Devs - this is why paladins don't need the best DPS

[Soleran100]

Check out the thread where the guy throws down 1200 point CSWs with a 3000 CSW crit...

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/457808-3k-csw

Heal scrolls (with failed concentration checks) don't really match do they?

So somone uses a method to max heal and you want to discuss dps, that's a HUGE fail.

[Chai]

Our positions are clear.

I don't like zerg rolf stomping classes, but that's what previous updates have created. If this is the game we are playing, all classes needed to be upgraded to that standard. The player base demands balance (don't trust me, turbine run a survey on it so I don't care if a few forumites say otherwise), the devs promised it.

You say that you don't want all classes to be like that, that you are fine with some being uber and some being flavor.


I am on the side of the majority and on the side turbine said they would take. So our side should get what we were promised.

Turbine doesn't merely make money off the majority, they make it from each paying customer who plays. If they make every class have the same capabilities, this will please one subset of users at the cost of all others. They have already made two cleave roflstomping run forward and kill type classes in their revamps. Making every other class the same as those two would lose the money of people who play differently than that one play style. Thus, the better player retention decision is to have classes for all playstyles, not homogenizing all classes for your majority you claim to be a part of, which I highly doubt to be the case. You see, this point again, is over argued ad nauseum on the forums, where a minority of players post, but it is rarely ever represented in game.

[Hydian]

I'm confused. This thread is saying that Paladins are the best DPS and self healing, but in another thread I just read Barbarians are the best DPS and self healing. I only have one pitchfork...which angry mob am I supposed to be supporting?

[redoubt]

Classes that out DPS paladins -- bards, rogues, barbarians. Classes that out defense paladins -- bards, rogues, pale masters, sorcerers. Classes that out self-heal paladins -- clerics, favored souls, wizards. Based on forum feedback I might add barbarians to the self-heal list but I don't have any personal experience with them so will refrain.

I would like to counter on a couple of these. I'll be comparing to a pure 20 paladin Vanguard in Divine Crusader. So high in defense, but not deep in stawart or unyielding sentinel, so there are much better defensive build out there. Also, not in LD, or deep in KOTC so there are better DPS builds. This is, imo, a well rounded Paladin.

My assassin rogue does not out DPS that paladin build. (From observation of others, I will agree about bards and barbs.)

On defense, I can't speak to the bard piece. On rogue (my assassin again), the defense is far worse. On my Pale master in light armor the defense is far worse (he survives by staying out of the fray.) On my WF Sorc in heavy armor, defense is far worse (surviving again with mobility.)

Agree with you on healing. (You could do a half add here for WF and BF sorcs, but that only works on those combos and is not strictly a class feature.)

[redoubt]

I will argue strongly that a and c are false and so b is moot. I would argue that even with Holy Sword and Zeal that paladins come behind barbarians, bards and rogues for DPS. I would also argue that the self-healing of paladins is matched by bards and bettered by clerics, favored souls and pale master wizards. But, more than that, I would argue that paladins are not unkillable which is why we don't see everyone soloing epic elite with them.

And, while people will pull out maths to show that paladins are uber I will point to the game itself and how all of the theory crafting fails to produce actual characters in the game attaining the mythic results.

The discussion reminds me of so many others in the past where some class was best at everything -- until it came down to actually designing and playing the character. That is when it became obvious that to be the highest DPS it had to surrender the highest survivability and in order to gain the highest survivability it had to give up the highest DPS -- and that when actually built with everything incorporated the build was just another build, neither better nor worse than any other well designed build.

And that, people, is the point of game balance. Fortunately the players themselves seem to recognize this because every character class is in play on every server -- which is really what game balance should be producing.

I still disagree with you putting rogue DPS ahead of paladin (but again, I'm using an assassin as my basis, maybe acrobats are better?). However, I agree with your comments on actual game play. Theory craft is one thing, putting into play is another. My Vanguard, which I very much enjoy, does well in EE content, but I don't solo it unless I'm over level. My static group (PM melee, moncher and my Vanguard) does EE content. Even with a good (not best) defensive build, I would not survive long enough to solo. I depend on the extra damage that my team mates bring. There may be people out there with un-killable paladins, but not all are that. For un-killable, I'd read up more on Ravagers.

