Class Balance - What do we mean? (long)
Jeff K.
since he is clearly sitcking his fingers in his ears and shouting "NAH NAH
NAH WIZARDS ARE TOO POWERFUL!", I thought perhaps a bit of intelligent
discussion of what we actually *mean* when we say "class balance" is in
order.
What I don't believe it means, and I've admittedly lifted these ideas from
other posters who made excellent points, is how well a class solos or PVP's.
This game is not designed for solo play past a certain point (what a concept
for a massively multiplayer game! <G>), and that includes 1-on-1 duelling.
Nobody with any sense can say that rogues, even were they fully functional,
were designed to PVP.
What I do think it means is how well a class can contribute to a group. Does
it contribute a unique ability, or unique combination of abilities? I think
we can look at this using a thought experiment - you have a party of five,
and are looking for a sixth member. If you had all 14 classes to choose from
for your 6th slot (wouldn't THAT be nice? <G>), would they each contribute
equally, albeit in different ways? And, just as importantly, do they all
come with balancing weaknesses? Forgetting for the moment that your choice
would depend heavily on who you already have (if you have three tanks, you
don't really want another), I'll take a quick glimpse at each.
The Tanks
Warriors - They have the highest hit points and the most combat skills of
any warrior type class, except monks. This makes them the best damage
sponges all around. Unfortunately, their hit points are not high enough and
their combat skills are not powerful enough to compensate for their lack of
spells and special abilities.
Rogues - They can tank fairly well, and backstabs are very nice.
Unfortunately that's about all they contribute. Pickpocketing does nothing
to help the group as a whole. There aren't nearly enough traps or locks to
make those skills useful, and they can't make poison to poison mobs with. If
they fixxed these problems rogues would be a great addition to any group. As
it stands they're just tanks with one nifty ability and nothing much else to
set them apart. They aren't so much underpowered as they are incomplete.
Paladins - They can tank better than rogues and almost as well as warriors.
The lack of dual wield means they won't dish out as much damage as warriors
or rangers, but they more than make up for it with the best healing of all
the warrior hybrids, and lay hands can save the day if well used. Against
undead they easily outdistance any other warrior hybrid in dishing out
damage once they hit level 15. They also have more defensive skills than
rangers, although this does not compensate for the loss of dual wield.
Rangers - They are better fighters than paladins, since they get both dual
wield and double attack, but their spells are generally less useful. They
get some general purpose burn spells, which paladins don't, but they're very
weak compared to the level they get them at. Still, tracking in particular
is a great skill that can really help a party be more efficient when
hunting. However, when combined with their spells I think their combat
abilities make them a bit more powerful than paladins. My suggestion would
be that rangers should *not* get double attack since they already get dual
wield, and in compensation slightly boost their spells to be more generally
useful. This would serve to make the two classes more distinct in terms of
combat style - paladins would have double attack, while rangers would have
dual wield. It would also make the warriors feel a little better, since they
would be the only class of the three that had both.
I don't know nearly enough about monks or shadow knights to comment on them.
Someone else feel free. :) For all tanks a party sacrifices burning, healing
and buffing ability in exchange for having damage sponges. They all
contribute to a group, but with an unfortunate lack of variety when it comes
to warriors and rogues. Most people would agree those two classes need to be
fixxed. Paladins and rangers can buff and heal to a minor degree, of course,
but not with anywhere near the ability of a true cleric or druid.
The Healers
Clerics - Clerics are the prime healers, of course. Nobody can touch them in
that area. They are also great buffers, if a bit lacking in variety. They
also tank adequately. The price is that they don't tank nearly as well as
the warrior classes, and they can't burn nearly as well as the pure magic
users, unless you happen to be fighting undead. In short a party trades
offensive power for defensive buffs and healing.
Druids - Druids sacrifice healing power for more varied buffs, damage spells
and general utility spells. It seems they can burn almost as well as a
wizard at the low to mid-levels, though I think they drop off at the higher
levels. They get the much requested SoW spell, which they share only with
shamans (though bards, of course, get a similar effect). They are one of
only two classes that get teleport spells. They tank less ably than clerics
due to armor restrictions, but only a little less ably. It seems that druids
can do just about anything - heal, burn, buff and travel. It doesn't seem
that a party would sacrifice a whole lot by taking a druid into their 6th
slot. Perhaps one of the only classes that may need some toning down, though
I'm sure druids may have a different opinion.
Shamans - I don't know a damned thing about shamans. Share!
The Burners
Wizards - Wizards do one thing, but they do it the best. They burn. They
burn fast and they burn hard. They are the only class that gets new DD *and*
area burn spells every single circle. This gives them more flexibility and
power in their burning than any class by a considerable margin. All other
burners have "dead circles" where they lag behind in either DD or area
damage spells (though they, of course, get other nifty spells in their
place). Some burners can come close to rivalling them at certain points, but
no class can keep pace with them at every single circle. What a party
sacrifices, of course, is tanking, healing, and buffing. Wizards can do
*none* of these, with the exception of the rather paltry O'Keill's radiation
damage shield (which pales compared to a magician's damage shields). Even
worse, an incompetent wizard runs of the risk of burning too fast too
quickly, drawing the attention of the mobs and forcing the party to scramble
to save him. A party gains tremendous power by adding only one wizard to the
group, but they sacrifice a lot as well since wizards are the least flexible
of all the spell casters.
Magicians - Magicians, in contrast to wizards, are among the *most* flexible
of the burner classes, though they are less flexible than druids (but who
isn't?). A party gains adequate burning, one nice line of buffs for the
tanks (a magician's damage shields are second to none), a "free" tank that
is quite expendable should the need arise, and the ability to hunt almost
non-stop with no need to return to civilization until they're good and
ready. It's easy to "pooh-pooh" their summoning spells until *you* are the
one who is out of food or water, or even encumbered. Very few people who
have ever used a dimensional pocket find it easy to return to conventional
containers. Summoned bandages are great if you have no healer, and even if
you do it saves them a lot of meditation time after a tough fight. Need I
even go into the advantages of pets? What other class can actually
contribute to a fight while meditating? That being said, they do not burn as
well as wizards, and at some levels their damage spells are positively
pathetic compared to them. Bandages are nice, but do not replace a healer.
Their buffing is limited to damage shields, which will only last for a
single fight and become less useful as a party adds tanks. And, like all
burners, they themselves are pathetic in melee. While you sacrifice less and
gain quite a bit when you take on a magician, those things you gain are less
impressive when considered individually. It's hard to go wrong with a
magician in your party, but don't expect any one thing from them to be
impressive on it's own.
Enchanters - Enchanters start out with some great burn spells (what other
class has a general purpose burn spell that does 30 damage at level 4??),
even rivalling wizards, but with each circle the burns become less
impressive. What they replace them with is the most extensive selection of
debuffing spells known to man, and the spells to help them stick (i.e. the
tashan line). A well played enchanter can stun, weaken, confuse, and slow
your opponent into a pathetic heap of flailing limbs. Meanwhile they can
also strengthen, speed and protect the tanks into far more efficient
fighters. Unfortunately, many enchanters try to play them like wizards,
possibly because they undergo and slow and subtle transformation with every
new spell circle. Burning works great for enchanters at low levels, but they
must adapt their techniques as time passes. A party runs the risk of
accepting an enchanter who has not yet adapted to their new role. While the
debuffs are great, a party will still need someone else to dish out most of
the damage at higher levels. Add in the usual caveats for no healing and no
tanking, especially since the pets are not commandable. Their main use is to
protect the enchanter from the mobs who get pissed off at the debuffs - and
they do.
Necromancers - The burner I am least familiar with. The pets are great, and
it seems they can do some healing with the combination of their lifetap and
life sharing spells. Some say they are overpowered, others say they aren't.
A glance implies that a party doesn't sacrifice much other than buffing when
taking a necromancer on. I don't know enough to give much of an opinion,
though.
The Bards
Bards - Bards are the most generally useful class for a party there is. They
heal, they buff, they debuff, and they tank. The catch, of course, is that
they don't do any of the above exceptionally well. They do have the
advantage of making your healers much more mana efficient with their healing
song, and the high level mana restoration song is extremely popular with
casters of all sorts. The other catch is that most bards don't juggle well
enough to keep more than one song active in the heat of battle, so they must
pick and choose which song to keep up. Still, your party gets a little of
everything when you add a bard, so it's hard to complain, and they never
have to meditate (until they get that 400 damage song, at least). They are
the single best class at cutting down a party's down time, which is nothing
to sneeze at.
Well, those are my impressions at least, and I think this perspective is by
far the most useful when considering class balance. Thoughtful comments and
disagreements are welcome. :)
Jeff K.
Nystramo on Cazic-Thule
Dundee
wrote:
>I don't know nearly enough about monks or shadow knights to comment on them.
Ah... Monks. I love bein' a monk. The REALLY LOW magic resistance is
a bummer sometimes (like when you get charmed and kick your mate in
the head, that's a bad thing). Don't seem to do more damage than a
warrior and don't have as many hits, but I do get hit less often.
Then there's Mend. Wonderful mend.
>Bards - Bards are the most generally useful class for a party there is.
But the lightshow is just too annoying. Not my first choice for
grouping with, though personality counts for a lot.
--
Dundee - http://dundee.uong.com/
smiller
> wield and double attack, but their spells are generally less useful. They
> get some general purpose burn spells, which paladins don't, but they're very
> weak compared to the level they get them at. Still, tracking in particular
> is a great skill that can really help a party be more efficient when
> hunting. However, when combined with their spells I think their combat
> abilities make them a bit more powerful than paladins. My suggestion would
> be that rangers should *not* get double attack since they already get dual
> wield, and in compensation slightly boost their spells to be more generally
> useful. This would serve to make the two classes more distinct in terms of
> combat style - paladins would have double attack, while rangers would have
> dual wield. It would also make the warriors feel a little better, since they
> would be the only class of the three that had both.
