why did turbine kill the casters?

[Talon_Moonshadow]

Sure it would be funny. Until it happens to you.

I was kidding.......sorta.

I've never even used a grease clickie.....well not first anyway.

[drgsldr69]

OK my bad. it does seem to add in the favored enemy damage before anything. yes i was wrong on the 1d6 type. i just made a straight ranger and went after a kobold and sure enough it added it without the + . ok sue me i was wrong.


BUT let me ask everyone this.

IS A FAVORED ENEMY NO LONGER A FAVORED ENEMY JUST BECAUSE I USE A SPELL????

and yes by killing the sneak attack bonus's to certain spells it did kill the casters to a point. instead of getting the extra damage for SA on say melf's now you get nothing. 5d6+7d6 would kick ass. heck for that matter a extra 1d6, to any spell that COULD do a sneak attack, would be kick ass. but instead they nerfed it out.

and let me say this much so what if they took out the touch attack part. they still have the touch attack spells, and the roll to hit spells. you cast a scroching ray within 30ft of your target and you miss you deserve to miss! but if you hit you SHOULD get your sneak attack damage.

just like you SHOULD get your favored enemy damage.

oh and for the part about the freindly fire, yeah i would like to see that back in along withthe actual way spells are done in pnp. even withthe nerfed up sp i still run outta mana and i dont have clerics to dv my guys. so what do i do i make sure my mage can fight and or run. who knows maybe if casters had a limited amount of spells like they are sopposed to, maybe casters AT LOW LEVELS would actually learn thier spells right!

[QuantumFX]

Actually, I was referring to how drgsldr69 listed the damage, including this from a post other than the one I previously quoted:

In post I had quoted and responded to earlier, he implied that the favored enemy damage was added after being multiplied for a critical, which is incorrect.

Perhaps I'm not following some part of the conversation, but I don't recall ever saying that a ranger/rogue multiclass would not get the benefits of both classes. The OP repeatedly claimed that FE damage was +1d6, which is not the case. He also stated that he saw it as a x+y value when attacking, which is also incorrect.

Weird... I thought I was quoting this post. Is that a ninja or a pirate for you? I'm going back to edit my last post.

[Poobah]

How about, Normal, Hard, Elite and Uber(?)... Uber level would introduce friendly fire into the mix.

[GlassCannon]

How about, Normal, Hard, Elite and Uber(?)... Uber level would introduce friendly fire into the mix.

D&D Hardcore Rules would be extremely painful. The DDO take would give monsters not only our benefits, but 500% inflated HP, Infinite SpellPoints, permanent Quicken, Enlarge, Heighten, Maximize, Empower, Godly Potency(+100%), Godly Lore(+50% crit chance at 5x), Hide and Move Silently over 100, Superior Trip, Sunder, Stun, Bewildering Blow, Hamstring... Sneak Attack of 20d6... and we would be able to kill each other.

Sounds like an adventure in Experience Debt

[jjflanigan]

IS A FAVORED ENEMY NO LONGER A FAVORED ENEMY JUST BECAUSE I USE A SPELL????

Favored enemy represents the fact that you know the enemy well enough to be able to place your shots to do more damage with each hit. Doesn't really make sense with a spell that you could "aim your shot" to do more damage to your target.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

What I want to know is this......did you code this for YOUR machine or did you code it to work with the vast number of video cards, motherboards, CPUs, Memory Configurations, etc? What works great with one configuration is garbage on another and thus you have to change things until you get the major combinations to all work right. And to do that you must have a FORTUNE to actually test it with all the different combinations.