[Soleran100]

I would like to counter on a couple of these. I'll be comparing to a pure 20 paladin Vanguard in Divine Crusader. So high in defense, but not deep in stawart or unyielding sentinel, so there are much better defensive build out there. Also, not in LD, or deep in KOTC so there are better DPS builds. This is, imo, a well rounded Paladin.

My assassin rogue does not out DPS that paladin build. (From observation of others, I will agree about bards and barbs.)

On defense, I can't speak to the bard piece. On rogue (my assassin again), the defense is far worse. On my Pale master in light armor the defense is far worse (he survives by staying out of the fray.) On my WF Sorc in heavy armor, defense is far worse (surviving again with mobility.)

Agree with you on healing. (You could do a half add here for WF and BF sorcs, but that only works on those combos and is not strictly a class feature.)

The entire conversation has become convoluted, its about to many topics. Firstly the topic was started under a misnomer , then it was perpetuated by excaserbating said argument without grounds to support the initial post. Then other classes were brought in under a "comparison" that was done under scrutiny of the original posts thoughts etc .......over if you want to reduce paladin dps fine but stop with the total fail threads.

[Bluegirl_Two]

I'm confused. This thread is saying that Paladins are the best DPS and self healing, but in another thread I just read Barbarians are the best DPS and self healing. I only have one pitchfork...which angry mob am I supposed to be supporting?

It is just a spelling issue. Some people seem to feel barbarian is spelled paladin while pretty much the same people seem to think paladin is spelled barbarian. Just assume that either means both and you'll totally understand everything.

[Thrudh]

Safely resting for a few hours after each encounter shouldn't always be possible in a realistic campaign setting.

Not according to Chai... In his PnP universe, the wizard uses any spells he wants, and as soon as he's out, that's considered the "last encounter" of the day, and everyone rests.

Of course, I agree with you, and had good DMs that wouldn't allow such a thing. In our PnP sessions, a wizard had to be careful with his spells, and that was a limit that balanced wizards with other classes.

[Thrudh]

A DM trying to go against the grain in order to make the party go on with depleted resources on purpose is not a better DM.

A DM allowing a player to use up all his resources without any thought, because he can just rest whenever he wants and get them all back is a much worse DM.

You had poor DMs if you never had to decide "Should I use my last fireball now or maybe save it for something WORSE around the corner".

That's how wizards were balanced with melee. Your DMs apparently just let the wizards overpower every encounter, and then rest whenever they ran out of spells.

This explains a lot about your posts about class balance.

[Thrudh]

So somone uses a method to max heal and you want to discuss dps, that's a HUGE fail.

Yes, I was wrong about this.

I do still feel that barbs self-healing should be cut back 50% (but their DPS left alone), and paladins DPS should be dropped back 20%.

[Chai]

A DM allowing a player to use up all his resources without any thought, because he can just rest whenever he wants and get them all back is a much worse DM.

You had poor DMs if you never had to decide "Should I use my last fireball now or maybe save it for something WORSE around the corner".

That's how wizards were balanced with melee. Your DMs apparently just let the wizards overpower every encounter, and then rest whenever they ran out of spells.

This explains a lot about your posts about class balance.

Of course, another non sequitur, assuming the worst possible DM allowing the players to run amok with impunity, simply because you and I disagree. Objective readers understand what I claimed is the rest occurs after 4 or 5 encounters as stipulated by something you seem to be ignoring, the rules. Any claim that something is better than the rule as written, is oberoni.

Wizards were not balanced with melee until 4E and then 5E. In 3.5 after about 6th level or so casters continue to increase in power far more than melee.

Not according to Chai... In his PnP universe, the wizard uses any spells he wants, and as soon as he's out, that's considered the "last encounter" of the day, and everyone rests.

Of course, I agree with you, and had good DMs that wouldn't allow such a thing. In our PnP sessions, a wizard had to be careful with his spells, and that was a limit that balanced wizards with other classes.

Objective readers understand that's not what was claimed at all. Its being strawmanned into this "he said we can rest whenever we want to" shenanigans in order to have something to refute.

This explains a lot about your posts about class balance.

Yeap, games have rules man. Ignoring the rules to place arbitrary limitations on players because they built a more powerful character than the next chap, is oberoni. If you want to play role zero D&D that's fine, but claiming rule zero is better than rule as written is oberoni.

