Clerics are now Hjealbots

[chanw4]

I talking about relative to class and character level. The better enhancements are deeper in the trees, yes, but our access to them is pretty early.

Access to 80% of the enhancements in the first 35% of the character levels, give or take, is a front loaded system.

EDIT: Especially when we look at how fast those first levels are reached.

no, frontload is when you don't need to invest much into it and gain a large portion of ADVANTAGE or gems from the investment.

Having accessing to 80% of the junk enhancement is not frontloading.

[Aashrym]

no, frontload is when you don't need to invest much into it and gain a large portion of ADVANTAGE or gems from the investment.

Having accessing to 80% of the junk enhancement is not frontloading.

75% Wand and scroll in the first row isn't junk, as the first example off the top of my head. That needs to be made exclusive so we can't all run around with 225% wand and scroll at 5th or 6th level. That's exactly the type of unintended benefit that arises from stacking enhancements in similar trees.

Wand and scroll mastery IV for a cleric on live requires 10 AP, 36 AP spent, and ML 11 for +55%. Wand and scroll mastery for a cleric on lamma is in the 1st tier and can be capped before 2nd level for +75% at a fraction of the overall cost. That's pretty front loaded compared to now even if we just look at the trees.

You can argue semantics if you want but my point is it generally takes 3-5 character levels to get to good enhancements out of 25 character levels. This line of discussion started on stackability for trees that have the same enhancements in them, which clearly is possible with the exception of tier 5 enhancements, which are exclusive to other trees on the current system. Tier 5 enhancements do not make lower tier enhancements junk just because they exist.

[HungarianRhapsody]

Tier 5 enhancements do not make lower tier enhancements junk just because they exist.

Wand and Scroll Mastery is quite front loaded in the new system. It is an exception.

Tier 5 enhancements do not make lower tier enhancements junk just because they exist. What makes many of the lower tier enhancements junk is the fact that many of them are just junk.

Wizard and Cleric and Sorc and FvS have 40 Spellpower for each element available for 1 AP at level 1 currently. That goes away in the new enhancement and is replaced by 1 or 1.5 Spellpower for 1 AP. That's a massive change.

Currently, you can buy your appropriate Spellpower enhancements and then spend the rest of your AP on other interesting stuff. In the new system, you buy junk and get Spellpower along with that purchase. That's a terrible change in my opinion.

It takes 3-5 character levels and 30+ AP out of your total of 80 to get good enhancements out of 20 character levels (since the last 5 levels don't give AP).

[SirValentine]

Not sure about utility spells: other than a few convenience options, what is there, and are they really of such importance?

Not sure about healing spells: other than as a convenience option to help out teammates who refuse to help themselves, are they really of such importance?

But let me give just one example: Dimension Door (scrolls of which cannot be purchased from vendors, otherwise I'd be UMDing the **** out of them). There are quests in the game that simply cannot be soloed by a non-Arti/Druid...unless you have Dimension Door. There are quests that take much, much longer to complete without Dimension Door. All by itself, a single 4th-level spell is often a game-changer.

But do you really believe that within the game as a whole, the healing capability of a cleric is equivalent in value to the wizard getting access to repair spells?

Wait, do you want to talk about the game as a whole, or just about a few specific spells?

Currently, Wizards have more powerful offensive casting than clerics: they can reach higher DCs with the same effort, have wider (and often better) offensive spells, and SP-saving SLAs.

The classes should be balanced against the classes. The Wizard class has a more diverse spell list, and tons of bonus feats. That's already the balance against Cleric class.

Which has nothing to do against the current huge imbalance between Wizard enhancments and Cleric enhancements. As you so nicely point out, Wizards get all sorts of extra ways to boost their DCs. Clerics don't, hence the problem.

You still haven't given any concrete reason why Wizards should automatically be able to reach higher DCs. Why they should be given enhancements to do so, but not Cleric.

That is what balances the cleric's advantages in other general areas.

If you were to grant the cleric all the same offensive casting capabilities as a wizard off the bat, and still keep the other advantages of the cleric class, that is what I regard as unbalanced.

