The Official Warchanter Lamannia Feedback Thread

[maddmatt70]

I really hope that pdk tactics doesn't make it 4/3 charisma instead of charisma.

I really don't think they should be using perform dcs for stuns. If anything it should be half of perform with half charisma (meaning half perform ranks and item plus full charisma).

Why charisma at all? Strength, dexterity, and constitution are at least as relevant as charisma to a melee warchanter bard so why is this charisma based?

[Seikojin]

Even with proper cha and perform, you will have mobs that save, so the dc formula seems fine. I do think fighters need boosting to be fit back in as a tactical fighter. Trip procs, stunning blow procs, and intimidate procs all should be something fighters do naturally.

[Cetus]

Sorry, can you link a video where you're using a Sword of Shadows in each hand? I thought it was a single weapon too!!!

I apologize for my lack of knowledge, I simply wasn't aware you could dual-wield two-handed weapons!


You speak of balance but you said it yourself you'd just ragequit for a week and go human if they nerf Bladeforged, what balance is this you talk about? Why aren't you calling nerfs to Monks and Shadow-Phase?

Because I'm not asking for nerfs, I'm asking for THF to be as much better than SWF at AoE damage as SWF is better than it against a single target.

Comprende?

I think the problem is you expect maxed dps and dps boosting abilities like mass stunning blow to be on a x/monk/pali BF with immunities to a ton of things

Sigh...

Why even reply to me if you don't digest the points I've been making.

Again,
In my view, something like a mass stunning blow would've been a great ability to incentivize a heavier investment into the fighter class INSTEAD of stopping at 12 and splashing monk/pally; since you know - they're supposed to, in my view, be great melee tacticians (I read the previous response mentioning pnp and how this deviates from that, but I don't know a single thing about pnp, just going off of where I saw the fighter fit in over the years).

But never fear, if you want a max dps build I've already carved one out for you. The midicholirian count is over 20,000. Take Critzilla, and convert it to SWF melee, taking the dex to damage thrown halfling enhancement and replacing it with Killer for more double strike. Twist consecrate-sacred ground and sense weakness into LD, and you should hit a level of dps that has never before been seen in this game on a non-druid melee.

No thanks, I tend to craft my own builds.

[mezzorco]

Because I'm not asking for nerfs, I'm asking for THF.

**** it, cetus.
You're asking for THF
IN
A
BARD
THREAD.

(well, in all bard threads)

Please, stop the whining.

[Dagolar]

I also used to play a pure fighter. I would also like to go back to pure fighter.

Fighter got the following:
Bull Rush - no
Stunning/daze cleave/aoe - no
AoE Sunder - no
AoE trips - no
Special cleave attacks - no
Glancing Blows while moving - no
Self Healing - no
Hybird Fighter/Monk tree - yes
Evasion part of Fighter/Monk tree capstone - no
2nd tree that does something - yes

Would you like to give them the ability to fly and shoot fireballs out of their eyes, as well?

I'm not necessarily poking at the validity of the inclusion of such things, but rather, that once you get that far from core considerations of a class thematic, you may as well write down anything that pops to mind.
In other words, evasion has as much to do with fighters as literally anything else does.

It's not that they should or shouldn't have it, it's that listing it as something they didn't get doesn't make any sense.

[Dagolar]

To the people who think its just semantics between a Tactic and a Spell, I really have no words for you...Bards are supposed to use Spells and Songs as their CC, not Tactics. They require completely different character creation, feats, enhancements, ED and gear layout.

By what consideration?
True, even in pen and paper, bards didn't specialize in special combat maneuvers- rather, they were openly accessible to every single class and could be improved by fairly openly accessible PRCs which had no real limiting basis.

On the other hand, bards had immense access to skill-based actual tactical maneuvers, via their knowledges, social skills, and other similar perks. Playing a bard in pen and paper is generally akin to being a walking encyclopedia alongside being a master manipulator.

Since those traits don't- can't- transfer to DDO, it makes sense to offer substitutes.

On the flip side, specialized prestiges in PnP per each core class do give abilities that are suited for the class, but similar in effect to that of other class prcs.

Y'know, like stunning aoes or something?

There really isn't any sort of 'supposed to' that exists in 3rd edition, and is the highlight of the edition.
As far as what's 'supposed' to exist in DDO, the only truth in DDO is that things change.
And generally, for the better [deteriorating game stability and old-epic/old-raid item devaluation aside].

Given how loosely 'crowd control' has been thrown around lately, it definitely feels like such things have become a matter of semantics.
That said, special attacks should get more focus. It'd definitely give fighters a much needed boost in their functionality and flavor.

