Barbarian Critical Rage v Deepwood Sniper

[Taerdra]

But they 'are' all supposed to be relatively viable. DDO has far thrown the melee balance way out of whack. In order usefulness.. there's barbarians... then a chasm... then rangers, fighters and finally poor little paladins. There's simply no way that the other melees can hope to keep up with barbarians being able to extend their critical threat range by two.

Key is defining what you mean by balance, which I think "relatively viable" is best summary of. In PnP, the classes are not balanced, neither at the beginning nor in the middle nor in epic. Period. In DDO, the classes are not balanced either.

However, in PnP, most classes are relatively viable. Ranged combat is not relatively viable to melee -- not even close. I would guess the logic behind DS is that it will help to close that gap. Yaga is right that it doesn't both on a cost basis (feats, APs) nor in terms of output. My only concern is that even if DS were fixed ranged combat will still not be relatively viable.

To make ranged truly viable, they need to focus on improving the impact on Manyshot, adding similar tactical feats to ranged as someone mentioned, and adjusting the environments to make ranged more usable. There are certain situations where ranged is very close to viable in my mind (SC, Shroud 4-5 possibly, etc.) -- figuring out how to incorporate those "features" of the quest into the game would help some as well I believe.

[Yaga_Nub]

Key is defining what you mean by balance, which I think "relatively viable" is best summary of. In PnP, the classes are not balanced, neither at the beginning nor in the middle nor in epic. Period. In DDO, the classes are not balanced either.

However, in PnP, most classes are relatively viable. Ranged combat is not relatively viable to melee -- not even close. I would guess the logic behind DS is that it will help to close that gap. Yaga is right that it doesn't both on a cost basis (feats, APs) nor in terms of output. My only concern is that even if DS were fixed ranged combat will still not be relatively viable.

To make ranged truly viable, they need to focus on improving the impact on Manyshot, adding similar tactical feats to ranged as someone mentioned, and adjusting the environments to make ranged more usable. There are certain situations where ranged is very close to viable in my mind (SC, Shroud 4-5 possibly, etc.) -- figuring out how to incorporate those "features" of the quest into the game would help some as well I believe.

Well I've given up on my "Fix Ranged Combat" threads and posts and have decided to set my sights smaller. I need a small victory to recharge the batteries before starting on ALL of ranged combat again.

[Angelus_dead]

Key is defining what you mean by balance, which I think "relatively viable" is best summary of. In PnP, the classes are not balanced, neither at the beginning nor in the middle nor in epic. Period. In DDO, the classes are not balanced either.

No, wrong. They're not "unbalanced period". In PnP the classes are supposed to be balanced, and any time they're not balanced is an error, which the DM should try to fix as much as possible.

[Ransacked]

What I would really like to see is many shot re-worked to function in a similar manner to Power Attack.

Toggle: On/Off

While On, Depending on class level you will receive a -2 penalty to hit in exchange for an additional round (per round) of ammunition being fired at that time.

So 3 arrows being fired at once would result in a -4 penalty to hit PER arrow, additional penalties to hit would be applied for moving, etc)

4 arrows would be a -6 penalty and so on.

I think that this would be a decent give and take for increased DPS at cost of to hit.

[ChildrenofBodom]

Not a bad idea, would go through a LOT of arrows though, LOL!! Need quivers.

EDIT: Actually, I think it should be more like this.

Each additional arrow gets a -2 penalty. Instead of all of them.

So a pure 16 ranger would shoot 4 arrows. 1 with no penalty, one with -2 penalty, one with -4 penalty, and one with a -6 penalty, I think that would work better.

[bobbryan2]

No, wrong. They're not "unbalanced period". In PnP the classes are supposed to be balanced, and any time they're not balanced is an error, which the DM should try to fix as much as possible.

What's your overriding point? You get so caught up in disagreeing or agreeing with a small point, I think you're losing sight of the overall issue.

