Bow Strength For Non-Rangers

[Yaga_Nub]

Why have the BAB requirement even that high?

Why have them that low?

[Emili]

Hmm... There are 5 bazzilion Tempest rangers out there and like 4 that actually shoot arrows regularly. Any attempt to improve/increase the ranged aspect of this game is welcome in my book. Diversity helps the game in the long run.

The Rheeb

Precisely, I have three rangers... Ambyre and Misbehaven were built before any PrE's were available and Einin after. After the PrE's Ambyre and Misbehaven stuck with ranging as the primary first attack... they range then melee. Einin (a strength ranger who is built a tempest) while she carries a few bows (silver, para, disruptor, wap and such) could not hold a candle to Ambyre's or even Misbehaven's archery prowess, even with her 30 dex it seems 34 dex pkus IC ranged make a huge difference to a range attack...

Tempest is by far the most powerful melee enhancement in the game today that is no doubt ... it displaced dps fighters and even many dps barbs builds in dps output... I've a maxed str THF barb who can reach 54 str from her rages + madstones + bloodrage ... yet Einin at her meager 32 str + rams can consitantly play easier deliver more consistant dps then any of my other melee... plus while she's not my prefered range character, she would still outrange either of the other melee spec'd characters I have. Thus rangers while in the past you had to build a good one ... and play it hard and different to get good results... were handed the power of all other full BaB classes in one quick mod... thus antiquating all other Full BaB classes to great extent.

What does DDO need to do to fix things?

Well to start ... take this from the compendium:
The fighter is the ultimate fighting machine, able to wield all but those most exotic of weapons and armor. Their prowess in combat is unmatched and their wide selection of feats enables them to train in many fighting styles

and change it to this:
The ranger is the ultimate fighting machine, able to wield all the best of weapons and some armor (but who uses armour?). Their prowess in combat is unmatched and their wide selection of granted feats enables them to train their selected feats to support the greatest fighting styles

[Aspenor]

Well yeah, if your thing is to help ranged combat out, and nothing else, then doing anything is better than nothing.

But the point is why do it through a capstone that only one class has access to? If you're going to fix ranged combat, fix it. Don't slap a bandaid on it and say "well it's kind of ok if you take 20 levels in this one class". There are a ton of problems doing it this way.

with the oh-so-obvious lack of the WDA *gag* how do we know they aren't planning a different way to fix archery? I'm not saying I think they are (I doubt they are) but it is a possibility (however remote).

[Borror0]

with the oh-so-obvious lack of the WDA *gag* how do we know they aren't planning a different way to fix archery?

If they are, a class with an alacrity bonus 15% higher than any other is going to make balancing, without nerfing said alacrity bonus extremely, hard.

[Aspenor]

If they are, a class with an alacrity bonus 15% higher than any other is going to make balancing without nerfing said alacrity bonus complex .

who said anything about balance? balance is overrated.

[Borror0]

who said anything about balance?

Mhykke implied it.

balance is overrated.

If that is the case, why do you agree that having spellcasters being as powerful as they were in M5 was a bad thing?

[Aspenor]

Mhykke implied it.

If that is the case, why do you agree that having spellcasters being as powerful as they were in M5 was a bad thing?

There's an important, yet subtle difference between being "unequal and mildly imbalanced for flavor" vs. "literally no point in playing anything but a cleric or sorcerer."

[Borror0]

There's an important, yet subtle difference between being "unequal and mildly imbalanced for flavor" vs. "literally no point in playing anything but a cleric or sorcerer."

Oh, so basically, balance is not overrated. I think you fell into the misconception that balance means "equal".

[Aspenor]

Oh, so basically, balance is not overrated. I think you fell into the misconception that balance means "equal".

I think that you fell into the misconception that unless the classes are equal, they are not balanced.

If that's not true, what *is* balance to you?

[redoubt]

Bow str should come free with every class and cap it for everyone at +5. Why would anyone spend a feat on this ability especially with the low ROF for bows. I mean sure a raging barb with his +14 to str shooting arrows is nice but its hardly something sombody would spend a feat on I would think. I am sure I am wrong but to me its a non issue. There should be no feat to begin with and a hard cap on the available bonus gained from it period.

Actually I (and others) have built a character around this very concept. 14 barb / 2 ranger. Bow strength combined with 36 Str = +13 to damage at range. (Example from my character, others may have more or less STR.)

Next, my actual ranger has 26 STR self buffed and 28 if someone throughs a rage at me. A hard cap of 5 would drop a lot of the all ready limited dps that is in bow fighting.

