Discussion: Improving S&B

[Borror0]

Ok, seeing that about everything thread in the DDO Development Discussion section of the forums gets derailed into a S&B versus TWF discussion, I'm guessing that we make a real thread to talk about it rather than just derail every thread on the forums.

However, as the title say, it's not me suggesting "do this" as if it would be the best way to fix it, but rather, I'll just be throwing a few questions out there that we have to ask ourselves before starting to suggest anything. We have to reflect on the overall structure we want to be stuck with after. We have to reflect on what we think is healthy or unhealthy for the game. We have to reflect on the consequences of anything we suggest.

From there, we can start debating, trying to figure out what is best, etc.

So, here are a few questions to answer.

1. Is it a good idea for Turbine to change drastically the definitions and roles of the fighting styles in DDO? Why?
   
   In other words, is it a good thing for Turbine to allow the current issues at end game to force them modify how S&B operates and let TWF stay as good at AC as it currently is? Are you OK with TWF having that much AC? Should Turbine let TWF become the way for AC and give something else to S&B to compensate, or should Turbine give the AC advantage to S&B and let TWF reach decent AC instead of their currently unmatched one? Is it OK for Turbine to change the way the game is drastically and jump into unknown? Do you or don't you think it's worth the risk?
   
   
2. Is it OK for Turbine to nerf in this situation? Why? If yes, by how much (or how)? And why?
   
   Are things so out of whack that there is no way to overcome the huge gap that grew between S&B and high dexterity TWF with a monk splash? Is the monk splashed so overpowered that the only way to fix it is a nerf? Are abilities like Tempest I's AC bonus and Favored Defense III or the Icy Rainment so overpowered that they require nerfing for things to be brought back in line?
   
   
3. If you answered no to the previous question, would you change your mind if a full respect system would be implemented? If you answered yes to the previous question, are you in favor of a respect system and would you nerf more if there was one? In both cases, why?
   
   
4. Are you scared of inflation? Why?
   
   Do you think that buffing the capacity of S&B to reach AC would cause many problems to the game? Are you scared that it would push into overspecialization? Do you think that scores inflation caused far too many problems in the game? Are you scared it would have a negative impact of the casual gamers?
   
   
5. Do you think it would be a good idea reduce the AC scores that PCs can reach if mobs' to-hits were also lowered? What about just lowering mobs' to-hits? Justify your answers.
   
   Are comfortable with monsters' to-hit at end game? In Elite dungeons? Do you think they are too high? If you're OK with their to-hit, are you OK from a S&B point of view or a high Dexterity TWF (and/or monk splash) point of view? Are you happy of the fact that defensive builds are more penalized by running the quest on Elite than DPS builds?
   
   
6. Would you like to see a bunch of feats to improve S&B? Any suggestions? (It can be either in the form of feats or just unrefined ideas that still need to be rethought. It can be as general as "Something giving them DR would be cool." if you want.) If you use feats already existing in PnP, please indicate the book.
   
   
7. Do you think that S&B could use more DPS, also, to be brought back in line?
   
   
8. Do you think paladins and fighters should become S&B specialists and receive enhancements focused on S&B fight? Explain your answer.
   
   In other words, do you believe that Turbine should address the issue by also improving the fighter and/or paladin class which happen to need help and be using that combat style very often, even if it penalizes the S&B rogues, bards and others? Do you believe that Turbine should favor classes to use only certain fighting styles, or you rather them to keep it open and make more choices valid? Do you think it's simply better to improve S&B as a whole and paladins and fighers will gain from it as much, if not more?
   
   
9. Do you think S&B should have the ability (or opportunity) to be protected by other means than AC? If yes, list a few.
   
   
10. Would you be in favor of a cap on Dodge AC? Why?

The questions in bold are the real questions, the rest under, in not bolded text, are simply guidelines, explanations, things to consider before replying. You don't have to reply to it directly, it's more to explain what I meant by the question. By replying to the question, you'll very likely address it but please justify your answers, it's very important! A simple yes/no doesn't contribute much to the conversation whereas a lengthy reply will bring a lot.

Now, if you don't understand what is the point of balancing, check this thread.
If you think S&B is balanced, well go and debate on another thread. This is not the place for that.

