The Official Warchanter Lamannia Feedback Thread

[Scrabbler]

How the HELL do bards gain access to a mass stunning blow effect before FIGHTERS do??????????
This is ridiculous

Yeah, it is excessive in a way. I was really pushing for Warchanter Frozen Fury to get a DC similar to Stunning Fist, on the reasoning that Bards could never splash Monk and get it directly. But even that one I didn't want to benefit from Stunning items...

So the devs do that, make it better with Stunning items, then need to fill in a t5 slot so they produce an AOE version too! And Bards already had at least two ways to cause AOE helplessness...

Perhaps it would be better if Spinning Ice caused Slow on the enemies (like what happens to players who stand near a White Dragon)

PS. Knowing that Warchanter is supposedly the "worst enhancement tree of all" may make people less likely to point out when changes are too strong?

[mezzorco]

How the HELL do bards gain access to a mass stunning blow effect before FIGHTERS do??????????

This is ridiculous

Yeah, warchanters are already ridiculously overpowered, nerf plz and give more love to FIGHTERS!!!!11!!

-.-'

[Seikojin]

Yeah, it is excessive in a way. I was really pushing for Warchanter Frozen Fury to get a DC similar to Stunning Fist, on the reasoning that Bards could never splash Monk and get it directly. But even that one I didn't want to benefit from Stunning items...

So the devs do that, make it better with Stunning items, then need to fill in a t5 slot so they produce an AOE version too! And Bards already had at least two ways to cause AOE helplessness...

Perhaps it would be better if Spinning Ice caused Slow on the enemies (like what happens to players who stand near a White Dragon)

PS. Knowing that Warchanter is supposedly the "worst enhancement tree of all" may make people less likely to point out when changes are too strong?

Oooor, when fighters get their enhancement pass, they too will have the t5 power that bards are getting.

[Seikojin]

Yeah, warchanters are already ridiculously overpowered, nerf plz and give more love to FIGHTERS!!!!11!!

-.-'

Just splash bard and your fighter becomes uuber. That's what paladins did.

[poltt48]

Okay love the changes other then the capstone. Capstone is useless in this tree if does not stack with aura. Why the hell do I want a capstone that does not stack with every other enhancement in the tree?

[Shinjiteru]

Isn't every splash on a paladin making you stronger? :P

@Cetus: Blame it on the swashbuckler tree. Try to see it from the perspective of a warchanter looking at the swashbuckler tree... there is some really strong stun and instakill that is using the PERFORM skill for DC... They just take the enhancements and are good to go, the warchanter still has to invest in good gear to get the DC working in endgame content.

And the people who say bards already have fascinate as AoE CC effect... this might work with more casual players but most endgame players I know are not patient enough to be careful or even care about fascinated mobs.

And with all the selfsufficient builds running around at the moment the bard is losing some benefits for groups already, so I think it's justified to end up more usefull than in the past. Many builds can use at least some of the important scrolls, have a nice self heal and can still be good at stunning and dpsing. If various endgame builds are a jack of all trades already (with best dps) the bard enhancements are allowed to give them some new nice perks.

[Loek]

No matter what buffs they give to Bards, no one will play them. Even if they do, most will revert within a couple weeks or so back to their Fighter/Monk/Paladin legendary tardnought mouth-breather builds...I'd say let the people who were actually playing Bards(like me) before any of these changes enjoy a fresh approach to actually being on par in endgame content.

[Vargouille]

So the devs do that, make it better with Stunning items, then need to fill in a t5 slot so they produce an AOE version too! And Bards already had at least two ways to cause AOE helplessness...

Correct. Bards are intentionally excellent at crowd control. This is an extension of that. We're willing to hear discussion why Fighters should be better at control than Bards or why a long cooldown AoE control attack doesn't fit in Warchanter, but let's be clear that's what the discussion is about.

Do these mean the same thing or am I missing something?

Sorry, they mean the same thing. My mistakes when trying to get information out too quickly.

[Seikojin]

Correct. Bards are intentionally excellent at crowd control. This is an extension of that. We're willing to hear discussion why Fighters should be better at control than Bards or why a long cooldown AoE control attack doesn't fit in Warchanter, but let's be clear that's what the discussion is about.



Sorry, they mean the same thing. My mistakes when trying to get information out too quickly.

Very good point to bring up: role.

[Scrabbler]

Correct. Bards are intentionally excellent at crowd control. This is an extension of that. We're willing to hear discussion why Fighters should be better at control than Bards

The exact question isn't "Should Fighters be better at control?". We know the answer there.