I like Aspenors pre-req list, but I do not like the cap to bow str idea.

[Borror0]

If that's not true, what *is* balance to you?

To me, there is a "balance strip" where it is left to the player to decide whichever build he or she wants to play.

In other words, balance is achieved when opinions disagree as to which build is the best, whether we speak generally or for a specific role. Balance is not about making everything equal but allowing personal preferences matter over power level. One may favor survivability or self-sufficiency over damage output or one may prefer a more active/twitch combat style while another may prefer a more passive one.

If there is imbalance, it's much less likely that one players want he wants because he will "have" to play what is best.

The "strip" is subjective, but we can pretty much make a guess of when we reached it by looking the trends.

[Deathseeker]

To me, there is a "balance strip" where it is left to the player to decide whichever build he or she wants to play.

In other words, balance is achieved when opinions disagree as to which build is the best, whether we speak generally or for a specific role. Balance is not about making everything equal but allowing personal preferences matter over power level. One may favor survivability or self-sufficiency over damage output or one may prefer a more active/twitch combat style while another may prefer a more passive one.

If there is imbalance, it's much less likely that one players want he wants because he will "have" to play what is best.

The "strip" is subjective, but we can pretty much make a guess of when we reached it by looking the trends.

To support this definition (or at least my twisted interpetation), consider the ranged controversy. At this point, very few people actually play ranged builds. There are a few, but they are rare. And most of the player population will be very hesitant to bring them along on a raid unless they are a guildy/friend/etc. Those that pull it off likely have guildies that can be convinced of their current value, maxed builds that take advantage of what is available today, lots of gear, and probably highly skilled players. Without all that, I just dont see it as a viable primary playstyle, and from what I observe, neither does most of the player population in game at end game.

If it were "balanced", this would not be the case. It doesnt mean ranged has to be "equal", but it would need to contribute enough and be percieved to contribute enough so that one could choose to play that way and not be a whipping post for the rest of the player base.

Similar situation with S&B (with the exception of a specialized Intimitank).

Point is, it's balanced when a very sizable portion of the population sees it as a very viable playstyle. Doesnt have to be equal, but has to have enough attractiveness to a wide enough audience that its desirable.

I dont believe balance has to mean its DPS calculation has to be equal, or its AC calculation has to match up. It just means, to me, that the overall perceived value of the playstyle, race and or build brings enough value to enough players that it becomes an accepted alternative. When that's achieved, the game has more options, and it becomes more attractive to a broader audience as well as gives more variation to potentially retain players longer (by extending the content).

And I dont count role playing as a reason to say its desirable. DO NOT misinterpret that, role playing is great, I just mean any class can be role played, so saying ranged is fine because someone may want to role play it doesnt address the issue in my opinion.

And by this definition, the ranger capstone and bow strength as a feat do help the playstyle move toward being balanced. We're all just upset because there were so many other ways to do this that would have moved it so much further instead.

[Aspenor]

To me, there is a "balance strip" where it is left to the player to decide whichever build he or she wants to play.

In other words, balance is achieved when opinions disagree as to which build is the best, whether we speak generally or for a specific role. Balance is not about making everything equal but allowing personal preferences matter over power level. One may favor survivability or self-sufficiency over damage output or one may prefer a more active/twitch combat style while another may prefer a more passive one.

If there is imbalance, it's much less likely that one players want he wants because he will "have" to play what is best.

The "strip" is subjective, but we can pretty much make a guess of when we reached it by looking the trends.

That's impossible in a game like this, because everything is known quantities and can be found through mathematics. There will always be a "best ranged build" or a "most survivable build" or a "max DPS" build. People may disagree, but generally that disagreement finds its source in the ignorance of one of the parties.

The only classes that allow for a "passive" gameplay style are clerics and bards. All combat classes are twitch classes in DDO. Anybody playing a combat class passively is a poor player.

My question for you, now, is this: how narrow does the "strip," as you put it, have to be? At what point is "balance" achieved? I ask this because from the myriad of posts you've made on these topics, it appears that you don't want any one class to outshine another in any one facet of gameplay, which eliminates any reason to have classes at all.

True imbalance occurs when any one class outshines all others in all facets of gameplay, such as occurred in 3.5e. The wizard, druid, and the cleric invalidated all other classes, especially as the levels progressed. The cleric and druid are superior "tanks" for every level when compared against the generally accepted "combat" classes, due to the self-buffing and healing available (not to mention the druid's animal companion, which might as well be another tank). The wizard quickly becomes a superior "tank" once he gains the polymorph spell. At level 3, the cleric and the wizard invalidate the rogue class completely through the "Find Traps" and "Knock" spells. The wizard is the superior class for nearly all non-combat encounters from level 1, due to the spells Charm Person and Hypnotism. I could go on, but I think that point is made.

