Discussion: Improving S&B

[Borror0]

By the fact that you're assuming that somehow Turbine will need to lower ACs and the fact that you're ignoring that with a correct BaB progression feats like CE and Power attack would hurt a TWF more.

Well, sorry but I don't see that.

It seems you're getting what I'm saying wrong. What I am trying to tell you is that Turbine's mistake is to us the MM's values in DDO for AC. If they inflated the to-hit to avoid the "swing-move" tactic, then the right logical thing would be to inflated AC as a response. (Of course a more logical way would be to still use the PnP way to do, but in reverse to still avoid the "swing-move" tactic. However, but solutions would lead to similar effects which is not what you're thinknig and why you are wrong.)

[Borror0]

That is, "increasing iterative attack bonus" can be interpreted ambiguously. Does it mean that later attacks go up in bonus instead of down?

That is obviously not problematic.

20/15/10/5 is the exact same as 5/10/15/20 with the only difference that the second prevents something that is desirable to avoid, as Turbine previously explained.

Or does it mean that the extra attacks granted by higher BAB are at higher bonus instead of lower?

That, can be solved with high mob AC as it is the same as Turbien giving us higher to-hit bonuses.

[Gennerik]

Well, sorry but I don't see that.

It seems you're getting what I'm saying wrong. What I am trying to tell you is that Turbine's mistake is to us the MM's values in DDO for AC. If they inflated the to-hit to avoid the "swing-move" tactic, then the right logical thing would be to inflated AC as a response. (Of course a more logical way would be to still use the PnP way to do, but in reverse to still avoid the "swing-move" tactic. However, but solutions would lead to similar effects which is not what you're thinknig and why you are wrong.)

I don't think that that is what really happened, though. They obviously did increase the AC, they then decreased it back to closer to what it should be in DnD. Remember the Drow Blackguards in Tempest Spine that nobody could every hit. So everyone complained that it's no fun when you're constantly missing something because you only get your first swing or two before they move again and you have to chase them to keep up, meaning that you never actually get to your highest attack bonus, meaning that all that balancing that Turbine did for the increasing BAB is lost because they force you to move anyway.

Fast forward to now, where instead of balancing the AC of the creature to be missed every now and then by the heavy-hitters (and summarily missed by those that don't hit that hard all the time), they've just made it so that the balance now relies on them being hit almost every time and having a tremendous HP difference over their DnD counterparts. That might have worked, but some classes can deal out so much ability damage that it doesn't matter how much HP they have, because they can get a monster to 0 Constitution in a matter of 3 seconds.

If monsters didn't move around so much, your example and QuantumFX's could actually be comparable, since then the AC could be balanced to reflect the idea that you'll hit more you beat on them (further in the attack chain), but since you end up missing those first two attacks much more often and are then forced to move to follow the erratic movement of the monster, your balancing idea, Borror0, just doens't work the way it should because you can't assume that anyone will really hit on the first two attacks when you've balanced the AC of a monster for 10 above that to deal with your 3rd-5th attacks.

[EDIT] Short of instituting a 5-foot step mechanic where small movements don't reset the attack chain, I don't see how you'll get around this.

[Borror0]

So everyone complained that it's no fun when you're constantly missing something because you only get your first swing or two before they move again and you have to chase them to keep up, meaning that you never actually get to your highest attack bonus, meaning that all that balancing that Turbine did for the increasing BAB is lost because they force you to move anyway.

That is what I am thinking as well.

Just go back to the Harbor and those kobolds. Since you're at much lower levels, you miss a lot. However, that's no fun. In fact, missing a lot is very frustrating. How many of us have told themselves "Will you stop moving damned lizard!"?

I'm pretty sure that's why they made us hit so often.

Your balancing idea, Borror0, just doens't work the way it should because you can't assume that anyone will really hit on the first two attacks when you've balanced the AC of a monster for 10 above that to deal with your 3rd-5th attacks.

But later attacks go down in bonus instead of up also has its problems.

It favors moving to break the chains to avoid wasting your time with swings very likely to miss. You're swing is going to go down by 5, so moving and making it go down by just 4 and keep swinging at an higher to-hit is a better option. That's why Turbine made it that way in the first place.

[QuantumFX]

Well, sorry but I don't see that.

It seems you're getting what I'm saying wrong. What I am trying to tell you is that Turbine's mistake is to us the MM's values in DDO for AC. If they inflated the to-hit to avoid the "swing-move" tactic, then the right logical thing would be to inflated AC as a response. (Of course a more logical way would be to still use the PnP way to do, but in reverse to still avoid the "swing-move" tactic. However, but solutions would lead to similar effects which is not what you're thinknig and why you are wrong.)