You keep going on about these mysterious "advantages". You mean Turn Undead? You mean 80 extra HP? Surely you don't mean higher BAB! And if you think those are unbalanced in favor of Cleric over Wizard, you're severely underestimating the value of all those extra feats and a better spell list.

...the class whose only advantage is their offensive casting capability.

Wow...you have an extremely limited view of the Wizard if you think their only advantage is offensive casting capability.

Bear in mind that in general, WoW is much better balanced than DDO,
...
Also that the WoW devs are much more open about design decisions and aren't limited by a legacy as DDO has with 3.5 D&D.
...
3.5 itself has major balance issues

So you love WoW and hate D&D. So why are you here trying to mess up DDO? You could be off playing your well-balanced game.

I, for one, support the D&D legacy, and despise your attempts to destroy it and turn DDO into another WoW clone.

[Khatzhas]

Not sure about healing spells: other than as a convenience option to help out teammates who refuse to help themselves, are they really of such importance?

Wait, do you want to talk about the game as a whole, or just about a few specific spells?

I am talking about the game as a whole. Indeed I specifically used that phrase to separate it from, for example, the game as played by the more hardcore minority that make up the forums.
I believe that the majority of the actual playerbase don't habitually solo Elites or build completely self-sufficient toons. They are the people whose fighters need outside healing as they try to hold the attention of the pack of mobs, whose clerics need backup to help them kill through a run, and whose wizards don't always achieve no-fail DCs on Hard, let alone Elite.
This does make them "worse" players from a technical standpoint, but they are still players. And at that level of gameplay, healing capability is a very big deal indeed.

Regarding that particular quote, I was also asking whether you believe that in terms of pure healing capability, a wizard and her repair spells match that of a cleric and her heal spells, radiant burst/aura and other facets of capability.

I was asking for clarity on the utility spells because I could only thing of a few examples (knock, DDoor and the teleports).

Which has nothing to do against the current huge imbalance between Wizard enhancments and Cleric enhancements. As you so nicely point out, Wizards get all sorts of extra ways to boost their DCs. Clerics don't, hence the problem.

You still haven't given any concrete reason why Wizards should automatically be able to reach higher DCs. Why they should be given enhancements to do so, but not Cleric.

As I mentioned, I regard those bonus metamagics, SLAs and DC boosts as all part and parcel of the "offensive casting" package.

Now it sounds as if by "offensive casting" you are referring to DC boosts only. Which means that this part of the conversation has been at cross-purposes, since I don't have an issue with a cleric being able to hit as high a DC as a wizard does in a specific school.

So you love WoW and hate D&D. So why are you here trying to mess up DDO? You could be off playing your well-balanced game.

I, for one, support the D&D legacy, and despise your attempts to destroy it and turn DDO into another WoW clone.

Ooohkay. Would you kindly explain where you got that from please? I mean yes, this is the internet, so not everyone feels that they are accountable for the claims that they make about other people on it, but still, that is a stretch.

I was commenting about the similarities in this dilemma to a discussion that took place a few years ago in a different MMO. I gave you some information to help you put this into context.
(At no point did I state which was better. Indeed, it is the lack of balance that may be the reason that some people prefer DDO to WoW: it puts more emphasis on character creation and allows the building of characters capable of achievements that other characters played with the same level of skill could not match.)
Thus to someone who is used to DDO, the idea of arguing over a 5% difference in effectiveness would probably not make sense without that context. Likewise the difference in the degree of communication and bluntness of the developers.

If you would kindly point out where I have stated that I "love WoW and hate DDO" or where I have been trying to "destroy DDO and turn it into another WoW clone" I would be grateful.
Indeed, since you have professed ignorance of at least part of that subject, I would be interested to know how you feel justified in making that sort of claim. It would at least help me understand whether it was intended as a personal attack, or just an internet warrior mouthing off under anonymity.

[Aashrym]

Wand and Scroll Mastery is quite front loaded in the new system. It is an exception.

Tier 5 enhancements do not make lower tier enhancements junk just because they exist. What makes many of the lower tier enhancements junk is the fact that many of them are just junk.

