Player Character Balance

[nibel]

I have always had the assumption that nerfing blitz/furyshot/whatever would go hand in hand with nerfing mob hp and damage in EE. (EH seems about right.) If they actually nerfed the OP abilities but didn't adjust EE, that would be a tragic mistake.

This. Remember this.

Take the monk destiny tree for example: I believe the bonus to reflex saves is a tier 4 ability. While in every other tree, that's a tier one or tier two (shadowdancer) ability.

Just a little nitpick, while I understand the critique on the Fortitute/Will enhancements, GMoF Reflex enhancement is the only way to get a no-fail-on-1 on Reflex (aside from Epic Reflex), thus is it superior than the Magister/Draconic +6 reflex tier 1 twists.

[knockcocker]

First of all, I am not a usual poster, but the game I love suddenly feels threatened by an obsession for balancing in favor of non viable builds (as ugly as that sounds). And there is an obsession for pure builds effectiveness as well. I do not talk out of the vacuum, I have been here since the beginning, played extensively ee, and lately playing mostly my 60+ lives main (I stopped counting them long time ago). Used to have several accounts flooded with alts with very efficient and different build approaches, now almost exclusevily playing main character.

"reducing their effectiveness to at most 105% of the effectiveness of other characters".

Which other characters? There are an extreme number of possibilities. Barbarian20/e8? What does "effectiveness" stand for? The ability to obtain a result? Efficient or no? This again brings us back to multiclassing eternal debate. There are so many build possibilities, many are effective, some excel, and many are simply non viable. So what? Why balance in favor of fighter 20 and not pally9/sorc5/clr6? The latter build does not deserve also that "effectiveness"?

Why should Barbarian 20 Fury of the wild 8 be as effective as a Monkcher/evasionist juggernaut, etc. (and I don't play any monkcher at the moment) in a top difficulty quest with unavoidable traps where either you evade them/disable them or most likely will die? You have two options: bring a trapper or become able to survive the trap (building for evasion or having enough saves/hp, whatever to survive the damage, let's not invest too much time in accessories). To become able to survive you have to invest time in planning multiclassing. What is wrong with that? Multiclass is and should be rewarding, and is open to everyone. What is wrong with that?

Is it wrong to solo? Should solo be impossible for non raids? If not, should characters be balanced to complete quests ee (all discussion refers to top difficulty) at similar rate of "effectiveness"/efficiency? Why? Because once you do that, the game is back to being ridiculously easy, because to make a pure non evasionist low save toon as effective as the high save evasionist toon, you can only decrease the need for evasion/high saves, and therefore, if it is no longer a requirement to be effective, then everyone will ONLY build for top dps.

Barbarian case study

A class that has the biggest restrictions and problems to selfheal. Yet the possibility exists to achieve some decent level of selfheal (although right now a bit below what is needed for ee)? By the way Barbarian has some nice tools at its reach: no save ear smash/top end stunning blow if properly build (yes, take those 2 levels of fvs, what is wrong with that? The game has taken into account that. It is your choice if you want to stay pure 20 disregarding all the paths multiclassing opens to you)/knockdowns on adrenaline/AoE CC through tier 3 Blitz twist/etc. The only thing wrong is it is taking to much damage on ee if no dedicated permanent healer.
-> Barbarian deserves help/buff, because even multiclassing (!) is extremely difficult to be effective/efficient on ee -> help damage mitigation (proposals have been given: increase PRR cap/appy DR AFTER prr/apply energy resistance AFTER energy abosrption, do something to AC)

Selfsufficiency

We have also been given the tools for selfsufficiency -> effectiveness. You have the option to use bladeforged and its reconstruct sla, you can multiclass, you have some boots that propel you through air for some special situations, etc. This is not wrong, this is precisely right (yes, my opinion), and it is what makes the game fun.
Again, I have played melee builds (juggernaut/acrobats/fightermnkpal/battleclerics, etc.) that performed extremely well on ee. Yes of course they all used the tools that are already there: multiclass, items, etc. The only thing I would have thanked for is some form of extra damage mitigation (and I mean reduction of damage income). If damage taken would have been reduced (through heavy armor, prr or whatever) to 50-65% of what I was taking, literally I would have been as efficient if not more than shiradi casting (whose dps is not amazing at all, just fine (but yes, very easy to handle)). That is all I needed to comfortably, easily manage ee (soloing). I had 0 issues with dps with none of my melee builds.
However I believe viable saves for EE should remain as is.

Maybe furyshot is debatable, maybe. But that is a very specific thing. But one thing is burst dps and then average dps.
-> Petition: it would be great if we could have in Lamannia, in the dojo, one megakobold with 1 million hp to make some detailed testing comparison between a monkcher and all it can put and a top melee dps and all it can put and see time to beat that kobold (10k hp kobolds die so incredibly fast it's even possible to compare). Also make some kobolds lvl 30 to charge blitz and do further testing with the megakobold.