Using bugs as a justification not to fix something else is silly. It's a bug! AKA: Not the way it's intended to work. AKA: Expect this to be fixed in the future. You don't need to spend a lot of time balancing around a bug if you take that time to actually fix the bug.

If I was leading the dev team here's how I'd fix it: Determine how long a “round” is and add a timer to melee BaB reduction. Even if someone finds a way of getting 9 attacks per round due to a bug they're going to have a hell of a time getting past the -40 to hit.

I'd also like to point out a few more things this would help balance. Ranged combat would be less gimped because rather than getting screwed on attack speed and BaB they would only be screwed on attack speed. An increase to defenses means less time for clerics to be spamming heals and more time acting like a cleric. Better defenses leads to less need for 4,000 HP mobs which leads to DPS vs. Stat damage vs. Instadeath effectiveness levelling out.

That, can be solved with high mob AC as it is the same as Turbien giving us higher to-hit bonuses.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. You're only considering the full BaB classes. In P&P a full BaB lvl 16 Fighter starts off with a +16 to hit while a lvl 16 3/4 BaB Rogue/Cleric only has a +12 to hit it's a 4 BaB difference throughout the chain of attacks. In P&P this is good cause a fighter type could spend that BaB difference into things like CE, PA or TWF. It makes balancing encounters easier.

In DDO you need to start off at the final attack (Which is what you would have to balance encounters off of.) and work backwards.

Attack #5 for the full bab +26
Attack #4 for the 3/4 BaB +22
Looks good so far... Only 4 points difference.

Attack #4 for the Full BaB +26
Attack #3 for the 3/4 BaB +17
Hey look the 3/4 Babs now start taking it in the rear with the 9 point difference.

Attack #3 for the Full BaB +21
Attack #2 for the 3/4 BaB +13
Hey it's still 9 points difference!! What the hell is up with that?

Attack #2 for the Full BaB +16
Attack #1 for the 3/4 BaB +13
3 point difference now. If you make a line graph I think you'll see the problem here.

And BTW I left out the first fighter attack because, well, full BaB guys get more attacks in P&P so they should get them here. But look at that curve on the line graph. Kinda makes balancing encounters to include the melee rogue/cleric a PITA.

I don't think that that is what really happened, though. They obviously did increase the AC, they then decreased it back to closer to what it should be in DnD. Remember the Drow Blackguards in Tempest Spine that nobody could every hit. So everyone complained that it's no fun when you're constantly missing something because you only get your first swing or two before they move again and you have to chase them to keep up, meaning that you never actually get to your highest attack bonus, meaning that all that balancing that Turbine did for the increasing BAB is lost because they force you to move anyway.

But also the Drow Blackguards were level 20 with an unrealistic (for D&D numbers) AC. And as I was illustrating above the current BaB mechanic was also unfairly gimping anyone with a non full BaB.

Just go back to the Harbor and those kobolds. Since you're at much lower levels, you miss a lot. However, that's no fun. In fact, missing a lot is very frustrating. How many of us have told themselves "Will you stop moving damned lizard!"?

Ah but having to think about your attack bonus would make you rethink those “useless” feats like Spring Attack, Improved Trip, Improved Sunder, Monk attacks, OTWF and Weapon Focus.

[Gennerik]

Ah but having to think about your attack bonus would make you rethink those “useless” feats like Spring Attack, Improved Trip, Improved Sunder, Monk attacks, OTWF and Weapon Focus.

But later attacks go down in bonus instead of up also has its problems.

It favors moving to break the chains to avoid wasting your time with swings very likely to miss. You're swing is going to go down by 5, so moving and making it go down by just 4 and keep swinging at an higher to-hit is a better option. That's why Turbine made it that way in the first place.

Which is why you institute a "5-foot step" mechanic. If you end up making it so that you have to move a certain distance outside of the point where you began to attack before your attack chain would break, you are either faced with the decision to keep attacking and have a lower chance to hit, or run to an area where you can't hit the creature in order to break your chain (or just waste time running around). You could also add an artificial pause for chain-breaking movement, to simulate setting up your next attack sequence.

[Borror0]

And BTW I left out the first fighter attack because, well, full BaB guys get more attacks in P&P so they should get them here. But look at that curve on the line graph. Kinda makes balancing encounters to include the melee rogue/cleric a PITA.

But that is irrelevant to your first assertion. If you wonder, yes I was aware of that and that's another reason as to why they don't balance around to-hit much. (I'm not saying the system is perfect, just saying it's not worth fixing. I don't see what we would gain from it.)

And, I still don't see how that would make TWF less attractive.

[...] with an unrealistic (for D&D numbers) AC.

Like everything else in DDO...