Wizard and Cleric and Sorc and FvS have 40 Spellpower for each element available for 1 AP at level 1 currently. That goes away in the new enhancement and is replaced by 1 or 1.5 Spellpower for 1 AP. That's a massive change.

Currently, you can buy your appropriate Spellpower enhancements and then spend the rest of your AP on other interesting stuff. In the new system, you buy junk and get Spellpower along with that purchase. That's a terrible change in my opinion.

It takes 3-5 character levels and 30+ AP out of your total of 80 to get good enhancements out of 20 character levels (since the last 5 levels don't give AP).

Hit point enhancements are front loaded too. So are wand DC enhancements -- +9 wand DC's is pretty nice at low levels.

AP spend has also already a requirement for the current system. The only difference is tier 5 enhancements create exclusions by taking them. Telling us it takes 30 AP+ to get good enhancements doesn't mean as much when it takes 40 AP+ to get good enhancements now. Just take a look at some of progression listing on ddowiki to see much higher AP spend unlock costs.

The new AP requirements are easier to read and understand in the new trees.

What the new system does is it still create a focus on a single PrE if we want tier 5 enhancements. Outside of that we can spend 25 AP in 3 trees and access tiers 1 thru 4 enhancements, although 2 tier 4 and 1 teir 3 tree is more likely.

What we need to ask ourselves is how important those tier 5's are for us, and if there were big stacking bonuses that didn't lock each other out (which should be possibly anyway) it's easy to see the possibility of an overwhelming bonus if we have 7 similar caster trees from which to select. It's also boring to have all the same trees and possibly removes multiclassing opportunities if the trees are the same while locking out similar options for balance. Multiclassing is an important part of the game and it should be viable to go either way.

The spell power changes don't are a different issue because 1 or 1.5 per AP plus the skill bonus now available is smaller at lower levels. It's actually potentially higher at higher levels when it matters, however, so I think it actually scales better now. That's got it's pluses and minuses. I like the fact that all the spell power isn't in a single tree because that would suddenly be the tree of choice and universal spell power among several trees in several classes make maintaining and planning spell power easier for multiclassing casters. Placing 40 spell power enhancement in the first tier of 3 different classes means over 120 spell power at 3rd level, which is exactly the type of thing similar trees does, and that is pretty high for 3rd level.

[SirValentine]

Regarding that particular quote, I was also asking whether you believe that in terms of pure healing capability, a wizard and her repair spells match that of a cleric and her heal spells, radiant burst/aura and other facets of capability.

First off, I don't care about that comparison...because I've been comparing either about base classes, or enhancements, not only a few spells from one versus a few spells plus enhancments from the other. It's apples and oranges.

Second, it's group dependant. In an all-fleshy party, repairs are useless. But in an all-WF party, repairs are superior. There was a time in this game, where, in certain raids, it was a very common practice for an arcane to be the designated healer for the tank. Claiming Wizard is only about offense isn't accurate. Which is a point I've been trying to make. Both Cleric and Wizard are about flexibility.

As I mentioned, I regard those bonus metamagics, SLAs and DC boosts as all part and parcel of the "offensive casting" package.

Now it sounds as if by "offensive casting" you are referring to DC boosts only.

I've been talking about enhancements. Bonus metamagics and a different spell list are a built-in class feature that's part of the balance against Cleric's built-in class features and spell list. Which has nothing to do with the imbalance of Wizard's options for offensive enhancements for which Cleric has no equivalent enhancements.

I've never been saying that Clerics should suddenly get a big stack of metamagic feats for free or access to arcane spells.

Which means that this part of the conversation has been at cross-purposes, since I don't have an issue with a cleric being able to hit as high a DC as a wizard does in a specific school.

Well, that settles that. Devs, make it so.

Ooohkay. Would you kindly explain where you got that from please?
<snip>
At no point did I state which was better.
<snip>
I would be interested to know how you feel justified in making that sort of claim.

I quoted what you said above. Fine, I'll repeat it:

Bear in mind that in general, WoW is much better balanced than DDO,
...
Also that the WoW devs are much more open about design decisions and aren't limited by a legacy as DDO has with 3.5 D&D.
...
3.5 itself has major balance issues

If you think WoW is so much better balanced, why are you here? If think it's bad that DDO has a D&D legacy, why are you here?

