Touch of Death Compromise

[dogpig00]

Change Touch of Death to:

You do 10*monk level (max 200) of physical (blunt) damage to your target, plus 300 bonus negative energy damage if target failed a fortitude save. The save DC is the same as your stunning fist DC.

The physical damage part can be double (triple) striked (in wind stance). For a maximum 600 damage. This physical damage part can miss due to roll of 1 or low attack rating vs target AC.

The negative energy damage part cannot be double striked. But can be amplified 25% by Touch of Despair for a maximum 375 damage. This negative energy damage is counted as a spell like ability which does not fail on an attack roll of 1.

This split in damage type will allow dark monk to have some means of hitting constructs and undead, and limit the maximum damage done (900 uncursed, 975 cursed) per single hit.

[Angelus_dead]

Why might a developer want to do some of those changes?

The physical damage part can be double (triple) striked (in wind stance). For a maximum 600 damage. This physical damage part can miss due to roll of 1 or low attack rating vs target AC.

Yes, melee attacks are always at the risk of missing AC.

This split in damage type will allow dark monk to have some means of hitting constructs and undead

They already have means.

[dogpig00]

Yes, melee attacks are always at the risk of missing AC.

The proposed negative energy part of ToD has no risk of missing due to AC.

They already have means.

Of course every melee has means. If ToD is completely negative energy based, dark monk will not stand out as naturally better vs constructs/undead, as Eladrin pointed out.

[Angelus_dead]

If ToD is completely negative energy based, dark monk will not stand out as naturally better vs constructs/undead

Yes, they won't be naturally better vs constructs/undead, which is the desired objective.

[Eladrin]

The proposed negative energy part of ToD has no risk of missing due to AC.

The negative energy portion of ToD is attached to a regular melee attack, like most monk attacks. If you miss with your attack, you miss.

Of course every melee has means. If ToD is completely negative energy based, dark monk will not stand out as naturally better vs constructs/undead, as Eladrin pointed out.

Monks, in general, excel against constructs in particular compared to most melee classes. Their lower critical power and inherent ability to bypass adamantine damage reduction make them lose less by fighting them.

[Hokonoso]

only part of the nerf i dont like is the negative change. not being able to hit hard on constructs and the abbot sux, but it hurts more for leveling than endgame...

[dogpig00]

Yes, they won't be naturally better vs constructs/undead, which is the desired objective.

Perhaps that is your desired objective. That is not the desired objective as there are plenty of people dislike the ToD immunity part. I should also include death warded mobs immunity too.

[dogpig00]

The negative energy portion of ToD is attached to a regular melee attack, like most monk attacks. If you miss with your attack, you miss.


Monks, in general, excel against constructs in particular compared to most melee classes. Their lower critical power and inherent ability to bypass adamantine damage reduction make them lose less by fighting them.

Eladrin, would you agree to split ToD into a physical damage portion and a negative energy potion? You can play with the split, but it certainly make sense to make to have some physical portion in it.

[Aaxeyu]

Monks are top DPS against 100% fort mobs even without TOD. So stop overreacting.

[Sker-lyn]

The negative energy portion of ToD is attached to a regular melee attack, like most monk attacks. If you miss with your attack, you miss.


Monks, in general, excel against constructs in particular compared to most melee classes. Their lower critical power and inherent ability to bypass adamantine damage reduction make them lose less by fighting them.

Sometimes I have the impression that you don't play a lot... not monks, anyway. The adamantine part, yeah, true, but the lower critical?

Man, dunno if you know that fact, but smiting go out with a crit and taking a fighter or a barb with the low crit of their weapons (in the case of fighter something like scimitar, for example) and a monk with wraps of smiting... Guess who is gonna rip the construct first.

And a monk has what it has... can't change the weapons to have something more optimal to fight a construct with a better crit like other classes can do, all for the centered mechanics. Kamas, wraps, shuriken and staff, or maybe short swords... everything have about the same crit and if they don't use their fists, they lose a great deal of damage.

So, taking that, are you complete sure that, losing our ToD, we are better than a fighter or a barb against constructs 'cause we have less to lose?? Taking that we lose all our posibilities to attack....

And... monks don't come to the world with adamantine... sure at level 16 they have it, but... until them? Devouts?? Again??

Don't take me wrong, Eladrin, I guess you're taking a great deal of patience into this, but I see your base in that statement very weak, for the huge change you want to make.

[dogpig00]

Eladrin, the only "overpoweredness" of ToD is that you can triple hit for 1500, or possibly more with the current implementation with curse. But if you split the damage into physical and negative energy part, with the physical part being the only part that can be double/triple hit, that will reduce the maximum damage significantly.

If you do implement the split damage in ToD and let only the physical portion being allowed for double/triple hit, then the negative energy portion needs to be implemented as a spell like ability, which bypasses AC.

[Angelus_dead]

Sometimes I have the impression that you don't play a lot... not monks, anyway. The adamantine part, yeah, true, but the lower critical?

Man, dunno if you know that fact, but smiting go out with a crit and taking a fighter or a barb with the low crit of their weapons (in the case of fighter something like scimitar, for example) and a monk with wraps of smiting... Guess who is gonna rip the construct first.