But it really has nothing to do with what other classes get- arguing that bards shouldn't get special physical abilities is right in line with arguing that casters shouldn't get access to spellsword paths.
There seems to be a linearity of thought among some DDO players that just simply doesn't exist in the source material, which allows you to freely blend playstyles.
Expecting DDO to hold to that linearity doesn't really make sense.

Or, put another way; Stop worrying about bards stealing your jobs [along with the usual stealing of your romantic interests], and stop making a major fuss over how fighters get no love and how it's all woeful and dismal, and simply state outright "I feel fighters would benefit from more of a special attack focus in the near future. I feel fighters are underrepresented in ability at the moment. I feel TWF is underpowered and look forward to seeing it improve." [*All points I fully agree on.]

It's GOOD to get our opinions out as soon as possible, but angsting over how things don't compare evenly without actually giving the devs and council a chance to rebalance or further develop things is just.. silly.
Especially in expecting SWF (for non-finesse) and THF to not get more attention soon- that seems a poor bet.
And it's not like being patient prevents the point from being made later on.

Here, have a kobold.
Yark.

[N-0cturn]

I really don't understand this discussion.

I think we all agree that bards should have better CC than pure melee classes. Spinning Ice is CC. The DC get's boosted by tactical bonuses but that does not change what it does.

The reason why I think a DC that includes a boost by tactical bonuses is a good idea is that you have to invest to max it. If the DC would be only X + Cha or even Perform it would be easier for bards to get a high DC than for other classes with similar abilities. I would not have picked stunning, because it is already a bit over-used but that's another thing.

They could have picked + Evocation Boost and adjusted the formula accordingly, so we have a working DC with investment (Items, Past Lifes ...). In that case we would not have this discussion where the ability suddenly becomes an aoe stun tactic that has been taken away from the fighter class.

They probably picked a tactic because Warchanter are more focused on melee than spellcasting.

PS: Anything about THF vs SWF is really not related to this thread.

[Cetus]

**** it, cetus.
You're asking for THF
IN
A
BARD
THREAD.

(well, in all bard threads)

Please, stop the whining.

I'm not whining, merely stating a position to which the very same people respond who say "thread derailment".

If you want to stop derailing the thread, then why do you keep propagating an off-topic discussion?

[Takllin]

By what consideration?
True, even in pen and paper, bards didn't specialize in special combat maneuvers- rather, they were openly accessible to every single class and could be improved by fairly openly accessible PRCs which had no real limiting basis.

On the other hand, bards had immense access to skill-based actual tactical maneuvers, via their knowledges, social skills, and other similar perks. Playing a bard in pen and paper is generally akin to being a walking encyclopedia alongside being a master manipulator.

Since those traits don't- can't- transfer to DDO, it makes sense to offer substitutes.

On the flip side, specialized prestiges in PnP per each core class do give abilities that are suited for the class, but similar in effect to that of other class prcs.

Y'know, like stunning aoes or something?

There really isn't any sort of 'supposed to' that exists in 3rd edition, and is the highlight of the edition.
As far as what's 'supposed' to exist in DDO, the only truth in DDO is that things change.
And generally, for the better [deteriorating game stability and old-epic/old-raid item devaluation aside].

Given how loosely 'crowd control' has been thrown around lately, it definitely feels like such things have become a matter of semantics.
That said, special attacks should get more focus. It'd definitely give fighters a much needed boost in their functionality and flavor.

But it really has nothing to do with what other classes get- arguing that bards shouldn't get special physical abilities is right in line with arguing that casters shouldn't get access to spellsword paths.
There seems to be a linearity of thought among some DDO players that just simply doesn't exist in the source material, which allows you to freely blend playstyles.
Expecting DDO to hold to that linearity doesn't really make sense.

Or, put another way; Stop worrying about bards stealing your jobs [along with the usual stealing of your romantic interests], and stop making a major fuss over how fighters get no love and how it's all woeful and dismal, and simply state outright "I feel fighters would benefit from more of a special attack focus in the near future. I feel fighters are underrepresented in ability at the moment. I feel TWF is underpowered and look forward to seeing it improve." [*All points I fully agree on.]

It's GOOD to get our opinions out as soon as possible, but angsting over how things don't compare evenly without actually giving the devs and council a chance to rebalance or further develop things is just.. silly.
Especially in expecting SWF (for non-finesse) and THF to not get more attention soon- that seems a poor bet.
And it's not like being patient prevents the point from being made later on.

Here, have a kobold.
Yark.