While I disdain 4.0e, it has accomplished its goal of balance very well. However, the delicate balance of 4.0 does not come from near-equality of power level. It comes from the delineation and affirmation through powers of expected roles. Basically, it gives every character, regardless of class, something to do in nearly every encounter. Fighters and paladins (barbarians were still in pre-release, last I checked) excel at locking enemies in to fighting them. Rangers and rogues are skilled as scouts, but also excel at doing damage at a high rate. Clerics, warlords and artificers are the healers, and the leaders. They are meant to coordinate the party to be the most effective possible. Wizards (there are no sorcerers, or bards, yet) excel at controlling large numbers of enemies to allow other classes to perform their roles more easily.

While I don't like the system, it does what it does very well. True balance is achieved when regardless of class, you can participate in the success of the party through certain contributions. It's not about effective vs. ineffective at any one chosen form of combat. It's about maintaining reason for existence.

Unfortunately, game balance on these forums has come to mean "equality within a certain effectiveness band." If this were the purpose of game balance, we'd be playing an MMO based on a non-class gaming system.

[Emili]

That's impossible in a game like this, because everything is known quantities and can be found through mathematics. There will always be a "best ranged build" or a "most survivable build" or a "max DPS" build. People may disagree, but generally that disagreement finds its source in the ignorance of one of the parties.

The only classes that allow for a "passive" gameplay style are clerics and bards. All combat classes are twitch classes in DDO. Anybody playing a combat class passively is a poor player.

My question for you, now, is this: how narrow does the "strip," as you put it, have to be? At what point is "balance" achieved? I ask this because from the myriad of posts you've made on these topics, it appears that you don't want any one class to outshine another in any one facet of gameplay, which eliminates any reason to have classes at all.

True imbalance occurs when any one class outshines all others in all facets of gameplay, such as occurred in 3.5e. The wizard, druid, and the cleric invalidated all other classes, especially as the levels progressed. The cleric and druid are superior "tanks" for every level when compared against the generally accepted "combat" classes, due to the self-buffing and healing available (not to mention the druid's animal companion, which might as well be another tank). The wizard quickly becomes a superior "tank" once he gains the polymorph spell. At level 3, the cleric and the wizard invalidate the rogue class completely through the "Find Traps" and "Knock" spells. The wizard is the superior class for nearly all non-combat encounters from level 1, due to the spells Charm Person and Hypnotism. I could go on, but I think that point is made.

While I disdain 4.0e, it has accomplished its goal of balance very well. However, the delicate balance of 4.0 does not come from near-equality of power level. It comes from the delineation and affirmation through powers of expected roles. Basically, it gives every character, regardless of class, something to do in nearly every encounter. Fighters and paladins (barbarians were still in pre-release, last I checked) excel at locking enemies in to fighting them. Rangers and rogues are skilled as scouts, but also excel at doing damage at a high rate. Clerics, warlords and artificers are the healers, and the leaders. They are meant to coordinate the party to be the most effective possible. Wizards (there are no sorcerers, or bards, yet) excel at controlling large numbers of enemies to allow other classes to perform their roles more easily.

While I don't like the system, it does what it does very well. True balance is achieved when regardless of class, you can participate in the success of the party through certain contributions. It's not about effective vs. ineffective at any one chosen form of combat. It's about maintaining reason for existence.

Unfortunately, game balance on these forums has come to mean "equality within a certain effectiveness band." If this were the purpose of game balance, we'd be playing an MMO based on a non-class gaming system.

Effectiveness and viable build option diversity should actually be the goal... balance does not mean equality ... and if that's what you're reading it to be on these forums I think you're misinterpreting most posters intent. Diversity does not mean that if one wishes to pick up a bow and range that they must at the very least splash a level of ranger for at least mediocre results... nor does it mean that should you wish to tank that you must splash a lvl fighter ... or that should you wish to be a decent gtwf that you should be part tempest... etc... here we're linking fighting styles and role to specific class. What would happen if tomorow all forms of healing scrolls were removed from the vendors... many would gripe about their investments in UMD and complain and reroll splashing a level of cleric. Thus reinforcing a class or splash is hard pushed into a specific role rather then a class or splash is attuned to a role... thus killing diversity in build.