That's it for now.

Gygaxotron of Thelanis

Nice, insightful post. Thanks.

[knockcocker]

Nobody disagrees with that. Nobody expects perfect balance. And nobody wants everyone to be exactly the same.

But saying builds can perform differently is not the same as saying it's good to have a few builds vastly outperforming most others.

You also have a few players vastly outperforming most others. Those players normally play the builds
you are talking about. Coincidence? I think not.

[Brunhildha]

Dungeons & Dragons: Online isn't perfectly balanced. We're interested in discussing what balance means, and how important balance is to you, the players. We want to know how often you'd like to see balance changes.

For this thread, we're looking particular at character balance, and how characters compare to one another. To some extent this borders on discussion of player characters vs. quest difficulty (and all that entails), but the focus here is player characters compared against other player characters (but not PvP). At some other time we may also look at other balance issues, such as Normal/Hard/Elite, or more specific issues like items, quests, monsters, traps, raids, or boss monsters.

<big snip>

We're happy to hear general thoughts on character balance, what you'd like to see, and also why you'd like to see certain changes (or non-changes.) We don't want to change any particular things without good reasons, so convince us!

We'd love to also get feedback from as many of you as possible from this survey!

• Character Balance Survey

The devs cannot balance classes, mobs, dungeons, or the game as a whole without giving themselves the tools to do it, and the main tool that is holding them back is the building block of the game.

Some arithmetic.

Consider you, the player, put effort into some variable called X. Middling X is 10, but some people have low X, as little as 5, while others are able to get 50% more, i.e. a value of 15. Now test your X against the mob thing called Y, using a D20 dice throw. The devs can set Y at 20 for your average mob. Maybe tough mobs have a Y of 25, while weak mobs only get 15. Still, most players will get hits sometimes and misses at other times. This was the situation when the level cap was 10, maybe it still was even when the cap was 20, and I presume it is with PnP (I have never played).

Then the game inflates even more. Now, middling X is 50, although we still have some characters being better than others at getting it, again + / - 50%. The gimps have an X of 25, the powergamers have an X of 75. But now there is no way for the devs to get the same effect. Using only one D20, there NO value of Y that will enable most players to see any sort of range of hits and misses. The gimps will always miss or be hit, the powergamers will always hit or be missed.

The game mechanics are too sensitive to small changes. The range in the “dice” has to increase to match the inflation in the variables. No tortured acrobatics will get round that uncomfortable truth in the long run.

TLDR? It is time to lose the D20.

Suggestion? That at Epic levels, you use 1 in 30 or 40 or 50 for attacks, DC saves, etc. If you can’t bring yourself to abandon the past, or Wizards of the Coast won’t let you, use two D20 not one.

<<Ducks, slips on Invis ring and heads for the hills>>

[Alfhild]

The specific made-up figures of 9 times were from the guy trying to imply that even attempting to balance was futile. I'm not saying 9 times isn't still broken, but it certainly is less broken than 24 times.

I was not attempting to say the balancing was futile. I was attempting to say what I have been been saying in my posts. Nerfing EXTREMELY powerful builds to MILDLY powerful builds is not going to fix the problem that some builds are EXTREMELY ineffective due to either game mechanics or weaknesses in the builds/classes themselves. Post Nerf they will still be EXTREMELY ineffective. As people other such as Sirgog and Ellisdee have pointed out, in addition to balancing the player characters, a MASSIVE revamp of EE mechanics is needed as well.

If we interpret Varg's statements as being that player character balance is the only thing being considered, and player environment is just too time consuming to fix, then I suggest you are not fixing the problem at all and potentially only making the situation worse.

Speaking purely hypothetically, if current challenging content is being beat by a group/raid composition where OP builds comprise 50%, then nerfing OP builds and ONLY nerfing OP builds without any other adjustment results in that same challenging content requiring 80% Nerfed OP builds.

The nerfed effective builds become even more essential.

[blerkington]

Word games, you know what I meant.

Not word games, actually. There is a difference, and that is what we've been discussing.

But the ranger can be a specialist if you choose to be one. That's like saying a Druid elementalist can't specialize as a spellcaster because he has the ability to turn into a wolf.

No, your ranger is not a specialist just because you are choosing to use only half of your character's abilities. Even if you choose to develop ranged combat over melee, that does not make you a specialist. You could melee usefully if you tried.

Dodge, Improved Crit, precision, point blank, quicken, Toughness, Mobility, Spring Attack( for the dodge )
Just because someone is an archer doesn't mean you don't want to invest in some defensive feats.

If you are running your ranger as a ranged-only character, your best defence is fighting at range. Next best is using gear to increase how often you are missed, ie, making sure you have displacement, blur, ghostly effects, and maybe some dodge gear too.