I don't think it fits in the Warchanter tree either, this is not just an issue of Fighters vs Bards. It is an OP ability. It's essentially a much, much better version of Lay Waste. Not to mention, I have said before, and agree with madmatt, weird, I know, that it should be STR based, not CHA. Warchanter tree is for melee bards, which almost always have to dump CHA. If they are going to keep it in the tree, which, I'm assuming they will.

Also for the people who are arguing over the THF/SWF....You do realize that Bards use THF as well right? My main is a THF Warchanter...

[N-0cturn]

I don't think it fits in the Warchanter tree either, this is not just an issue of Fighters vs Bards. It is an OP ability. It's essentially a much, much better version of Lay Waste. Not to mention, I have said before, and agree with madmatt, weird, I know, that it should be STR based, not CHA. Warchanter tree is for melee bards, which almost always have to dump CHA. If they are going to keep it in the tree, which, I'm assuming they will.

Also for the people who are arguing over the THF/SWF....You do realize that Bards use THF as well right? My main is a THF Warchanter...

I disagree with this for two reasons:

1. Flavor: This is still a magical effect and therefore should use the main casting stat of bards and not strength, which does not seem related to the flavor of the ability at all. I possibly could agree with Con because of the Cold flavor, but Cha makes most sense.

2. Balance: With being Cha based this only gives a viable CC option to Warchanter. You could also go Spellsinger for Mass Hold etc. However with Strength this would hold the potential for a Divine Might split that reaches a much higher DC then a pure bard. I really love the 16/2/2 split but don't think it should have a higher DC for bard abilities.

Regarding OP:

I guess in this case the Hold Monster, mass SLA in Spellsinger is OP as well? CC is one of the things were bards are supposed to be good in. We can argue about the DC formula if it is appropriate, but I don't think an CC ability that makes enemies in an aoe helpless is OP in a Bard T5.

[Cordovan]

Stay on topic. Do not discuss fighters, TWF/THF/SWF, or anything not related to the Warchanter changes in this thread.

[Scrabbler]

Also for the people who are arguing over the THF/SWF....You do realize that Bards use THF as well right? My main is a THF Warchanter...

But would new Warchanter characters continue to use THF in the future, if they don't already have a big collection of 2h weapons like you? It looks to me like Warchanters with THF, TWF, or S&B are pretty close to non-viable.

Being a Bard means you can get some enormous bonuses to SWF combat for just a few more AP into Swash (since a melee build will already want many Swash enhancements like doublestrike, dodge, fast running, and demand-crit attacks), so it's hard to justify Warchanters using any other style. It would be like trying to make a THF Ranger: you're missing out on a lot of your powerful class features, and for what?

I think they should edit Warchanter tier 5 to add some melee bonuses specific to non-SWF combat, to help builds like yours stay reasonable.

[Scrabbler]

Stay on topic. Do not discuss fighters, TWF/THF/SWF, or anything not related to the Warchanter changes in this thread.

Say, can you folks tell us if the PDK ability to increase the DC of tactical feats will also increase Warchanter enhancement DC?


I think that PDK feature should only apply to abilities which are Strength-based to start with... clearly that's the theme of the feature...

[Takllin]

But would new Warchanter characters continue to use THF in the future, if they don't already have a big collection of 2h weapons like you? It looks to me like Warchanters with THF, TWF, or S&B are pretty close to non-viable.

Being a Bard means you can get some enormous bonuses to SWF combat for just a few more AP into Swash (since a melee build will already want many Swash enhancements like doublestrike, dodge, fast running, and demand-crit attacks), so it's hard to justify Warchanters using any other style. It would be like trying to make a THF Ranger: you're missing out on a lot of your powerful class features, and for what?

I think they should edit Warchanter tier 5 to add some melee bonuses specific to non-SWF combat, to help builds like yours stay reasonable.

Very true, but at the same time, it is hard to invest enough into Swashbuckler and Warchanter to get the most out of both trees. Currently I have 34 in WC, 12 in Spellsinger(Spellsong Trance and Scroll Mastery) and 7 in Swashbuckler(3% Dodge, Fast Movement), the rest is spread across Kensai/PDK and 2 in Warpriest for DM.

It's partially why I think Improved Power Attack should be added into the Warchanter tree, a nice little buff that would make THF more enticing for Bards instead of SWF/Swashbuckling. Or add some kind of multi-selector, that increases Glancing Blow damage, TWF to hit/damage. I know Varg posted before that he didn't want to do that, but I really think it is worth taking another look at.

[Scrabbler]

I guess in this case the Hold Monster, mass SLA in Spellsinger is OP as well?