Oh, don't be shy to post your suggestions.

Thanks for answering.
Borror0

[maddmatt70]

Borro what do you want. ddo could be and maybe should be like regular pen and paper 3.0-3.5 where all melee are gimped at the level we are at and casters and clerics rule. For some reason on the 3 end game raids they threw offensive melee a bone - who knows how long that will last. Will every mob be red named, have spell mantles or have sr and ridiculous will and fort saves be immune to mind control spells, casters/clerics not have superior potency VII and VIII items, will level 9 spells be ineffective like level 8 are. I think that is more the question is why does ddo feel it needs to nerf casters/clerics. You keep posting the same silly thread 14 times in hopes of what telling us something we don't already know convincing the developers that S&B are worth being saved. Well newsflash in the game ddo is based on S&B, thf, twf all pale in comparison to caster/clerics at this level..

[Borror0]

I think that is more the question is why does ddo feel it needs to nerf casters/clerics.

That was clearly a reaction to the post-Module 4 era of spellcasting, where clerics, sorcerers and wizards were dominating the game. In a quest, spellcasters where doing most of the job by themselves. Heck, you were seeing LFMs with only wizard, sorcerer and cleric for a few quests. You were seeing tons and tons of complaints about how overpowered spellcasters were!

What was Turbine's reaction to that?

• Crazy high HP trash mobs (that lead us to use Vorpal and WoP on mobs rather than DPS) to prevent nuking.
• Fire immune mobs to survive Wall of Fire.
• High SR to make Finger of death must less powerful.
• Named mobs with HP so high that nuking barely reduce the bar.

The issue you're talking about is clearly within the monster design and selection. Not within the classes themselves.

We'll have to see module 8 to see if they learn the mistake they made in Module 6 and 7.

[Angelus_dead]

Borro what do you want. ddo could be and maybe should be like regular pen and paper 3.0-3.5 where all melee are gimped at the level we are at and casters and clerics rule.

Yes, that's true: the D&D 3e game is wickedly imbalanced at level 16 and someone without full spellcasting hardly even needs to bother showing up.

But the fact that some game made errors doesn't mean everyone else should duplicate those same errors.

In many ways DDO has improved balance above D&D, partly by omitting high-powered factors that were difficult to add to a computer game anyhow (flying, scrying, mind control, illusions, terrain deformation, teleporting). That was a good start, but they need to do more.

In particular, this is a fantasy role-playing game, so it needs to represent a good assortment of typical fantasy roles. One such role is the bold knight with a sharp sword and stout shield. That role doesn't really work in DDO right now, and it should. Look at the Boromir picture: if he was offered a greatsword or an offhand dagger, would he willingly have traded his shield for either of them in that situation? Of course not.

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

Devs don't nerf classes any more - they tried that, people got upset.

I think they prefer to add stuff to make the 'underpowered' classes better, and they are also a LOT more conservative when adding new stuff (e.g. monks, shroud items) than they were before, preferring to add to classes (perhaps after some gametime to determine whether they need a boost) example: additions to monk abilities, making shroud proc effects hit more often.

I imagine perhaps some additions to S&B might be in the works - something like, perhaps:

- Shields with better bonuses on them (already happening with superior dev shields, Heal shield)
- Shields with a higher max dex
- More quests where blocking and DR are important (introduce a mob that has a high to-hit, swings a lot, and does moderate damage per hit - Hydra maybe?)

Garth

[Borror0]

Devs don't nerf classes any more - they tried that, people got upset.

I think they prefer to add stuff to make the 'underpowered' classes better.

RazorrX just recently gave an example of why that is a bad way to think. Here.

Being "scared" to nerf is silly. Yes, don't do it all the time. But saying a permanent no to it is a really bad idea.

[Dexxaan]

Don´t think you got ANY answers from your 1st response Borro.

1) Not drastically. But definitely S&B should 99% of the time have a higher AC than a TWF

2) Yes. For Example: Tempest AC Bonus is a mistake.