I came to DDO because of the "D" and the "D", not the "O".

I don't play DDO because it's another MMO. I've never played any other MMO, and it seems very unlikely I will anytime soon. If DDO decides to follow your WoW-balance model instead of my D&D-legacy too much, I'll go back to my single-player games.

If you can't see your own clearly-stated attacks on DDO's D&D legacy, and your bragging about how WoW is better, I don't know what else to say.

It would at least help me understand whether it was intended as a personal attack, or just an internet warrior mouthing off under anonymity.

It was certainly an attack on the ideas you seemed to be espousing. Which I do indeed feel justified in, because I think it would be a bad step for this game that I enjoy.

And it was certainly not any kind of comment about your personal hygiene, morals, or yo momma. So I don't know if you want to consider it a personal attack or not.

[Khatzhas]

First off, I don't care about that comparison...because I've been comparing either about base classes, or enhancements, not only a few spells from one versus a few spells plus enhancments from the other. It's apples and oranges.

Access to effective healing is a fairly big deal in DDO in general. Probably not at the level you play, where self-healing has more emphasis, but in general, it is big enough to affect class balance. We're not just comparing Cure Serious Wounds with Repair Serious Damage, we are comparing the healing capability of classes, one of which has access to heals that only affect a small proportion of the population, and one of which not only has access to heals that affect almost all the population, but also additional capabilities from the class to support that.

Second, it's group dependant. In an all-fleshy party, repairs are useless. But in an all-WF party, repairs are superior.

Depending upon how the group is set up, I might be tempted to argue that: Radiant Burst and Auras account for a lot of healing and most Warforged have at least some degree of healing amp from items and enhancements. In a case of a dedicated WF healer and group however, I can understand.

If you think WoW is so much better balanced, why are you here? If think it's bad that DDO has a D&D legacy, why are you here?

Because balance is not the be-all and end-all of a game. As I stated: that lack of balance may in fact be one of the draws of DDO.
Likewise, the legacy of the 3.5 D&D game does cause conflicts with the nature of DDO. They decided to make some changes to the 3.5 system (such as inflating player and mob power) but that has caused issues that clash with the "legacy" (such as using d20s). There is a clash between sticking with the 3.5 system and having those gameplay issues, or concentrating on what would work best as an MMO, but losing more of the D&D aspect. PnP and MMOs are fairly fundamentally different situations.

I came to DDO because of the "D" and the "D", not the "O".

I mostly came because its Eberron. :-)

If you can't see your own clearly-stated attacks on DDO's D&D legacy, and your bragging about how WoW is better, I don't know what else to say.

Because I'm not blinded by my liking of a game to its flaws. All games that I have encountered have flaws. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy them despite that. Those comments were simply statements of what I regard as fairly solid facts to help someone with no basis for comparison understand an issue. Waxing lyrical about which is a better game wasn't relevant to that subject.
3.5 does have balance issues. (Have you heard of CoDzilla?) Even Pathfinder still has some. Doesn't stop me from playing them, nor Cyclopedia D&D.
Likewise WoW generally has a closer balance between classes and builds. The more complex nature of the DDO character generation system pretty much guarantees this, and the presence of damage meters in WoW enforces it. While it would be nice to see a bit better balance between classes (or at least improving the Path builds a bit) that doesn't automatically make WoW a better game (particularly not the presence of damage meters).
The WoW devs do communicate more with the players than the DDO ones do about the design aspect of the game. (And this is one of the things that I would like to see more of in DDO.) But, once again, that difference doesn't mean WoW is a better game.

It was certainly an attack on the ideas you seemed to be espousing. Which I do indeed feel justified in, because I think it would be a bad step for this game that I enjoy.

And it was certainly not any kind of comment about your personal hygiene, morals, or yo momma. So I don't know if you want to consider it a personal attack or not.

It very much was a personal comment on my morals. You were assigning unpleasant and unfounded motivations to me. If meant deliberately, that is about as personal an attack as you can get.