>
Have to reply here... taking double attack from rangers would be the most
unbalancing thing you could possibly do. First of all, using a 2hs weapon or 2
1hs weapons nets approximately the (get this) SAME amount of damage. Removing
double attack from any melee class means they do half the damage at higher
levels. Four attacks in a round are very rare, sometimes I even get only *one*
attack in a round (31st level here) as in double attack and double wield did not
kick in at all. That happens about as frequently as getting four hits in a
round. Paladins and SK's are not underpowered in the damage department, they
are only underpowered in the *choice* of weapons they use.
Duane
idea. But it is obvious something must be done to bring warriors into
there own. As most people bt now agree Warriors dont get anything that
makes them any different than other melle classes except a few more
defensive skills and some hit points, wich are very marginal btw (1 or
2 hits max usualy less). Verant has done agreat job thus far with
balancing all the other classes and i hope they decide to give the
warrior a once over.
Arlaq Icreaver
(Bertoxx)
smiller wrote:
>
> > Rangers - They are better fighters than paladins, since they get both dual
> > wield and double attack, but their spells are generally less useful. They
> > get some general purpose burn spells, which paladins don't, but they're very
> > weak compared to the level they get them at. Still, tracking in particular
> > is a great skill that can really help a party be more efficient when
> > hunting. However, when combined with their spells I think their combat
> > abilities make them a bit more powerful than paladins. My suggestion would
> > be that rangers should *not* get double attack since they already get dual
> > wield, and in compensation slightly boost their spells to be more generally
> > useful. This would serve to make the two classes more distinct in terms of
> > combat style - paladins would have double attack, while rangers would have
> > dual wield. It would also make the warriors feel a little better, since they
> > would be the only class of the three that had both.
> >
>
smiller
than I did at the same level (30 at the time). Of course he was rather large. But
then, rangers don't have that option to play strong tough races. And, well, I could
close the gap by 60 points with a buff, but the cleric ended up buffing us both so he
still had 200 more hp than I did (needless to say, I always carry bloodstones on me,
if ya know what I mean). The difference would be less if it was a puny human warrior,
though. I group with straight (barbarian) warriors all the time. Their main
complaints mirror mine (as a ranger) -- nearly impossible to get good armor/weapons.
I can see all melee classes being underpowered at 40+ when skills get capped as
compared to pure casters. The rangers biggest plus is less downtime when soloing, if
you are in a group with a good healer the pure warrior will be better, have more hits,
slightly higher AC (better def skill) and maybe much higher Ac if wearing plate.
/ooc paragraph
Don't mention rubicite yet 'cause it is nearly impossible to obtain. (Hunting cazic
from 24-31 and got *ONE* piece -- guild kill stealers camping rare GREEN spawns which
even more rarely drop rubicite, non guild twinked melee types can't compete -- I
left cazic due to two guilds trying to out blast each other for the good stuff and the
xp not being so hot anymore since a lot of lizards started conning green) Maybe in
another 5 levels...
As to warriors being different or unique? They aren't supposed to be. If they were
ice cream they would be vanilla. Should they be better at combat than a hybrid?
Yes. How much? 5% - 10% tops. Most fixes I have heard would make them much better
than that thus severly unbalancing them. A few relatively simple to obtain warrior
only weapons with better damage ratios would solve that inbalance pretty easily. (By
relatively I don't mean turn in 10 dervish rings and get a nice weapon, but it should
be some kind of quest, make the warrior shell out some trivial money (100p +), be a no
trade lore item and you would have to be a minimum level to get the quest -- maybe get
the first one in the low 20's -- oh, and the quests shouldn't be broken - heh)
Duane wrote:
> I am unsure whether taking Double attack from rangers would be a good
> idea. But it is obvious something must be done to bring warriors into
> there own. As most people bt now agree Warriors dont get anything that
> makes them any different than other melle classes except a few more
> defensive skills and some hit points, wich are very marginal btw (1 or
> 2 hits max usualy less). Verant has done agreat job thus far with
> balancing all the other classes and i hope they decide to give the
> warrior a once over.
>
> Arlaq Icreaver
> (Bertoxx)
>
> smiller wrote:
> >
> > > Rangers - They are better fighters than paladins, since they get both dual
> > > wield and double attack, but their spells are generally less useful. They
> > > get some general purpose burn spells, which paladins don't, but they're very
> > > weak compared to the level they get them at. Still, tracking in particular
> > > is a great skill that can really help a party be more efficient when
> > > hunting. However, when combined with their spells I think their combat
> > > abilities make them a bit more powerful than paladins. My suggestion would
> > > be that rangers should *not* get double attack since they already get dual
> > > wield, and in compensation slightly boost their spells to be more generally
> > > useful. This would serve to make the two classes more distinct in terms of
> > > combat style - paladins would have double attack, while rangers would have
> > > dual wield. It would also make the warriors feel a little better, since they
> > > would be the only class of the three that had both.
> > >
> >
Dundee
>though. I group with straight (barbarian) warriors all the time.
If a guy wants to roleplay a gay barbarian warrior, I don't think you
should hold that against him.
Jeff K.
smiller wrote in message <376FD97D...@junk.com>...
>Have to reply here... taking double attack from rangers would be the most
>unbalancing thing you could possibly do. First of all, using a 2hs weapon
or 2
>1hs weapons nets approximately the (get this) SAME amount of damage.
Removing
>double attack from any melee class means they do half the damage at higher
>levels. Four attacks in a round are very rare, sometimes I even get only
*one*
>attack in a round (31st level here) as in double attack and double wield
did not
>kick in at all. That happens about as frequently as getting four hits in a
>round. Paladins and SK's are not underpowered in the damage department,
they
>are only underpowered in the *choice* of weapons they use.
I'm open to other suggestions (as if I had any real power to change
things... heh <G>). As it stands rangers make better fighters than paladins,
which doesn't quite sit right with me. The extra defensive ablities a
paladin gets (riposte and disarm) don't seem adequate compensation for the
lack of dual wield. While four attacks may be rare for a ranger, paladins
never ever get four attacks, or even three. Plus, having only a single
attack will be far more common for a paladin than ranger simply because he
only has one ability to rely upon for that extra attack. It seems to me that
rangers must indeed outdistance paladins in terms of the amount of melee
damage they can do. Perhaps a paladin's spells make up for it, since a
group sacrifices a little extra combat damage for better healing and extra
kick against the undead.
The biggest problem, though, is that I think rangers are far too close to
*warriors* in terms of combat ability. I see no reason for any group to
choose a warrior over a ranger, regardless of the makeup of the group. If
they add something extra to warriors, perhaps that would settle my concerns
about the rangers. Thanks for the input. :)
Jeff K.
Dundee wrote in message >Ah... Monks. I love bein' a monk. The REALLY LOW
magic resistance is
>a bummer sometimes (like when you get charmed and kick your mate in
>the head, that's a bad thing). Don't seem to do more damage than a
>warrior and don't have as many hits, but I do get hit less often.
>Then there's Mend. Wonderful mend.
Ah, I didn't know monks had lower MR! I can see that really being a problem
for your group in certain situations. <G>
How exactly does Mend work? Is it similar to Lay Hands? My dwarf paladin
thanks Brell Serellis at least five times a day for that ability! :)
>
>>Bards - Bards are the most generally useful class for a party there is.
>
>But the lightshow is just too annoying. Not my first choice for
>grouping with, though personality counts for a lot.
I've learned to ignore the persistant sparkles, though I do agree that they
could decrease the frequency a LOT. After all, we DO have the effect icons
to remind us! Still, you can't deny that they fill more spots than any other
class, even if they don't do any of them outstandingly well. And, heck,
personality counts for a lot with any class. :)
Jeff K.
smiller wrote in message <376FF573...@junk.com>...
>As to warriors being different or unique? They aren't supposed to be. If
they were
>ice cream they would be vanilla. Should they be better at combat than a
hybrid?
>Yes. How much? 5% - 10% tops. Most fixes I have heard would make them
much better
>than that thus severly unbalancing them. A few relatively simple to obtain
warrior
>only weapons with better damage ratios would solve that inbalance pretty
easily
That would be nice. I also think warriors should have slightly higher attack
ratings than paladins, rangers and shadow knights, and possibly some small
damage bonus as well. Nothing big, but enough to give them an edge in damage
in long combats, making them a bit more appealing to groups.
Dundee
wrote:
>Ah, I didn't know monks had lower MR! I can see that really being a problem
>for your group in certain situations. <G>
Yepper. I think it's a whopping 25. I can resist stuff from green
mobs and that's about it. I get charmed a lot, too.
>How exactly does Mend work? Is it similar to Lay Hands? My dwarf paladin
>thanks Brell Serellis at least five times a day for that ability! :)
Recharges every 6 minutes, though on one monk-site they said it was 5
minutes now - I haven't timed it. Anyway, it mends 25% of your total
health, which is GREAT.
At low levels it doesn't work worth a crap though, and quite often
makes wounds worse instead of better.
Not as awesome as LoH but it recharges a HECK of a lot faster.
David Schrank
half ogre warrior anytime.
"Jeff K." wrote:
K. Laisathit
Jeff K. <jk...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Rogues - They can tank fairly well, and backstabs are very nice.
>Unfortunately that's about all they contribute.
I think you're under-estimating the power of rogues badly. They
are the premier damage dealers thanks to their backstab. A lousy
stab by a weapon with damage 6 rating can inflict 40+ points of
damage in one blow. Now, if my party doesn't have a tank yet, and
I have to choose, yeah I'll pick a warrior or monk first. For
a secondary tank, I'll probably pick rogue.
>Rangers - [snip]
>abilities make them a bit more powerful than paladins. My suggestion would
>be that rangers should *not* get double attack since they already get dual
>wield, and in compensation slightly boost their spells to be more generally
>useful.
This will kill a ranger in one fell swoop. Remember, paladins
have the option to match rangers by going with 2-hander. A
2-hander plus double-attack does about the same damage as
a ranger with dual-wield/double-attack. Do the math. Consider
SHB with 16/48 and PGT with 6/26. The 2-hander does more than
double the damage at roughly 60% longer delay. However, since
the dual-wield doesn't always go off, whatever discrepancies
exist in the delay is made up for by the failure of the off
hand attack.