'IF' DMs should be trying to balance the classes... then Deepwood Sniper needs a DMs attention, because it is not anywhere near balancing out Critical Rage.

For the record... I don't think the Devs were 'trying' to balance classes with enhancements. I think they were trying to give classes nifty little 'tween level bonuses.. and ended up unbalancing them. Therefore, I'm not sure why you think the classes weren't relatively balanced in DDO before enhancements.

[Taerdra]

Well I've given up on my "Fix Ranged Combat" threads and posts and have decided to set my sights smaller. I need a small victory to recharge the batteries before starting on ALL of ranged combat again.

Hear you there... I'm genuinely confused as to why this is such a conundrum. Many, many games have viable ranged compenents to them (CoH, etc.). I don't post much on the topic, because I flat out don't understand what the dilemma is ultimately.

[Ransacked]

Not a bad idea, would go through a LOT of arrows though, LOL!! Need quivers.

EDIT: Actually, I think it should be more like this.

Each additional arrow gets a -2 penalty. Instead of all of them.

So a pure 16 ranger would shoot 4 arrows. 1 with no penalty, one with -2 penalty, one with -4 penalty, and one with a -6 penalty, I think that would work better.

Ah yes... that's what I was getting at.

[Taerdra]

No, wrong. They're not "unbalanced period". In PnP the classes are supposed to be balanced, and any time they're not balanced is an error, which the DM should try to fix as much as possible.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin... The power curve on spellcasters in DnD alone disproves your point. Are there any melees that are even remotely as powerful at 15th or 20th level as a wizard or sorceror or cleric or druid? No they aren't. It's that simple. Your definition of "balance" is fundamentally flawed.

[Angelus_dead]

It is true, actually.

No, it is not true. It would be a bad waste of developer effort if it were true. Why do you think the developers would try to make the classes balanced without enhancements?

The classes aren't supposedly balanced for pvp or anything like that. They're not made to be equal in all situations. But they 'are' all supposed to be relatively viable.

That is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not the classes should be balanced without enhancements.

It is a mistake for the developers to balance the classes anything but wholistically. They must be in balance considering ALL features available to the character classes. There is no gameplay value to the customers for the developers to do the extra work to ensure that not only is a paladin balanced with a barbarian, but also for a no-enhancments paladin to be balanced with a no-enhancements barbarian.

After all, nobody would claim that PnP classes should be balanced such that a no-spells wizard is balanced with a no-spells ranger. Unless there is a good gameplay reason to expect players to frequently refrain from utilizing a large portion of their class capabilities, it is a waste of time to balance things that won't happen.

[Angelus_dead]

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin... The power curve on spellcasters in DnD alone disproves your point. Are there any melees that are even remotely as powerful at 15th or 20th level as a wizard or sorceror or cleric or druid? No they aren't. It's that simple. Your definition of "balance" is fundamentally flawed.

No. I am right, and you are wrong in very many ways. Simply reading the D&D books proves my point. My definition of "balance" is perfectly correct.

The D&D 3.5 game is not balanced between the classes. One can accurately call D&D's balance fundamentally flawed.

But that doesn't change the fact that the D&D classes are supposed to be balanced!

If you need more help understanding, some of this thread explains it well:
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=129273
Also if you pick up the "Races and Classes" book, in stores now, it can also be quite useful.

[Taerdra]

No. I am right, and you are wrong in very many ways. Simply reading the D&D books proves my point. My definition of "balance" is perfectly correct.

The D&D 3.5 game is not balanced between the classes. One can accurately call D&D's balance fundamentally flawed.

But that doesn't change the fact that the D&D classes are supposed to be balanced!

Fundamentally flawed <something> is not <something> or at best a very degraded version of <something>. Are they supposed to be balanced because you say so? You can compare the caster build to any build you want... it isn't balanced. You're setting up a false argument implying that I haven't read the books (untrue) and not showing how the example is actually balanced. Like the rest of your statements you have proven nothing.

[Angelus_dead]

Fundamentally flawed <something> is not <something> or at best a very degraded version of <something>. Are they supposed to be balanced because you say so?