You think casters were ever balanced with melee? Consider this. Casters in DDO don't have 1/10th of the spell selection available they had in 3.5E, yet they are still very very powerful when compared to melee. Could you imagine what casters in DDO would be like if we had the wish line or the time stop spell? Have you considered how much casters were nerfed from P&P just to make them even remotely close to balanced in DDO? I think not, because you continue to claim they were balanced.....

Cleric: /use sanctuary - you cant kill me
Wizard: /use astral projection - you cant kill me
Fighter: My name's Jeff, now that my character is dead I want to reroll into something that uses magic.

[Thrudh]

Heh, this last post should be saved for study by future students of DDO... It contains your new favorite phrase "non sequitur" along with old favorites like "Objective readers agree with me" and "strawman".

All in one post!

Wizards were not balanced with melee until 4E and then 5E. In 3.5 after about 6th level or so casters continue to increase in power far more than melee.

Wizards WERE balanced with melee by good DMs who did not let them rest just because they ran out of spells.

Wizards were not obviously not balanced in YOUR PnP sessions, but they certainly were in mine... Limited number of spells IS a balancing factor, just like SP USED to be a balancing factor in DDO (but not for many years).

Objective readers understand that's not what was claimed at all. Its being strawmanned into this in order to have something to refute.

It's exactly what you claimed... I said "wizards are balanced because they have limited spells. They sometimes have to decide whether to use a spell to win a fight or save it for a more dangerous foe later on"

You said...

That was called the last encounter.

Therefore it's exactly what you said... You said that in your PnP sessions, the wizard cast a few spells in each encounter without worrying about running out, because as soon as he did run out, it was determined that "That was the last encounter" and the party rested. And, of course, if any guards came along and discovered the party before the wizards and clerics had fully rested, you consider that a "bad DM who was out to kill the party".

[Chai]

Wizards WERE balanced with melee by good DMs who did not let them rest just because they ran out of spells.

You mean terrible DMs who ignored the rules. /oberoni

Objective readers read entire posts Thrudh. They don't cherry pick one sentence out and then claim this was the entire premise made by those they disagree with. Read my entire claim, and you will see I did not claim the party can rest whenever they want to, I claimed that the rules (something youre still ignoring) stipulate the party rests after 4-5 encounters, and that DMs did not have sole say on when parties got to rest.

DMs which didn't allow resting to regain hp and spells arbitrarily due to "no rest because I said so" are somehow better DMs than those who went by the ruleset? Only in the land of make believe where melee is balanced with casters.

[Tinco]

In PnP, balance is defined completely differently.

PnP: A balanced game is a game where each player is able to contribute and shine to a degree the group as a whole agrees on. Spellcasters certainly were a much bigger challenge to handle as a DM because their abilities later on were a lot broader and flashier than the fighter's.

DDO: A balanced game is a game where under the same conditions P(quest_success(A)) / P(quest_success(B)) -> 1 *

*I picked one of a multitude of semi-valid metrics, please don't be too hard on me.

[Thrudh]

I claimed that the rules (something youre still ignoring) stipulate the party rests after 4-5 encounters, and that DMs did not have sole say on when parties got to rest.

Sure, but they had SOME say...

"Hey, DM... we're resting in this corridor that leads to the kings banquet hall... We wasted all our spells on the flunkies in this corridor, and now we don't have enough for the big fight in the next room..."

"We'll just rest here 8 hours until we get our spells back... We've already had 5 encounters, so the rules say you can't have anyone find us or attack us until we're fully rested... That's the rules!"

DMs which didn't allow resting to regain hp and spells arbitrarily due to "no rest because I said so" are somehow better DMs than those who went by the ruleset in the land of make believe where melee is balanced with casters? /oberoni

If you're talking real high level characters, there wasn't much balance, but from 1-12, there was decent balance because wizard spells were limited. They had to chose them BEFORE knowing what they were going to encounter, and they only got a few...

A good DM didn't have to say "no rest because I said so"... He just had to use logic and coherent gameplay like "Guards DO patrol these rooms at regular intervals you know".

[Chai]

Sure, but they had SOME say...

"Hey, DM... we're resting in this corridor that leads to the kings banquet hall... We wasted all our spells on the flunkies in this corridor, and now we don't have enough for the big fight in the next room..."

"We'll just rest here 8 hours until we get our spells back... We've already had 5 encounters, so the rules say you can't have anyone find us or attack us until we're fully rested... That's the rules!"

Nope, its more like...

Wizard: /use extended rope trick - level 5 = 10 hours.
/everyone gets in
/pulls up rope
/rests
/gets back out.