>This would serve to make the two classes more distinct in terms of
>combat style - paladins would have double attack, while rangers would have
>dual wield.
Dual wield doesn't permit more damage dealing in weapon wielding
classes. It only alter the nature of the attack. The reason
is that weapons are balanced to make the damage/delay of 2-hander
superior to 1-hander. Your desire for distinction will substantial
weaken the ranger.
>I don't know nearly enough about monks or shadow knights to comment
>on them.
I have grouped with enough monks to know that they are the best
melee damage dealing. Combine rapid attack with heavy-hitting
special attack and you get one hell of a fighter. Yeah, a lucky
rogue who manages to sneak a few backstabs in a row may be ahead
of a monk.
My playing partner is a shadow knights. They are pretty much
paladins with harm touch instead of lay on hand. Their spells
aren't as useful as paladin. So, over all, you'd think they are
worse than paladins to have in your party. Alas... whatever
ability they lack they make up for it in stat. You can pick
hardier races for SK. By default, these folks will use 2-handers
(all Paladins should too, but most of them are so hung up on
the stupid holy swords that they will insist on using sword
and shield, never mind that they make lousy tank that way)
Also, their harm touch while not exactly impressive does
have one important utility. It prevents kill-stealing. Most
kill-stealing wizards will wait until the victim health drops
below 1/2. Now, under the assumption that all the damage dealt
is split among a few people, they are right. But not when most
of that is caused by a harm touch. I can safely say that we
have never had a wizard steal our kill this way. In a way,
if EQ hadn't been so full of kill-stealing jerks, the SK's HT
would not have been as useful as Paladins' lay-on-hand.
>only two classes that get teleport spells. They tank less ably than clerics
>due to armor restrictions, but only a little less ably.
That's a dangerous conjecture. Give your tank a leather armor
and ask him to fight. Let's see if he's as you said, only
a little less ably. You're going out on a limp to glorify
druids. I can tell you that in 20s, we can't be hit. We
aren't much better than magi in the protection department.
Remember, healing works the same way as direct burn for
monster shit-list purpose. Healing 300 points and you can
expect the monsters to come seeking your blood. As a healer
you don't get to choose when to heal either. You can't, say,
burn the last 1/3 HP of the critters. Also, healing (all
combat buff for that matter) affects all monsters currently
fighting not just the target. Say, you heal your tank who's
fighting one while two other critters are harrassing him.
Heal 300 HP, and the two will certainly come for you. The
one fighting your tank may or may not come for you,
depending how much damage your tank has inflicted on him.
At level 20+, three blue dangerous coming for a druid is
almost instant death. Now tell me again that the leather
only restriction of the druids only make them only less
ably.
>It seems that druids
>can do just about anything - heal, burn, buff and travel. It doesn't seem
>that a party would sacrifice a whole lot by taking a druid into their 6th
>slot. Perhaps one of the only classes that may need some toning down, though
>I'm sure druids may have a different opinion.
You seem to be forgetting your own premise. We're asking about
contribution, which depends in part on the party make-up.
A druid or a wizard? If your party have other healers and in
need of a burner, the answer is wizard.
A druid or a cleric? If your party already has a good burner
and in need of a healer, the answer is cleric.
A druid or a shaman? This is the only tough choice. Again,
if you don't have a decent burner, druid is the answer. If
you already have a wizard or magician, the answer is probably
shaman.
>Magicians -
>gain quite a bit when you take on a magician, those things you gain are
>less impressive when considered individually. It's hard to go wrong with
>a magician in your party, but don't expect any one thing from them to be
>impressive on it's own.
Ummm... again you seem to glorify the class beyond their
ability in the party. More often than not, the team asks
the magician to lose his pet, for a good reason too.
In dungeon fighting, pets are liability not asset. They
bring trains. They also take the XP shares, if they land
the killing blow. There go the advantages you outline about the
magicians. IMHO, the magicians kinda stuck in the middle
somewhat. They are pretty darned decent solo-class. But
in group, they make second-class burners. Their only advantage
is the fire shield spell they alone have. They burn somewhat
better than a druid. So, the question is what is your party
make-up? If you already have a primary and secondary healer,
the magician is a better choice than a druid. But if a wizard
shows up, I'd think most parties will opt for a wizard.
Later...
K. Laisathit
Dundee <Dun...@SPAMSPAMSPAM.COM> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:59:44 -0400, "Jeff K." <jk...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Ah, I didn't know monks had lower MR! I can see that really being a problem
>>for your group in certain situations. <G>
>
>Yepper. I think it's a whopping 25. I can resist stuff from green
>mobs and that's about it. I get charmed a lot, too.
Everybody has 25 base MR. Get yourself some MR items. Snakeskin
mask adds 5. There are a bunch of items that add MR. Earing of
magic reflect adds another 5 and +1 AC for instance.
>Not as awesome as LoH but it recharges a HECK of a lot faster.
Hell, LoH recycles once a day. That's 72 minutes. In that
period you get 12 mends. I'd rather take 25% heal 12 times
over 1 time complete heal. Sure, it can fails, but at 20+,
I've heard it rare fails.
Later...
Morgan
> Paladins - They can tank better than rogues and almost as well as warriors.
> The lack of dual wield means they won't dish out as much damage as warriors
> or rangers, but they more than make up for it with the best healing of all
> the warrior hybrids, and lay hands can save the day if well used. Against
> undead they easily outdistance any other warrior hybrid in dishing out
> damage once they hit level 15. They also have more defensive skills than
> rangers, although this does not compensate for the loss of dual wield.
Paladins have one major drawback. They take so much more experience
to raise levels, that you almost never want one in a party. If you
are limited by the spawn, a paladin takes far too large a share of the
XP to be worth having in a group.
When I group with Tarlak the necromancer (both of us with pets), we
both go up at a good clip. But, when fighting the same set of monsters
at the same rate with a paladin of the same level, my advancement is
much slower.
--
Morgan
R. Hayes
> Shamans - I don't know a damned thing about shamans. Share!
>
Good... let's keep it that way.
If everyone knew how good Shamans were there would be an outrage. But since
they are low-key (as compared to Druids let's say) the critical mass for
attention shouldn't happen until I'm level 50. By then I won't care if they
neuter it.
Davian
smiller <junk...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:376FD97D...@junk.com...
> > Rangers - They are better fighters than paladins, since they get both
dual
> > wield and double attack, but their spells are generally less useful.
They
> > get some general purpose burn spells, which paladins don't, but they're
very
> > weak compared to the level they get them at. Still, tracking in
particular
> > is a great skill that can really help a party be more efficient when
> > hunting. However, when combined with their spells I think their combat
> > abilities make them a bit more powerful than paladins. My suggestion
would
> > be that rangers should *not* get double attack since they already get
dual
> > wield, and in compensation slightly boost their spells to be more
generally
> > useful. This would serve to make the two classes more distinct in terms
of
> > combat style - paladins would have double attack, while rangers would
have
> > dual wield. It would also make the warriors feel a little better, since
they
> > would be the only class of the three that had both.
> >
>
> unbalancing thing you could possibly do. First of all, using a 2hs weapon
or 2
> 1hs weapons nets approximately the (get this) SAME amount of damage.
Only true if you just look at one attack round, thus completely ignoring the
fact that 1 handed weapons have a *significantly* lower recharge rate.
A dual wielding double attacking ranger doesn't just get 4 attacks compared
to the double attacking paladin's 2... he gets the equivalent of 6 or 8
attacks, depending on the delays of the specific weapons involved.
Davian
Kayne
ability to hide. For example that selo's accelerando thing.. or whatever..
when it is active, a rogue can NOT hide (shaded out button) regardless if he
or anyone else is moving or not. Several other songs do that too.
Jeff K.
>In article <7kokdj$qrm$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>Jeff K. <jk...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>Rogues - They can tank fairly well, and backstabs are very nice.
>>Unfortunately that's about all they contribute.
>
>I think you're under-estimating the power of rogues badly. They
>are the premier damage dealers thanks to their backstab. A lousy
>stab by a weapon with damage 6 rating can inflict 40+ points of
>damage in one blow. Now, if my party doesn't have a tank yet, and
>I have to choose, yeah I'll pick a warrior or monk first. For
>a secondary tank, I'll probably pick rogue.
Possibly. However a really good backstab tends to draw the monster's
attention, meaning it's back is no longer to the rogue. Besides, I said
quite clearly that they weren't underpowered, just unfinished and lacking
the unique abilities that make rogues stand out. Maybe you should have
included the parts of the passage where I said that.
>However, since
>the dual-wield doesn't always go off, whatever discrepancies
>exist in the delay is made up for by the failure of the off
>hand attack.
I already conceded that this may be a bad idea in another message. No reason
to repeat myself.
>>only two classes that get teleport spells. They tank less ably than
clerics
>>due to armor restrictions, but only a little less ably.
>
>That's a dangerous conjecture. Give your tank a leather armor
>and ask him to fight. Let's see if he's as you said, only
>a little less ably. You're going out on a limp to glorify
>druids. I can tell you that in 20s, we can't be hit. We
>aren't much better than magi in the protection department.
You aren't? Mages get only one line of buffs, wizards barely any buffs at
all. Only enchanters are better than druids in this area. As for the armor,
my understanding is that at higher levels there is more powerful armor
available to them than leather. If this is incorrect that I have to modify
my opinion.
>You seem to be forgetting your own premise. We're asking about
>contribution, which depends in part on the party make-up.
No I'm not. Listing the strengths and weaknesses of each class, what a party
forgoes when they choose one class over another, was the point. Druids don't
have any glaring weaknesses that I can see, unlike the other spell casters.
I conceded that they burn less well than wizards, and heal less efficiently
than clerics. I also said they *may* need toning down, not that they
definitely do.