3) Not in favor of a FULL respec. Major design flaws like poor Stat allocation and total neglect for INT (as example) should cause you to deal with what you have. On the other hand a Skill Point Allocation respec could be beneficial to a very large percentage of the population. (No real interest myself but allows minor build errors tweaked)

4) Just about everything in the game is inflated... Sorcerer Spell points, Barbarian DPS, Dwarven hit points and so forth, and yes the casual gamer will ALWAYS be affected due to many players putting in more work, more time and more design time into their characters....I don´t think thats a major point when it comes to corrections needed in the game. That´s a business policy decision, NOT a Game Design Balancing issue IMO.

5) Simply lowering (a bit...not much) the MOB´s To-Hit would IMO solve a great deal of the problem. The last thing we want is a 29 AC Barbarian getting away with tanking a Troll untouched.

6) IMO Feats would not be the way, Why? Because you´d lose current options for others and therefore the Gimping continues....just that in another direction. Enhancement Lines or attributes provided to Some Shield bearing Classes would be good. I believe it was Aesop that suggested that Eldritch Device Armor and Shield Enhancements should be greater for tower Shields / Full Plate than for Bucklers / Chain Shirts.

7) More DPS is nice, but maybe the Power Attack benefit for TWF´rs can be reduced (Theres a price you pay for twirling weapons and your body dextrously....compared to standing in Full Plate and Swinging 1 Weapon (THF even more so).

8) I believe the Prestige Classes being developed oughta do the trick nicely....but without disregarding the previous questions you have presented.

9) Stackable DR Should be available to Fighters (not a TON but some) same thing...proportional to the Base Armor type so that it makes some sense.

Not a whole lot of time to go into a lot of details of my thinking...but hey...hope it helps out a bit.

[Rameses]

The addition of Green Steel Shields would nice.
If you could treat the GS Shield like a combination of a weapon and item as far crafting applies.

IE: Supreme Commander Green Steel Shield (+4 AC possibly able to stack with insight bonus from a crafted weapon to), +6 Stat, Increased Armor bonus, Increased DR (similar to increasing a weapons damage), etc.)

Sorry I am not as eloquint as I'd hope, but that's just the way I am.

I am, Rameses!

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

RazorrX just recently gave an example of why that is a bad way to think. Here.

Being "scared" to nerf is silly. Yes, don't do it all the time. But saying a permanent no to it is a really bad idea.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing that being afraid to nerf is a good idea, but based on the way in which I've seen the game develop, the devs admitted they made some things too powerful (e.g. barbarian crit rage) but still decided not to nerf them.

I don't see that changing - not saying I agree, just saying we have to be realistic. That's why I'm keen to see more suggestions on how S&B could be improved rather than trying to target stuff for the nerf, which (probably) won't even happen. Players like shiny new stuff to loot, and it's good for Turbine (players stay to grind) - nerfing stuff is Bad for Turbine, because players get upset and leave because normally most of them can't see or appreciate the Big Picture (OMG!! U NERF ME!!! I QUITZZ!!!1one!!1).

Garth

[Borror0]

I don't see that changing - not saying I agree, just saying we have to be realistic.

Then, it is our duty to make them understand it was a bad decision from their part.

If they are scared to see people leave, there are two things they should do:

• Explain. Explain in details their reason for the nerf. Explain why it is this way. Explain why they think it was not right. Just make a long post explaining what was imbalanced and why it got changed. Also, explaining them that nerfing is the same as making everyone better, but with three advantages:
  
  • Cheaper.
  • Faster.
  • Less consequences or risk to create new problems.
  
  
  
• Code proper respec options and even a reroll button.

[Raiderone]

1)Yes. Yes. Yes(TWF the way for AC and compensate S&B). Drastic change is not worth the risk.
UNless to get rid of all Enhancements.

2)No nerfing needed. Just improvements to S&B.


3)If you mean fully respect your PC, I would say NO. Unless DDO made a complete change to the
game.


4)No. I think specialization would increase interest in the game. That's what Prestige
Classes do in my opinion. It doesn't mean that you need to specialize.
You always hear that TWF can switch to S&B, thus getting the benefits from it.
Specialization will make S&B builds better and give them the advantage in that mode.

Path Specialization in the following Fighting Styles:
S&B, TWF, THF, Unarmed, and Range. Automatic Feats dependent on Path
and quantity dependent on Career Path (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian)
Monks and Rogues (would have limitations).


