The Official Warchanter Lamannia Feedback Thread

[IronClan]

If you think Soundburst is on the same level as an AoE Stunning Blow ability...then we are on completely different levels here. Soundburst is a spell, this is a tactic ability...

We are on different levels, I'm on the level that understands that Soundburst (in addition to other Bard spells like Greater shout) gives stuns in an AOE with helpless damage and that the difference between a spell and a tactical ability are purely semantic, and you're on the level that thinks there's some difference because they are named differently.

[bbqzor]

That reasoning doesn't work: a character being good at ability X does not prove that giving them further similar abilities won't hurt the game. Monks are good at stunning single monsters, but it would be a pretty bad idea to give them new Stunning Knee and Stunning Elbow feats simply because they already have SF.

This isnt giving bards new abilities which dont share a timer, use the same dc calculation, and lead to an inflated ability to do something they already do. Which is what your example does. Its giving bards who take T5 in different trees a parallel ability, which uses totally different calculations, meaning that even if one or the other caters to a certain build, there is no build which could readily max both, even if it could somehow take both, leading to any inflation at all.

So its not like your example at all. It would be like giving monks another stunning fist which runs off int, which is useful for pale master vampire ninjas (oh feather, lol), and taking it locks out taking regular stun. Totally different situation.

The new Warchanter design just came out this week.

Here is the thread, from about a month ago, detailing the upcoming changes for feedback.

Here is the post, from 2-3 weeks ago, detailing that they would consider incorporating tactics into this ability.

The feedback on such things is also in that thead. From way more than a week ago. This wasn't some new thing which just got thought of, it was a revision theyve had on the table for awhile, and finally decided to move on. That doesnt make it any more likeable (as Ive said, Id rather it not go down that road), but its not a new concept and was already debated a lot in that thread. The issue isnt this suddenly making fighter worse by comparison, its that this idea is bad on its own merits, and fighter tactics need looking at independent of whatever happens in warchanter.

[Cetus]

We are on different levels, I'm on the level that understands that Soundburst (in addition to other Bard spells like Greater shout) gives stuns in an AOE with helpless damage and that the difference between a spell and a tactical ability are purely semantic, and you're on the level that thinks there's some difference because they are named differently.

Well, this whole helpless thing has been gradually GIFTED to bards

Soundburst used to not make things helpless, that change came around

Greater shout never made mobs helpless either, I don't think it does yet - did they change that too?

The difference between a cc spell and a cc tactic is exactly that - ones a spell, used by a casting type, who has a DC to work for, and the other is used by a melee toon - with his or her weapon, which also had its own DC to work toward.

Looks like the latter have almost none of those.

[Scrabbler]

This isnt giving bards new abilities which dont share a timer, use the same dc calculation, and lead to an inflated ability to do something they already do. Which is what your example does. Its giving bards who take T5 in different trees a parallel ability

That's incorrect, because the comparison is between Old Bards and New Bards, not between New Spellsinger and New Warchanter. Compared to existing Bards, the new ones get another AOE Helpless that doesn't share a timer and possibly does lead to inflated abilities. The DC calculation may or may not be the same, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on situation.

Here is the thread, from about a month ago, detailing the upcoming changes for feedback.

It was only this week that they decided to raise the DCs on these abilities, which is when they became powerful and important.

[Bridge_Dweller]

Greater shout never made mobs helpless either, I don't think it does yet - did they change that too?

Wrong.

[G_Lich]

I think devs are already seeing Swash/Fighter setups of varying degrees, and they're responding w/ adding tactics, and appropriate reaction, but I do think fighters should get something similar/better than the WC ice line.

Fighter is still lacking, we can all agree... Requiring a splash into Monk for the tree was very odd, and only ninja spy I think shared the "Go take some of this other class to make this work well" mindset.

[bbqzor]

That's incorrect, because the comparison is between Old Bards and New Bards, not between New Spellsinger and New Warchanter. Compared to existing Bards, the new ones get another AOE Helpless that doesn't share a timer and possibly does lead to inflated abilities. The DC calculation may or may not be the same, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on situation.

