Devs, Please! remove the 2x SP penalty from CE

[Alabore]

Of course, players have often suggested that the penalty be replaced with simply suppressing the CE benefit for 5 seconds whenever you cast.

^
This.
Sounds smart.

...

EDIT:

Possible exploit: in pnp CE gave the AC bonus while fighting in melee only.
In computer games it's providing AC bonus outside melee.

[sephiroth1084]

A flat +10sp per spell might work better.

Even that, I think, is excessive, although it would be much more reasonable.

Let's look at this from another perspective: a feat that doubles your spell damage, costs 25 SP to use, one that decreases your casting time and makes it impossible to get interrupted costs 10, another improves the DCs of your spells by up to 8 points costs up to 40 SP, while this, which does nothing to improve casting, and is not anywhere near as powerful, costs as much as 100 SP!

I like the CE change. There needs to be some kind of penalty for non-melee classes or this would end up as a constant 5 AC increase for any spellcaster that can afford the feat. For characters that actually have AC, another 5 is an enormous increase.

How many wizards bother with AC at all? How many sorcerers, clerics or favored souls? Of that latter group, how many aren't hurt a bit by spending 3-5 build points in Int instead of their casting stat, Con and Dex or Str? How many aren't being hurt by taking a feat that doesn't contribute directly to their casting or HP?

Its only an enormous increase up to level 7-8 and then it is irrelevent for 90% of casters. The prime candidate for abuse is monk splashed clerics/FVS who are the only classes that can manage a useful AC while casting. Even then they are putting 3-5 more points into INT than they otherwise would. There is a cost - points/tomes into INT and a feat on feat starved classes.

There are plenty of rangers who want AC and use their Cure spells for some self-healing, and many paladins who want AC and need to rebuff with Divine Favor and Zeal frequently. Neither type of character wants many points in Int, and neither has an excess of feats to be spending, yet both make those sacrifices to pick up CE. They also lose the benefits of Power Attack while CE is active, and a doubled SP cost is very significant for these types of characters since they have fairly small SP pools.

I understand what A_D is saying about the benefits of CE applying without having to be subjected to the attack penalty, but I really don't see why we need this severe a penalty tacked onto it. As much of a pain in the ass it was before, I preferred the feat getting turned off by casting to this nonsense.

[Samadhi]

How many casters would shove up their AC more by taking CE? Lots.

This is a joke right....

[voodoogroves]

Remember in PNP you have to make an attack roll with a penalty.

That takes an action, and the biggest cost isn't the attack roll penalty it's the opportunity cost of the action. How about an attack-speed debuff?

[sephiroth1084]

Remember in PNP you have to make an attack roll with a penalty.

That takes an action, and the biggest cost isn't the attack roll penalty it's the opportunity cost of the action. How about an attack-speed debuff?

It doesn't take an action to use CE in PnP: you can activate during an attack, and then it remains active for the round, just like Power Attack.

If you want to talk about the opportunity cost of CE in DDO, the cost for melee characters with CE up is that they lose PA (which is already basically the same kind of cost as an attack-speed debuff).

The concern from the devs, I suppose, is that we can keep CE active while casting spells or shield-blocking (no idea how a doubled SP cost hampers this), gaining the benefits without being subject to either the attack penalty cost or loss of PA cost, though it still costs a feat and points spent in Int, which is a dump stat for most characters that would want to pick up this feat at all.

[Xyfiel]

Make it cost 1 sp per spell level. Rangers and Paladins will barely be affected but a high level AC caster would lose 5+ per spell on average. Even 2 per level would be ok.

Another option is consider the still spell feat. It uses a one level higher spell slot to be able to ignore ASF. That would be 5 more sps per cast which would be a suitable replacement penalty for CE. Probably should be in game anyway to allow more arcane build options. I would love to see both. A wizard in full plate and a tower, dedicating 3-4 other slots on AC gear, a feat, and an extra 10 sps to cast each spell to reach 70 AC should be an option.

[EKKM]

There are plenty of rangers who want AC and use their Cure spells for some self-healing, and many paladins who want AC and need to rebuff with Divine Favor and Zeal frequently. Neither type of character wants many points in Int, and neither has an excess of feats to be spending, yet both make those sacrifices to pick up CE. They also lose the benefits of Power Attack while CE is active, and a doubled SP cost is very significant for these types of characters since they have fairly small SP pools.

