Destruction changes!

[jkm]

Hence my suggestion assuming players on Normal aren't skilled enough to sustain Fort debuffs (Normal fortification - 25% - rogues are good at that level), and assuming more 'Elite' players are (debuffed Elite fortification - 25-30%).

This would have a side effect of making rogues top melee DPS in Normal raids with good groups. I don't think anyone would object to that.


Edit: Oh and the reason Rogues are weak in most of the post-U11 raids is their low HP, not their DPS. All >50% Fort bosses except tMA, Shroud and Abbot have low fortification trash that rogues can kill, and in most of them, neutralising trash is the most important job in the raid. Rogues are in a bad spot not because of their DPS but because they almost impossible to get over ~520hp and have no meaningful protection from AoE melee attacks.

The design decisions that have been made this the current metagame sadden me. Rogues are awesome for TRASH! I'm looking at my final completionist build for my rogue and I'll have 547 with 16 starting Con and 3 barb past lives. Sigh.

[jkm]

It's as if they gave the Elite/Epic modes of Lord of Blades a "Suppress Rage" spell, which negates any benefit of Rage. Regardless of whether or not the players have access to effects to counteract it, just the fact that it's there means that Barbarians lose more than other classes.

As much as this cracks me up and would be poetic justice, I think a different global change needs to be added. Basically, incoming damage needs to be ramped up when the to hit goes over X of a characters AC with X scaling by difficulty (so say 40 on normal, 30 on hard, 20 on elite, 10 on epic). Add 5%*Amount over threshold damage to the hit.

For example, Epic Velah (100 + d20) - 8 (barb) = 113*5% extra damage per swing (or roughly 260/swing x 2)

This is in jest obviously, but it would eliminate people bringing barbarians on epic raids just as much as the fortification nerf eliminated rogues.

[Angelus_dead]

As much as this cracks me up and would be poetic justice, I think a different global change needs to be added. Basically, incoming damage needs to be ramped up when the to hit goes over X of a characters AC with X scaling by difficulty (so say 40 on normal, 30 on hard, 20 on elite, 10 on epic). Add 5%*Amount over threshold damage to the hit.

Totally seriously, I have suggested granting some bosses (and other monsters) the ability to do +1% damage per point that their attack exceeds the target's AC. And lower their base damage a bit in compensation. That would make AC dump characters less survivable there, but not prohibitively: another 30% damage or something can be handled.

[Indoran]

But is still useless to swap from Improved Destruction to your real DPS weapon, and still makes every Destruction weapon (and the Breastplate of Destruction) into trash.

Over-all, a major nerf.

some ppl seriously see nerfs where there are none...

it's a buff... now it's actually worth using... not like before (unless you needed destruction to hit... in which case...)

[TheDearLeader]

some ppl seriously see nerfs where there are none...

it's a buff... now it's actually worth using... not like before (unless you needed destruction to hit... in which case...)

In which case you're anyone not a Kensei. I've seen to-hit numbers where First-Life Barbs, Paladins, Rangers, BAB 20 classes, cannot achieve, for example, the +69 to-hit that makes you hit Malicia on a 1. With Power Attack Off.

It's not a Buff, actually. It's a Debuff. Or if you mean "it's a buff to the debuff", I suppose I can see that too. Except that it is, and it isn't, at the same time.

New things given to Destruction/Improved Destruction:
-Bestows a Fortification Debuff

Things taken away from Destruction/Improved Destruction:
-Duration (33% of original duration)
-Hit-Once and Done. Now needs to be "Stacked". This translates to more time using that weapon.
-Improved Destruction - it's just plain bugged. People who once used D/ID would bestow a cumulative -8 AC to a target. Now, they can debuff that same target a maximum of -4 AC, -4% Fortification.

I see one positive, and three negatives. I don't think that classifies as "seeing nerfs where there are none". Please consider this.

[Chai]

The relative power of classes should not change according to the difficulty setting. If class A is the best DPS on Normal, it should also be the best DPS on Elite. Some amount of balance slippage according to difficulty will be inevitable, but the devs should try to minimize it. Increasing Fortification percentage with difficulty is almost like they were trying to increase it.