So then wheres all the complaints that mass hold is overpowered for bards? There are none, people just latched on to tactics. Which is the point: its semantics. If you want to write up a well reasoned post why bards getting mass hold is OP, and it holds up, Ill rescind my point of view. But I seriously doubt thats possible, because its not OP, and by extension neither is this as by definition this cannot reach as high a DC, nor can it be taken at the same time as the other one. If youre trying to say "new bard is OP compared to old bard" independent of all other classes on that statement alone, well, I suspect youll find a great many people feel differently. Its why the class showed up so low in the polls, and is getting revised right now as we speak. Its supposed to wind up better... thats the point.

It was only this week that they decided to raise the DCs on these abilities, which is when they became powerful and important.

If things have to become powerful before they are important and worthy of feedback, youre missing the point of feedback, and why bard itself is getting a revision (it wasnt powerful or important enough). The previously linked thread had a great many discussions about the DC which lead to this point. If this point was too powerful, there was plenty of time to say so in the other thread before landing here. As all the complaints started *after* the change to include tactics, which, in almost all cases barring multiple past lives or stacking destiny work, resulted in a lower overall DC... Id dare say the complaints are missing the point. Its a weaker overall version, which is more accessible to multiclass characters at the expense of a lot of character-building resources. They should go back to a version which doesnt depend on multiple past lives and destiny twists to function. But it has nothing to do with this week it "became powerful and important"... its something thats been said since the linked post. Just as they decided to move on it, they could decide to move back, and I hope they do.

But for the right reasons, not because "its OP". No one has yet made any real case where its actually OP... just saying its better than it was. Thats the idea. That other classes may also need revisions is almost certainly true. Everyone is, essentially, on the first draft of their enhancement overpass. Bards are finally hitting a second draft. Just ride along folks, theyre going down the line.

[Takllin]

Wrong.

It dazes them, it does not make them helpless.

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.

A rough calculation with a friend, a Pure Bard can get almost an 80 DC for this Spinning Ice Attack....with just the first tier, as I am not sure what the second and third tiers give for the DC pertaining to the 1/2 Bard level. It could get a lot higher as well, we left out a bunch of things. Easily into the mid-high 80s, possibly mid 90s if the third tier gives full Bard level.

[Cetus]

Wrong.

You sure about that?

[Seikojin]

Well, this whole helpless thing has been gradually GIFTED to bards

Soundburst used to not make things helpless, that change came around

Greater shout never made mobs helpless either, I don't think it does yet - did they change that too?

The difference between a cc spell and a cc tactic is exactly that - ones a spell, used by a casting type, who has a DC to work for, and the other is used by a melee toon - with his or her weapon, which also had its own DC to work toward.

Looks like the latter have almost none of those.

CC for a melee is agro and mititgation as far as I am concerned. Stuns, dazes, etc, should exist for melee in different forms (overrun, overwhelm, etc), and probably are in the works (vanguard, shieldbeaerer, etc). So right now, bards are flavor of the month. After lvl 30 is out, things will be more balanced and correct. Why nerf something now, buff it later, when you can have it strong now, and spend more time putting the remaining new things out.

[Takllin]

CC for a melee is agro and mititgation as far as I am concerned. Stuns, dazes, etc, should exist for melee in different forms (overrun, overwhelm, etc), and probably are in the works (vanguard, shieldbeaerer, etc). So right now, bards are flavor of the month. After lvl 30 is out, things will be more balanced and correct. Why nerf something now, buff it later, when you can have it strong now, and spend more time putting the remaining new things out.

Those are Sword and Board trees....not tactical trees which is what Kensai is. Who is going to want to put points into a Defensive or Offensive Sword and Board tree just to get a tactical feat? That's pointless, and does not help the myriad of other types of builds which use tactics....

[FlaviusMaximus]

I'm looking for the Fighter enhancement thread. Have I come to the right place?

[Cetus]

CC for a melee is agro and mititgation as far as I am concerned. Stuns, dazes, etc, should exist for melee in different forms (overrun, overwhelm, etc), and probably are in the works (vanguard, shieldbeaerer, etc). So right now, bards are flavor of the month. After lvl 30 is out, things will be more balanced and correct. Why nerf something now, buff it later, when you can have it strong now, and spend more time putting the remaining new things out.

Perhaps you're right, but as long as I am able to voice my concerns over them, I'll do it - instead of hoping that the pendulum swings back.

I don't want nerfs - I want the devs to simply make up their minds about the niche each class is supposed to fill.

This is kinda whats on my mind...