I understand what A_D is saying about the benefits of CE applying without having to be subjected to the attack penalty, but I really don't see why we need this severe a penalty tacked onto it. As much of a pain in the ass it was before, I preferred the feat getting turned off by casting to this nonsense.

But the reason for the CE penalties on spell casting is that "casters" have no downside to using it. The classes you listed above do have a downside in that they are all DPS classes taking -5 to hit. I don't really consider rangers and pallys to be casters, they are buffers and possibly healers so they suffer the melee penalties and the casting penalties.

For the record I agreed with you in all of my posts. The post you quoted was in reponse to another comment and I narrowed down my list of downsides so that they only applied to the person I quoted.

[azrael4h]

But the reason for the CE penalties on spell casting is that "casters" have no downside to using it. The classes you listed above do have a downside in that they are all DPS classes taking -5 to hit. I don't really consider rangers and pallys to be casters, they are buffers and possibly healers so they suffer the melee penalties and the casting penalties..

Wrong. All 5 "casters" (Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Favored Souls) lost a feat. Only the Wizard has a feat to spare, so what do you give up? Heighten? Spell Pen? Extend, Toughness, Quicken, Empower, Maximize? There's your 7 feats right there.

Of those 5, only the Wizard does not have to sacrifice build points to hit it. All others require 3-5 point sacrifices. Where do those points come off? Their main casting stats? CON?

Of those classes, none of them can hit a viable AC without a splash and some exceptional grinding. 20AC vs 15 is irrelevant past Korthos. 30AC vs 25 past Necro 1. Most of all, none of them can do so without sacrificing build points to get their DEX and WIS up to a level where the monk splashes give any real benefit over Full Plate, or even just Haste + Repair. Taking a splash means weakened Spell Penetration ability, fewer spells, spell points, and lower save DCs. 6 Levels of Fighter does not a Wizard make.

So you sacrifice hit points, spell points, and casting power to get a 5 AC that is utterly and completely useless outside of the Harbor. And there are a few Harbor quests where it is utterly and completely useless as well. There is nothing but a downside to taking CE on a caster. There's not much of a reason to take it on ANY class, though a Drow Fighter with a +3 INT Tome can fit it in, with 18 feats. Even without doubling the spell point costs, you'll find very few Wizards only who will fit it in, and even then there are better choices. Such as Insightful Reflexes, or say Skill Focus: Heal.

[Aesop]

Because Power Attack includes a -5 penalty on attack rolls as its downside. The benefit of +5 damage can only be obtained if you make attack rolls, meaning you suffer the penalty. It would be simply impossible for anyone to benefit from PA without rolling an attack.

Combat Expertise's also has a -5 penalty on attack rolls, but the benefit of Combat Expertise is not dependent on you making an attack. Someone could get use from the +5 AC without ever swinging a weapon, particularly if he fights by casting spells. That's why the devs had to look for another downside that's applicable to casters as well.

Of course, players have often suggested that the penalty be replaced with simply suppressing the CE benefit for 5 seconds whenever you cast.

But... that suggests that unless you are attacking you shouldn't get the bonus at all thus Intimitanks that are just turtling up should lose AC... thus reducing their survivability... which is counter to their intent.

Not that I think Turtle Tanking is fun game play or anything just pointing things out

Aesop

[Deathseeker]

1. The current state of CE is way better than it was before the change.

2. I have to agree that the spell penalty has become unnecessary with the current state of AC at end game. 5 AC by itself is virtually no benefit unless you are built for AC. And removing this spell point penalty might actually make for some creative AC builds on casters that aren't viable now (though even that is quite a stretch).

I just can't see any reason for the spell point penalty once you hit level 12 content and above. The AC boost by itself is no longer valuable at that point unless you are built for it, and if you are built for it, then you have made other sacrifices anyways.

So in short...yep, I agree.

[Mister_Peace]

How many casters would shove up their AC more by taking CE? Lots.

Really? Why?