The real question is more like "Since Bards already have CC effects like Fascinate, Soundburst, Mass Hold, Mass Hold Person, Enthrall, Resistable Dance, Irresistable Dance, Cause Fear, Sleep, Face Slap, Fancy Footwork, and a new high-DC Frozen Fury, is it really a good idea to give them Northwind and Spinning Ice as well?"

I don't agree with the logic that if Bards are quite good at CC now, it automatically improves the game to make them even better. I like Frozen Fury, and could get into detail on why that helps... but don't see how more is needed. Northwind and Spinning Ice can be given other damage / debuff effects besides crowd control.

[Takllin]

Correct. Bards are intentionally excellent at crowd control. This is an extension of that. We're willing to hear discussion why Fighters should be better at control than Bards or why a long cooldown AoE control attack doesn't fit in Warchanter, but let's be clear that's what the discussion is about.

The point that is trying to be made, is that the Kensai Tree is supposed to be about Tactics. We have been stuck with using Stunning Blow, Trip, etc. for a very long time now, while we have been clamoring for new abilities for years now. And the first class that gets something that we have been asking for, is a Bard...

I think its funny and a bit hypocritical honestly, that you are moving away from class synergies in the enhancement trees, when the Kensei tree has so many enhancements that just scream "Multiclass with monk!!!!!!". Fighters are supposed to be the Kings of tactics, and the third tree we are getting, is a Sword and Board Offensive tree....I mean come on seriously??

Bards should have much better Crowd Control than Fighters do, but in no way, shape, or form should a Bard have better Tactical options than a Fighter.

[IronClan]

How the HELL do bards gain access to a mass stunning blow effect before FIGHTERS do??????????

This is ridiculous

They've had Soundburst for quite some time... Why exactly should fighters have mass CC effect again? You seem to be approaching every recent game change from the standpoint of "whats this do to my precious Cetus build" an incredibly narrow lens to view the entire game from.

[IronClan]

Bards should have much better Crowd Control than Fighters do, but in no way, shape, or form should a Bard have better Tactical options than a Fighter.

Tactical because they allow the Warchanter to use his best stat and Tactics boosting items to boost them?

You guys get that things that do CC no matter what stat they use are still just CC right? I mean this is a little silly. You're saying it's okay for Bards to be great CC as long as they use CHA and Spell focus items but it's suddenly not cool if they use STR and Tactics focus items

I'll fix this problem: Warchanters use their STR score for Spell DC's LOL... those Frozen abilities are now considered spells... Or, you know, we could just stop wasting the Dev's time on semantic flavor nit picks.

[Takllin]

Tactical because they allow the Warchanter to use his best stat and Tactics boosting items to boost them?

You guys get that things that do CC no matter what stat they use are still just CC right? I mean this is a little silly. You're saying it's okay for Bards to be great CC as long as they use CHA and Spell focus items but it's suddenly not cool if they use STR and Tactics focus items

I'll fix this problem: Warchanters use their STR score for Spell DC's LOL... those Frozen abilities are now considered spells... Or, you know, we could just stop wasting the Dev's time on semantic flavor nit picks.

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...Fighters are the masters of Tactics, not Bards. That is why they should have something like a AoE Stunning Blow, not Bards.

Exactly.

There is a difference between tactical abilities and Crowd Control.

Also, once you get your head out of thinking that Cetus just wants to buff his BF Kensai thing, you might be better able to understand where he is coming from...

[Cetus]

Correct. Bards are intentionally excellent at crowd control. This is an extension of that. We're willing to hear discussion why Fighters should be better at control than Bards or why a long cooldown AoE control attack doesn't fit in Warchanter, but let's be clear that's what the discussion is about.

My remark contained within it an assumption that fighters are supposed to be the better tacticians, that was their niche. No?

Right now, if I want to be as effective as I can be, I'm forced to splash monk with my fighter because that is what the kensei tree demands.

You guys did not incentivize staying pure fighter at ALL. You tacked on a few tactics DC to the capstone, gave a tactics enhancement in the tree...but for what tactics?

Stunning blow is a base 10 dc + str mods + stunning mods with an enormous cooldown and costs a feat. That's the only helpless tactic a TACTICIAN in this game has.

Now, a **** bard gets a mass stunning blow in a tree that requires no feats, the tactic itself is just given to it, and its a mass stunning blow incorporated in a cleave?

And, you don't see a problem with this?

I'd love to go back to pure fighter - those that are blindingly saying I'm trying to buff my centered kensei - Wrong. I'm trying to make a case for going back to pure fighter and being competitive with a worthy melee tactics/dps tree.