They're supposed to be balanced because the rule books say they should be.

You can compare the caster build to any build you want... it isn't balanced. You're setting up a false argument implying that I haven't read the books (untrue)

If you had read the books accurately, you would know that classes are supposed to be balanced. It's all over the rules. Just turn to any of the rules pertaining to balance... the sections on CR, EL, and XP. It's all quite explicit. Any two player character classes of the same level are theoretically balanced with each other.

You might have gotten distracted by the fact that the classes are not, in practice, balanced. But that doesn't change the design intention.

[barecm]

Don't forget favored enemy. When I am fighting a favored enemy, my bow damage soars to 130 - 140 base damage on crits (on DS its 17 - 20 with reg bow or 15-20 with Silver Bow). Since most rangers tweak their favored enemy lists from module to module, it is fairly easy to keep yourself up to date on the 'monsters of the mod' in your favored enemies list.

Additionally, you cannot simply say ranged ranger v melee ranger since you get ALL the feats for free. My ranged ranger out kills most other melee types when I switch to dual wielding vorpals... a 20 is a 20 regardless of other stats. Tempest just makes it even faster, but having FREE TWF feats owns. It is why you see so many new 11/5 or 14/2 ranger/fighter builds coming up now.

PS. I also have a pretty good barb. He of course has imp critical rage and IC slashing and piercing. My rages last for 3-4 minutes and I get 8 of them, I rage before all big fights. However, when your raged, you have some negatives with all the super positives. Plus, it is tough to stay raged 100% of the time. Since DS is an every 10 sec thing, it is with you the whole time and does not incur negative stats to use.

Next, into consideration that rangers are pretty much self-sufficent. They can easily heal themselves, cast a bunch of useful buffs and have a decent amount of skill points each level to allow you to keep your umd up (especially if you have a starter lvl of rogue or bard). Rangers generally have a superior AC. The only thing my barb crushes my ranger in is HP and running speed. For melee, it is pretty well known that TWF with twin w/p, para/vorpal, twin high crit banishers or twin vorpals is the way to go with the mod 6 content.

[Taerdra]

They're supposed to be balanced because the rule books say they should be.


If you had read the books accurately, you would know that classes are supposed to be balanced. It's all over the rules. Just turn to any of the rules pertaining to balance... the sections on CR, EL, and XP. It's all quite explicit. Any two player character classes of the same level are theoretically balanced with each other.

You might have gotten distracted by the fact that the classes are not, in practice, balanced. But that doesn't change the design intention.

Classes and CRs/ELs/XPs are all very different from one another and in my experience related, but not equal... approximations, not definitives. Moreover, CRs in DDO are virtually meaningless with how HD were changed, etc. So again... what is your definition of "balance"? is it really different than "relatively viable"?

Most of us have read the rulebooks and are plenty knowledgable about what they have to say. There is more than enough in them that is open to interpretation, so claiming your point is self-evident is meaningless to general debate. Whether intended or not, the classes are not balanced in PnP or DDO.

[KristovK]

They're supposed to be balanced because the rule books say they should be.


If you had read the books accurately, you would know that classes are supposed to be balanced. It's all over the rules. Just turn to any of the rules pertaining to balance... the sections on CR, EL, and XP. It's all quite explicit. Any two player character classes of the same level are theoretically balanced with each other.

You might have gotten distracted by the fact that the classes are not, in practice, balanced. But that doesn't change the design intention.

I think you are mistaking ECL and CR with actual balance, which isn't what those create. ECL is an attempt to keep overlypowerful PCs from being just that, overlypowerful and CR is simply the target for what a party of 4 can handle by level. There's no balance in the game of D&D, never has been and never will be, it's part of the overall game design that it's unbalanced between the classes and the races so that people will have a reason to play together as a party instead of solo playing. Everyone knows the basic party make up of a good D&D group - Fightertype, Clerictype, Wizardtype and Roguetype. Been that way for over 30 years now, even though they weren't always called by the class names we know today, they've still been the same basic classes and they've been that for a reason. The game isn't balanced and it requires the players to play various races/classes to deal with the inherent inbalance of the game.