[AcesWylde]

I always thought you should have a chance of spell failure instead, after all supposedly you're dodging and weaving while attacking (-5 miss chance) to gain the extra AC, wouldn't the same think apply to spell casting? (-15% spell failure?) you're trying to evade attacks while making the proper gestures and maintaining concentration.

[PopeJual]

But... that suggests that unless you are attacking you shouldn't get the bonus at all thus Intimitanks that are just turtling up should lose AC... thus reducing their survivability... which is counter to their intent.

I know that this isn't Pen and Paper, but since Pen and Paper is what this feat is at least originally based on, I figure it's at least relevant.

Combat Expertise:
Benefit

When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.

According to Pen and Paper D&D, unless you are attacking, you shouldn't get the Combat Expertise bonus at all. Just like you don't get the defensive fighting bonus unless you are actually making melee combat attacks. You obviously do not have to make any attacks when you choose Total Defense for a +4 Dodge bonus to your AC, but you cannot cast any spells then either because Total Defense is a standard action.


...of course, Pen and Paper D&D doesn't give you extra DR when you shield block, so there have obviously been some changes.

[sephiroth1084]

I know that this isn't Pen and Paper, but since Pen and Paper is what this feat is at least originally based on, I figure it's at least relevant.




According to Pen and Paper D&D, unless you are attacking, you shouldn't get the Combat Expertise bonus at all. Just like you don't get the defensive fighting bonus unless you are actually making melee combat attacks. You obviously do not have to make any attacks when you choose Total Defense for a +4 Dodge bonus to your AC, but you cannot cast any spells then either because Total Defense is a standard action.


...of course, Pen and Paper D&D doesn't give you extra DR when you shield block, so there have obviously been some changes.

This would support A_D's suggestion that CE's effect be suppressed for a short duration after casting a spell, to simulate the loss of CE from not attacking.

Still, the differences between PnP and DDO are quite evident when examining this issue, where the active combat, inflated stats, inability to use both CE and PA at the same time and the de-emphasis on AC in general all make CE worth considerably less in DDO than it was in PnP (and I don't think many took it their either except in order to gain access to other feats).

Looking at the game itself, though, the feat has always penalized some characters far more than others, though that list is much shorter now. Monks aren't penalized for using their spell-like finishers. No one is penalized for sitting back and wand-whipping, using scrolls or activating a bunch of clickies. A rogue could very easily pick up CE and a shield to attain a reasonable AC for much of the game, and spend half of their time throwing Heal scrolls in their groups, all without penalty.

Why is it then that rangers, paladins, and to a much lesser extend AC-focused casters are penalized so much for something that already carries quite a bit of cost with it already?

[voodoogroves]

It doesn't take an action to use CE in PnP: you can activate during an attack, and then it remains active for the round, just like Power Attack.

If you want to talk about the opportunity cost of CE in DDO, the cost for melee characters with CE up is that they lose PA (which is already basically the same kind of cost as an attack-speed debuff).

My point is you have to make a roll.

For instance, there is no "CE and then Charm Monster" on your wizard's turn. You need to make an attack roll and casting that spell, as one example, does not produce an attack roll. For a wizard/other spellcaster to use CE or defensive fighting, they need to be rolling to-hits, and that is a heck of an opportunity cost for them unless they are ray-casters, etc.

I hear you; the DDO implementation is kinda jacked. Then again, it is moderately useful here whereas in PNP it was pretty darn rare.

[Visty]

isnt it funny

as they announced the change noone (but me) complained and everyone liked it

and now this

[cforce]

1. The current state of CE is way better than it was before the change.

QFT. Scroll and wand-using melees the game over have rejoiced.

I just can't see any reason for the spell point penalty once you hit level 12 content and above. The AC boost by itself is no longer valuable at that point unless you are built for it, and if you are built for it, then you have made other sacrifices anyways.

Disagree. If primary casters had access to +5 all the time, you'd see a lot more Wiz, Sorcs, Clerics, and FvS with Monk 2 splashes running around. Just because there aren't a lot of folks running around today that would benefit doesn't mean that people wouldn't build-to-abuse the new capability.

I'm pretty sure you won't sell a solution to the devs that will allow you to cast a Maximized/Extended Blade Barrier with CE on for a viable spell point cost. Feel free to continue to brainstorm, but I don't see it being seriously considered by them.