The Mass Hold SLA doesn't offer several of the reasons to say that Spinning Ice is overpowered, such as ignoring SR, working on creatures immune to paralysis / mental effects, and having alternate DC sources.

(Maybe Frozen Fury and Spinning Ice don't ignore SR? I thought they did)

[Takllin]

The Mass Hold SLA doesn't offer several of the reasons to say that Spinning Ice is overpowered, such as ignoring SR, working on creatures immune to paralysis / mental effects, and having alternate DC sources.

(Maybe Frozen Fury and Spinning Ice don't ignore SR? I thought they did)

Yeah they do ignore SR. I concur on the sentiments though, Mass Hold SLA is not OP.

[Nascoe]

Stay on topic. Do not discuss fighters, TWF/THF/SWF, or anything not related to the Warchanter changes in this thread.

Sorry for being off topic a bit, but that last post of yours is not showing up in the Lamannia dev tracker!

[Shinjiteru]

Ok... I thought again about the DC formula for frozen fury...

Warchanters only have fascinate and irresistable dance as CC optios with the standard warchanter builds who don't have cha as their main stat. I know someone posted a longer list, but in one of my earlier posts I already tried to show that the other abilities were either part of other bard trees or needed maxed cha to use them.

I also understand that turbine was going for cha mod because of the flavor with bard and stuff.

So... since the swashbuckler DCs seem not to be overpowered, why not just give the frozen fury enhancements the same DC formula? Would probably easiest way to fix this DC discussion so there only remains the discussion why warchanters are getting a 3rd CC ability. And from my point of view it's only a second because fascinate is not viable in most groups I usually play in.

[Scrabbler]

Very true, but at the same time, it is hard to invest enough into Swashbuckler and Warchanter to get the most out of both trees.

Even if you are THF, you'll want 2 Swashbuckler cores for 2% Doublestrike and +1 damage; so you'd already have the +1 crit mult +1 crit threat to SWF. Then assuming you want the Doublestrike Action Boost at some point (useful for any melee), it is only one more AP to get another 10% SWF Doublestrike. Those are seriously large bonuses, similar to what you'd see in tier 5 of other trees.

(Note: This is on-topic because it is pushing towards Warchanter melee buffs)

the rest is spread across Kensai/PDK and 2 in Warpriest for DM.

Since you have several non-Bard levels, it is easier for your build to justify not using SWF. I'd like it if even a pure Bard Warchanter could find THF / TWF to be acceptable choices.

It's partially why I think Improved Power Attack should be added into the Warchanter tree, a nice little buff that would make THF more enticing for Bards instead of SWF/Swashbuckling. Or add some kind of multi-selector, that increases Glancing Blow damage, TWF to hit/damage.

I think it should be quite a bit stronger than Imp PA. That Combat Style Multiselector is what I recommend (it would have choices for TWF, THF, S&B, maybe even Longbow, but not SWF).

[Takllin]

Ok... I thought again about the DC formula for frozen fury...

Warchanters only have fascinate and irresistable dance as CC optios with the standard warchanter builds who don't have cha as their main stat. I know someone posted a longer list, but in one of my earlier posts I already tried to show that the other abilities were either part of other bard trees or needed maxed cha to use them.

I also understand that turbine was going for cha mod because of the flavor with bard and stuff.

So... since the swashbuckler DCs seem not to be overpowered, why not just give the frozen fury enhancements the same DC formula? Would probably easiest way to fix this DC discussion so there only remains the discussion why warchanters are getting a 3rd CC ability. And from my point of view it's only a second because fascinate is not viable in most groups I usually play in.

Mmmm, perform + d20 I think is overpowered...I think using a skill for a DC is poor design...you can get very high skill numbers, much higher than the no fail range.

Even if you are THF, you'll want 2 Swashbuckler cores for 2% Doublestrike and +1 damage; so you'd already have the +1 crit mult +1 crit threat to SWF. Then assuming you want the Doublestrike Action Boost at some point (useful for any melee), it is only one more AP to get another 10% SWF Doublestrike. Those are seriously large bonuses, similar to what you'd see in tier 5 of other trees.

(Note: This is on-topic because it is pushing towards Warchanter melee buffs)


I think it should be quite a bit stronger than Imp PA. That Combat Style Multiselector is what I recommend (it would have choices for TWF, THF, S&B, maybe even Longbow, but not SWF).

You can't use the second core of Swashbuckling, it requires wielding a one handed finessable weapon.

I agree too, what I meant to suggest, is adding both of those abilities. Take out the 1d6 cold one, I know its for flavor, but its pretty weak.