Now, as to the OP and the topic...no, DS isn't equilivant to CR, it's not supposed to be obviously, since you get it at a far earlier level. Requirements are more costly for DS than for CR on a purely AP/Feat tally, but again, you get it at a far earlier level which offsets that cost. Enhancements aren't there to make the classes equal, they are there to allow diversity among players of the same class or to enhance the various signature abilities of a class. CR allows the Barb the chance to impart more damage while in a Rage, the signature ability of the class. DS allows a ranged Ranger the ability to do the same. Yes, it's not very impressive compared to CR, since it's a single shot with a 10 second cool down, but it's not supposed to be on par with CR or it would be a level 11 enhancement instead of a level 6.

Again, ranged combat in DDO needs a boost, that's a given and has been for 2 years now. RoF is really the main problem, it simply doesn't keep up with the melee RoS, which combined with the lesser DPS factor of longbows vs kopesh/dwarven axe/greatsword/great axe, makes it seem that a ranged build isn't as effective. They are but they aren't effective in the same manner as a Barb with Rage. That Barb can mow down the mobs quickly, but he costs a lot of mana to do so. The Ranger can soften the targets up, get their aggro directed away from the Barb, and the overall cost of killing the mobs drops drastically in both mana and gp for repairs/pots/wands. Which even with an increased RoF would still be the same situation, the Ranger will not equal the Barb or Fighter for sheer DPS going ranged over melee, but they will definately make the dungeon a safer and easier place to deal with.

[Angelus_dead]

Everyone knows the basic party make up of a good D&D group - Fightertype, Clerictype, Wizardtype and Roguetype. Been that way for over 30 years now, even though they weren't always called by the class names we know today, they've still been the same basic classes and they've been that for a reason.

That is a popular myth. It was moderately true, once in the distant past. Some game design choices continue to be made based on that belief.

But in D&D 3.5 edition, a party of Fighter+Cleric+Wizard+Rogue is seriously and definitively inferior to Cleric+Cleric+Wizard+Wizard.

[Turial]

Again, ranged combat in DDO needs a boost, that's a given and has been for 2 years now. RoF is really the main problem, it simply doesn't keep up with the melee RoS, which combined with the lesser DPS factor of longbows vs kopesh/dwarven axe/greatsword/great axe, makes it seem that a ranged build isn't as effective. They are but they aren't effective in the same manner as a Barb with Rage. That Barb can mow down the mobs quickly, but he costs a lot of mana to do so. The Ranger can soften the targets up, get their aggro directed away from the Barb, and the overall cost of killing the mobs drops drastically in both mana and gp for repairs/pots/wands. Which even with an increased RoF would still be the same situation, the Ranger will not equal the Barb or Fighter for sheer DPS going ranged over melee, but they will definately make the dungeon a safer and easier place to deal with.

I agree with you up until the point about ranged combat users pulling aggro from barbs and costing less resources. The issue is that the ranged combat user may be able to pull aggro away but the issues with melee types being unable to strike things from behind coupled with low ROA for ranged combat makes it so that the situation where a ranged combat user pulls aggro from a barb or fighter is one that potentially may cost more resources and in a lot of players eyes it does.

A ranged combat user wont equal a melee type with a weapon of damage dice 1d10 or higher if the two characters have similar stats. The ranged user, however, should have roughly equal DPS to a non-specialized fighter using a 1d8 damage weapon (with 20 for a crit range and 3x multiplier) and similar stats between the two.

Turbine says they have the ability to check on all sorts of stats on in game stuff. What they need to do is start increasing the rate of fire by x each month or two and watch the numbers. Right around the point where typical players seem to contribute the same or roughly the same in damage is where the increase may need to stop. If they do this slowly enough and monitor stuff they may fix the issues.