Sorcs - Nuking Gods

Wizards - DC gods

Fighters - master tacticians

barbs - Kings of melee DPS

Bards - masters of party buffage, and DECENT at melee/cc

things like that, I think that if the devs can create a goal for each class and where they should be with respect to one another, we'll have a healthier series of enhancements updates in the future.

[bbqzor]

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.

And this is exactly why I think it should remain a non-tactics based formula. Trying to incorporate tactics comes at the expense of bard, in a lot of ways. And its a T5 bard ability, which should identify heavily with warchanter. That doesnt say tactics in any way, imho. I recognize its a compromise to try and include multiclass cases, but I feel a better solution could be had, rather than going down this road which is only going to lead to more problems (does stunning work, does combat mastery work, do fighter past lives work, does legendary tactics work... if yes to any of those, should they be required to get a legit dc, should bard have to go fighter levels or dwarf or warforged to use this ability, etc etc etc).

Its a long list of what-ifs with little to no gain spent debating them and then coding them. Quivering Palm still doesnt work right (combat mastery doesnt work on it, and it should, specifically, it was officially noted multiple places and Ill go digging if I need to devs, please fix it already). If the monk abilities arent working right, why even start doing the same kind of piecemeal code to bard abilities?

Stick with what works for bards, and fits with bards. Do full bard levels, half non-bard, or some other multiclass friendly formula. Dont shoehorn tactics in, its not a good fit.

A rough calculation with a friend, a Pure Bard can get almost an 80 DC for this Spinning Ice Attack....with just the first tier, as I am not sure what the second and third tiers give for the DC pertaining to the 1/2 Bard level. It could get a lot higher as well, we left out a bunch of things. Easily into the mid-high 80s, possibly mid 90s if the third tier gives full Bard level.

Will reserve anything like this until I can test the next Lama version and see what actually is and isnt working off that huge list above rather than what one expects should work, if this change even goes in. Im hoping its repealed before it gets to that point as its a can of worms that just doesnt need opening, in addition to being the opposite of flavorful. That being said, if it ramps up to full bard levels with 12 AP into it, that could lead to a situation where it might need rethinking for another reason. Bards getting a group cc is fine. Bards getting a group cc with a dc 14 higher than stunning fist because 'math' is something Im not sure I would call fine for the games overall long term health... and doubly so when its at the expense of pursuing a bard identity otherwise.

[Takllin]

I'm looking for the Fighter enhancement thread. Have I come to the right place?

I'm not sure, you tell me...what does the title say? Have something productive to add?

And this is exactly why I think it should remain a non-tactics based formula. Trying to incorporate tactics comes at the expense of bard, in a lot of ways. And its a T5 bard ability, which should identify heavily with warchanter. That doesnt say tactics in any way, imho. I recognize its a compromise to try and include multiclass cases, but I feel a better solution could be had, rather than going down this road which is only going to lead to more problems (does stunning work, does combat mastery work, do fighter past lives work, does legendary tactics work... if yes to any of those, should they be required to get a legit dc, should bard have to go fighter levels or dwarf or warforged to use this ability, etc etc etc).

Its a long list of what-ifs with little to no gain spent debating them and then coding them. Quivering Palm still doesnt work right (combat mastery doesnt work on it, and it should, specifically, it was officially noted multiple places and Ill go digging if I need to devs, please fix it already). If the monk abilities arent working right, why even start doing the same kind of piecemeal code to bard abilities?

Stick with what works for bards, and fits with bards. Do full bard levels, half non-bard, or some other multiclass friendly formula. Dont shoehorn tactics in, its not a good fit.


Will reserve anything like this until I can test the next Lama version and see what actually is and isnt working off that huge list above rather than what one expects should work, if this change even goes in. Im hoping its repealed before it gets to that point as its a can of worms that just doesnt need opening, in addition to being the opposite of flavorful. That being said, if it ramps up to full bard levels with 12 AP into it, that could lead to a situation where it might need rethinking for another reason. Bards getting a group cc is fine. Bards getting a group cc with a dc 14 higher than stunning fist because 'math' is something Im not sure I would call fine for the games overall long term health... and doubly so when its at the expense of pursuing a bard identity otherwise.