I think spending three feats on a small increase to dodge is a huge waste when you have other, much better methods to defend yourself. Dodge is invaluable for melees in EE content, but it's much less important for characters who are not being hit by keeping their distance.

I think precision is somewhat marginal for a pure ranger too, unless you are spending the majority of your time in content where mob fortification is quite high. The low rate of fire of bows combined with their comparatively low chance of critting means the fort bypass you are getting is not that significant. And the bonus to hit is small too, something that can be gained other ways, through certain enhancements and/or gear.

The difference here is by selecting some melee feats you can become significantly more effective in the time you are on cooldown for manyshot, instead of plinking away at the slow rate of fire that non 10k stars archers have to endure.

As someone who has used Pin and Otto's. They actually have the pin or dance effect once in a blue moon. Pin doesn't even effect attacking just movement. That's not a big window for a character with limited durability to switch weapons, jump in and do melee damage. ( Besides my ranger archer character's ranged DPS is better than his melee DPS )

This is not meant to be rude, but you either have a serious lag problem or you just may need some more practice at using Pin and Otto's if you can only make them work once in a blue moon.

They are no-save abilities; apart from certain mobs which are immune (and very few non boss monster types are immune to pin), they work every time provided your target is in the right state when you hit it. By and large they are pretty reliable, if you know their limitations and are careful to work within them. They are good enough abilities that even archers who don't run in shiradi will twist one in. Apart from invaluable CC they offer in harder content, they provide a big boost to your and your fellow party members' dps because they make your target helpless.

With IPS they are even more useful. Here is something to try when you encounter two monsters, like at the start of Trial by Fire. Get a line of sight on the first monster and pin it. Hit the second one normally, so he starts approaching you. When they are lined up, hit the back one with Otto's and both should now be dancing due to the magic of IPS, unable to move and taking extra damage due to helplessness. That is good solo, it's pure gold when you have melees around who are happy to help beat down your helpless foes.

The duration of the CC effects leaves plenty of time to change weapons, attack, and if necessary change back to renew the CC, provided your hotbars are set up to facilitate swapping and you aren't too far away.

Part of the key to this is being able to judge how far back you should be from your target; you want to be close enough so there is little movement required to melee, but far enough that you can get out of reach if you miss or the monster's movement state changed unexpectedly. One problem with Otto's is monsters will stop slightly before they appear to when they reach you, meaning you can go back on cooldown with no effect. So you need to allow for that. Pin, on the other hand, works just fine when a mob is right in front of you.

It might be possible to build a non 10k stars archer that does less damage in melee than at range when you are outside manyshot, but you'd have to work at it. One way to do that might be to waste feats on a marginal increase of your dodge chance when you could be taking power attack and an improved critical feat instead, then make sure you also haven't got any decent melee weapons too.

But the ranger can be a specialist if you choose to be one. That's like saying a Paladin must use a shield. The character class is a starting point. Then with your choices you can either specialize or not specialize to whatever you desire.

That is a false analogy. The problem here is that you are confusing your desire for a ranged only playstyle with rangers being a specialised for range alone. Monks and Fighters have certain abilities which make them better able to specialise in ranged combat than rangers.

I've got got both an arcane archer ranger and a tempest ranger character. I like the ranger class. And having played both ( and originally with the tempest having tried to be a true combat style hybrid ), I prefer to specialize in one form of combat. With the archer it's ranged combat. With the tempest it's melee combat.

I think you should play whatever character you want to play, however your want to play it. But the key to being a more effective ranger and party member is well within your reach. You just have to stretch out and take it.

Thanks, and good luck.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

What ever some other guy's build is that is getting more kills than me needs to be nerfed and nerfed hard!

That is what I am reading here.
Since apparently everything is OP.



Although one common thread is nerf (ruin) multiclassing...especially with Monks.

Ruining popular builds should never be a goal.
I say this, and I never run a popular build.
I say this and I hate the fact that everyone plays FotM builds.

Because I think it is not right to totally kill someone's favorite toon.


But.... I have also said in the past that anything that gets overused should be changed.
So if everyone is playing Monchers for instance...... find out why. And make a change to the game so people will play a wider variety of builds.
Preferably a change that doesn't kill Monchers in the process.

But IMO, tying Manyshot and 10K Stars cooldown together will not kill Monchers. It simply removes an advantage that only they have. The Moncher still works, still has many other advantages. But is no longer the best archer just because of 10K stars ability.


Then there is armor and robes.
IMO, beef up armor and it does not remove any ability the robe wearing Monk splash has, but makes other options more appealing.

Simply add a bunch of PRR to armor.
IMO, tie it to BaB.
This way the low level guy doesn't become invulnerable, but the high level guy can take a bunch of hits in EE before he needs to find some healing.