This being said...the ddo community does indeed discriminate on build/player ... We can take any high level elite running quest and the players will gravitate to the quickest widest known party formula to achieve the quickest successful end result. ie.) You come accross a range based rogue... surely the thing in the back of your mind is, ok so he can get the important traps, but would it not be nice if they could possibly contribute more towards neutralizing and eliminating the mobs? Surely a twf rogue would deliver three to four times the dps due to frequency of attack (43 vs 83+83) and a 5+ damage mod on every swing over the ranged one - thus would be a more valuable contributer on average. This is why most non-rangers rarely even look at a bow as a weapon except for cases of shooting something way out of reach. Whereas, even a hard spec'd gtwf tempest can fall back pull out a bow and deliver an effective tactical approach with it... it's not by real choice that the prefered range weapon of most non-ranging melee characters is a retuning thrown weapon ... it is by efficiency that this exist.

[Borror0]

That's impossible in a game like this, because everything is known quantities and can be found through mathematics. There will always be a "best ranged build" or a "most survivable build" or a "max DPS" build. People may disagree, but generally that disagreement finds its source in the ignorance of one of the parties.

While I agree there will always be a "max DPS build", its existence not conflict with balance.

While one build may have the most DPS, it should have drawbacks. In other words, there should be a cost for all this DPS. If they are balanced properly, players will choose the build that best suits how they like to play. One may favor a little more self-sufficiency over DPS, but all in all the trade off is worth it.

Heck, one can be mathematically superior to the others but in such an insignificant way that other options still are valid.

The only classes that allow for a "passive" gameplay style are clerics and bards. All combat classes are twitch classes in DDO. Anybody playing a combat class passively is a poor player.

Maybe I did not use the right words.

What I meant here is that some will prefer more or less button mashing while playing. While some complain about how bored they get if they don't have 3141592 buttons to press at the same time, others like it with little button pressing. Again, the key element is to avoid giving a too great advantage to either builds (too much AC, DPS, etc.)

Unfortunately, game balance on these forums has come to mean "equality within a certain effectiveness band." If this were the purpose of game balance, we'd be playing an MMO based on a non-class gaming system.

If I get what you are saying right, you're misunderstanding our views (or at least mine).

Effectiveness is used in a broader sense than what you seem to be using it. Effectiveness means "contribution". A bit in the same manner that you seem to describe the combat style of 4th Edition, effectiveness means making a worthwhile contribution to the party.

If we view the classic MMO archetypes (tank, DPS, CC, healer) as the way to describe each class' function, we still have a lot of room to play in: how do each class fulfill their function? If you look a WoW, many class can perform more than one role in a party depending on spec. Even if a rogue and a hunter can be built for DPS, both have totally different means to reach their goal and have other different advantage other than DPS. Well, the same can be said about DDO classes.

The discussion, here, about ranged combat is the following: we believe that more than one class should be able to make a worthwhile contribution while being spec'd for ranged combat. It has nothing to do with dealing identical DPS.

[Aspenor]

Excelling in the various facets of combat in DDO does have an opportunity cost. Explain to me how having "max DPS" or "maximum survivability" does not come at cost. It most obviously does.

[Borror0]

Explain to me how having "max DPS" or "maximum survivability" does not come at cost. It most obviously does.

Obviously, there is a difference between cost and balanced cost.

When you lose out on things you don't really care about, can you really call that a cost?

[Aspenor]

Obviously, there is a difference between cost and balanced cost.

When you lose out on things you don't really care about, can you really call that a cost?

What is this even supposed to mean? Using the example of ranged combat, other classes CAN choose to excel at ranged combat and contribute. What mechanism in this game can a class not contribute in, should they choose to do so???

This of course assumes you don't expect a full fighter to spec into arcane spellcasting, or healing. That's what classes are for. Of course I don't really think you meant that.

[Angelus_dead]

What is this even supposed to mean? Using the example of ranged combat, other classes CAN choose to excel at ranged combat and contribute.

No, wrong.

No class besides Ranger can excel at ranged combat. (Unless you mean Sorcerer or something, but that'd be misdirection)

[Borror0]

Using the example of ranged combat, other classes CAN choose to excel at ranged combat and contribute.

Don't get what you're trying to say here.

When we say a build has "no cost" we mean that the costs do not balance for the benefits (ie overpowered). The choice is too obvious. "Why would anyone else play another else but that?" In the case of rangers, "Why would anyone play a ranged character that is not a ranger?"

Currently, there is none and that's why we say the ranged capstone is overpowered.