5)Yes. But would prefer them lower(CR and To-Hit) for all difficulties. I blame Enhancements for overpowering the PC and thus the need to Overpower the MOB.
I'm okay either way S&B or TWF. I don't know if Defensive Builds are penalized?
Do you mean low DPS S&B or all S&B? If all S&B, then I don't think we are penalized.
But we could use some love. I want S&B to get advantages when they use S&B.
Right now anybody can S&B.


6)Yes. I would like Feats similar to the TWF line. Improved S&B, Greater S&B.
Feats to Increase AC probably not DR. Possibly even a new way of Shield Block and Weapon Block. Making it automatic (% of time). Shield Block dependent on Shied Type and Weapon Type. So it could be for all melee types, even range. S&B being the best mode.

7)Yes. But only with Feat Specialization.


8)No. Keep it open based on the Fighting Style that PC wants. But I believe Paladins
and Fighters need more Free Feats. EIther way they benefit more.
Hence the problem of Rangers getting too many Free Feats (getting both Range
and TWF path).

9)Yes. Using Automatic Shield Blocking as mentioned above. But giving all FS's
some type of Automatic Blocking (depentent on shield and weapon types).

10). I guess NO. Even thou I've thought of it in the past. But Give me Feat Specialization in S&B.
I'm not talking about Shield Bashing either.

[Borror0]

Drastic change is not worth the risk.

But TWF being the way for AC is the drastic change! Not the other way around!

[QuantumFX]

1. Is it a good idea for Turbine to change drastically the definitions and roles of the fighting styles in DDO? Why?
   It was a bad idea to limit them to the S&B/TWF/THF trinity that they have now. At high levels of P&P the styles start blurring. (ex. A S&B guy can use his shield offensively w/o losing AC, Double weapons can be used as either a TWF or THF weapon) Without including the ability to blur the lines with feats like Improved Shield Bash, Improved Buckler Defense, Double weapons, etc players are forced to come up with other solutions like splashing monk levels.
   
   
2. Is it OK for Turbine to nerf in this situation? Why? If yes, by how much (or how)? And why?
   Yes it's OK to “Nerf” if the first change is to make the current BAB/multiple attack system more like it's P&P counterpart. Most of the problems with TWF would be solved if a player needs needs to actually offset the to hit penalties DDO allows us to take.
   
   Nerfing Dodge bonuses would be a bad idea but you can easily fix the whole +dodge bonus items by converting their bonuses into an “enhancement bonus to dodge”. Basically this would mean that +Dodge items won't stack with other +Dodge items. You could also even out the playing field more by giving players a “vest” slot and allowing outfits and robes to be placed there or in the armor slot.
   
   
3. If you answered no to the previous question, would you change your mind if a full respect system would be implemented? If you answered yes to the previous question, are you in favor of a respect system and would you nerf more if there was one? In both cases, why?
   I want a full respec system period. The game has already changed drastically for a lot of players and no amount of “You should have designed your character like…” arguments given by logic impared P&P players are enough to defend not going forward with one. Any smart P&P DM will allow players to adapt their characters when new information comes into play. Not allowing a FR cleric of Waukeen to respec into the Goldeye PrC cause the Magic of Faerun sourcebook wasn't out is a sign of a bad GM.
   
   
4. Are you scared of inflation? Why?
   Only Enhancement inflation. Tomes don't bother me because they're available to everyone and really don't make or break a character.
   
   
5. Do you think it would be a good idea reduce the AC scores that PCs can reach if mobs' to-hits were also lowered? What about just lowering mobs' to-hits? Justify your answers.
   Honestly AC isn't the problem. Really it's not. The problem is the to hit system. The current +1/+5/+10/+10 bonus to hit players/mobs get screwed EVERYONE. It made AC meaningless for a lot of players resulting in the idiotic “Only HP matter” mentality. It made TWF/Power Attack overpowered as the penalty to hit isn't a penalty. Omitting Touch AC screwed over DEX guys.
   
   
6. Would you like to see a bunch of feats to improve S&B? Any suggestions? (It can be either in the form of feats or just unrefined ideas that still need to be rethought. It can be as general as "Something giving them DR would be cool." if you want.)
   