Light, Medium, and Heavy armors should add more PRR with heavy armor adding the most.
(and fix Mithral Full Plate to count as heavy armor.... and maybe some others should work that way too.)

Than there is DR.
Brb DR (and WF?) should be a significant advantage.
I also think actively blocking should give more DR as well.

Shields.
Need a major buff. Defensively.
Again can be tied to BaB somehow.
One thing IMO is shields and especially tower shields should offer more protection from missile attacks.


BTW, these opinions are coming from a guy who plays Rangers.
Light Armor, TWF, Bows..... I never wear Heavy or Medium Armor and I rarely use shields... and never a tower shield.
Yet I think these things should be beefed up even though I don't use them.



Here's another off the wall idea:
Why not add Kensei to the Monk enhancement options and add another offensive option for Fighters.

This would give pure fighters a DPS option that might be more attractive than mixing Monk levels, and give Monks more reason to stay pure as well. (hard to explain my reasoning, but it basically is that I have no issue with pure Monks being supermen, but I have a big issue with everybody playing Monk mixes and gaining super powers from it.....I'd like to see less /Mnks and more pure everybody... not from nerfs but from buffs)

And beef up capstones.

[Beethoven]

Now we have Monkchers if you want to do physical damage, and Shiradis if you want to cast spells as the ONLY top-notch builds, and Master's Blitz and Fury of the Wild as the ONLY other viable builds. Everything else is so far behind that it is ridiculous. And now content has been designed that (at least on EE) assumes all players have one of these broken builds.

What's your definition of "top notch"?

It seems for 2010 you use a fairly liberal definition including all builds capable of contributing and surviving content mostly comparable (albeit somewhat more difficult) than EH.

Yet for the current game it looks like you use data based solely on forum hype and/or solo-ability with no numbers, figures or actually facts to substantiate your argument.

I'd be to use a similar standard to determine top builds when the level cap is 20 and I'd be left with:

Best build based on forum hype: Necro Palemaster (with Enchantment secondary)
Best solo build: Necro Palemaster (with Enchantment secondary) or 18 Fvs/2 Mnk Evoker.

First, nerf the hell out of Furyshot and Blitz and Shiradi, with the goal of reducing their effectiveness to at most 105% of the effectiveness of other characters.
Secondly, rebalance all of the quests that were designed under the assumption that players are using broken builds. If optimal group DPS falls from 50000 party-wide to 20000, then mobs need to lose 60% of their HP.

So, in other words, establish Sorcerers using Draconic and Enchanter Wizards running in Draconic as only top builds instead? It really depends what character you compare it to, but generally all of that has been done already:

Wizards using a combination of Enchantment and Draconic already out-perform Shiradi in effectiveness (CC ability and raw damage output).
Sorcerer running Draconic out-perform Shiradi by a good margin. There are numerous threads up showing numbers to proof it.
Centered Kensai, Kensai, Zeus and (situationally) various rogue and druid splash builds have the potential out-dps Furyshot and Monkchers. For proof see a recent thread about the Zeus build solo in Epic Elite Devils Invasion. You will be hard pressed to find a Furyshot Monkcher performing anywhere as effective in this or similiar content.

Perfect balance is unattainable. That is no excuse for having a situation that is so unbalanced that only 2-3 builds are even remotely viable. In Heroic levels, Sorcerers are significantly overpowered compared to every other class, but the Fighter doesn't feel totally useless in most content.

That held true in the past and holds true now but not only in heroic content. The current list of builds who perform solid (if not even top notch) in Heroics, Epic Normal, Epic Hard and Eberron Epic Elites is fairly large and not limited to the two builds you mentioned.

Shiradi is effectively an arcane dps build sacrificing reliability in Crowd Control (Nerve Venom is based on luck and cannot be reliably targeted) and raw damage for increased survivability (Evasion, Saves and SP).
Monkcher (even with Furyshot) sacrifices some dps for survivability (operating at a distance, focusing on Dodge and Incorporeal miss chance).

The issue isn't as much that Shiradi and Monkchers are overpowered as builds, but that the current endgame (Forgotten Realms) Epic elites play too heavily into their strengths.

Inflated hitpoints and enemy spellcaster DCs play straight into the strengths of Shiradi builds (less SP usage, Paladin Saves combined with Evasion).

Inflated damage output of mobs and bosses plays straight into the strengths of ranged builds (ie: Monkchers). Your Kensai may have better raw dps, but that doesn't do anything if you have to pull back and heal up ever 2.5 seconds.

There are multiple ways to achieve that balance:

* nerf like you say. Sounds easy, but there is a good chance to make things worse. For instance, nerf to Shiradi, FotW and Blitz leading to Enchanters running in Draconic becoming /the/ top build and not only in some Epic Elites, but all content from Heroic to end game raids.

