Touch of Death Compromise

[rimble]

<shudder>

U7 has a good tool for use against them in it.

Yeah? How many TP does it cost?

*rim shot*

[KoboldKiller]

That's not the part that I said was a neutral change.

I said that I considered the change from untyped to negative energy mostly neutral, since the number of opponents it will no longer work on aren't super-abundant, and on every other opponent (except for powerful fiends) it had a combo that could potentially increase its damage. If you're not fighting a construct or undead, then the damage type change is almost always irrelevant.

Yes but unfortunately the DC modifier for that combo is the same one your switching ToD to that many/specific builds are not built around thus negating it.

[gurgar78]

Well, that's somewhat misleading, Eladrin. Yes, if you look at all the stuff we fight, and weigh that number vs. the number of undead and constructs we fight, looking not at quantities of each, but single types of monsters, then it seems like this isn't a big deal. But look at how many quests are exclusively undead, or are chock-full of undead and constructs. We have whole adventure packs that are almost exclusively undead battles.

Then, consider that, vs. powerful bosses is where monks most want the full damage.

And which melee class does the most damage against undead and constructs, even without ToD?

Here's another way to look at it:

Against mobs that are crit immune, monks are very competitive for DPS due to superior base damage.

Against those mobs that are not crit immune, monks fall behind due to their poor crit profile and can use ToD to help make up the difference.

[Goldenadult79]

How could Melee Class A and Melee Class B possibly both be balanced against Mob Q if they are at different ends of the power spectrum?


Assumption 1:
Dark Monks are being nerfed.
Assumption 2:
Some people think that that is a good thing.

If the devs don't realize 1, you should try to convince them instead of complaining about the people in 2.

Answer to question 1-can they both kill it?

Answer to question 2-They changed the title of the "tod Nerf" thread in "tod change'. that leads me to believe they are smart enough to know what they've done. Do you see any devs around here?
When we try to convince the devs, the people in 2 show up and crowd the thread with nonsense. That gives me every right to speak to them.

Isn't that what this whole thing has been about from the beginning? The change to dark monks causing them to fall too far behind barbarians and fighters in the melee DPS category and, thus, being considered undesirable and having a hard time finding groups?

No, what its about is making a change that does nothing. It doesn't add any value in any way. Except to perhaps assuage the perceptions of people who play with a monk in their group. Some people may argue the point of them not being welcome in groups, but I haven't been. Which is why I asked you to find a post where I spoke about barbarians.

Why should we have to deal with a change that ultimately achieves nothing? Even if balance were a thing that actually existed. This isn't balance in anyway.

[SINIBYTE]

*rim shot*

http://instantrimshot.com

[sephiroth1084]

And which melee class does the most damage against undead and constructs, even without ToD?

Here's another way to look at it:

Against mobs that are crit immune, monks are very competitive for DPS due to superior base damage.

Against those mobs that are not crit immune, monks fall behind due to their poor crit profile and can use ToD to help make up the difference.

Well, barbarians have quite a bit more damage that they're swinging around., and while they lose a lot to heavy fortification, I don't think they lose as much as dark monks do (sneak attack, dark strike, ToD, almost all their finishers, and against many undead Air, Water and Fire strikes). Hell, many barbarians at end game will do around 100 damage a swing. How many swings does one get per 15 seconds?

Paladins lose crits, but keep basically everything else. Many rangers choose undead as a favored enemy. Fighters lose most of their damage vs. undead that have a DR type that requires a weapon type different than their specialization, but not much otherwise (and monks have a similar issue vs. undead that require something other than bludgeoning).

Rogues suffer the most, by a longshot. I definitely wouldn't say that monks lose the least, though.

[Therilith]

Answer to question 1-can they both kill it?

What if they can't?

Do you see any devs around here?

That's some bad timing on your part...

When we try to convince the devs, the people in 2 show up and crowd the thread with nonsense. That gives me every right to speak to them.

Are you sure it's not just that you disagree with them?

No, what its about is making a change that does nothing.

Then why does it bother you so much?

It doesn't add any value in any way.

And so we embark on an exciting journey to define "value"...

Even if balance were a thing that actually existed.

I... what?

[gurgar78]

Well, barbarians have quite a bit more damage that they're swinging around., and while they lose a lot to heavy fortification, I don't think they lose as much as dark monks do (sneak attack, dark strike, ToD, almost all their finishers, and against many undead Air, Water and Fire strikes). Hell, many barbarians at end game will do around 100 damage a swing. How many swings does one get per 15 seconds?