Ive agreed with most of what is said in this thread, but I dont agree that specific classes or builds should be best on all dificulties, because D&D is a situational game, and its in the spirit of D&D that when you alter the situation, you alter the balance of who is best.

If we go down that road of something always being best, we are then right back to 2x khopesh or G7F0 mentality, or worse yet, the WOW mentality where every increase is linear accross the board. Why would there be a reason to build anything else under those circumstances?

I feel the fortification increase should have occurred at the same time all these fort debuffs were tweaked, and not before. I do like the idea of having to play as a team in order to do more DPS, and sometimes players will have to make a decision that hurts their toon personally, but ups the DPS of the group as a whole. Ive seen a dev quote along similar lines, and I think that the difference between "normal" gaming and "epic" gaming is just this. How cohesive is the group? How good is the communication? How well do they work together to cover for all of the things that need to be in place to achieve a completion? One thing many other MMOs have alot more of is debuffing raid bosses, and keeping those debuffs up which benefits the entire party.

P.S. If LOB fort is ~25% with all debuffs in place, the rogue is still the best DPS, heh. Their opportunist fort debuff is personal, not party, so for them they would be attacking 15% fort.

[TheDearLeader]

P.S. If LOB fort is ~25% with all debuffs in place, the rogue is still the best DPS, heh. Their opportunist fort debuff is personal, not party, so for them they would be attacking 15% fort.

Just since you might know - is Wrack Construct Personal? I haven't bothered like, paying attention. But I took/use the first tier.

[Chai]

Just since you might know - is Wrack Construct Personal? I haven't bothered like, paying attention. But I took/use the first tier.

Wrack construct is a debuff to the construct that the rogue has to actively use. (square icon) Everyone benefits from this.

Opportunist is a passive ability (octagon icon) that sticks with the rogue but doesnt have a debuff effect on the particular mob.

[TheDearLeader]

Wrack construct is a debuff to the construct that the rogue has to actively use. (square icon) Everyone benefits from this.

Opportunist is a passive ability (octagon icon) that sticks with the rogue but doesnt have a debuff effect on the particular mob.

Right right, thanks.

[oradafu]

The relative power of classes should not change according to the difficulty setting. If class A is the best DPS on Normal, it should also be the best DPS on Elite. Some amount of balance slippage according to difficulty will be inevitable, but the devs should try to minimize it. Increasing Fortification percentage with difficulty is almost like they were trying to increase it.

I can see both sides of the coin with these changes. As things stand now with the changes in Update 11, the Rogue class is found in the same spot that many classes/builds were put in prior to Update 9. Before Update 9, several (if not most) builds worked from levels 1-20; however, once they hit Epic they were either completely useless or had to LR into a certain spec to be viable in Epics. With the changes in Update 11, it appears to be doing the same thing to Rogues, but now it's hampering them in non-Epic areas.

But with Fort increases, Rogues should do worse DPS. It's only reasonable, since Fort (along with undead, elementals and constructs) is the bane of Rogues. The problem with the increase is that the Devs didn't make sure all their ducks were in a row by making sure Rogues had multiple ways to counteract the increase of Fort without relying almost solely on other classes. And no one should point to Opportunist since it was known broken feat by players (posted several times on the forum), but it wasn't even on the Devs radar as not working until after the release of Update 11.

I have two big problems with the way the Fort was introduced though. First, as I pointed out above, there should have been multiple ways (instead of a handful) for classes to knock the Fort down before it was introduced. Second, the Fort increase effects only melees when it comes to damage. Not only was the Fort increased, but the HP was increased. The increase to HP+Fort means that the raids take longer (so healers must spend more SP), damage to items increase (something that squarely effects melees more than others) and casters continue to stomp on everything like it was nothing. If the Devs truly wanted to make the raids more difficult, Update 11 should have included a modest increase to Fort to boss along with some energy absorption but no HP increase. The Fort would have hit melees across the board (with Rogues getting the worse deal) and the energy absorption would have affected everyone (melee and caster alike). Even without the increase of HP, the raid bosses would take a bit longer to take down since Divine Punishment and other spells wouldn't be hitting at the max. After seeing how this worked out, the Devs should have thought of increasing the Fort more...but alas, the Devs seem hellbent on neutering melees at a time when melees aren't the ones soloing Epics (both before and after Update 11 changes).