As for friendly fire try this scenario: Ranged attackers in a position that cannot be reached by melee types. Ranger stands behind tank who is shield blocking for him, fires and rolls a 1, critical fumble, shoots tank in the back of the head with his arrow and kills him. Ranged attackers then kill ranger. Game over. No one wants to play anymore.
Scenario 2: Same as above but substitute a caster who throws a fireball and kills both the tank and himself instantly. No one wants to play and game over.
Scenario 3: Game is made where you can only cast X spells per rest based on the rules. So a level 14 wizard could cast 4xLevel 1, 4xL2, 4xL3, 4xL4, 3xL5, 3xL6 and 2xL7 spells total. This means no resists for party, no mezzing the 60 mobs you come across in a quest, and just plain not much in the arcane sense. Too bad, so sad, no casters in the game because they all quit after crying that they were nerfed to the original BLUE RULES set of D&D!

Critical miss is an optional rule, not a core rule (at least in 3.0, never moved to 3.5) so that need not mess up any implimentation of friendly fire.

SP is another optional varient that is allowed by PnP so it isn't a big problem. It would however be very nice if we did go back to the PnP spell slot system. It requires far more skill, especially on the part of wizards.

[Aranticus]

Nice reply....completely ignore the questions the OP has, nice.

check out all the OP's posts.... are they questions or simply flaming rants? then comment again

[Cowdenicus]

Critical miss is an optional rule, not a core rule (at least in 3.0, never moved to 3.5) so that need not mess up any implimentation of friendly fire.

SP is another optional varient that is allowed by PnP so it isn't a big problem. It would however be very nice if we did go back to the PnP spell slot system. It requires far more skill, especially on the part of wizards.

Oh I am all for going back to the slot variant, just as soon as they fix the melee additive bonuses for to hit back to being NEGATIVE mods for it.

[Wook]

The reason they decided against a slot type system to begin with it the shear number of encounters we have between shrines.

[Grond]

Come on, someone's got to say it....Screenshots or it didn't happen!

Most of your other main points have been covered, but there are still plenty of fun ways to multi-class a caster in DDO.

I'm with JJ on this one.

[Ringlord]

I want to ask the OP where he thinks UO and making a mod for it ( a top down view game ) is anything close to making even the simplest of things for DDO as a 3D game where you can view things from every angle?

Oh and what the heck is with quoting yourself?

A pen and paper game that is turn based will have many places where the rules do not translate to a real time live combat game like DDO.

The devs wanted DDO to be different from other MMOs in many ways, but knowing they were trying to attract MMO players as well as pnp players they had to make some concessions to friendly fire spells just like every other MMO does.

[wundernewb]

i have been playing D&D ever since it was paperback called Gary Gygax.

The creator of D&D named the first edition after himself?!?!?!?

but i also think since someone brought it to my attention that yes spells should damage you. that is part of learning how to play a caster and knowing when to cast and when NOt to cast.

Being able to have fun and not worry about new players frying you by accident (this would happen a lot) is part of playing an MMO.

Put on friendly fire and watch how quickly Stormreach becomes a ghost town.

Also, as far as sneak attacks, in 2nd Edition, you actually had to be undetected to make a sneak attack, not just have you target occupied with someone else.

[Emili]

Apparently you never built a ranger/rogue ... I get both favored damages and sneak attack. Also you do not get a die roll on favored damages just straight Plus' (just like PnP) added into your main damage roll thus it x's on a crit.

Also, there is not reason in PnP that a multiclass (splash) be any more powerful than a pure class. It would be a terrible thing for a pure to fall behind a splashed character in what they supposively should be doing better... ie.) a pure ranger should be a better ranger than a 12/2 splashed ranger rogue, etc... racial favored classes have no bering in the game either ... I know some people tout it's in the enhancements but that's really not reflective of it at all. A dwarven Pally/Ranger for instance I see as a breach of DnD rules (even in 3.5)... think about it.

[Mercules]

A dwarven Pally/Ranger for instance I see as a breach of DnD rules (even in 3.5)... think about it.

Um... What?!? How is this a breach of D&D rules?

[WhtKnt]

A dwarven Pally/Ranger for instance I see as a breach of DnD rules (even in 3.5)... think about it.

How so? Dwarves can be both classes, rangers can be any alignment and paladins must be lawful good... no problem that I can see. In the old day it would have been problematic, but not under the new rules.