[Vargouille]

I'd love to go back to pure fighter .

This is fine feedback and something that can be acted on. Thank you.

[Bladedge]

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

[Cetus]

2nd tree that does something - yes

You lost me here

[bbqzor]

Just because it uses a tactical modifier in the DC does not make bards better at "tactics". Nor does it invalidate fighter "tactics". The fact that people are latched onto that word at all as some sort of actual thing is rather getting caught up in semantics.

Bards are great at CC, they already have multiple mass-helpless effects, and thats exactly why giving them another one is not an issue. Spellsingers got mass hold. Warchanters got mass freeze. The trees are comparable (T5 group cc), do similar things (group helpless), using different avenues (one spell, one maneuver), all of which expand upon a core class ability (bards being good at cc). This is obvious, and the fact that its been fine for months with no over the top complaining is evidence of that.

Just because its now "tactics" throwing up arms as if its suddenly undermined things at large is ludicrous. It is, and acting otherwise isnt helping anyones case here. Using hyperbole isnt convincing, as the dev quote above illustrates.

There are two (real) issues here:

One, this ability using a tactics modifier at all is maybe not the best move. And to that, I largely agree, and said as much in a previous post in this thread as well as in the main warchanter thread back when things were in brainstorming. In part precisely because of some of the issues it brings up (being the best warchanter, in this area, means outsourcing... as well as having a bard ability start to compete in different ways with other class's abilities). This is why my initial statement "using different avenues (one spell, one maneuver)" doesnt say "one tactical". It can easily be a "strike" move, or whatever you want to call it, as it was previously using just a formulaic DC without incorporating tactics. And for many reasons (itemization and destiny allocation at the forefront) that would be the wiser choice. I realize multiclass warchanters, of which there is some sizable number, desire ways to get DC that dont require redoing their level spread. Maybe this isn't the only solution. Id rather see something like, full bard level, half non bard level, so a 12/8 guy might be down 4 dc or something but is totally fine on EH and just a bit sketchy on EE. But theres some kind of concern there, for some people, so I see its trying to be addressed but I dont think tactics is the right solution. Not because "fighters = tactics" but just because its a solution which creates more problems than it solves (confusion over bard identity and resource expenditure trying to make single things work at the expense of overall class).

Two, fighters (and anyone into tactics really, as Ive seen plenty of builds incorporate a trip or stun setup into their lineup) probably need more tactics support. As mentioned, the DC gap is very large, especially on stunning blow which has a painfully low starting point. Revising Kensei to perhaps offer something more "fightery" and less "its a 4th monk tree" would probably be wise. Especially since a lot of things, like blade meditation, arent working very well anyhow (really, why doesnt it proc to offhand off the core, and why does it take longer to cast than to use, etc etc etc). Something like "tactical master, selector, you add +1/2/3 to a tactics of your choice (stun, trip, sunder)" which unlocks another selector "add a special move to your tactics, like stun cannot cast afterwards, trip is hamstrung after, sunder is +5% melee damage taken after" which unlocks another selector like "pick one tactics, its now an aoe cleave effect" ... well yes that would be very well received and probably a good idea. That tree is a bit too multiclass, and does lack some unique "new moves" which it really should bring to the table, imho. Always has, going back to the original pass, when it was cited as "why all the monk" and "wheres my fighter 20". Those problems arent new, and havent gone away. But theyre not suddenly made worse because some ability another class has uses tactics.

I mean, Im all for both of those changes (no tactics in warchanter, and improved/aoe tactics in kensei). But the sky is falling routine is just obscuring any reasonable feedback. Maybe when bard is done, and Paladin (which is obviously next) is done, and (hopefully) Barbarians come around, it would be a good time to tackle this. Barbarians also have a "tactics" thing (mass trip in frenzy, which is completely worthless for a myriad of reasons, but is an AOE tactics nonetheless), and it could very much use a revision as well. Might be a good time to focus on a more "martial" group with barbarians and fighters both being into cleaves, tactics (barbs are the most often class Ive seen using stunning blow after fighters, plus the aoe trip), and having some adjustments needed after the armor pass Im sure (both for barbarian DR and being limited to medium armor, and possible passive PRR/MRR changes for the trees like occult slayer). Fitting in some kensei/fighter/tactics work alongside those issues seems to make sense. My 2 cents, hopefully helpful. Cheers.

[Scrabbler]

Bards are great at CC, they already have multiple mass-helpless effects, and thats exactly why giving them another one is not an issue.

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 is obvious, and the fact that its been fine for months with no over the top complaining is evidence of that.

The new Warchanter design just came out this week.