[Yaga_Nub]

Now, as to the OP and the topic...no, DS isn't equilivant to CR, it's not supposed to be obviously, since you get it at a far earlier level. Requirements are more costly for DS than for CR on a purely AP/Feat tally, but again, you get it at a far earlier level which offsets that cost. Enhancements aren't there to make the classes equal, they are there to allow diversity among players of the same class or to enhance the various signature abilities of a class. CR allows the Barb the chance to impart more damage while in a Rage, the signature ability of the class. DS allows a ranged Ranger the ability to do the same. Yes, it's not very impressive compared to CR, since it's a single shot with a 10 second cool down, but it's not supposed to be on par with CR or it would be a level 11 enhancement instead of a level 6.

You're missing the point. Do you really think that 2 feats and 9 APs to qualify for an enhancement balances it with BCR? It doesn't. Now we could make it level 11 with no feat or AP (other than total spent) and it would make it equal to BCR maybe even a touch ahead but then you count that it's only able to be used with bows and that might equal it out with BCR. Then 3 levels later you get BCRII again with no other cost than total APs spent.

I'm asking for consistent logic between enhancements. Even if you made these two enhancements exactly the same in terms of level and AP requirements, DS still lags behind because rangers are made to do the same type of damage as a barb and bows won't outdamage a lot of weapons. So you can bring the DS ranger up a bit without hurting the barb at all and you help a group out with having someone that can help kill the mobs pounding on the barbs which the barbs should appreciate.

[KristovK]

Angelus, not a myth, a basic tenet of the D&D games since their inception as Chain Mail and it still holds true today with 3.5. Yes, you can do a cleric/cleric/wiz/wiz party, but guess what you've done with those 4 characters? You've used abilities/feats/skills to offset the fact they aren't rogues/fighters to make them function SOMEWHAT in those slots. Need an actual Rogue to get skills over a certain limit, need an actual Fighter to get combat skills that aren't dispellable and have a limited duration. Yes, that party make up will be viable in the short and maybe even mid-term, but not in the long term. Unless of course your DM caters to the party to such an extent that the lack of skills and abilities doesn't matter, but that's another issue all together.

Turial, a well played ranged Ranger can pull aggro without getting themself creamed and running about wily nily like a chicken with it's head cut off. It's a matter of doing things properly, setting the party up to recieve the incoming mobs and control them, as opposed to a ranged Ranger just letting off shots and then running away from the mobs as they approach. Been there, done that, cussed said Ranger up one side and down the other. I've played a ranged Ranger and I've had no problem with a party that was half decent in dealing with pulling mobs and keeping the aggro while the front liners beat them down.

As for Turbine checking the stats..maybe they have been and they don't see the issue we do with ranged combat. It IS a perception issue after all, for all we know ranged combat is actually as effective overall as melee combat per game design as opposed to what the players would prefer. We'll just have to wait and see what the future brings.

Yaga, NOTHING balances anything when it comes to Enhancements, that's the point you don't get. Why shouldn't a Barb get Str enhancements instead of Con enhancements? Come on, they are a PURE melee class, they could benefit far more from 3 extra points of Str then they do from Con when it comes to their primary function, killing stuff with a great axe. Why do Rogues get Dex only instead of Int or Chr, both equally important to a rogue in the matter of skills. Enhancements are NOT equal nor are they balanced between the classes, they never were. Fighters and Palys get a nice AC and to hit boost while the Ranger gets speed, skills and energy resists..no AC or to hit boosts in there, where's the balance in that? Barb gets a damage, dr and sprint. I am not seeing the balance here and these are the basic class enhancements. Each class also gets various other enhancements that the others don't and they aren't balanced by any means. Fighters get to increase the max dex limit on their armor up to +3..the other CLASSES don't get that although some races do, which combined with Fighter throw any concept of balance clean out of the picture.

Step back, look at all the classes and races and the enhancements they get along with the possible combinations and please point out to me where they are balanced.