   
   • - Make Improved Shield Bash Work like it's P&P counterpart. Allows S&B fighters to add thier shields to DPS w/o sacrificing defense.
   • - Add the Armor Optimization feats. Covered elsewhere but allows a pure/semipure fighter to utilize all the spare feats they have.
   • - Add the Improved Buckler Defense feat. Limits the usefulness of splashing a level of monk.
   • - Add improved combat expertise. When added to fixing multiple attacks will allows a S&B fighter to uilize it better than a TWF.
   • - Add Divine Shield for Turn undead users. Nuff said.
   
   
   
7. Do you think that S&B could use more DPS, also, to be brought back in line?
   Not really. Fixing BAB/Multiple attacks will deskew the DPS curve by making to hit matter.
   
   
8. Do you think paladins and fighters should become S&B specialists and receive enhancements focused on S&B fight? Explain your answer.
   Paladins should defiantely get access to Divine Shield. Other than that... not really.
   
   
9. Do you think S&B should have the ability (or opportunity) to be protected by other means than AC? If yes, list a few.
   Only if you mean “Add Amulets of Natural Armor” to the game.
   
   
10. Would you be in favor of a cap on Dodge AC? Why?

Not for feats and enhancements. NWN's Dodge cap is a blight on all that is D&D. Now as outlined above I'd like to see +Dodge items not stack with each other. The mechanic would work like barkskin does on creatures with natural armor. THis is mainly because +Dodge items simply fall outside the d20 ruleset. (Yes I know they're supposed to be a GM specialty item but how many do you really see in a P&P campaign?)

[Borror0]

Only Enhancement inflation. Tomes don't bother me because they're available to everyone and really don't make or break a character.

What about item inflation?

As for a Dodge cap, I'd be in favor of one for as long as Combat Expertise and Dodge are seen as feat bonus or whatever, rather than Dodge bonus.

It made TWF/Power Attack overpowered as the penalty to hit isn't a penalty.

How would it do that?

[Alavatar]

Ok, seeing that about everything thread in the DDO Development Discussion section of the forums gets derailed into a S&B versus TWF discussion, I'm guessing that we make a real thread to talk about it rather than just derail every thread on the forums.

However, as the title say, it's not me suggesting "do this" as if it would be the best way to fix it, but rather, I'll just be throwing a few questions out there that we have to ask ourselves before starting to suggest anything. We have to reflect on the overall structure we want to be stuck with after. We have to reflect on what we think is healthy or unhealthy for the game. We have to reflect on the consequences of anything we suggest.

No offense, Borror0, but your OP is about as biased as a Fox News interview. Your questions and explainations are phrased in such a way as to make it seem like choosing not to nerf is a stupid idea.

From there, we can start debating, trying to figure out what is best, etc.

So, here are a few questions to answer.


1. Is it a good idea for Turbine to change drastically the definitions and roles of the fighting styles in DDO? Why?


In other words, is it a good thing for Turbine to allow the current issues at end game to force them modify how S&B operates and let TWF stay as good at AC as it currently is? Are you OK with TWF having that much AC? Should Turbine let TWF become the way for AC and give something else to S&B to compensate, or should Turbine give the AC advantage to S&B and let TWF reach decent AC instead of their currently unmatched one? Is it OK for Turbine to change the way the game is drastically and jump into unknown? Do you or don't you think it's worth the risk?

TWF only gets that high AC with one particular build. The dex/wis Ranger with one level of Monk for the wisdom bonus and enhancements plus massive raid gear. All other TWF have comparable AC to S&B. Therefore, I think everything is fine. At most, the change would argue for is that monk Wis AC only be applicable based on a percentage of monk levels in the character build.

2. Is it OK for Turbine to nerf in this situation? Why? If yes, by how much (or how)? And why?


Are things so out of whack that there is no way to overcome the huge gap that grew between S&B and high dexterity TWF with a monk splash? Is the monk splashed so overpowered that the only way to fix it is a nerf? Are abilities like Tempest I's AC bonus and Favored Defense III or the Icy Rainment so overpowered that they require nerfing for things to be brought back in line?