Paladins lose crits, but keep basically everything else. Many rangers choose undead as a favored enemy. Fighters lose most of their damage vs. undead that have a DR type that requires a weapon type different than their specialization, but not much otherwise (and monks have a similar issue vs. undead that require something other than bludgeoning).

Rogues suffer the most, by a longshot. I definitely wouldn't say that monks lose the least, though.

You're still looking at it the wrong way around. I'm not talking about how much people lose against crit immune mobs. I'm talking about what you bring to the table against them.

Monks have a higher base damage than anyone out there, barring a THF using ESOS. Monks have the fastest attack rate. Monks get full str bonus on all offhand attacks and a decent double attack chance in wind stance (After all, if you don't need the ki for ToD, you don't need fire stance, right?)

So while you may lose a lot against undead and constructs by being unable to use ToD and sneak attack, you still BRING more than most classes against those mob types.

Edit: Removed 10% double attack. Dark monk might not have GMS stance, so it might be less than 10%.

[talyor]

That's not the part that I said was a neutral change.

I said that I considered the change from untyped to negative energy mostly neutral, since the number of opponents it will no longer work on aren't super-abundant, and on every other opponent (except for powerful fiends) it had a combo that could potentially increase its damage. If you're not fighting a construct or undead, then the damage type change is almost always irrelevant.

I like your word "super-abundant" to make the fact that negative energy wont work on the the ABUNDANT undead and constructs thru-out this game seem trivial.

[Goldenadult79]

What if they can't?

yeah right.

That's some bad timing on your part...

hell yeah it was lol

Are you sure it's not just that you disagree with them?

of course I disagree with them. If I tell the devs that something is X and a crowd shows up and says its actually Y. Why wouldn't I disagree with them? As I said, I have every right to speak to them.

Then why does it bother you so much?

I'll re-phrase, it does nothing to increase gameplay or balance in any way. But because of the change, me and a large number of pure str/con monk and some multiclass builds have to re-roll our stats just to have a 50% chance to land a skill we currently use. Going from adding level ups to strength to adding them all to wisdom is a pretty drastic change to have to go through, just some dev can change something that doesnt help the game in any way.

And so we embark on an exciting journey to define "value"...

If you do something for balance reasons and it doesn't achieve said balance, it has no value

I... what?

every MMO thats been created has been trying to create a mystical thing called , "balance". Its cause some games to fail miserably. These types of games have existed since the late 90's, and all of them are Still working on it. Balance would be every class doing the same as every other class. no class would ultimately be different. if all of them do exactly the same as the others, why make alts?

[sephiroth1084]

You're still looking at it the wrong way around. I'm not talking about how much people lose against crit immune mobs. I'm talking about what you bring to the table against them.

Monks have a higher base damage than anyone out there, barring a THF using ESOS. Monks have the fastest attack rate. Monks get full str bonus on all offhand attacks and a 10% double attack chance in wind stance (After all, if you don't need the ki for ToD, you don't need fire stance, right?)

So while you may lose a lot against undead and constructs by being unable to use ToD and sneak attack, you still BRING more than most classes against those mob types.

Monks have a higher base damage die, but not higher base damage (I'm counting base as damage before weapon effects and such). This is even more the case if the monk isn't Str-based. They do have full Str to the off-hand, and the extra effects from ToD rings (if you have them) and the big base damage die, but that's probably about even to the damage bonuses other classes receive. The attack speed difference is significant with the rest of the bonuses, so maybe monks are pretty even with fighters and rangers, and maybe paladins, but not barbarians. Okay.

But as to how I look at it, part of the fun of playing a monk is being very active and engaging, but against undead, they lose much of that ability.

Also, looking at what other classes lose isn't the best way to balance one class around content that generally denies abilities (undead and constructs), because someone isn't going into the Necropolis, or Delera's, or any number of other undead-heavy quests thinking, "Boy, I'm glad I don't lose as much as that guy in here," but rather likely thinking, "****, I can't use this, or this, or that ability in here." What Kensai spec'ed in khopeshes goes into a quest with a lot of skeletons and thinks, "Wow, it really sucks that I'm losing all of my special bonuses to attack and damage, but at least I'm not losing 80% of my damage like rogues do?"