>>Magicians -
>>gain quite a bit when you take on a magician, those things you gain are
>>less impressive when considered individually. It's hard to go wrong with
>>a magician in your party, but don't expect any one thing from them to be
>>impressive on it's own.
>
>Ummm... again you seem to glorify the class beyond their
>ability in the party. More often than not, the team asks
>the magician to lose his pet, for a good reason too.
>In dungeon fighting, pets are liability not asset. They
>bring trains. They also take the XP shares, if they land
>the killing blow. There go the advantages you outline about the
>magicians.
Dungeons are a different story, but a pet does not take much XP at all when
it lands the killing blow, and a magician can always tell it to back off
when the mob is going down. You don't think pets are an asset? What a
concept. Read my passage again. I stated their weaknesses quite clearly.
That being said I think many people give magicians a bad rap when it comes
to parties. A well played magician who can control his pet is an asset,
perhaps as big an asset as a wizard in the right situations. Dungeons are a
weakness, granted, but in the outdoors a magician who knows his business can
probably hold his own with any wizard in a party in terms of utility. Not in
terms of damage dealt, but his pet can root and damage an enemy better than
any root spell, take hits, and hold off enemies while the party escapes -
and they can actually contribute when they have no mana.
>So, the question is what is your party
>make-up?
That's ALWAYS the question, of course. I just didn't see any point in going
over different party configurations for every single class. A person can
easily deduce that if you have no healer, a cleric or druid would make a
good choice. No burner? Wizards are tops. No burner AND low on tanks? Get a
magician. Despite what you seem to think, my goal is not to glorify any
particular class. Some of my analyses may indeed be flawed. That's why I
invited criticism.
Thanks for the input.
Jeff K.
Morgan wrote in message <37701C82...@brownie.cs.berkeley.edu>...
>When I group with Tarlak the necromancer (both of us with pets), we
>both go up at a good clip. But, when fighting the same set of monsters
>at the same rate with a paladin of the same level, my advancement is
>much slower.
I have never heard that before, nor have I ever experienced it. In fact, I
find it rather hard to believe.
drocket
wrote:
>How exactly does Mend work? Is it similar to Lay Hands? My dwarf paladin
>thanks Brell Serellis at least five times a day for that ability! :)
Shouldn't that be once a day? ;)
Jürgen Pünter
says...
>
>I also think warriors should have slightly higher attack
>ratings than paladins, rangers and shadow knights, and
>possibly some small damage bonus as well.
Slightly? How about vastly? Rangers, SKs and paladins
divide their training between magic and combat, warriors
are combat-only. Wouldn't you expect some vast differences
in combat ability based on that? Besides, a 'master of
armed combat' should have something to earn him that
title, which warriors right now don't have.
Juergen Puenter
drocket
>I am unsure whether taking Double attack from rangers would be a good
>idea. But it is obvious something must be done to bring warriors into
>there own. As most people bt now agree Warriors dont get anything that
>makes them any different than other melle classes except a few more
>defensive skills and some hit points, wich are very marginal btw (1 or
>2 hits max usualy less). Verant has done agreat job thus far with
>balancing all the other classes and i hope they decide to give the
>warrior a once over.
>
>Arlaq Icreaver
>(Bertoxx)
My suggestion for fixing warriors is one of the following:
1) Give them more HPs, and a slightly higher healing rate. They're
big, strong, healthy guys, right? So they should heal faster than the
slightly wimpier hybrid classes. And for those of you who will bring
it up, this in no way decreases the need for clerics in a group.
You'll still be needed to heal in combat. This should just be
something that decreases downtime for the fighter. Maybe the extra
healing rate should only kick in after sitting for 30-60 seconds.
-OR-
2) Give them better fighting skills. Someone suggested triple
attack, and I don't think that that's unreasonable. Or maybe
something like if a warrior uses a weapon, it acts as though it has 1
greater damage and 5 lower delay than if any other class were using
it. They're supposedly the masters of armed combat, so they should
have the skills to back it up, right?
I would say that only one or the other should be used, though, because
both together would probably be too much and unbalance the class in
the other direction. Verant needs to decide whether warriors are just
tanks to soak up damage or the masters of armed combat, because right
now they're really not either.
Jürgen Pünter
says...
>
>In article <7kokdj$qrm$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>Jeff K. <jk...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>Rogues - They can tank fairly well, and backstabs are very nice.
>>Unfortunately that's about all they contribute.
>
>I think you're under-estimating the power of rogues badly. They
>are the premier damage dealers thanks to their backstab. A lousy
>stab by a weapon with damage 6 rating can inflict 40+ points of
>damage in one blow.
Yes, it can do that. Every once in a while when
backstab has recycled. It can just as well fail
totally, or do some ridiculous amount of damage
like 1 or 2. Nonetheless, it is considered to be
a mega-taunt, painting a glowing target on the
rogue's forehead and screaming at the mob 'Come
and get me' - disregarding what, if any, damage
that backstab did. After that, it is a game of
'Get the mob of the rogue', without any backstab
chances any more.
Juergen Puenter
John Henders
>2) Give them better fighting skills. Someone suggested triple
>attack, and I don't think that that's unreasonable. Or maybe
>something like if a warrior uses a weapon, it acts as though it has 1
>greater damage and 5 lower delay than if any other class were using
>it. They're supposedly the masters of armed combat, so they should
>have the skills to back it up, right?
I think either of these might be too much, though without testing it's
difficult to say for sure. An alternative I thought of would be to maybe
make them hit a little harder with the same weapon (maybe your one extra
damage modifier idea above) but also make them more likely to hit for
full damage and have an upper level minimum. Currently a warrior can
still get hit's of 5 or 6 on occasion, thanks to the way they calculate
the random damage. If warriors got a bonus that meant they never hit for
say less than 50% of max damage (or some percentage better than the
current 0 to 100%) that might go a long way towards making them stand
out from the other melee hybrids, without drastically unbalancing them.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Rob Illing
> >Rogues - They can tank fairly well, and backstabs are very nice.
> >Unfortunately that's about all they contribute.
>
> I think you're under-estimating the power of rogues badly. They
> are the premier damage dealers thanks to their backstab. A lousy
> stab by a weapon with damage 6 rating can inflict 40+ points of
> damage in one blow. Now, if my party doesn't have a tank yet, and
> I have to choose, yeah I'll pick a warrior or monk first. For
> a secondary tank, I'll probably pick rogue.
My rogue: Backstab for 20-50, plus 3 swings for about 10 each. This equals 50-80
damage. (only in rounds where I have backstab available and I'm standing behind
my opponent)
Warrior 1 level below me: Two swings for 40 each, plus a kick for 8. This equals
a consistant 80+ damage every single round.
Rogues do not inflict the huge damage people seem to think they do.
Cheers,
Rob
Rob Illing
Cheers,
Rob
David Schrank
classes and druids. It also maxes out at like 250 damage vs the 1200 wizards do.
Our pets are like 8 levels below our level, unlike magicians who get equal level
pets. Healing we do not get the biggie healing spell or any resurrection.
Necro's get much better Dot spells. Rangers get better travel buffs. Fighters
get better armor and our weapons are very weak compaired to theirs.
We do however have one unique ability no other class has. In a dungeon or out of
one, in any party regardless of makeup, we can contribute and fill holes. Also
we tend to be able to survive better than other classes due to Armor/Sow/Buffs.
I agree we are a great class. I disagree we are a powerful class.
Rob Beckett
:)
Rob
"1935 will go down in history! For the first time,
a civilized nation has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient
and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolf Hitler, 1935
D. Bingham Brown
Same here. it's my experience that when grouped, everyone gains
'bubbles' at the same rate if they're the same level. I believe the
theory that it allots exp based on total exp gained not level in a group.
Which just means that after about 15th level, the exp tables get TOTALLY
reversed, and the rogue's low exp tables become a disadvantage because they
lose more 'bubbles' when they die compared to other classes...
Lowinor Silverleaf
Rogue, 21st level, Tunare
D. Bingham Brown
Rob Illing wrote in message <3771012E...@newearth.co.uk>...
>My rogue: Backstab for 20-50, plus 3 swings for about 10 each. This equals
50-80
>damage. (only in rounds where I have backstab available and I'm standing
behind
>my opponent)
>
>Warrior 1 level below me: Two swings for 40 each, plus a kick for 8. This
equals
>a consistant 80+ damage every single round.
>
>Rogues do not inflict the huge damage people seem to think they do.
C'mon Rob, that's faulty.
If the warrior gets a round with his weapon, you get two with yours. Right
now, my weapons (bloodclaw and dragoon dirk, both 6/23) are almost exactly
twice as fast as a bone bladed claymore (17/45).
You're also assuming that the warrior always hits, always gets double
attack, and always hits for max damage while significantly dropping down
your expectations on your attacks.
Considering a 'round' is the time it takes to cycle a special attack,
it's more like:
Rogue:
12 chances for max of 15
+ 1 chance for max of 50
Warrior:
4 chances for max of 40
+ 1 chance for max of 10
Now, add in both that the warrior hits his max more consistantly, and
that statistically "more chances at less" beats out "less chances at more"
they come out pretty close to even.
At least in my experience; at level 21, my bloodclaw + dragoon dirk
outdamages
my ranger friend's BBC. Even without backstabs it's too close to call.
K. Laisathit
>
>Only true if you just look at one attack round, thus completely ignoring the
>fact that 1 handed weapons have a *significantly* lower recharge rate.
But 1-handers also do significantly less damage. Consider BBC
and any 1-hander you care to name attainable at level 20.
Combined LS is 6/26, IIRC. BBC is 17/48. BBC does almost
tripple damage while only 80% slower. Barbed leather whip
is 7/28, but then it's not attainable below 20.
Later...
K. Laisathit
Jeff K. <jk...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>druids. I can tell you that in 20s, we can't be hit. We
>>aren't much better than magi in the protection department.
>
>You aren't? Mages get only one line of buffs, wizards barely any buffs at
>all. Only enchanters are better than druids in this area. As for the armor,
>my understanding is that at higher levels there is more powerful armor
>available to them than leather. If this is incorrect that I have to modify
>my opinion.