Not all Ranger builds have Favored Defense III. In fact, not all Ranger builds have any Favored Defense at all. There are many other enhancements that are considered to be "must haves" and fitting Favored Defense into the mix is difficult to do without sacrificing something. Otherwise, refer to my answer to question 1.

3. If you answered no to the previous question, would you change your mind if a full respect system would be implemented? If you answered yes to the previous question, are you in favor of a respect system and would you nerf more if there was one? In both cases, why?

I already want a full respec option. So, no, my answer does not change.

4. Are you scared of inflation? Why?


Do you think that buffing the capacity of S&B to reach AC would cause many problems to the game? Are you scared that it would push into overspecialization? Do you think that scores inflation caused far too many problems in the game? Are you scared it would have a negative impact of the casual gamers?

My only concern with inflation is the inflation of monster to-hit, HP, HD, and saves. I was running around in the Subterrane trying to get to VoD last night with a 59 AC and I seemed to get hit by everything that swung at me. That should not be happening. Those fighters with moderate equipment (i.e. +5 equipment, no raid gear, etc) with an AC of 40 or less are penalized by those massive bonuses that the monsters get.

Player inflation should not be a problem. If a character with an AC 60 cannot be hit except on a 20 then it makes no difference if their AC is 80 or 90. If a character has a to-hit of +40 and they only miss on a 1 then it makes no difference if their to-hit is +50 or +60. It doesn't matter.

What matters is when the NPCs are inflated for the upper crust of players. That hurts the casual players.

5. Do you think it would be a good idea reduce the AC scores that PCs can reach if mobs' to-hits were also lowered? What about just lowering mobs' to-hits? Justify your answers.


Are comfortable with monsters' to-hit at end game? In Elite dungeons? Do you think they are too high? If you're OK with their to-hit, are you OK from a S&B point of view or a high Dexterity TWF (and/or monk splash) point of view? Are you happy of the fact that defensive builds are more penalized by running the quest on Elite than DPS builds?

I believe that only NPCs to-hit should be lowered. See answer to question 4.

6. Would you like to see a bunch of feats to improve S&B? Any suggestions? (It can be either in the form of feats or just unrefined ideas that still need to be rethought. It can be as general as "Something giving them DR would be cool." if you want.) If you use feats already existing in PnP, please indicate the book.

Sure. More feats are always better. Customization is the key to D&D.

7. Do you think that S&B could use more DPS, also, to be brought back in line?

Somewhat. I think more feats could help stimulate S&B DPS. But, I also do not believe that S&B DPS is out of line to begin with. TWF gets more attacks, naturally. THF gets a bonus to damage via PA. S&B gets to hunker down.

8. Do you think paladins and fighters should become S&B specialists and receive enhancements focused on S&B fight? Explain your answer.


In other words, do you believe that Turbine should address the issue by also improving the fighter and/or paladin class which happen to need help and be using that combat style very often, even if it penalizes the S&B rogues, bards and others? Do you believe that Turbine should favor classes to use only certain fighting styles, or you rather them to keep it open and make more choices valid? Do you think it's simply better to improve S&B as a whole and paladins and fighers will gain from it as much, if not more?

I think that fighters should receive all feat related combat enhancements in the game. I think paladins should get enhancements for fighting evil foes.

9. Do you think S&B should have the ability (or opportunity) to be protected by other means than AC? If yes, list a few.

I think current S&B mechanics are fine. No need to play around with it.

10. Would you be in favor of a cap on Dodge AC? Why?

No. However, I think Turbine should put Dodge AC on equipment slots that traditionally offer armor bonus (i.e. bracers and armor). This would force people to choose between an Armor bonus or a Dodge bonus. Also, I agree with Turbine that Dodge bonus items should only be available on named items. Dodge should never be applied to random loot generation.

Now, if you don't understand what is the point of balancing, check this thread.
If you think S&B is balanced, well go and debate on another thread. This is not the place for that.

This is a discussion. Telling people with an opposing view to go somewhere else does not stimulate unbiased discussion.

Oh, don't be shy to post your suggestions.

I won't.

RazorrX just recently gave an example of why that is a bad way to think. Here.

Being "scared" to nerf is silly. Yes, don't do it all the time. But saying a permanent no to it is a really bad idea.