Whether you were jumping to false conclusions or simply making them up on the spot is impossible to tell from the other side of a monitor. While I would encourage attacking my ideas (that is pretty much how science works), I would ask you to avoid attacking me personally.
I would also ask that if you are going to quote something, you quote it in context rather than selectively picking out sentence fragments that lose a lot of their meaning on their own.

[SirValentine]

...one of which not only has access to heals that affect almost all the population, but also additional capabilities from the class to support that.

...Radiant Burst and Auras account for a lot of healing...

Sure, Radiant Servant boosts heals...but who says a Cleric is going to have Radiant Servant? My point has been that Clerics should have more offensive enhancement options. Any AP spent on offensive capability are AP not spent on boosting heals.

It very much was a personal comment on my morals. You were assigning unpleasant and unfounded motivations to me. If meant deliberately, that is about as personal an attack as you can get.

Nope. Nothing about your morals or your motivivations at all. Just about the ideas it seemed you were promoting in the posts I was responding to earlier.

If you were not actually promoting the idea that we should ignore D&D traditions in order to make Wizards fundementally able to reach much higher DCs than Clerics because that's WoW-style game-balance, which was sure how it seemed at the time, and which I think is a destructive approach to this game, then my attack on that view doesn't apply to you.

If you want to take offense and view that as a personal attack on your morals, that's your choice. Like the old saying goes, offense is something that's taken, not given.

I would also ask that if you are going to quote something, you quote it in context rather than selectively picking out sentence fragments

No. If someone wants to read your entire post, it's there up-thread. I only quote, and will continue to only quote, just enough of what I'm responding to to provide context to what I'm saying. There's no need to clutter the forums with repeating tons of stuff over and over that's not relevant to the post it's in.

[Gremmlynn]

Because balance is not the be-all and end-all of a game. As I stated: that lack of balance may in fact be one of the draws of DDO.
Likewise, the legacy of the 3.5 D&D game does cause conflicts with the nature of DDO. They decided to make some changes to the 3.5 system (such as inflating player and mob power) but that has caused issues that clash with the "legacy" (such as using d20s). There is a clash between sticking with the 3.5 system and having those gameplay issues, or concentrating on what would work best as an MMO, but losing more of the D&D aspect. PnP and MMOs are fairly fundamentally different situations.

This is why I would never want to make an MMO based off a pen and paper game. To often you have to choose between making a better MMO or staying close to the game it's based off of.

[Khatzhas]

Sure, Radiant Servant boosts heals...but who says a Cleric is going to have Radiant Servant? My point has been that Clerics should have more offensive enhancement options. Any AP spent on offensive capability are AP not spent on boosting heals.

Currently, its a fairly safe bet. In the new system, hopefully caster clerics will be able to convert TUs to a more offensive effect.
In another thread I suggested a temporary buff to caster level or DCs, or a debuff that reduces saves and spell resistance.

Nope. Nothing about your morals or your motivivations at all. Just about the ideas it seemed you were promoting in the posts I was responding to earlier.

If you were not actually promoting the idea that we should ignore D&D traditions in order to make Wizards fundementally able to reach much higher DCs than Clerics because that's WoW-style game-balance, which was sure how it seemed at the time, and which I think is a destructive approach to this game, then my attack on that view doesn't apply to you.

If you want to take offense and view that as a personal attack on your morals, that's your choice. Like the old saying goes, offense is something that's taken, not given.

No, you claimed that I "hated" DDO, and that I was trying to "mess up" and "destroy" it. Those statements are directly about my motivations and thus morals.
You were not attacking a "view" or "ideas". There was nothing conditional about your claim. Unless you quoted the wrong person, I'm pretty sure that you were talking to me.
Even if you are not a native english speaker, you certainly write it well enough to understand what you actually said.
If you are going to make a claim that someone hates and wants to destroy something, whether it be a game, an institution or a country, you need to back it up with a lot more than your own misunderstandings about their attempt to help you.

No. If someone wants to read your entire post, it's there up-thread. I only quote, and will continue to only quote, just enough of what I'm responding to to provide context to what I'm saying. There's no need to clutter the forums with repeating tons of stuff over and over that's not relevant to the post it's in.