Are we or are we not considering classes in the context of a party?
Buff can be cast on anyone including the mages. What a spellcaster
carries to the team is his equipment and his spells. Spells should
be considered team resources. So, the only individual distinction
in the protection department comes down to what equipment one has.
Those who say equipments don't matter are deluding themselves.
As I said, ask you warrior to wear leather and see how he fares.
After 20, many magic armors that are wearable by druids are also
wearable by mages, bone armors and lizardscale capes are
examples.
>That being said I think many people give magicians a bad rap when it comes
>to parties. A well played magician who can control his pet is an asset,
>perhaps as big an asset as a wizard in the right situations.
That's the crux of the matter. Magician's pets aren't that easy
to control. Yeah, you can tell them to sit tight and wait. But
more often than not the pets wander while you're fighting. The
pathfinding also leaves a bit to be desired. Your argument
pre-supposed that skill in controlling pets is an important
factor in determining the magicians' worth. Unfortunately skill
has something but not much to do with controlling pet. You
can't deny that dungeon fighting becomes unavoidable eventually.
In dungeons, magicians' pets get stuck and/or bring trains.
That's just a simple fact.
Later...
RoccoS
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:59:44 -0400, "Jeff K." <jk...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Ah, I didn't know monks had lower MR! I can see that really being a problem
>>for your group in certain situations. <G>
>
>Yepper. I think it's a whopping 25. I can resist stuff from green
>mobs and that's about it. I get charmed a lot, too.
I think the 25 comes from being human, not being a monk.
Could be wrong, of course.
Morgan
>
> Jeff K. wrote in message <7kprlt$47e$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >Morgan wrote in message <37701C82...@brownie.cs.berkeley.edu>...
> >>When I group with Tarlak the necromancer (both of us with pets), we
> >>both go up at a good clip. But, when fighting the same set of monsters
> >>at the same rate with a paladin of the same level, my advancement is
> >>much slower.
> >
> >I have never heard that before, nor have I ever experienced it. In fact, I
> >find it rather hard to believe.
>
> Same here. it's my experience that when grouped, everyone gains
> 'bubbles' at the same rate if they're the same level. I believe the
> theory that it allots exp based on total exp gained not level in a group.
Exactly! You say "Same here", but your statement supports mine.
If everyone is the same level, they are getting bubbles at the same
rate. Since we know that paladins take more experience to go up
levels, then it follows that they must be taking a larger share of
the experience.
I experienced this when hunting at a fixed spawn (the Nybright
sisters). When I grouped with a Paladin of my level, I got bubbles
of experience much more slowly than when grouped with a Necromancer
of the same level. Of course, Paladins are extremely effective in
combat, so if you are not limited by the spawn then you might still
gain experience at the same rate because you can kill more stuff in
the same time.
> Which just means that after about 15th level, the exp tables get TOTALLY
> reversed, and the rogue's low exp tables become a disadvantage because they
> lose more 'bubbles' when they die compared to other classes...
>
> Lowinor Silverleaf
> Rogue, 21st level, Tunare
I think this is an effect of the shape of the experience tables, not
an effect of the lower requirements. If the experience progression
were strictly exponential, then the fractional experience penalty
would always appear to be the same number of "bubbles" (in the limit).
Instead, I think the experience progression is much the same as in
AD&D, exponential for a while and then piecewise linear. So, as you
go up in levels, the experience penalty for death gets larger. Since
different classes use different progression tables, the number of
bubbles lost on death is not consistent between classes.
--
Morgan
Jeff K.
K. Laisathit wrote in message <7krd4t$llq$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
>In article <7kprls$47e$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Jeff K. <jk...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>druids. I can tell you that in 20s, we can't be hit. We
>>>aren't much better than magi in the protection department.
>>
>>all. Only enchanters are better than druids in this area. As for the
armor,
>>my understanding is that at higher levels there is more powerful armor
>>available to them than leather. If this is incorrect that I have to modify
>>my opinion.
>
>Are we or are we not considering classes in the context of a party?
>Buff can be cast on anyone including the mages.
A wizard gets only one measly buff that he can cast on his party members -
O'Kell's Radiation, which has got to be the weakest damage shield in the
game. They only get one other line of buffs, and they are for the wizard
alone, and in 90% of all fights those buffs never come into play in a party
because the wizard's goal is not to be attacked. A magician gets great
damage shields, but nothing else (besides the usual 'self only' shielding
line). Compare this to druids - the "skin like xx" line of spells, then
endure fire/cold/etc. line, plus damage shields, all of which can be cast on
any party member. And you're saying druids don't buff much better than
mages? It's just plain obvious that a party gets better buffs with a druid
than with a wizard or a magician.
>After 20, many magic armors that are wearable by druids are also
>wearable by mages, bone armors and lizardscale capes are
>examples.
I stand corrected. I didn't know mages could wear those armors. Do clerics
have better armor available at those levels? If so then I retract my comment
about druids only being slightly inferior tanks to clerics. In that case
then, yes, clerics make significantly better tanks - if the armor is
significantly better.
>In dungeons, magicians' pets get stuck and/or bring trains.
>That's just a simple fact.
I already conceded that pets were a problem in dungeons. My entire
commentary was the use of pets outdoors. Outside pets are great assets, and
yes it does take some skill to use them properly there. When to tell it to
sit tight, when to have it follow you, when to have it initiate the attack,
when to simply have it protect you during a fight. Why are you harping on
dungeons still? As for pets wandering during fights, just tell the damned
thing to sit down and it won't move unless the magician is attacked, and
after that enemy is dead it sits right back down without being told. What on
earth do you have against magicians? Yes, there are times that I'd rather
have a wizard in my party, but there are just as many times when I would
prefer a magician over a wizard. That sounds like balance to me.
Rob Illing
> If the warrior gets a round with his weapon, you get two with yours. Right
> now, my weapons (bloodclaw and dragoon dirk, both 6/23) are almost exactly
> twice as fast as a bone bladed claymore (17/45).
Almost.
> You're also assuming that the warrior always hits, always gets double
> attack, and always hits for max damage while significantly dropping down
> your expectations on your attacks.
I'm also assuming in my example that my rogue always hits too.
> Considering a 'round' is the time it takes to cycle a special attack,
> it's more like:
> Rogue:
> 12 chances for max of 15
> + 1 chance for max of 50
You are making several errors here. Rogue double attack skill does not affect
the off-hand. This means that you will only ever see 3 attacks and not four.
Secondly you are assuming that each time backstab recharges, I am going to be in
a position to strike at the enemy's back
Thirdly, you are overestimate weapon damage. You, as a 21st level rougue ought
to know these things. This means that what we are REALLY looking at is 9
chances for 14 damage, and 1 initial chance at 1-50 damage, plus in subsequent
rounds, a chance at an extra attack for 14.
> Warrior:
> 4 chances for max of 40
> + 1 chance for max of 10
You underestimate the power of Warrior strength bonus. This should read 4
chances at 42 damage and a potential kick for 12.
> Now, add in both that the warrior hits his max more consistantly, and
> that statistically "more chances at less" beats out "less chances at more"
> they come out pretty close to even.
I would disagree. Besides, it's not all attacking. Remember that warriors have
higher defensive skill caps and can wear heavier armour than rogues.
> At least in my experience; at level 21, my bloodclaw + dragoon dirk
> outdamages my ranger friend's BBC. Even without backstabs it's too close to
> call.
Now that's something I really HAVE to see.
Cheers,
Rob
Garrik le Jackal - Rogue lvl 26, Mith Marr
D. Bingham Brown
Rob Illing wrote in message <3771F862...@newearth.co.uk>...
>D. Bingham Brown wrote:
>
>> If the warrior gets a round with his weapon, you get two with yours.
Right
>> now, my weapons (bloodclaw and dragoon dirk, both 6/23) are almost
exactly
>> twice as fast as a bone bladed claymore (17/45).
>
>Almost.
1 point off. Almost ;)
>> You're also assuming that the warrior always hits, always gets double
>> attack, and always hits for max damage while significantly dropping down
>> your expectations on your attacks.
>
>I'm also assuming in my example that my rogue always hits too.
Yes, but your warrior was always hitting for max, and your rogue
hitting for considerably under max.
>> Considering a 'round' is the time it takes to cycle a special attack,
>> it's more like:
>
>> Rogue:
>> 12 chances for max of 15
>> + 1 chance for max of 50
>
>You are making several errors here. Rogue double attack skill does not
affect
>the off-hand. This means that you will only ever see 3 attacks and not
four.
I was assuming 4 'rounds' of 3 swings.
Plus, rogue double attack affects dual wield at level 26, or so I've heard.
That's what a designer said, supposedly, that it's based off of dual wield
skill not class, at least.
>Secondly you are assuming that each time backstab recharges, I am going to
be in
>a position to strike at the enemy's back
If you and the warrior are grouping together and this isn't a solo contest,
that's quite reasonable ;)
The rogue forfeits the solo contest because his hps, well, suck.
>Thirdly, you are overestimate weapon damage. You, as a 21st level rougue
ought
>to know these things. This means that what we are REALLY looking at is 9
>chances for 14 damage, and 1 initial chance at 1-50 damage, plus in
subsequent
>rounds, a chance at an extra attack for 14.
My max pierce at lvl 21 is 14. My max backstab at this level is 56.
>> Warrior:
>> 4 chances for max of 40
>> + 1 chance for max of 10
>
>You underestimate the power of Warrior strength bonus. This should read 4
>chances at 42 damage and a potential kick for 12.
Add these up and it's still pretty even.
The 21st level ranger I group with has never hit above 35 with her BBC, so
I don't have much experience with the exact strength bonus.
>> Now, add in both that the warrior hits his max more consistantly, and
>> that statistically "more chances at less" beats out "less chances at
more"
>> they come out pretty close to even.