Ah but having to think about your attack bonus would make you rethink those “useless” feats like Spring Attack, Improved Trip, Improved Sunder, Monk attacks, OTWF and Weapon Focus.

Yes, but the point of a game is being fun. Balancing is only worth it for as long as the game becomes more fun.

[Gennerik]

Maybe as a simple solution to make shields more attractive Turbine could add a few more combat-related prefixes and suffixes to a shield or change some.

Take a Shield of Bashing. Right now it deals an extra 1d6 damage on a Shield Bash, which could be nice, but hardly makes a large impact on combat. Maybe you could add the effects similar to Weighted and Vertigo to it and make it a more expensive shield enchantment. If you think about it, a shield can be used to stun someone or help throw them off-balance, so it should be able to hold enchantments like that. Currently, as a Sword-and-Board user, you sacrifice your only good weapon to increase your chance of those effects landing, then you waste time switching weapons to something that deals actual damage.

[QuantumFX]

But that is irrelevant to your first assertion. If you wonder, yes I was aware of that and that's another reason as to why they don't balance around to-hit much. (I'm not saying the system is perfect, just saying it's not worth fixing. I don't see what we would gain from it.)

And, I still don't see how that would make TWF less attractive.

It's not about making TWF less attractive. It's about making S&B and THF more attractive by balancing out their damage output. Here's yet another way to try and help you understand. DPS in P&P is more than just “how hard can I hit them?” It's also about “How can I make sure that this attack sticks?” TWF is low man on the totem pole for “Make this attack stick.” By having a 95% success rate on an attack rather than a 95% failure rate you overpower the style.

You claim to be against inflation. You think it's terrible and will pull this game apart. So, Lemme ask you this: Why do you support this gross inflation of BaB? You think giving +3 AC from an enhancement chain is somehow bad. But you're OK with handing out upwards of +20 to hit to fighters. Please explain this double standard.

Like everything else in DDO...

And if you go back to the subject at hand you'll realize I was referring to how the drow blackguard had an unrealistic AC when Tempest Spine came out.

They lowered it not just because fighter types were having issues hitting the redonkulous AC but because the only job a rogue had in there was unlocking doors. Turbine originally based the Drow blackguard AC off of the to hit fighter types could achieve and in doing so screwed everyone else out of having fun.

Flash forward to the current game where a lot of the AC are more reasonable when compared to P&P rules. Because we still manage to achieve such high to hit scores (Thanks to a backwards BaB system) fighters are now being forced into focusing on DPS because all the combat feats they would take to offset penalties (Weapon Focus, Spring Attack, OTWF) are rendered useless. Unfortunately for fighters there aren't a lot of DPS feats to go around.

Yes, but the point of a game is being fun. Balancing is only worth it for as long as the game becomes more fun.

So making more builds viable and not forcing characters into highly specialized roles somehow takes away from the “fun” factor?

[QuantumFX]

Maybe as a simple solution to make shields more attractive Turbine could add a few more combat-related prefixes and suffixes to a shield or change some.

Take a Shield of Bashing. Right now it deals an extra 1d6 damage on a Shield Bash, which could be nice, but hardly makes a large impact on combat. Maybe you could add the effects similar to Weighted and Vertigo to it and make it a more expensive shield enchantment. If you think about it, a shield can be used to stun someone or help throw them off-balance, so it should be able to hold enchantments like that. Currently, as a Sword-and-Board user, you sacrifice your only good weapon to increase your chance of those effects landing, then you waste time switching weapons to something that deals actual damage.

Something I've been a long time supporter of is to make Improved Shield Bash the gateway feat for TWF that it's supposed to be. (In P&P you can use your shield as an off hand weapon. ala Gladiator or 300) Turbine would need to set up quick changing combat styles (TWF, THF, Single Weapon) but it would allow S&B fighters to add their shields to damage output without sacrificing defense. It would also allow double weapons to finally get implemented. (Double weapons are hybrid TWF/THF weapons in P&P.)

[Angelus_dead]

And, I still don't see how that would make TWF less attractive.

Because it makes the inherent -2 TWF attack penalty more likely to make a difference. One way to get back some of that effect would be to give DDO's TWF attack routine a smaller iterative attack delta than THF/1WF gets.

Note that one of my old suggestions was to make the penalty for a non-light offhand weapon scale up along with your iterative attack bonus, making dual-puncturing-rapier a little less optimal.

[Borror0]

It's not about making TWF less attractive. It's about making S&B and THF more attractive by balancing out their damage output.

I fail to see how it would help Tower S&B.
You claim to be against inflation. You think it's terrible and will pull this game apart. So,

Lemme ask you this: Why do you support this gross inflation of BaB?

I am not saying it is perfect, I'm saying it's not worth the trouble.

So making more builds viable and not forcing characters into highly specialized roles somehow takes away from the “fun” factor?