* reduce enemy dcs, hitpoints and damage output would allow melees to bring their (superior) dps to bear and make them more viable again with those builds who sacrifice (some) dps for safety (distance).

* give melees better ways to mitigate damage outside of dodge and incorporeal which favors monk splashes too heavily (ie: PRR from armor, shields, defensive stances and perhaps even barbarian damage reduction).

Take your own list and then consider how many of those builds would still be viable if mobs back then would have hit with 200+ damage per swing and reflex saves would have needed to be in the 60s to work reliably.

For instance, the reason we used tanks back then is because they could meaningful mitigate incoming damage.
The reason we used various melee builds is because they too had means to cope with incoming damage.
Paladin being a front loaded class in terms of saves isn't new.
Ranged combat being more save than melee combat is not new either.
Monks always have been front loaded as well. This too is not something added recently.
Content where melees (and even heavy armor tanks) are three or four shotted by mobs with no way to mitigate that damage is new, however. Any content where this is not the case (Heroics, Epic Normal, Epic Hard and (most) Eberron Epic Elites) we have a very large variety of builds which perform solid. It is only content where this is the case (Forgotten Realms Epic Elites) that Shiradi and Monkchers appear superior.

[blerkington]

Nobody disagrees with that. Nobody expects perfect balance. And nobody wants everyone to be exactly the same.

But saying builds can perform differently is not the same as saying it's good to have a few builds vastly outperforming most others.

Hi,

This the nub of it. It's one thing to admit there will never be perfect balance between classes/builds/EDs, it's another thing entirely to use that as an excuse not even to try.

Thanks.

[Tentaki]

Just to add in my opinion, I think that most of the classes right now that are considered underpowered are also those that lack variety. There are wizards, for example, who can play the role of high-level spellcaster, group CC, two-handed eldritch knight fighters, tanks, and that's before you even get into multiclassing discussion. All of them can self-heal as well.

A barbarian, on the other hand, basically has a really big axe and can hit things really hard. Which a wizard can do about 80% as well while having about a dozen more options at their disposal in case something that you hit really hard can hit you back even harder. The barbarian just basically has to shrug their shoulders and get their head blown off.

This also fits in with the multiclassing item as well because - again - other classes add more variety. Unless your pure level 20 barbarian can do as many things as a barbarian/bard/ranger/whatever build, the multiclass will win out every time.

I should also note that I love variety and think it's one of the game's biggest strengths (I'm rocking a druid/monk/wizard right now and love it). I think the issue comes not from the fact that multiclass builds have too much, but more of the fact that pure classes (and certain other classes as a whole, like barbarian) don't have enough.

[Hathorian]

Hi,

These next things are unfortunate and unpopular to say, but it will be difficult to have a sensible discussion of what is and isn't overpowered with a community consisting of many players who are not particularly competent, and/or have little direct experience of what the different builds can do. [Edit: Or of what the EE endgame is like.]

Some of the loudest howling for nerfs is coming from people who are just not very good, and simply appear to resent the fact that they are having trouble completing content which in fact is largely just not that difficult, or who have a desire for a game where people are forced to group together because they think our characters should be narrowly specialised.

I think there are some things that need to be rebalanced, but this shouldn't become a free for all based on people's personal prejudices and desire to avenge their in-game experiences when good players made them feel inadequate.

Thanks.

Awesome!!! +1.

[blerkington]

Awesome!!! +1.

Hi,

Oh dear.

I'm starting to regret saying this, because it makes me seem like some sort of elitist poster child who doesn't think anything needs to be rebalanced.

Please try to read these remarks in the context of the other things I've said in this thread. The game is very unbalanced, and changes do need to be made.

The key to this will be working out what is truly overpowered and what is mistakenly considered to be overpowered because good players are able to make it work effectively.

Thanks.

[zwiebelring]

Bkerlington really wants to escalate a discussion. His polemics can be turned easily. But yeah, instead of bringing up constructive mechanical arguments he/she judges everybody being a bad player, who likes to bring balance into something obviously broken by design.

Very good. Take your trollmark and please stay out of this productive debate so far.

[Hathorian]

What's your definition of "top notch"?

It seems for 2010 you use a fairly liberal definition including all builds capable of contributing and surviving content mostly comparable (albeit somewhat more difficult) than EH.

Yet for the current game it looks like you use data based solely on forum hype and/or solo-ability with no numbers, figures or actually facts to substantiate your argument.

I'd be to use a similar standard to determine top builds when the level cap is 20 and I'd be left with:

Best build based on forum hype: Necro Palemaster (with Enchantment secondary)
Best solo build: Necro Palemaster (with Enchantment secondary) or 18 Fvs/2 Mnk Evoker.