14 Base + 20 Bard + 28 CHA Mod + 10 Ring + 6 Combat Mastery + 6 LD Tactics + 3 Bladeforged + 2 Tactician + 1 Echoes Twist + 3 Fighter PL + 2 Fearsome Bladeforged = 95 DC for the Spinning Ice and Frozen Fury

[bbqzor]

14 Base + 20 Bard + 28 CHA Mod + 10 Ring + 6 Combat Mastery + 6 LD Tactics + 3 Bladeforged + 2 Tactician + 1 Echoes Twist + 3 Fighter PL + 2 Fearsome Bladeforged = 95 DC for the Spinning Ice and Frozen Fury

Yea, if it goes to full bard levels, if you go all cha (which means you may be hurting at trying to use all those tactics for any of the other tactical maneuvers), if all of those modifiers apply and not just +stunning, and if theyre not fear immune. You could also go 18 bard / 2 fighter and gain 1 more with kensei tactics (dont think the capstone gave out 2 cha now, if it does ignore this line). You could get 3 more by running in GMoF as well, although then the build gets even more impractical just to get on-paper dc values.

Point is, stunning fist has a practical use value of low 70s if you build after it, and a practical maximal value of low 80s. This needs to be EE viable, but landing in the 90s is too far. As are all those things in that list which have nothing to do with bard and really shouldnt impact this ability at all (ie, the tactics). Why should a bard want to spend an epic feat, 2 twists, and past lives become a paladin-centric robot, which he has to double LR to remove the alignment and class levels, all to make a bard ability better. Exactly.

Fighters still deserve some tactics attention at some point, regardless of the above. Precisely because its a bit underwhelming in many areas (seriously who even uses hamstring and sunder, and why is none of it multi-target at any point, for fighters). But I think everyone can agree that a fighter/gmof hybrid having the best bard ability is a wrong turn on the design road. The DC can be good without tactics, and without it potentially getting so high (if it indeed will even work that way, its all a guess at the moment).

[DagazUlf]

I'm looking for the Fighter enhancement thread. Have I come to the right place?

Since all of these development changes should be looked at "in toto", then yes. Adding things in one tree obviously can affect others, and Fighters are currently in a poor state of affairs if you want to run a pure class for a viable capstone or wish to do anything really tactical based on existing enhancements.

So, tossing out interesting tactical options to another class's tree is definitely something that affects others, and Fighters rather glaringly.

[maddmatt70]

I do not see anything wrong with Bards getting an aoe stunning ability just as I think Fighters should get tactic love in their third tree. I am not sure why there is all this clamor for a bunch of shield oriented trees. Just buff the existing shield trees in the Paladin and Fighter class where appropriate and add a non shield third tree for each class. The third fighter tree could be tactic oriented.

[Lifespawn]

That's incorrect, because the comparison is between Old Bards and New Bards, not between New Spellsinger and New Warchanter. Compared to existing Bards, the new ones get another AOE Helpless that doesn't share a timer and possibly does lead to inflated abilities. The DC calculation may or may not be the same, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on situation.


It was only this week that they decided to raise the DCs on these abilities, which is when they became useful and not a waste to discuss.

fixed that for you
14 base
10 20 bard
11 stunning item
5 combat mastery
20 50 cha

6 twist ld
3 ftr past lives
2 dwarf or wf tactics due to lower cha
71 mod what am i missing?

thats a good dc but very hard to get i'm sure it can be higher but thats still 2 items a twist and staying pure bard

splashing 2 ftr will get you 3 dc for 11 ap but you lose 1 for not being 20 bard thats a decent but ap costly choice

granted it is aoe so that makes it much more useful than single target

cooldown?

[Nayus]

The difference between a cc spell and a cc tactic is exactly that - ones a spell, used by a casting type, who has a DC to work for, and the other is used by a melee toon - with his or her weapon, which also had its own DC to work toward.

I must disagree, this is a RPG Game with magic, multiclassing and the ability to be a Magister Barbarian or a Legendary Dreadnought Sorcerer, I'll use whichever option is more efficient for me. For example a Melee Cleric will do more damage using spells with 8 WIS, 8 CHA and a single spell power augment than with a throwing axe with his 60+ STR so why would he pull the axe?

I'm a bard and I'm currently playing in Exalted Angel to farm Divine Karma, I don't have cleave (I could access a tree cleave though, but tried it out and didn't like it) but either way my Divine Wrath does so much damage that I don't think I'd activate my Cleave if I had one. I'm a melee and never even throught about using a damage spell, let alone something that isn't sonic. If you say Bards are casters then it's half-right but they're not divine casters and certainly do not use fire spells.

PS: Is it a Tier 4 or Tier 5 ability? o.o'