>
>I would disagree. Besides, it's not all attacking. Remember that warriors
have
>higher defensive skill caps and can wear heavier armour than rogues.
I was just talking about pure melee damage here. In pure melee *damage*
the rogue is, at least in the low twenties, on the same footing if not
slightly ahead of the warrior in pure melee *damage*.
>> At least in my experience; at level 21, my bloodclaw + dragoon dirk
>> outdamages my ranger friend's BBC. Even without backstabs it's too close
to
>> call.
>
>Now that's something I really HAVE to see.
Welp, this is what happens.
smiller
steals mobs from me (was 13 out of 13 in our test against green mobs) using a
Giant Z and me using a 6-22 and 6-23 weapon... all skills maxed.
Rob Illing
> >> You're also assuming that the warrior always hits, always gets double
> >> attack, and always hits for max damage while significantly dropping down
> >> your expectations on your attacks.
> >
> >I'm also assuming in my example that my rogue always hits too.
>
> Yes, but your warrior was always hitting for max, and your rogue
> hitting for considerably under max.
Insert the number 14 if you like. You'll still see less damage.
> >You are making several errors here. Rogue double attack skill does not
> affect
> >the off-hand. This means that you will only ever see 3 attacks and not four.
>
> I was assuming 4 'rounds' of 3 swings.
In which case, why did you not allow the warrior to have 4 rounds of 2 swings,
ie: 8 attacks?
> Plus, rogue double attack affects dual wield at level 26, or so I've heard.
> That's what a designer said, supposedly, that it's based off of dual wield
> skill not class, at least.
Speaking as a level 26 rogue, I can't say I've ever seen any such difference.
> >Secondly you are assuming that each time backstab recharges, I am going to be
> in
> >a position to strike at the enemy's back
> If you and the warrior are grouping together and this isn't a solo contest,
> that's quite reasonable ;)
I would say that even with the best warrior, you will only ever be able to
backstab 2 out of 3 times.
> The rogue forfeits the solo contest because his hps, well, suck.
:)
> >Thirdly, you are overestimate weapon damage. You, as a 21st level rougue
> ought
> >to know these things. This means that what we are REALLY looking at is 9
> >chances for 14 damage, and 1 initial chance at 1-50 damage, plus in
> subsequent
> >rounds, a chance at an extra attack for 14.
>
> My max pierce at lvl 21 is 14. My max backstab at this level is 56.
My backstab estimate was off slightly, but my piercing damage was dead on, yes?
> >> Warrior:
> >> 4 chances for max of 40
> >> + 1 chance for max of 10
> >You underestimate the power of Warrior strength bonus. This should read 4
> >chances at 42 damage and a potential kick for 12.
>
> Add these up and it's still pretty even.
Let's go through it shall we?
8 chances at a hit for 42, plus a kick for 10 is a max of 346 damage
12 chances at a hit for 14 damage, plus a backstab (optimistically) of 62 is a
max of 230 damage. A substantial difference, eh?
> The 21st level ranger I group with has never hit above 35 with her BBC, so
> I don't have much experience with the exact strength bonus.
Rangers do not get even nearly the STR attack bonus that warriors do.
> I was just talking about pure melee damage here. In pure melee *damage*
> the rogue is, at least in the low twenties, on the same footing if not
> slightly ahead of the warrior in pure melee *damage*.
I disagree. From being grouped with a a warrior in her low 20s to a
shadowknight in the high 20s, I can tell you that you WILL be out damaged. All
my skills are maxed, and I use a DD and a PGT.
Cheers,
Rob
Davian
Rob Illing <rob-i...@newearth.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37724E8B...@newearth.co.uk...
> D. Bingham Brown wrote:
>
> > >> You're also assuming that the warrior always hits, always gets double
> > >> attack, and always hits for max damage while significantly dropping
down
> > >> your expectations on your attacks.
> > >
> > >I'm also assuming in my example that my rogue always hits too.
> >
> > Yes, but your warrior was always hitting for max, and your rogue
> > hitting for considerably under max.
>
> Insert the number 14 if you like. You'll still see less damage.
>
> > >You are making several errors here. Rogue double attack skill does not
> > affect
> > >the off-hand. This means that you will only ever see 3 attacks and not
four.
> >
> > I was assuming 4 'rounds' of 3 swings.
>
> In which case, why did you not allow the warrior to have 4 rounds of 2
swings,
> ie: 8 attacks?
>
Because he's trying to compensate for the different attack times... which
mean the Rogue gets 2 attack rounds for every time the Warrior (using a two
hander) gets one.
I think he may be overcompensating, but thats another issue.
Anyways... from playing my level 16 rogue and a level 24 paladin... overall,
they appear to be somewhat even in terms of damage dealing ability. If I
can use backstab, then the rogue comes out ahead.
> > Plus, rogue double attack affects dual wield at level 26, or so I've
heard.
> > That's what a designer said, supposedly, that it's based off of dual
wield
> > skill not class, at least.
>
> Speaking as a level 26 rogue, I can't say I've ever seen any such
difference.
>
It looks to me as if the Double Attack skill does work on the off hand.
I'll admit that my rogue is spamming the attacks so fast that it's hard to
tell, but the second hand I use has a different damage rating, so it's
usually easy to tell the hits apart.
Once I train up double attack (it's still in low 20's, I just made level 16)
I'll be able to say a bit more certainly.
> > >Secondly you are assuming that each time backstab recharges, I am going
to be
> > in
> > >a position to strike at the enemy's back
> > If you and the warrior are grouping together and this isn't a solo
contest,
> > that's quite reasonable ;)
>
> I would say that even with the best warrior, you will only ever be able to
> backstab 2 out of 3 times.
>
Spellcasters work better. They get the mob to turn easier. Gaellic the
Druid, who I fight with sometimes, can manage to turn the mob around in time
for me to recharge backstab, almost every time.
Bards work really well also. Monsters hate buffs/debuffs and magic damage
on top of weapon damage. They naturally try to destroy the bard, meaning
they occasionally turn off you.
> > >> Warrior:
> > >> 4 chances for max of 40
> > >> + 1 chance for max of 10
> > >You underestimate the power of Warrior strength bonus. This should
read 4
> > >chances at 42 damage and a potential kick for 12.
> >
> > Add these up and it's still pretty even.
>
> Let's go through it shall we?
>
> 8 chances at a hit for 42, plus a kick for 10 is a max of 346 damage
>
> 12 chances at a hit for 14 damage, plus a backstab (optimistically) of 62
is a
> max of 230 damage. A substantial difference, eh?
I still say it's 16 chances for 14 damage.
And it's not 8 chances for 42. At level 24, on a character with 95 strength
39 is a more reasonable number for BBC damage. Only after casting reckless
strength have I ever gotten 40, and that goes away very quickly.
>
> > The 21st level ranger I group with has never hit above 35 with her BBC,
so
> > I don't have much experience with the exact strength bonus.
>
> Rangers do not get even nearly the STR attack bonus that warriors do.
Nor do Rogues. Unless you took high strength.
The problem isn't that warriors are too powerful because they have higher
strength... rogues could have chosen that stat as well. (the maximum
possible strength on a Barbarian warrior is only 5 higher than the max
possible to take on a Barbarian Rogue). The problem is that the other stats
a rouge usually has, high agility and dexterity... aren't worth as much as
having the high strength. This is an issue that the stats aren't properly
balanced, not that the classes aren't properly balanced.
> > I was just talking about pure melee damage here. In pure melee *damage*
> > the rogue is, at least in the low twenties, on the same footing if not
> > slightly ahead of the warrior in pure melee *damage*.
>
> I disagree. From being grouped with a a warrior in her low 20s to a
> shadowknight in the high 20s, I can tell you that you WILL be out damaged.
All
> my skills are maxed, and I use a DD and a PGT.
Ok, for my own opinions... I'm not that concerned with the amount of damage
being dealt out. In my experience it's not as out of balance as you think
it is.
What I would like to see is something to compensate Rogues for the lower hit
points and armor class. What I would prefer would be one or a combination
of some of the following.
1) Higher Piercing and Offence skill caps. These are what determine if you
hit or not. As a Rogue with 105 dexterity, it's really really distressing
to see 8 or 10 misses in a row come up on a blue monster. At 105
dexterity a streak like that shouldn't happen on anything less than a high
yellow.
2) Higher skill caps in Dodge, Parry and Riposte. As a Rogue, you have the
damage dealing ability of a warrior (or at least a hybrid), but your hit
points and armor class are closer to what a cleric has. You get hit as much
as anyone, and those hits hurt more than on any other fighting class, since
they're a greater percentage of your hit points. Having a greater ability
to avoid the blow completely would give the rogue a compensation for the low
hit points. The warrior can survive the blows, the rogue has to hope he
dodges them, but he is reasonably able to do so. Thats how it should be,
IMO.
3) A Hide in Shadows (or modify hide) skill which allows the Rogue to escape
from combat, similar to Feign Death. Every class needs to have a way to
escape when things are going bad. Most of them have it. A Druid, Shaman or
Bard can run fast, outrunning the mob. A Monk or Necromancer (possibly
shadowknight?) can use or cast Feign Death, and the monster will leave them
alone. All of the spellcasting classes (Wizard, Magician, Druid, Shaman,
Necro, Cleric) can gate out of trouble. A Paladin can Lay Hands on himself
and have a chance of making the zone line. A Shadow Knight can death touch
and have an extra *very* high damage attack to hopefully kill whatever is
doing him in. A Cleric can cast Divine Aura and run for the zone line.
As a Rogue, I have none of these. If I come over a hill and find myself
staring at a Cyclops... I might as well try and melee him, since running is
pointless. I have no possibility of escaping at all, unless I was standing
at the bridge out of the zone when the thing first attacked. Run away? I
tried... I made it about 5 steps. (I was at full health when it attacked)
Give Rogues a way out of combat. Hide in Shadows would be similar to Feign
Death... if you succeed, then nothing can see you while standing still and
not attacking) If you fail, everything in the immediate area kicks your
ass. ;) Give it a high delay if you have to, and require high skill for it
to work... But it should be a Rogue skill.