If you're talking real high level characters, there wasn't much balance, but from 1-12, there was decent balance because wizard spells were limited. They had to chose them BEFORE knowing what they were going to encounter, and they only got a few...

Try levels 1-6. After wizards stop being hilariously bad crossbowmen and start becoming wizards, its over. As the levels get higher, the disparity between melee and casters gets wider.

A good DM didn't have to say "no rest because I said so"... He just had to use logic and coherent gameplay like "Guards DO patrol these rooms at regular intervals you know".

How are those guards in the kings hallway detecting the rope trick? Arbitrarily? Keep in mind, that since you presented this scenario Ive thought of 4 ways to still rest here if I want to.....this is the easiest one to defeat....and will not be defeated by guards walking up and down the halls.....

So much for mundane logic, where magic is involved.

[Chai]

In PnP, balance is defined completely differently.

PnP: A balanced game is a game where each player is able to contribute and shine to a degree the group as a whole agrees on. Spellcasters certainly were a much bigger challenge to handle as a DM because their abilities later on were a lot broader and flashier than the fighter's.

DDO: A balanced game is a game where under the same conditions P(quest_success(A)) / P(quest_success(B)) -> 1 *

*I picked one of a multitude of semi-valid metrics, please don't be too hard on me.

That's called forced cooperation, not class balance. This is why people playing melee can still have fun in a group with severely OP casters, because while its not on the DM to balance the classes, its on the DM to provide an experience which all party members must cooperate to overcome.

[Thrudh]

Nope, its more like...

Wizard: /use rope trick
/everyone gets in
/rests
/gets back out.

We house-ruled rope trick out... It's a stupid spell. Sounds to me like you played D&D as a tactical combat game, instead of a logical universe. 5 fights, rest, 5 fights, rest. Not sometimes 5 fights, dungeon is over, sometimes 10 fights because the dungeon was more involved... Not knowing made things a lot more interesting.

DDO was more fun too when there was resources to worry about. SP conservation used to be a real thing in this game. I dislike games where you have unlimited resources. My favorite part of single-player FPS games is usually near the beginning when you only have 7 bullets for your pistol and you have to be careful with each shot. As opposed to mid-game, where you're carrying 6 different weapons each with 200 rounds.

We did find a scroll of rope-trick once... When we tried to use it one time, just like you said, to rest in the middle of a dragon lair, we had some nasty results because we weren't familiar with the spell and our rogue had a bag of holding explode (we had to roll for each item to see if it survived - we lost a couple of nice things)

From the description of the spell:

Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

[Chai]

We house-ruled rope trick out... It's a stupid spell. Sounds to me like you played D&D as a tactical combat game, instead of a logical universe. 5 fights, rest, 5 fights, rest. Not sometimes 5 fights, dungeon is over, sometimes 10 fights because the dungeon was more involved... Not knowing made things a lot more interesting.

DDO was more fun too when there was resources to worry about. SP conservation used to be a real thing in this game. I dislike games where you have unlimited resources. My favorite part of single-player FPS games is usually near the beginning when you only have 7 bullets for your pistol and you have to be careful with each shot. As opposed to mid-game, where you're carrying 6 different weapons each with 200 rounds.

We did find a scroll of rope-trick once... When we tried to use it one time, just like you said, to rest in the middle of a dragon lair, we had some nasty results because we weren't familiar with the spell and our rogue had a bag of holding explode (we had to roll for each item to see if it survived - we lost a couple of nice things)

From the description of the spell:

As I suspected, you play rule zero D&D. Theres nothing wrong with that essentially. Its when you start claiming non sequiturs, like anyone else who plays by the rules had bad DMs, where the issue lies. We didn't limit our play to tactical combat, we just played using the rules, as written. This allowed us to provide true feedback about the actual game to those running the test group(s), and they could honestly see where the game was balanced, and where it was broken / could be abused, etc...

[Tinco]

That's called forced cooperation, not class balance. This is why people playing melee can still have fun in a group with severely OP casters, because while its not on the DM to balance the classes, its on the DM to provide an experience which all party members must cooperate to overcome.

Class balance is/was a foreign concept to PnP. It doesn't exist because there exists no valid dm-less/group-less/player-less vacuum you could base any musings whether x > y on.

Balance in the sense I used it however is not, although I prefer a simple 'cooperation'.