[Kinerd]

Kinda left-field, but: any chance of seeing the stacking properties front-loaded for the AC reduction aspect? After all, part of the point of those weapons is for folks that haven't geared themselves up to hitting on a 2 yet, which means first they have to make a solid connection to even start the AC debuff stack (or am I misremembering and that does in fact go off on grazes?)

Improved Destruction definitely did not apply on grazes previously. I used to use one on my cleric against Malicia, only 20s cut the mustard.

Ive agreed with most of what is said in this thread, but I dont agree that specific classes or builds should be best on all dificulties, because D&D is a situational game, and its in the spirit of D&D that when you alter the situation, you alter the balance of who is best.

Difficulty shouldn't change the balance within a quest. If a moderately well-played rogue is better DPS than a moderately well-played barbarian in Quest X on normal, an extremely well-played rogue should be better than an extremely well-played barbarian in Quest X on elite as well. Same goes for whoever is the best DPS in Quests Y and Z.

The problem is that "more HP and more fort" is fundamentally unrelated to "difficulty", and therefore fundamentally ignores player skill.

[Chai]

I can see both sides of the coin with these changes. As things stand now with the changes in Update 11, the Rogue class is found in the same spot that many classes/builds were put in prior to Update 9. Before Update 9, several (if not most) builds worked from levels 1-20; however, once they hit Epic they were either completely useless or had to LR into a certain spec to be viable in Epics. With the changes in Update 11, it appears to be doing the same thing to Rogues, but now it's hampering them in non-Epic areas.

But with Fort increases, Rogues should do worse DPS. It's only reasonable, since Fort (along with undead, elementals and constructs) is the bane of Rogues. The problem with the increase is that the Devs didn't make sure all their ducks were in a row by making sure Rogues had multiple ways to counteract the increase of Fort without relying almost solely on other classes. And no one should point to Opportunist since it was known broken feat by players (posted several times on the forum), but it wasn't even on the Devs radar as not working until after the release of Update 11.

Yeap, right on.

If we thought poorly built rogues were a liability previous to U11, its going to be five times worse now. allowing a rogue into a raid is going to be a two step interview process with multiple background and reference checks. "Sooo, hows that wrack construct been treating you lately? Oh you dont have that one....hmmmm" Tell us about the opportunist feat...."

I have two big problems with the way the Fort was introduced though. First, as I pointed out above, there should have been multiple ways (instead of a handful) for classes to knock the Fort down before it was introduced. Second, the Fort increase effects only melees when it comes to damage. Not only was the Fort increased, but the HP was increased. The increase to HP+Fort means that the raids take longer (so healers must spend more SP), damage to items increase (something that squarely effects melees more than others) and casters continue to stomp on everything like it was nothing. If the Devs truly wanted to make the raids more difficult, Update 11 should have included a modest increase to Fort to boss along with some energy absorption but no HP increase. The Fort would have hit melees across the board (with Rogues getting the worse deal) and the energy absorption would have affected everyone (melee and caster alike). Even without the increase of HP, the raid bosses would take a bit longer to take down since Divine Punishment and other spells wouldn't be hitting at the max. After seeing how this worked out, the Devs should have thought of increasing the Fort more...but alas, the Devs seem hellbent on neutering melees at a time when melees aren't the ones soloing Epics (both before and after Update 11 changes).

Casters are better off even with 0% fort. They could reverse all the nerfs from U5 and they STILL would be better off than melee on 0% fort. Yet changes are introdoced which melee now have to spend multiple feats on collectively to counteract, as well as slot a less DPS weapon for (1 per raid or group). Two khopesh high str cookie cutter? No sir, water savant, heh.