That quote says that Dwarven rangers are overpowered... The only enhancement tree that Dwarves has that makes them overpowered is the Toughness enhancements. That's it.

Elves, Drow, and Dwarves all share weapon to-hit and damage enhancements. Dwarves get the tactics enhancements, same as the warforged. The combination of the weapon enhancements and the tactics enhancements does not make dwarves that much greater primarily because there are plenty of other things to spend enhancements on!

[Angelus_dead]

That quote says that Dwarven rangers are overpowered... The only enhancement tree that Dwarves has that makes them overpowered is the Toughness enhancements. That's it.

Wrong. Dwarf toughness enhacements (or class toughness as well) are only minorly powerful. Taking them away wouldn't really fix balance.

The dwarf race is powerful because of the combination of:
Dwarf Spell Defense
Dwarf Axe Attack
Dwarf Axe Damage
Dwarf Armor Mastery
Dwarf Toughness
Dwarf Tactics

All those enhancements put together make the race strong. It's incorrect to claim that just one of them is doing it.

Elves, Drow, and Dwarves all share weapon to-hit and damage enhancements.

Wrong. A greataxe does more damage than any other weapon covered by a weapon enhancement. A green-steel dwarf axe is similarly powerful.

Halfling: thrown junk only

Elf: longsword and rapier, neither of which is a light weapon, meaning not good for TWF offhand. And of course, being an elf means -6 con below a dwarf (which means -48 hp even if Toughness didn't matter).

Drow: rapier and shortsword, which includes a light weapon so it fits well for TWF, but it forces you to be a drow which means a non-28 point build (so even less con than an elf).

Dwarf: greataxe, dwarf axe, battleaxe, handaxe, thrown axe. Unlike the other races, they get one hand, light, two hand, and even ranged weapons all from one enhancement. Unlike every other race, they get enhancements for weapons with more than 2x crits, which really helps once Critical Rage II comes in. Unlike every other race but drow, they get main and offhand weapon from one enhancement.

I mean, how crazy is it that Drow are allowed to buy a separate enhancement for Shuriken, the weakest thrown weapon, while Dwarfs get Throwing Axe damage for free just by buying melee enhancements? (Throwing Axe has the best damage die and best crit mult of any thrown weapon)

Dwarves get the tactics enhancements, same as the warforged.

Yes, but WF have nothing to improve their AC or their ability to hit with weapons (in fact, the WF damage enhancement reduces their ability to hit with weapons. WF PA increases the chance that the attack roll for a stun will miss)

[krud]

1. Is it a good idea for Turbine to change drastically the definitions and roles of the fighting styles in DDO? Why?
   Not sure it should be one or the other. You should be able to get good AC either way, but neither should be able to dominate in both DPS and AC. It seems the notion of sacrificing one aspect for another has gone out the window
   
   
2. Is it OK for Turbine to nerf in this situation? Why? If yes, by how much (or how)? And why? Yes. 1st nerf should be no wisdom AC bonus while uncentered for monk splashes (limits them to only monk weapons). It's not like monk has been around for so long that people will have lost a huge amount of time on the monk splashes. Items, on the other hand, will eventually drop out of favor as the level cap goes up. No need to nerf, but no more dodge items would be a good start.
   
   
3. If you answered no to the previous question, would you change your mind if a full respect system would be implemented? If you answered yes to the previous question, are you in favor of a respect system and would you nerf more if there was one? In both cases, why? I'm in favor of any respec option that is fair, i.e. it doesn't create a whole bunch of new "respec only" builds. I'd prefer partial level, skill or stat respec instead of full respec. Fix the tome issue (ML on tomes) and it would be easier.
   
   
4. Are you scared of inflation? Why? No, but I still believe nerfs can be healthier for the game too. It is possible to nerf something, yet have it still remain one of the best options
   
   
5. Do you think it would be a good idea reduce the AC scores that PCs can reach if mobs' to-hits were also lowered? What about just lowering mobs' to-hits? Justify your answers. How about lowering PCs attack progression bonus for starters (e.g. 0,+2,+4,+6...)?
   