[gurgar78]

every MMO thats been created has been trying to create a mystical thing called , "balance". Its cause some games to fail miserably. These types of games have existed since the late 90's, and all of them are Still working on it. Balance would be every class doing the same as every other class. no class would ultimately be different. if all of them do exactly the same as the others, why make alts?

So then your suggestion is to toss balance to the wind?

But only so long as your preferred characters are on top, amirite?

Can you specify which games failed because they sought balance?

[Mobeius]

Welcome to apples and oranges.

Well consdering they both cost 12 AP"s and have prerequistites to get the higher level and they are all equal abilites, its not apples and oranges. They are Dark, Neutral, and Light side and same in structure. Even Eladrin cross referenced Rise of the Phoenix to Touch of Death.0

Did those 2 get nerfed as well?

Then there is no comparison is there?

Rise of the Phoenix doesnt need a nerf, Void 4 maybe, I dont have their log numbers. How ever they the same in design and being opposite. I was directly refering to the fact the poster made mention it cost 12 APS and lots of prerequisites to gain before achiving Touch of Death. So yes there is a direct comparison.

[Khurse]

That's not the part that I said was a neutral change.

I said that I considered the change from untyped to negative energy mostly neutral, since the number of opponents it will no longer work on aren't super-abundant, and on every other opponent (except for powerful fiends) it had a combo that could potentially increase its damage. If you're not fighting a construct or undead, then the damage type change is almost always irrelevant.

The thing is while I can see this for most of a toon's "life" ,at endgame (where we spend the vast majority of our time)
the trash dies so fast having the ability to set up a fancy move doesn't matter, the only thing that really matters are the end bosses, AKA "the Powerful Fiends". It could be argued for epics, but epic is a game of holds and x3/ x4 crit weapons.
I'm not sure if I'm cool enough to use the "Don't hate the player, hate the game" line, but it seems appropriate.

[Mobeius]

So then your suggestion is to toss balance to the wind?

But only so long as your preferred characters are on top, amirite?

Can you specify which games failed because they sought balance?

I gather the same thing, so long as their characters are on top then the game must be balanced, who cares about the other players experience.

[gurgar78]

Monks have a higher base damage die, but not higher base damage (I'm counting base as damage before weapon effects and such). This is even more the case if the monk isn't Str-based. They do have full Str to the off-hand, and the extra effects from ToD rings (if you have them) and the big base damage die, but that's probably about even to the damage bonuses other classes receive. The attack speed difference is significant with the rest of the bonuses, so maybe monks are pretty even with fighters and rangers, and maybe paladins, but not barbarians. Okay.

I still disagree that it brings them even with other classes. Monks get effects on handwraps, in addition, they can boost their damage with elemental strikes. If something happens to be immune to fire, lightning and frost, they still have earth damage attacks they can cycle.

But anyway, it seems this concern with people passing over monks because they can't use ToD against undead and constructs seems unfounded. Anyone that would pass over a monk because ToD won't land on that undead boss that monks do fantastic damage on anyway... is an idiot.

[Therilith]

yeah right.

Yeah right what?

of course I disagree with them. If I tell the devs that something is X and a crowd shows up and says its actually Y. Why wouldn't I disagree with them? As I said, I have every right to speak to them.

Yes, but the chain of quotes goes back to someone saying that since the devs don't consider this a nerf, people who agree with the change don't have every right to speak.

Balance would be every class doing the same as every other class. no class would ultimately be different.

That would probably be the only way to achieve "perfect" balance. Good thing nobody is actually advocating that.

every MMO thats been created has been trying to create a mystical thing called , "balance". Its cause some games to fail miserably. These types of games have existed since the late 90's, and all of them are Still working on it.

So in your opinion, they shouldn't try to fix ranged combat?
If Class C only has 50% of the damage output of other DPS classes with nothing else to make up for that, would it be reasonable of them to expect a spot in raids?