So, in other words, establish Sorcerers using Draconic and Enchanter Wizards running in Draconic as only top builds instead? It really depends what character you compare it to, but generally all of that has been done already:

Wizards using a combination of Enchantment and Draconic already out-perform Shiradi in effectiveness (CC ability and raw damage output).
Sorcerer running Draconic out-perform Shiradi by a good margin. There are numerous threads up showing numbers to proof it.
Centered Kensai, Kensai, Zeus and (situationally) various rogue and druid splash builds have the potential out-dps Furyshot and Monkchers. For proof see a recent thread about the Zeus build solo in Epic Elite Devils Invasion. You will be hard pressed to find a Furyshot Monkcher performing anywhere as effective in this or similiar content.



That held true in the past and holds true now but not only in heroic content. The current list of builds who perform solid (if not even top notch) in Heroics, Epic Normal, Epic Hard and Eberron Epic Elites is fairly large and not limited to the two builds you mentioned.

Shiradi is effectively an arcane dps build sacrificing reliability in Crowd Control (Nerve Venom is based on luck and cannot be reliably targeted) and raw damage for increased survivability (Evasion, Saves and SP).
Monkcher (even with Furyshot) sacrifices some dps for survivability (operating at a distance, focusing on Dodge and Incorporeal miss chance).

The issue isn't as much that Shiradi and Monkchers are overpowered as builds, but that the current endgame (Forgotten Realms) Epic elites play too heavily into their strengths.

Inflated hitpoints and enemy spellcaster DCs play straight into the strengths of Shiradi builds (less SP usage, Paladin Saves combined with Evasion).

Inflated damage output of mobs and bosses plays straight into the strengths of ranged builds (ie: Monkchers). Your Kensai may have better raw dps, but that doesn't do anything if you have to pull back and heal up ever 2.5 seconds.

There are multiple ways to achieve that balance:

* nerf like you say. Sounds easy, but there is a good chance to make things worse. For instance, nerf to Shiradi, FotW and Blitz leading to Enchanters running in Draconic becoming /the/ top build and not only in some Epic Elites, but all content from Heroic to end game raids.

* reduce enemy dcs, hitpoints and damage output would allow melees to bring their (superior) dps to bear and make them more viable again with those builds who sacrifice (some) dps for safety (distance).

* give melees better ways to mitigate damage outside of dodge and incorporeal which favors monk splashes too heavily (ie: PRR from armor, shields, defensive stances and perhaps even barbarian damage reduction).

Take your own list and then consider how many of those builds would still be viable if mobs back then would have hit with 200+ damage per swing and reflex saves would have needed to be in the 60s to work reliably.

For instance, the reason we used tanks back then is because they could meaningful mitigate incoming damage.
The reason we used various melee builds is because they too had means to cope with incoming damage.
Paladin being a front loaded class in terms of saves isn't new.
Ranged combat being more save than melee combat is not new either.
Monks always have been front loaded as well. This too is not something added recently.
Content where melees (and even heavy armor tanks) are three or four shotted by mobs with no way to mitigate that damage is new, however. Any content where this is not the case (Heroics, Epic Normal, Epic Hard and (most) Eberron Epic Elites) we have a very large variety of builds which perform solid. It is only content where this is the case (Forgotten Realms Epic Elites) that Shiradi and Monkchers appear superior.

Excellent post. +1. Allow melees to mitigate damage a bit better, reduce monster HP/DCs/saving throws and allow casters to be a bit more spell point efficient and you are good to go.

[Fhauvial]

Balance in D&D is not a new problem. Many of the issues that existed in 3.5e (and other editions) seem to have carried over into DDO. Not all classes were created equal in PnP, but this was balanced by the DM creating encounters in which everyone could contribute.

Many years ago a 3.5e DM wrote something called Tier System for Classes. It's an excellent read, and I think a few points are particularly applicable here:

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable.

If equally skilled players join a high-level quest, and one class completely dominates the quest while others struggle to contribute, you have a balance problem. The issue in DDO is both one of content design and character abilities. Some abilities are so far and above others there's really no comparison. When you design content towards players using these abilities, you create a serious balance problem. You've widened the gap between the class tiers, and geared the content towards the top two tiers.

In other words, you've just broken the game.

The Tiers

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

The above two tiers are your current FotM builds.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

This is everyone else in the game.

Do you see the problem? When you design content that only caters to a small subset of builds, the rest of the population feels left out. Some players enjoy playing pure builds, and shouldn't be punished for doing so. The content, as it stands, isn't particularly difficult either--it's just dialed up to 9000. Designing challenging encounters isn't just about inflating monster stats and the number of mobs that spawn. There's much more to it than that, and much of the new content seems like lazy design to me (no offense).

Sirgog hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread:

The state of balance in the game is terrible.