   
   Are comfortable with monsters' to-hit at end game? In Elite dungeons? Do you think they are too high? If you're OK with their to-hit, are you OK from a S&B point of view or a high Dexterity TWF (and/or monk splash) point of view? Are you happy of the fact that defensive builds are more penalized by running the quest on Elite than DPS builds? I'm not sure they are penalized, it's just the player mentality that does it. A defensive build can work, but most other people don't have the patience to let it work.
   
   
6. Would you like to see a bunch of feats to improve S&B? Any suggestions? (It can be either in the form of feats or just unrefined ideas that still need to be rethought. It can be as general as "Something giving them DR would be cool." if you want.) If you use feats already existing in PnP, please indicate the book. yes (provided they don't want to nerf TWF/monk splash AC). Bringing back fighter dodge would help, as would implementing similar feats geared toward shields. AC bonus feats when using sheilds (similar to shield mastery, but for AC)
   
   
7. Do you think that S&B could use more DPS, also, to be brought back in line?enhancements to compliment greater weapon focus and specialization might help.
   
   
8. Do you think paladins and fighters should become S&B specialists and receive enhancements focused on S&B fight? Explain your answer. I hate pigeonholing classes. They should be able to do well with any fighting style
   
   
9. Would you be in favor of a cap on Dodge AC? Why? if turbine insists on adding more and more dodge items then yes.

answers in red

[Raiderone]

Quote from Alavatar
Not all Ranger builds have Favored Defense III. In fact, not all Ranger builds have any Favored Defense at all. There are many other enhancements that are considered to be "must haves" and fitting Favored Defense into the mix is difficult to do without sacrificing something. Otherwise, refer to my answer to question 1.


That is not true. Favored Ranger Enhancements are MUST HAVES. Everything else
are secondary to them. If you don't have it all, then why be a Ranger.
I'm playing two and I always find AP's for Favored Enhancements.

[Aspenor]

So Borr did you ever find out what "having a chip on your shoulder" means?

[Borror0]

No offense, Borror0, but your OP is about as biased as a Fox News interview. Your questions and explainations are phrased in such a way as to make it seem like choosing not to nerf is a stupid idea.

People can always reply "No, you're NOT getting it. That's not the problematic." if they disagree.

But yes, dragging them in my logic was a point, in fact.

TWF only gets that high AC with one particular build.

That's not true.

• If they go dex-based, no matter the class, they win over S&B.
• If they got Str-based with decent Dex and monk splash, they win over S&B.
• If they go Str-based on a paladin or a ranger, they win over S&B.

That's more than "one build".

And that'd only AC-wise. They also win in DPS, ease to get Evasion, procs...

Not all Ranger builds have Favored Defense III.

I know, but any AC focused ranger do. That is the problem.

Some builds use it in a reasonable and respectable way, but others gain a serius advantage from it.

My only concern with inflation is the inflation of monster to-hit, HP, HD, and saves.

But it's the result of player inflation.

Player inflation should not be a problem. If a character with an AC 60 cannot be hit except on a 20 then it makes no difference if their AC is 80 or 90. If a character has a to-hit of +40 and they only miss on a 1 then it makes no difference if their to-hit is +50 or +60. It doesn't matter.

What matters is when the NPCs are inflated for the upper crust of players. That hurts the casual players.

That's the problem, though! The higher it gets, the more problems start to arise on the casual player's side.

Somewhat. I think more feats could help stimulate S&B DPS. But, I also do not believe that S&B DPS is out of line to begin with. TWF gets more attacks, naturally. THF gets a bonus to damage via PA. S&B gets to hunker down.

So, S&B was muy perfecto pre-Module 7?

I think current S&B mechanics are fine. No need to play around with it.

I meant like feats (or enhancements, or spells, etc.) that increases your protection to something.

This is a discussion. Telling people with an opposing view to go somewhere else does not stimulate unbiased discussion.

Depends on what you want to discuss. Here, I make the assumption that S&B is broken from the start and try to fix it.

I am willing to discuss if it is broken or not, just not here.

That quote says that Dwarven rangers are overpowered... The only enhancement tree that Dwarves has that makes them overpowered is the Toughness enhancements. That's it.

I Agree with you and I think he thinks the same too. Look at the post he replied to.