[Tarkenius]

well i have read about 90% of this thread now and skimmed the rest

it seems there are several opinions here and well, I am adding mine

but first i would like to take a step back and try and look at the others

1. take it back to 500 untyped damage

2. make it untyped/negative

3. make it negative

4. have a save

5. completely change it to debuffing (stone, stun, etc)

so now that we see the main suggestions I'd like to look at it from a high level first

there are two types of Monks, Dark and Light
each one channels their respective energy through their bodies and uses it to effect their surroundings
and thus each is the opposite of the other

Light monks use light energy, healing( i.e. cure critical wounds), curing diseases, removing curses, raising the dead, protecting, etc.
this makes sense, and i think there is little argument here

Dark monks use dark energy, also known as negative energy, in DnD terms this translates to hurting opponents (i.e. cause critical wounds instead of healing them), cursing, diseasing, killing, removing protections

so right away from the way philosophy behind the monks (IMO of course) I don't see how untyped damage makes any sense, it never has made sense to me, even while playing my dark monk it doesnt make sense to me

So now lets look how this philosophy of monks is put into game mechanics in DDO by addressing the suggestions above

1. take it back to 500 untyped damage
if dark monks use negative energy then this doesnt follow that, this doesnt make sense

2. untyped/negative energy
same problem as 1, with part of 3 added in, overall still doesnt completely make sense

3. negative energy
if light monks channel light energy and dark monks channel dark energy should their paradigm skills also channel the same energy, lights does to reserrect, shouldnt a dark's do the same in their fashion?
now while it is true it would then be ineffective against undead, to me its what makes sense

4. have a save
this a tough one, while this means that you wont do the full damage all the time, but then again there a very few things that dont get a save, closest to this I can think of is Arcane Archer Slaying Arrows, which require a natural 20 to activate their ability
now, alot of the argument against this is that it is based off wisdom and strength monks and multiclasses are gimped, well, every character, class and especially multiclasses are about give and take, if i take this ability i sacrifice this ability, or i can do this extremely well but wont be as good at this
i use FvS as a good example, I can be a good melee fighter and healer, but my dc on spells suffers, OR
I can be a great offensive caster with high dcs but my melee abilities suffer
in comparison, i can have a great dc on my ToD but my strength, therefore my base damage is lower, or i can have a really high base damage from strength but my dc suffers some, it doesnt make strength monks obsolete or useless, they just have a different focus, like you see in so many other classes
if every monk could do everything exactly the same then there would be no flavor, no differences, and from what i read every agrees that the difference and choices and variety is well liked among everyone

5. completely change it to debuff or something of that nature
lets compare the light path vs dark path (5 skills of these sets)
light path, cure blindness, disease, curses, restoration, and finally raise dead
dark path, all curses to cause more damage from a specific elemental type (all with saves), while not exactly the opposites of cure blindness, disease, curses, restoration, somewhat close, i think a damage type (negative IMO) is the appropriate way to go with it

well that is my 2 (ok maybe more than 2) cents on the subject, and i know there will be those that like it and those that dont, i respect and welcome other's opinions, especially those backed with reasoning as I have endeavored to put in here

[LiquidShadow]

every MMO thats been created has been trying to create a mystical thing called , "balance". Its cause some games to fail miserably. These types of games have existed since the late 90's, and all of them are Still working on it. Balance would be every class doing the same as every other class. no class would ultimately be different. if all of them do exactly the same as the others, why make alts?

so what if monks could do everything well and other classes not because i think thats what those guys in this thread want. no reason to make alts... why actualy call it mmo if u could solo everything... it should be teamplay not just chasing an invincible monk (warforged perhaps haha) who can kill anything with one tod and few more hits (add stun to this and autocrits on most of mobs...)

[Goldenadult79]

this concern with people passing over monks

You keep saying this. You said to me and now to sephiroth. Considering I dont see those words written in his posts. Why are you ignoring the multitude of other concerns that monks have brought up.
You seem to be disregarding any talk or damage numbers just you can bring this up again.

In the quote from me above that you linked you even cut out the parts where I talked about a large number monks having to re-roll their characters to meet the save DC of the new ToD.

Its nice when you can pick and choose one argument and disregard the others isnt it?
Too bad the dark monks that are out there can't disregard the other reasons that make this change bad for them.

That would probably be the only way to achieve "perfect" balance. Good thing nobody is actually advocating that.

There is only 1 kind of balance: both sides being equal. There no such thing as "perfect" or "uneven" balance.
The more people argue for balance the more likely it is that all classes will do the exact same against all the content in the game.

So in your opinion, they shouldn't try to fix ranged combat?
If Class C only has 50% of the damage output of other DPS classes with nothing else to make up for that, would it be reasonable of them to expect a spot in raids?

Give me the name of a ranged dps class in ddo that cant do anything except ranged dps, then maybe we can talk about the definition of "nothing else to make up for that".
Take rangers for instance, they get twf feats for free, and bow strength. Meaning they sue the SAME stat for Bow damage as they do for Melee combat. Making up for the weak ranged dps: use your melee weapons.