The issue is that it doesn't provide context. It loses it.
It turns an explanation of a comment into what appears to be direct criticism.
As mentioned before, you seem to have a good enough grip on the language to understand the differences between the entire paragraph and the fragments that you are quoting out-of-context. Thus that you are misrepresenting what was said, and how.

[HungarianRhapsody]

No, you claimed that I "hated" DDO, and that I was trying to "mess up" and "destroy" it. Those statements are directly about my motivations and thus morals.

Motivations =/= morals
Morals =/= motivations.

It's entirely possible to want to destroy something without being immoral if you think that the thing you want to destroy is a Bad Thing(tm).

[taurean430]

Offensive casting in the context I was talking about is both no-save nuking and DC-based casting.
The issue there is that Offensive casting (and a bit of buffing) is pretty much all that Wizards and Sorcs do. It is natural to expect them to be better at it that a class with more options.
Granted, you could balance around the builds that ignore some of those options, but unless you include some ability to turn off a cleric's access to healing, you run into balance issues with the people who do choose to use all of their options.
That gets disturbingly close to the old "Hybrids vs. Pures" argument from Warcraft.

My Wizard:
Self Heals, and heals Warforged/fleshies when needed.
Tanks mobs.
Provides dps
DC casts for control effects.

My Cleric:
Self Heals, and heals Warforged/fleshies when needed.
Tanks mobs.
Provides dps
DC casts for control effects

My Wizard has been given enhancements and PrC's to boost the dc's and effects of his offensive/defensive/controlling/healing spells.

My Cleric has *NOT*been given enhancements and PrC's to boost the dc's and effects of his offensive/defensive/controlling/healing spells.

This is a problem for actual Dungeons and Dragons players who are more than familiar with the classes and their capabilities. And on that note, D&D is a roleplaying game whereas WOW is a MMO. This game is based off off that role playing game. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a Cleric to have access to it's class abilities.

[SirValentine]

No, you claimed that I "hated" DDO, and that I was trying to "mess up" and "destroy" it. Those statements are directly about my motivations and thus morals.
You were not attacking a "view" or "ideas".

Let me try to break it down in a more abstract and simple manner:

Supose there's some idea for a change to the game, "X".

Person "A" thinks change "X" would be an improvement, causing more lovely shiny "Game Balance".

Person "B" thinks change "X" would mess up the game, destroying more lovely shiny "D&D Legacy".

Person "B" can be fully aware that person "A" thinks he is trying to improve the game, and yet still think idea "X" is bad, and that promoting idea "X" is trying to mess up and destroy the game, even if that is not person "A"'s motivation. Person "B" merely needs to think that would be the effect of the idea "X", without having any opinion whatsoever on the motivations or morals of person "A".

If person "A" wants to think person "B"'s contempt for ideas he hates is somehow a personal attack on morals...<shrug>...

[Rodomonte]

I would also ask that if you are going to quote something, you quote it... selectively picking out sentence fragments that lose a lot of their meaning on their own.

Will do!

[psykopeta]

did
i
read
that
wow
"has something related with"
balance?

[insert lolcat face here]

really? pretty sure the last time that happened was 2.4.3....that's almost 5 years ago, then started wow's deterioration (not only my opinion, numbers demonstrate that)

so many babies crying in forums killed wow(omfg can't do a quest!buff me!!nerf em!!), those devs knew what they were doing

here is exactly the opposite, devs are gonna kill ddo, so easy for so many different players is all but good, so to fix it... they're gonna distribute classes in "roles"?? next update: creating page will be able to choose between tank,healer and dps(instead of melee, spellcaster, specialist)

the only thing that can save ddo are the players, but when someone thinks that "balance" has some relation with rpg is doing, really, awfully, wrong

the only meaning for balance is pvp, for the rest of things is the worst concept mankind has ever seen, mobs have more hp,sr, hit (and also should do more damage btw) because we gangbang em, 6vs1 is what happens most times in the dungeons' end fight, wonder why quests are yet soloable so easily