Twisting my words.

Creating more builds by inserting an unpleasant mechanic is not any improvement. I dislike missing all the times, like at lower levels against an opponent stronger than you. Seeing a bunch of misses is less fun than slowly killing a mob. Now, if your gripe is about the current end game mobs, they clearly overdid it thanks to how overpowered nuking can be.

[Angelus_dead]

That is obviously not problematic.

20/15/10/5 is the exact same as 5/10/15/20 with the only difference that the second prevents something that is desirable to avoid, as Turbine previously explained.

Incorrect. When you remember that PCs don't always get iterative attacks, it makes a big difference.

That, can be solved with high mob AC as it is the same as Turbien giving us higher to-hit bonuses.

Incorrect. Not all characters have the same iterative attack bonuses. This is most apparent at around levels 10-14.

That problem would have continued to be a serious issue at level 15+ as well, but fortunately Turbine responded to customer complaints and stopped the BAB15 additional attack from gaining an additional +5.

[Borror0]

Maybe as a simple solution to make shields more attractive Turbine could add a few more combat-related prefixes and suffixes to a shield or change some.

You know what I dislike so much about that kind of comment?
It suggests leaving TWF as is, and that's kind of silly and rather changing S&B.

I got an idea, let's make THF the AC experts, S&B the DPS expects and TWF the champions of range attacks!
(Yes, I know that I sound like an ass in that post.)

[QuantumFX]

I fail to see how it would help Tower S&B.

Well, Tower shields are another special case. What the Tower shield should be doing is absorbing all the attacks that a melee/ranged is trying to throw at you. Kinda like the current mechanic but the shield should be taking durability damage while you take none. Like I said in my original post. You need to start with...

I am not saying it is perfect, I'm saying it's not worth the trouble.

And I'm saying that it's the cornerstone to most of the problems DDO suffers under. It gets ignored by the MMO crowd because they simply don't understand how the system should work.

Twisting my words.

Creating more builds by inserting an unpleasant mechanic is not any improvement. I dislike missing all the times, like at lower levels against an opponent stronger than you. Seeing a bunch of misses is less fun than slowly killing a mob. Now, if your gripe is about the current end game mobs, they clearly overdid it thanks to how overpowered nuking can be.

No one's saying you're going to be missing all the time. Turbine may have to address the problem child villians. (Elite Orthon Defenders, Gardak) But, your dwarven defender will still do very well against high AC foes. In fact it will justify your character's investment into Dwarven Axe enhancements and Greater Weapon focus.

But, you will be forced to start understanding the mechanics of what you're doing in combat. CE and PA are not feats meant for TWF's. CE is meant more for the S&B and 1 hander crowd. PA is meant more for the THF crowd. But by inflating the to hit in this game Turbine has made them invaluable to TWF's.

By making it where you always hit on a 2 the developers have given us the critial hit high. We only feel uber when we smack something for 200+ points of damage.

[Borror0]

From a theory standpoint, you may be right. Inflation of one thing can easily create a snowball effect and detract many things.

However, show me you you'd do it to make it work. Elaborate on how you'd fix it. Because, while you do make valid points, I doubt it would help as much as you think. Of course, you probably have more thoughts into this. So, I'm asking you what changes you'd make and why. I'm willing to listen, but without seeing the cure I doubt I can evaluate the problem properly.

[Nevthial]

I'm willing to listen, but without seeing the cure I doubt I can evaluate the problem properly.

Just curious, but , when did you gain employ by Turbine as a Dev?

[Borror0]

Just curious, but , when did you gain employ by Turbine as a Dev?

...let me rephrase.

"For me to be willing to admit you're right and move on, you got to explain how you'd fix it because I have an hard time to see how it would be fixed and the effects it would have on the game. I may be blind, but that's up to you to prove me I am. " Does that sound better?

[QuantumFX]

"For me to be willing to admit you're right and move on, you got to explain how you'd fix it because I have an hard time to see how it would be fixed and the effects it would have on the game. I may be blind, but that's up to you to prove me I am. " Does that sound better?

How many fingers am I holding up?

Nope.

That's it you're blind.

Seriously though. I think the biggest issue is that you seem to have a inaccurate view on how BaB works in P&P. In every post so far, you seem to think that it's simply DDO in reverse. This is not the case. Right now, I'm completely stumped on how to explain it to you. And until you have that knowledge no explaination is going work for you.

[Borror0]

Seriously though. I think the biggest issue is that you seem to have a inaccurate view on how BaB works in P&P.

I know it's not exactly the reverse. I get the difference, always did. Just never seen the 'problem' there that much.

LLike I said, unless you show me HOW to ix it and what are the benefits, you're not going to convince me.