[Angelus_dead]

Ive agreed with most of what is said in this thread, but I dont agree that specific classes or builds should be best on all dificulties, because D&D is a situational game, and its in the spirit of D&D that when you alter the situation, you alter the balance of who is best.

Choice of difficulty setting should not be one of the "situations" upon which the balance of classes and features depend. Regardless of which character type a player has chosen, advancing to higher difficulty modes should be equally open once she improves her stats and increases knowledge and skill.

If Rogues are unthreatening to Liches and AC is unhelpful against beholders, then that's situational balance factors and that's fine. It injects some variety and verisimilitude (although of course one can quibble about how strong those effects should be). But if Rogues are less damaging and AC is less helpful on a higher difficulties of the same kind content, then that is bad.

Why would there be a reason to build anything else under those circumstances?

There are abundant reasons to create different kinds of characters... thus far a player's intended difficulty mode has hardly been a factor at all. To the extent that the weakness of eg Rogues and Paladins on Elite/Epic has been a substantial factor, that is pretty clearly a bad thing.

I feel the fortification increase should have occurred at the same time all these fort debuffs were tweaked, and not before. I do like the idea of having to play as a team in order to do more DPS, and sometimes players will have to make a decision that hurts their toon personally, but ups the DPS of the group as a whole.

All of that teamwork DPS stuff is things that can apply on any difficulty setting.

An Elite mode of a boss probably has 3x or more hp than the Normal mode, so there is already a much higher need to use Fortification debuffs and other effects to raise DPS. It's neither necessary nor helpful to raise Fortification on top of that.

[Chai]

Difficulty shouldn't change the balance within a quest. If a moderately well-played rogue is better DPS than a moderately well-played barbarian in Quest X on normal, an extremely well-played rogue should be better than an extremely well-played barbarian in Quest X on elite as well. Same goes for whoever is the best DPS in Quests Y and Z.

The problem is that "more HP and more fort" is fundamentally unrelated to "difficulty", and therefore fundamentally ignores player skill.

More fort does ignore player skill individually. It does NOT ignore player skill in a group or raid. This change turns the game slightly away from individual skill, and focuses it on groups who gel together well as a team. In order to keep those debuffs up AND maintain the best DPS, toons have to be built properly, AND communication on all levels has to occur so that only one player is using improved destruction, we know who is accounting for improved sunder, we know who is procing wrac construct when applicable, etc.

If the game takes several more turns like this, gone will be the days where one or two good players will be able to carry a bunch of pile ons through a raid. Gone will be the days where people have completed 60+ raids but still dont understand specific mechanics of how they are completed. Gone will be the days of full ****** DPS being the only thing that matters to end gamers.

We used to complain all the time that the game is a mindless boring grindfest where all content can simply be brute forced. If this game takes a few more turns like it had, those days are history.

While I would love to see this happen, it needs to happen correctly. Challenge doesnt = ramped up HP or immunities to more effects. All that does is force players to play the full ****** DPS card all over again.

[Chai]

Choice of difficulty setting should not be one of the "situations" upon which the balance of classes and features depend. Regardless of which character type a player has chosen, advancing to higher difficulty modes should be equally open once she improves her stats and increases knowledge and skill.

Skill at things, like debuffing fortification perhaps? And doing so as a team so all debuffs are accounted for.

If Rogues are unthreatening to Liches and AC is unhelpful against beholders, then that's situational balance factors and that's fine. It injects some variety and verisimilitude (although of course one can quibble about how strong those effects should be). But if Rogues are less damaging and AC is less helpful on a higher difficulties of the same kind content, then that is bad.

There are abundant reasons to create different kinds of characters... thus far a player's intended difficulty mode has hardly been a factor at all. To the extent that the weakness of eg Rogues and Paladins on Elite/Epic has been a substantial factor, that is pretty clearly a bad thing.

All of that teamwork DPS stuff is things that can apply on any difficulty setting.