Other constructive suggestions for tweaks that would preserve the "can't be used for a free +5 AC by casters" design goal, but reduce the annoying "****, I forgot to turn off CE before buffing" factor:

- No penalty on buffs
- No penalty when you don't have aggro
- No penalty when no-one in your party has aggro

[Eistander]

Wow, I missed some release notes somewhere during the time I was away.. I remembered CE being that while it was on, you cast a spell, it turned itself off. Outright doubling the sp cost sounds a tad extreme, especially since you are (if you want to take it to a RP standpoint I guess) essentially concentrating on defending yourself while getting your spells off.. so I can see where the "double while on" thing has the feel of being way over the top.

Why not just make it that while you have CE on, that the spells take a bit longer to cast? Fits the purpose of the feat, and can be negated by quicken (hence the 10 sp cost addition, if nothing else). I know taking a -5 penalty to hit is something else, but in my view of the grand scheme of things, it would cover a sort of balance, without adding any extraneous penalties above what is already imposed.

Just my 2 cp.

[sephiroth1084]

isnt it funny

as they announced the change noone (but me) complained and everyone liked it

and now this

I did, actually. I liked that it was going to be usable for more characters (at the time my light monk, and while using clickies and scrolls and wands), but was not happy about rebuffing on my paladin suddenly becoming incredibly expensive. I'm just more adamant about it now that I'm running my paladin with self-healing that is already very expensive.

Disagree. If primary casters had access to +5 all the time, you'd see a lot more Wiz, Sorcs, Clerics, and FvS with Monk 2 splashes running around. Just because there aren't a lot of folks running around today that would benefit doesn't mean that people wouldn't build-to-abuse the new capability.

I think that this still would require too much of a sacrifice for many to bother with it. Cleric and monk fit together very well, which is part of the reason they became so popular, but I definitely see very few 2 monk/<insert other caster here> builds, and almost none of those make any attempt at AC at all, as the monk splash has been for Evasion, feats and skills.

How prolific would this sort of character become? Would wizards, sorcerers or bards suddenly start pumping points into Dex and Wis (and Int) just to gain a high AC while casting, when they have Jump, Haste, Displacement, Stoneskin, prot and resists? Is it so game-breaking that those types of builds have to be headed off at the pass, rather than permitting some diversity?

How much more survivable do these characters become when AC gets factored in? How much are they giving up?

Keep in mind that attaining AC requires a fair amount of slot allocation, meaning fewer slots dedicated to casting, and both Dex and Wis are dump stats for most casters. Personally, if a wizard wants to max their Int, Wis and Dex, and dump everything else, spend a feat or two on AC, lose 2 spell pen, their capstone, a bonus feat, some damage dice from their spells and attribute half of their gear slots to stuff like the Chattering Ring, Chaosguard bracers, Icy Raiments, AC 8 bracers, Shroud insight AC, etc... then by all means let them do so, but keep them out of my parties.

I'm pretty sure you won't sell a solution to the devs that will allow you to cast a Maximized/Extended Blade Barrier with CE on for a viable spell point cost. Feel free to continue to brainstorm, but I don't see it being seriously considered by them.

My point is that this notion needs to be dispelled.

Other constructive suggestions for tweaks that would preserve the "can't be used for a free +5 AC by casters" design goal, but reduce the annoying "****, I forgot to turn off CE before buffing" factor:

- No penalty on buffs
- No penalty when you don't have aggro
- No penalty when no-one in your party has aggro

It still isn't free, as it comes with tons of extra baggage. Buffs are an issue, but not the only one, and the other 2 seem both cumbersome and lackluster. Not to mention, that those "solutions" would promote the use of Diplomacy on stuff like paladins and rangers who would otherwise want to have aggro, simply because they can't afford to use their spells otherwise.

[Bodic]

If you dont like it dont use it.

It was changed because it needed to be changed

How can you qualify a benefit without taking a sacrifice?

PA is a stance so is CE you cant stand in 2 forms at the same time they would in effect cancel each other out, but you can have -10 2hit and +Damage and +AC if you really really really want. I dont think anyone woudl want that now would they.