectiveness of AC heavily nerfed years ago

If ac worked like before players would be hitted 1/20 times and it would be for everyone. I had pure monk prior update wisom based with 200 ac now if i actualy picked natural armor items from slavelords or other items there and actually focused on AC i wonder how much i would have while building DC?



# 1 of highest overall saves in game this they do well




# melee with most cc abilities in game most different buttons, yes. Most effective CC? No


Stunning fist
Jade
move combos
at epic lotus



# instakill abilities which are better than assasins have was nerfed several years ago - assassins have better DC

Prior pass and slavelords i had 86 palm dc which can stack to 106, It have less restrictions, lower cd and affects more mobs than assasination. That dc prob could go close to 100 now with end game gear.



# Let's not ignore their dual bonuses comparable to T5 tempest at lvl 1 not even remotely comparable

Full damage 2nd hand without need of T5?



# healing capabilities much of which is negated in the current meta


Yet theyr mark is only thing not affected by reaper and they can leach hp on cced mobs



# free MP source comparable to blitz ed devs had to throw them a bone somewhere and MP is their tool for scaling and balancing melee damage - fighters also got alot of MP in AP and tied into feats


Which was a mistake. With all above points last thing they needed was increase of damage. Fighters dps are not as tanky and versale as monks so that makes sense, but increasing overal damage on class comparable to tanks where put fighter/paladin tanks? Seriously are the margin of how strong monk should be is discarding tanks overall?



# Have sneak damage boosts on top of helpless damage (which again are only class in game which actually can properly use it) rogues have better, and rangers have similar, both can get CC to "properly use it"


Also rogues have extra helpess damage they can't use, and rangers dont have that at all. 30% damage increase on helpless while having loads of abilities which can make enemy helpless?

Wis mod to hit damage as clickie would be fine (similiar to KTC or KTA) becouse they would loose know the angles (if somone don't know yet it affects every dc incuding palm) to in sense it would be balanced.

And again if it was allowed for monks to get free damage/hit from wis at low ranks it would mean that monks won't need to get items like STR to increase damage thus unlocking even more available slots for other items which would result not only in monk damage increase but in rest aspects too. If by any sense monks are balanced it's that they need so many little things it's hard to put everything in, and now you wanna remove 1-2 item slots used for damage.

[Ulfo]

Also rogues have extra helpess damage they can't use

Crippling strike? Thunderstone? Disable Construct? Time Bomb? Poison Strikes?

CC Runestones?

Dire Charge? 8)

[AzureDragonas]

Crippling strike? Thunderstone? Disable Construct? Time Bomb? Poison Strikes?

CC Runestones?

Dire Charge? 8)

First of all, dire charge is available to every class at 29, so it doesn't count in comparison when monk already can use helpless damage at lvl 6 with stuns he already has.

Cripling strike is no cc at all, also it doesn't work neither in epics nor in reaper, while also accesable above lvl 10, while even random weapons with stat damage not being used.

Disable construct affects only constructs and hardly comparable to stuns monks can use almost on every mob in game.

Thunderstone enables only sneak not helpless damage so you don't get extra 30% damage on them

Poison strikes works almost same way as cripling, and on top of that requires vorpal to take affect.

yes time bomb is good ability rogs have, but it requires lvl 12 and even after that you will need points to get helpless damage which would put it in use only at ~15 level while monks does same and better at 6.

[Vish]

:)

The offer is real if its worth your time to figure out.

Already figured it out.

That was the answer.