An Elite mode of a boss probably has 3x or more hp than the Normal mode, so there is already a much higher need to use Fortification debuffs and other effects to raise DPS. It's neither necessary nor helpful to raise Fortification on top of that.

I dont see higher fort on higher difficulties as bad as long as that fort can be debuffed to zero or near zero with the right combination and correct application of debuffs. Again, you are kind of looking at it from an individual toon perspective previous to debuffs. I am looking at it through a team perspective, and seeing the application of the debuffs as what makes that rogue shine. The group you take into epic better be solid on all fronts. If this is the case, then that fort will still be near zero, and your rogue will still be top melee DPS, just like they were on normal. The only thing that changes is that you can walk into that raid on normal with a 'meh" PUG and likely pull it off, where that same PUG would get destroyed on harder difficulties due to not being able to maintain debuffs, and by proxy, DPS.

[jkm]

I dont see higher fort on higher difficulties as bad as long as that fort can be debuffed to zero or near zero with the right combination and correct application of debuffs. Again, you are kind of looking at it from an individual toon perspective previous to debuffs. I am looking at it through a team perspective, and seeing the application of the debuffs as what makes that rogue shine. The group you take into epic better be solid on all fronts. If this is the case, then that fort will still be near zero, and your rogue will still be top melee DPS, just like they were on normal. The only thing that changes is that you can walk into that raid on normal with a 'meh" PUG and likely pull it off, where that same PUG would get destroyed on harder difficulties due to not being able to maintain debuffs, and by proxy, DPS.

I don't necessarily have a problem with your premise since rogues by nature depend on others for dps. My issue is that this is a PUG game and PUGs tend to take the path of least resistance. Instead of "working as a team" to make the rogue shine, they'll just exclude the rogue as not worth the hassle.

I mean you only have to step back to the old epic ward hold fest and think about how often Nuker sorcs were brought along in random pugs.

[Lord_Thanatos]

Skill at things, like debuffing fortification perhaps? And doing so as a team so all debuffs are accounted for.



I dont see higher fort on higher difficulties as bad as long as that fort can be debuffed to zero or near zero with the right combination and correct application of debuffs. Again, you are kind of looking at it from an individual toon perspective previous to debuffs. I am looking at it through a team perspective, and seeing the application of the debuffs as what makes that rogue shine. The group you take into epic better be solid on all fronts. If this is the case, then that fort will still be near zero, and your rogue will still be top melee DPS, just like they were on normal. The only thing that changes is that you can walk into that raid on normal with a 'meh" PUG and likely pull it off, where that same PUG would get destroyed on harder difficulties due to not being able to maintain debuffs, and by proxy, DPS.

That's all all and good if everyone needed to do all of this fort nullification to do their job decently.

But it's not, other melee don't NEED these debuffs to function, and since you cannot count on the debuffs to have 100% uptime, rogue dps would keep going from **** to decent. While if the leader took a different melee, they wouldn't have to deal with the extreme variable and unreliability of rogue dps that also has less hp in this general raid environment with unavoidable damage.

All raids groups in general need a good composition to work, but Rogues and only Rogues, need to have a very very specific composition in order to their jobs well, which I imagine in the current raiding environment where fielding a full group (that actually has healers) is already hard enough, isn't going to help rogues get into raid groups

[Rawel_San]

some ppl seriously see nerfs where there are none...

it's a buff... now it's actually worth using... not like before (unless you needed destruction to hit... in which case...)

In which case you're not a kensai or barb you mean, or don't have all your gear or don't have a bard in the group?
My eSoS wielding barb without tod sets but with terazza's and with gh/bard songs misses on more then a 2
against malicia with PA on. I'm getting very tired with the everyone hits on a 2 or they are gimp myth. Most
characters will have trouble hitting high ac mobs on a 2 with PA on unless they are kensai, barb or exceptionally
well geared with stars aligned and dumping everything other then Str+con.

I'm willing to admit my barb is a gimp but not enough of a gimp that most casual players won't be looking at
a much lower to-hit.