--
note: I'm not asking for all of these, so don't bother saying that
having*all* of them would overbalance and make Rogues too good. I'm just
asking for a combination of some of them (or parts of them), which evens out
the rogue class with the others.
--
Davian
K. Laisathit
>
>You are making several errors here. Rogue double attack skill does not
>affect the off-hand. This means that you will only ever see 3 attacks
>and not four.
That's probably unfound rumor. According to the Monk's page, at 100,
you get 10% chance of hitting with off-hand. For each attack, you
get 10% of hitting with double attack. What this boils down to is
that the odds of hitting 4 times is basically 1% at this level. You
don't see it because first your off-hand (dual-wield skill) attack
check has to be successful, then you also have to have a successful
check of double-attack.
Later...
Bael Zar
Jeff K. wrote in message <7kokdj$qrm$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Having decided to completely abandon Rob in the Whining Wizards thread,
>since he is clearly sitcking his fingers in his ears and shouting "NAH NAH
>NAH WIZARDS ARE TOO POWERFUL!", I thought perhaps a bit of intelligent
>discussion of what we actually *mean* when we say "class balance" is in
>order.
>
>other posters who made excellent points, is how well a class solos or
PVP's.
>This game is not designed for solo play past a certain point (what a
concept
>for a massively multiplayer game! <G>), and that includes 1-on-1 duelling.
>Nobody with any sense can say that rogues, even were they fully functional,
>were designed to PVP.
>
>What I do think it means is how well a class can contribute to a group.
Does
>it contribute a unique ability, or unique combination of abilities? I think
>we can look at this using a thought experiment - you have a party of five,
>and are looking for a sixth member. If you had all 14 classes to choose
from
>for your 6th slot (wouldn't THAT be nice? <G>), would they each contribute
>equally, albeit in different ways? And, just as importantly, do they all
>come with balancing weaknesses? Forgetting for the moment that your choice
>would depend heavily on who you already have (if you have three tanks, you
>don't really want another), I'll take a quick glimpse at each.
(insight snipped)
Gotta agree that many (most?), when defining "Class Balance," stack the
classes against each other, level for level. Which is completely
ridiculous.
What I believe Class Balance _should_ mean is Equal Power for Equal
Investment. Example: Two players of equal skill each choose a different
class (we'll say Warrior and Wizard) and play 100 hours. In a perfect
world, the Warrior and Wizard should be of equal power. It doesn't matter
that 100 Warrior Hours = 20th level whereas 100 Wizard Hours = 12th level,
it's Equal Power for Equal Investment. Obviously, these examples are not
exact.
All during beta, all I ever heard was "My 15th level Warrior is weaker than
my friend's 15th level Wizard," etc. etc. Didn't seem to occur to them that
each Class requires different amounts of Investment to reach 15th level.
The big question is, does EQ work this way? Not exactly. Being strictly
level based, EQ is somewhat confused in the Class Balance area. A level
based system demands more the equal power for equal level comparison. But
we all know EQ is not this way. What EQ has is a Level Based system with a
Skill Based Class Balance situation, which translates to: All Fucked Up.
Makes it nigh-impossible to balance the classes, because the Dev Team is in
a circular firing squad. Some are busy trying the balance the classes,
while the others are busy making Levels, not Skills, matter more.
Can't be fixed at this point.
Rob Illing
> Anyways... from playing my level 16 rogue and a level 24 paladin... overall,
> they appear to be somewhat even in terms of damage dealing ability. If I
> can use backstab, then the rogue comes out ahead.
Paladins and rogues I would agree come out about even. However warriors get a
powerful bonus to attack damage that the other melee classes don't get.
> > Speaking as a level 26 rogue, I can't say I've ever seen any such
> difference.
>
> It looks to me as if the Double Attack skill does work on the off hand.
> I'll admit that my rogue is spamming the attacks so fast that it's hard to
> tell, but the second hand I use has a different damage rating, so it's
> usually easy to tell the hits apart.
I watch the numbers very closely, because I'm always ont he lookout for my
skills maxing out. I can tell you now that I have NEVER seen more than 2
pierces and one slash in a combat round.
> > 8 chances at a hit for 42, plus a kick for 10 is a max of 346 damage
> >
> > 12 chances at a hit for 14 damage, plus a backstab (optimistically) of 62 is
> a
> > max of 230 damage. A substantial difference, eh?
>
> I still say it's 16 chances for 14 damage.
>
> And it's not 8 chances for 42. At level 24, on a character with 95 strength
> 39 is a more reasonable number for BBC damage. Only after casting reckless
> strength have I ever gotten 40, and that goes away very quickly.
I can provide you with screenshots if you like of a DE Shadowknight hitting for
39 with a weapon 1 less damage than a BBC (opal scythe). I can also provide
screenshots of a BAR Warrior hitting for 42 with a BBC.
> > Rangers do not get even nearly the STR attack bonus that warriors do.
>
> Nor do Rogues. Unless you took high strength.
I don;t think you understand. Warriors get a special damage bonus to their
attacks based on their STR that no other class gets. Most classes can hit for a
couple more than the damage rating of the weapon dictates. Warriors can hit for
FAR mroe than the damage rating dictates. Thsi bonus starts to cick in at level
20+
> Ok, for my own opinions... I'm not that concerned with the amount of damage
> being dealt out. In my experience it's not as out of balance as you think
> it is.
In my experience, it most definately IS out of balance.
> 1) Higher Piercing and Offence skill caps. These are what determine if you
> hit or not. As a Rogue with 105 dexterity, it's really really distressing
> to see 8 or 10 misses in a row come up on a blue monster. At 105
> dexterity a streak like that shouldn't happen on anything less than a high
> yellow.
I ahve 110 base DEX (121 with items) and I see exactly the same thing you are
describing, even on blue mobs.
> 2) Higher skill caps in Dodge, Parry and Riposte. As a Rogue, you have the
> damage dealing ability of a warrior (or at least a hybrid), but your hit
> points and armor class are closer to what a cleric has. You get hit as much
> as anyone, and those hits hurt more than on any other fighting class, since
> they're a greater percentage of your hit points. Having a greater ability
> to avoid the blow completely would give the rogue a compensation for the low
> hit points. The warrior can survive the blows, the rogue has to hope he
> dodges them, but he is reasonably able to do so. Thats how it should be,
> IMO.
Agreed.
> 3) A Hide in Shadows (or modify hide) skill which allows the Rogue to escape
> from combat, similar to Feign Death. Every class needs to have a way to
> escape when things are going bad. Most of them have it. A Druid, Shaman or
> Bard can run fast, outrunning the mob. A Monk or Necromancer (possibly
> shadowknight?) can use or cast Feign Death, and the monster will leave them
> alone. All of the spellcasting classes (Wizard, Magician, Druid, Shaman,
> Necro, Cleric) can gate out of trouble. A Paladin can Lay Hands on himself
> and have a chance of making the zone line. A Shadow Knight can death touch
> and have an extra *very* high damage attack to hopefully kill whatever is
> doing him in. A Cleric can cast Divine Aura and run for the zone line.
I disagree. When Instill Doubt reaches a high level, it has the potential to
make many enemies flee while you make your getaway. Be warned that it is based
on Charisma. The higher your charisma, the more success you will see.
> As a Rogue, I have none of these. If I come over a hill and find myself
> staring at a Cyclops... I might as well try and melee him, since running is
> pointless. I have no possibility of escaping at all, unless I was standing
> at the bridge out of the zone when the thing first attacked. Run away? I
> tried... I made it about 5 steps. (I was at full health when it attacked)
Actually, I don't even try to melee. Just stand there and pickpocket like mad
and hope to get some gain out of the encounter :)
Cheers,
Rob
Davian
> Davian wrote:
>
> I disagree. When Instill Doubt reaches a high level, it has the potential
to
> make many enemies flee while you make your getaway. Be warned that it is
based
> on Charisma. The higher your charisma, the more success you will see.
>
Really. Do you have any other information on how Instill Doubt works?
This is one of the ones I've been waiting to try.
Does it build up? As in, if you use it throughout the combat, the mob runs
sooner or is it a one shot thing (you use it, it runs then turns and comes
back when it wears off)?
What is the recharge delay? Could you make a good escape, instilling doubt
into enemies and running each time? Is there *any* chance to get a backstab
in, perhaps at high skill? Does it last longer at high skill (assuming it
works like a fear spell, rather than an "end combat, monster flees till it
escapes or you chase it down" spell)? Is it feasible to use it on several
mobs, or is it only if you're facing one that it's useful? Are there extra
dangers to using it? Will they just end up running far enough to get 10
more like them?
Basicly, what do you know about it? ;)
Davian
Davian
> Davian wrote:
>
> > Anyways... from playing my level 16 rogue and a level 24 paladin...
overall,
> > they appear to be somewhat even in terms of damage dealing ability. If
I
> > can use backstab, then the rogue comes out ahead.
>
> Paladins and rogues I would agree come out about even. However warriors
get a
> powerful bonus to attack damage that the other melee classes don't get.
>
Are you sure of this? Or is it just a bonus from high strength? Will a
Gnome warrior with 80 strength be outdamaging my Half Elf Paladin with 95
strength, using the same weapon? Because honestly this is the first I've
heard of that. A bonus for that one class only, based on a stat.
> > > Speaking as a level 26 rogue, I can't say I've ever seen any such
> > difference.
> >
> > It looks to me as if the Double Attack skill does work on the off hand.
> > I'll admit that my rogue is spamming the attacks so fast that it's hard
to
> > tell, but the second hand I use has a different damage rating, so it's
> > usually easy to tell the hits apart.
>
> I watch the numbers very closely, because I'm always ont he lookout for my
> skills maxing out. I can tell you now that I have NEVER seen more than 2
> pierces and one slash in a combat round.
>
*shrug* I'm almost certain I've seen Dundee attack 4 times in one round,
not counting his kick. And I see no reason DW/DA would work differently
for one class than it does for another.