Obviously the relevant topic is inflicting hitpoint damage on constructs, not instakilling them with a Smiting weapon.

So, taking that, are you complete sure that, losing our ToD, we are better than a fighter or a barb against constructs 'cause we have less to lose??

How good is a Fighter or Barbarian at AC, incoroporeality, reflex, evasion, healing amp, Blunt+Adamantine bypass, etc...?

Taking that we lose all our posibilities to attack....

Enduring Strike.

And... monks don't come to the world with adamantine... sure at level 16 they have it, but... until them? Devouts?? Again??

There are plenty of ways to get metalline or adamantine center weapons, but below level 16 the constructs are weak and unimportant anyhow. You can simply punch through the DR. At that level the monk's advantage to AC is a lot more helpful.

[Angelus_dead]

Eladrin, the only "overpoweredness" of ToD is that you can triple hit for 1500

That is not true.

Note that it is pretty unlikely for their PR regulations to allow developers to directly reply to statements like that.

[SINIBYTE]

Monks, in general, excel against constructs in particular compared to most melee classes. Their lower critical power and inherent ability to bypass adamantine damage reduction make them lose less by fighting them.

It's almost amusing. Since monks already suck, when everyone else sucks, monks will seem to suck less.

[The_Phenx]

I think he more meant that monks have higher base damage than anyone else in the game, and natural ability to bypass dr on constructs.

Fists are what 2d10 at 20th... my kopesh is 1d10.

Monks have always dealt great base damage, its the low crits that "hurt" them, and those low crits mean nothing when fighting things with 100% fort.

[dogpig00]

There are plenty of ways to get metalline or adamantine center weapons, but below level 16 the constructs are weak and unimportant anyhow. You can simply punch through the DR. At that level the monk's advantage to AC is a lot more helpful.

Remember you need both adamantine and blunt for construct bypass. We already know metalline handwraps are way over leveled, i.e. much higher level requirement than other weapons, then that leaves only quarterstaff being the only option left... I am sure a TWF monk will not be happy to use quarterstaff for fighting constructs...

[Odin's_Hugin]

Just stating:

Making multiple threads regarding ToD changes are not going to help your cause. I've seen, what, 5 threads on Lammania Discussion about this single thing? And when there's a 65-page main thread speaking exactly about this?!

Also, off-theme, If eladrin is reading this:

- Bring Armor Customization on update 8 or 9, please! My eyes hurt when I see so much people looking exactly alike!

[dogpig00]

I think he more meant that monks have higher base damage than anyone else in the game, and natural ability to bypass dr on constructs.

Fists are what 2d10 at 20th... my kopesh is 1d10.

Monks have always dealt great base damage, its the low crits that "hurt" them, and those low crits mean nothing when fighting things with 100% fort.

ToD is available at level 9. It is not an end-game ability. At that level fist damage is on par with weapon damage. Plus, you don't get adamantine bypass until level 16. And metalline handwraps have too high level requirements.

[Sker-lyn]

Obviously the relevant topic is inflicting hitpoint damage on constructs, not instakilling them with a Smiting weapon.


How good is a Fighter or Barbarian at AC, incoroporeality, reflex, evasion, healing amp, Blunt+Adamantine bypass, etc...?


Enduring Strike.


There are plenty of ways to get metalline or adamantine center weapons, but below level 16 the constructs are weak and unimportant anyhow. You can simply punch through the DR. At that level the monk's advantage to AC is a lot more helpful.

A way of killing is a way of killing anyway... People don't stop to say: Hey, you have other things besides ToD. Ok, take that argument, smiting wraps are one thing besides ToD and, according to Eladrin here, monks have less to lose = better by infused science... Take a fighter lvl 14 in Orchard and a monk lvl 14 in Orchard like things are now in Lama and see who has the greater survivality... specially 'cause a fighter always will have more hps than a monk, no matter what... Don't speak about a barb, with DR and all.

Fighter and barb at AC... AC is important here? Now counts and I miss the inner report about that?? incorporeabily... yeah, dusk stone doesn't exist, don't speak about blur and so on... Reflex, evasion... Yeah, rogues too... fighters only needed to wear an armor heavy as Godzilla and have evasion

Healing amp?? What?? From what?? If you take void strike, forget about healing amp.... You don't have AP for healing amp

Blunt+adamantine?? We are the only ones?? They retired all the warharmmers, maces, mauls and everything in that fashion with that from the market?? I have other toons, I can tell you is more easy to find something in other kind of weapon with that or metaline that find wraps... Metaline wraps from the loot lottery table currently are like the Holy Grail.

Yeah, there you are right. I must to give you that.

Weak and unimportant below 16? Go for Orchard in the level and then come and tell me. And I repeat the same... When they changed AC to be important??

[Angelus_dead]

Weak and unimportant below 16? Go for Orchard in the level and then come and tell me

Yup, I looked for constructs in Orchard. Didn't find any for me to fight... somehow they were all dead already, something about a Blade Barrier? Whatever, I guess it wasn't important.

When they changed AC to be important??

Yes, fixing AC is an important topic for improving the game design, but it's also a different topic.