At the 20 cap, there were several 'best' archetypes for character builds and many more that were good. To list a few, ALL of which were viable in speedruns of the harder content:

- Primarily healing divine (viable but mediocre)
- Offensive casting divine (top-notch)
- Melee divine, monk splash (solid)
- Melee divine, no splash (mediocre)
- Evasion melee warchanter (solid)
- No evasion melee warchanter (solid)
- Spellsinger with Enchantment DC casting (fringe viable)
- Spellsinger with personal melee capability (fringe)
- Rogue, TWF Khopesh all-out DPS (solid)
- Barbarian melee DPS (solid)
- 'Wall of HP' Stalwart fighter (top-notch in some raids, meh in 6 person content)
- AC/HP Stalwart fighter (solid in some raids, absolutely incredible in others)
- Barbarian 'wall of HP' tank/DPS hybrid (fringe)
- Paladin self-healing tank with or without AC (fringe)
- Enchantment WF wizard with DoTs (top-notch)
- Necro WF wizard with DoTs (top-notch)
- Necro Pale Master with Torc (the best build)

That's just a few archetypes that come to mind.

Now we have Monkchers if you want to do physical damage, and Shiradis if you want to cast spells as the ONLY top-notch builds, and Master's Blitz and Fury of the Wild as the ONLY other viable builds. Everything else is so far behind that it is ridiculous. And now content has been designed that (at least on EE) assumes all players have one of these broken builds.



The solution is simple but a lot of work.

First, nerf the hell out of Furyshot and Blitz and Shiradi, with the goal of reducing their effectiveness to at most 105% of the effectiveness of other characters.
Secondly, rebalance all of the quests that were designed under the assumption that players are using broken builds. If optimal group DPS falls from 50000 party-wide to 20000, then mobs need to lose 60% of their HP.
Third, there'll be a couple of people that whine over the nerf (despite the fact that their characters are still capable of completing quests in about the same amount of time and with the same overall difficulty). Grease the door, so that it DOES hit them on the way out. Hard. These people are poison - let them go and ruin a competing MMO.
Finally, offer some form of respec options to players whose characters are significantly broken by the change, ideally including the option to 'respec' now-useless Ranger past lives into different passive past life feats.



Edit: Perfect balance is unattainable. That is no excuse for having a situation that is so unbalanced that only 2-3 builds are even remotely viable. In Heroic levels, Sorcerers are significantly overpowered compared to every other class, but the Fighter doesn't feel totally useless in most content.

You should really listen to this. It won't be easy, but it's the right way to do things.

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. I'll leave it at that for time's sake, but I may have more to add as the discussion continues. I'm curious where other players would rate certain builds on the Tier System, but that might deserve a thread of it's own (or maybe this is the perfect place)?

[knockcocker]

What's your definition of "top notch"?

It seems for 2010 you use a fairly liberal definition including all builds capable of contributing and surviving content mostly comparable (albeit somewhat more difficult) than EH.

Yet for the current game it looks like you use data based solely on forum hype and/or solo-ability with no numbers, figures or actually facts to substantiate your argument.

I'd be to use a similar standard to determine top builds when the level cap is 20 and I'd be left with:

Best build based on forum hype: Necro Palemaster (with Enchantment secondary)
Best solo build: Necro Palemaster (with Enchantment secondary) or 18 Fvs/2 Mnk Evoker.



So, in other words, establish Sorcerers using Draconic and Enchanter Wizards running in Draconic as only top builds instead? It really depends what character you compare it to, but generally all of that has been done already:

Wizards using a combination of Enchantment and Draconic already out-perform Shiradi in effectiveness (CC ability and raw damage output).
Sorcerer running Draconic out-perform Shiradi by a good margin. There are numerous threads up showing numbers to proof it.
Centered Kensai, Kensai, Zeus and (situationally) various rogue and druid splash builds have the potential out-dps Furyshot and Monkchers. For proof see a recent thread about the Zeus build solo in Epic Elite Devils Invasion. You will be hard pressed to find a Furyshot Monkcher performing anywhere as effective in this or similiar content.



That held true in the past and holds true now but not only in heroic content. The current list of builds who perform solid (if not even top notch) in Heroics, Epic Normal, Epic Hard and Eberron Epic Elites is fairly large and not limited to the two builds you mentioned.

Shiradi is effectively an arcane dps build sacrificing reliability in Crowd Control (Nerve Venom is based on luck and cannot be reliably targeted) and raw damage for increased survivability (Evasion, Saves and SP).
Monkcher (even with Furyshot) sacrifices some dps for survivability (operating at a distance, focusing on Dodge and Incorporeal miss chance).

The issue isn't as much that Shiradi and Monkchers are overpowered as builds, but that the current endgame (Forgotten Realms) Epic elites play too heavily into their strengths.

Inflated hitpoints and enemy spellcaster DCs play straight into the strengths of Shiradi builds (less SP usage, Paladin Saves combined with Evasion).

Inflated damage output of mobs and bosses plays straight into the strengths of ranged builds (ie: Monkchers). Your Kensai may have better raw dps, but that doesn't do anything if you have to pull back and heal up ever 2.5 seconds.

There are multiple ways to achieve that balance:

* nerf like you say. Sounds easy, but there is a good chance to make things worse. For instance, nerf to Shiradi, FotW and Blitz leading to Enchanters running in Draconic becoming /the/ top build and not only in some Epic Elites, but all content from Heroic to end game raids.

* reduce enemy dcs, hitpoints and damage output would allow melees to bring their (superior) dps to bear and make them more viable again with those builds who sacrifice (some) dps for safety (distance).

* give melees better ways to mitigate damage outside of dodge and incorporeal which favors monk splashes too heavily (ie: PRR from armor, shields, defensive stances and perhaps even barbarian damage reduction).

Take your own list and then consider how many of those builds would still be viable if mobs back then would have hit with 200+ damage per swing and reflex saves would have needed to be in the 60s to work reliably.

For instance, the reason we used tanks back then is because they could meaningful mitigate incoming damage.
The reason we used various melee builds is because they too had means to cope with incoming damage.
Paladin being a front loaded class in terms of saves isn't new.
Ranged combat being more save than melee combat is not new either.
Monks always have been front loaded as well. This too is not something added recently.
Content where melees (and even heavy armor tanks) are three or four shotted by mobs with no way to mitigate that damage is new, however. Any content where this is not the case (Heroics, Epic Normal, Epic Hard and (most) Eberron Epic Elites) we have a very large variety of builds which perform solid. It is only content where this is the case (Forgotten Realms Epic Elites) that Shiradi and Monkchers appear superior.

+1

[blerkington]

Bkerlington really wants to escalate a discussion. His polemics can be turned easily. But yeah, instead of bringing up constructive mechanical arguments he/she judges everybody being a bad player, who likes to bring balance into something obviously broken by design.

Very good. Take your trollmark and please stay out of this productive debate so far.

Hi,

That is a little judgemental, don't you think?

Have a look at my first post in this thread about the shortcomings of the survey and the difficulties of evaluating whether or not an ED like shiradi is overpowered depending on other aspects of a build. There have been several other posts since then which also directly address the topic at hand.

It's funny how badly some people react to criticism, even when it's not directly aimed at them. I don't consider myself anything more than a competent player in one particular style. I am certainly nothing special, and I run with much better players every day, and I enjoy it. If you are upset because you think I consider myself an elite player, and I am lording it over you, let me assure you it is not the case.

I may have said some things which you didn't want to hear, or perhaps said them too bluntly for your liking, but I am making a contribution to this discussion as well.

The tangent of the most effective playstyle for pure or near pure rangers does in fact relate to the topic of game balance, because ranged vs melee is a very hot issue in EE endgame. Part my reason for arguing so vehemently with a couple of posters about this is because I think their lack of understanding of the game is leading them to ask for needless or harmful changes. But that of course is only my opinion.

Anyway, apologies again for any apparent derailing I've caused, and for any hurt feelings too.

Thanks.

[lammbo]

No its not the same.

People that don't post on the forum don't want their opinion to be listened to.
Otherwise, they would speak up.
They're silent, so they don't care.

Incorrect. Some of us don't visit the forums frequently because we would rather spend our valuable time playing DDO rather than spending hours and hours trolling in the forum. These forums are practically worthless because of the trolls that post so much unnecessary b.s. make it takes hours to read through it to get to something useful. Just because we don't post often doesn't mean we don't care.

Regarding the main point/OP:

If you want better balance, fix EE mobs killing tank builds in 2 hits. Allowed balance parties to have a chance rather than requiring a party to be filled with Monkchers and Shiradi casters so you can range mobs. If more of your developers/producers PLAYED the game they are writing, you would all understand this. Quick deaths on EE because the mob double/triple hits you for 700 each swing is the reason people don't play melee anymore IMO.

Play the game more if you want to understand the issue. Make some toons and gear them up and go do any EE stuff at level and you may understand the actual issue. Give yourselves all past lives and destinies and you'll see that it doesn't even make much more of a difference. That Kensai DPS beast is useless when you take 1 hit and die.

[Ithaquah]

I don't think we need balance across characters. DDO is based on Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D 3.5), and we never really had balance in the tabletop game, but it all kind of works out.

A level one fighter is generally more powerful than a level one wizard. But a level 18 wizard is much more powerful than a level 18 fighter, usually. In any case, it's all situational.

To me, balance comes from grouping and the party makeup.

[Uska]

Not really - certainly not in terms of DPS. It's popular because it works, is SP efficient and doesn't require stupid high DCs.



This I fully agree with.

Devs, take kill count out of the game, please.

Kill count doesn't need to be taken out just changed to a total killed by party not listed by individual