> > > 8 chances at a hit for 42, plus a kick for 10 is a max of 346 damage
> > >
> > > 12 chances at a hit for 14 damage, plus a backstab (optimistically) of
62 is
> > a
> > > max of 230 damage. A substantial difference, eh?
> >
> > I still say it's 16 chances for 14 damage.
> >
> > And it's not 8 chances for 42. At level 24, on a character with 95
strength
> > 39 is a more reasonable number for BBC damage. Only after casting
reckless
> > strength have I ever gotten 40, and that goes away very quickly.
>
> I can provide you with screenshots if you like of a DE Shadowknight
hitting for
> 39 with a weapon 1 less damage than a BBC (opal scythe). I can also
provide
> screenshots of a BAR Warrior hitting for 42 with a BBC.
>
Don't bother, I believe you. The point I was trying to make is that I
think this is a high strength thing. The rogue could take high strength as
well and get the same bonus.
I have yet to hear of any class based bonus to damage.
> > > Rangers do not get even nearly the STR attack bonus that warriors do.
> >
> > Nor do Rogues. Unless you took high strength.
>
> I don;t think you understand. Warriors get a special damage bonus to
their
> attacks based on their STR that no other class gets. Most classes can hit
for a
> couple more than the damage rating of the weapon dictates. Warriors can
hit for
> FAR mroe than the damage rating dictates. Thsi bonus starts to cick in at
level
> 20+
>
Tonight, my Level 25 paladin grouped with a level 26 Barbarian warrior. I
saw no huge bonus from his high strength.
Admittedly it was hard to tell, since he was dual wielding one handed
weapons, while I was using a 2 hander. But his damage didn't seem much
higher than the damage done with those weapons by the bard I group with (as
another character).
> > Ok, for my own opinions... I'm not that concerned with the amount of
damage
> > being dealt out. In my experience it's not as out of balance as you
think
> > it is.
>
> In my experience, it most definately IS out of balance.
>
If what you say about the class bonus is true, then I might agree with you.
Can anyone give some kind of confirmation? Did I miss something? (wouldn't
be the first time : P)
>
> I disagree. When Instill Doubt reaches a high level, it has the potential
to
> make many enemies flee while you make your getaway. Be warned that it is
based
> on Charisma. The higher your charisma, the more success you will see.
>
I addressed this in my other post... (wasn't going to respond to everythign
else, but changed my mind) Basicly said I have no clue how this skill
works, could you explain what you know? :)
> > As a Rogue, I have none of these. If I come over a hill and find myself
> > staring at a Cyclops... I might as well try and melee him, since running
is
> > pointless. I have no possibility of escaping at all, unless I was
standing
> > at the bridge out of the zone when the thing first attacked. Run away?
I
> > tried... I made it about 5 steps. (I was at full health when it
attacked)
>
> Actually, I don't even try to melee. Just stand there and pickpocket like
mad
> and hope to get some gain out of the encounter :)
Pickpocketing a mob 15 levels above you from the front? ;) You've got a
beter chance of killing him than stealing from him ;)
Davian
Rob Illing
> > I disagree. When Instill Doubt reaches a high level, it has the potential
> to
> > make many enemies flee while you make your getaway. Be warned that it is
> based
> > on Charisma. The higher your charisma, the more success you will see.
>
> Really. Do you have any other information on how Instill Doubt works?
Plenty. I've been using it constantly for 3 levels :) See below
> This is one of the ones I've been waiting to try.
You are likely to be a little disappointed at first. In 3 levels this skill has
worked only 6 times, and it has only increased 4 times. You will need to expend
a lot of training points to get it to the level where it will work/increase
reliably.
> Does it build up? As in, if you use it throughout the combat, the mob runs
> sooner or is it a one shot thing (you use it, it runs then turns and comes
> back when it wears off)?
It's a button you click. your character does a little animation and if the
skill check succeeds, you opponent will turn and run. At this point, you do a
kick attack (up to 8 damage) and backstab is disabled for 10 seconds.
> What is the recharge delay? Could you make a good escape, instilling doubt
> into enemies and running each time? Is there *any* chance to get a backstab
> in, perhaps at high skill? Does it last longer at high skill (assuming it
> works like a fear spell, rather than an "end combat, monster flees till it
> escapes or you chase it down" spell)? Is it feasible to use it on several
> mobs, or is it only if you're facing one that it's useful? Are there extra
> dangers to using it? Will they just end up running far enough to get 10
> more like them?
Basically, there's no chance of an immediate backstab. You better be ready to
give chase! This skill is a guaranteed Train Starter. It will only work on the
creature you are currently targeting.
> Basicly, what do you know about it? ;)
* The skill takes about 7 seconds to work from clicking to seeing a result
* It recycles about once every 10 seconds
* The animation looks funky, and you can go up to newbies and scare them with it
:)
* If the enemy is on a reasonable amount of health, and they run, you have no
chance of catching them without SoW
* If the enemy runs you will have to wait for 10 seconds before you can Backstab
because a successful check initiates a kick attack that "greys out" your
backstab button.
* If an enemy dies while you are trying to intimidate, it cancels the skill and
you get a message saying "Try intimidating someone other than yourself"
* The skill improvement message says "Intimidation" and not "Instill Doubt"
Cheers,
Rob
Rob Illing
> > Paladins and rogues I would agree come out about even. However warriors get
> a
> > powerful bonus to attack damage that the other melee classes don't get.
> Are you sure of this? Or is it just a bonus from high strength? Will a
> Gnome warrior with 80 strength be outdamaging my Half Elf Paladin with 95
> strength, using the same weapon? Because honestly this is the first I've
> heard of that. A bonus for that one class only, based on a stat.
I believe it's an accross the board bonus, but it's amplified for warriors. Any
warriors care to chip in? I really don't know enough to elaborate.
> > I watch the numbers very closely, because I'm always ont he lookout for my
> > skills maxing out. I can tell you now that I have NEVER seen more than 2
> > pierces and one slash in a combat round.
>
> *shrug* I'm almost certain I've seen Dundee attack 4 times in one round,
> not counting his kick. And I see no reason DW/DA would work differently
> for one class than it does for another.
Check into The Safehouse (www.guildboss.com/safehouse) which is a *good* rogue
resource/discussion place. There's plenty of rogues that will confirm this.
> > I can provide you with screenshots if you like of a DE Shadowknight hitting
> for
> > 39 with a weapon 1 less damage than a BBC (opal scythe). I can also provide
>
> > screenshots of a BAR Warrior hitting for 42 with a BBC.
> Don't bother, I believe you. The point I was trying to make is that I
> think this is a high strength thing. The rogue could take high strength as
> well and get the same bonus.
>
> I have yet to hear of any class based bonus to damage.
Granted, the warrior in question was a barbarian, butt he Shadowknight is a dark
elf with about 90 STR. I have almost 90 STR with my rogue.
> Admittedly it was hard to tell, since he was dual wielding one handed
> weapons, while I was using a 2 hander. But his damage didn't seem much
> higher than the damage done with those weapons by the bard I group with (as
> another character).
You'd start to spot the difference if you bot wielded the same weapon, I
think...
> > In my experience, it most definately IS out of balance.
> If what you say about the class bonus is true, then I might agree with you.
> Can anyone give some kind of confirmation? Did I miss something? (wouldn't
> be the first time : P)
:)
> > I disagree. When Instill Doubt reaches a high level, it has the potential
> to
> > make many enemies flee while you make your getaway. Be warned that it is
> based
> > on Charisma. The higher your charisma, the more success you will see.
>
> I addressed this in my other post... (wasn't going to respond to everythign
> else, but changed my mind) Basicly said I have no clue how this skill
> works, could you explain what you know? :)
Check out my other post. I think I covered everything, but if there's something
I missed, please LMK.
> > Actually, I don't even try to melee. Just stand there and pickpocket like
> mad
> > and hope to get some gain out of the encounter :)
>
> Pickpocketing a mob 15 levels above you from the front? ;) You've got a
> beter chance of killing him than stealing from him ;)
You'd be surprised. I have 135 PP skill and it's really quite good (apart from
the massive handfuls of copper I usually get). Aviaks in particular are a good
source of gemstones like Topaz, Jade, Amber and Pearl.
For the ultimate adrenaline rush (I have never tried this, but I have heard of
people who have), get a SoW and then pickpocket a Sand Giant. Then run like
crazy for the zone border! :)
Cheers,
Rob
D. Bingham Brown
Rob Illing wrote in message <37724E8B...@newearth.co.uk>...
>> I was assuming 4 'rounds' of 3 swings.
>
>In which case, why did you not allow the warrior to have 4 rounds of 2
swings,
>ie: 8 attacks?
Because in the time the warrior gets 4 rounds of 2 swings, the rogue gets 8
rounds of 3 swings.
17/45 vs. dual wield 6/23. Almost exactly twice as fast.
I guess we need to determine what a 'round' is.
>> >Secondly you are assuming that each time backstab recharges, I am going
to be
>> in
>> >a position to strike at the enemy's back
>> If you and the warrior are grouping together and this isn't a solo
contest,
>> that's quite reasonable ;)
>
>I would say that even with the best warrior, you will only ever be able to
>backstab 2 out of 3 times.
Warrior are decent at it. Bards, clerics, and wizards are even better,
but if you are in a good group you will hit you backstab almost every time
it cycles.
(As a sidenote, the bard I group with just hit 20th -- the 20th level
bard song reduces speed and ac of monsters. With it on, I seem to hit
almost every backstab for at least 50 damage (max at level 21 was 57,
we shall see at 22...))
>> The rogue forfeits the solo contest because his hps, well, suck.
>
>:)
Well, we agree on something... :)
>> >Thirdly, you are overestimate weapon damage. You, as a 21st level
rougue
>> ought
>> >to know these things. This means that what we are REALLY looking at is
9
>> >chances for 14 damage, and 1 initial chance at 1-50 damage, plus in
>> subsequent
>> >rounds, a chance at an extra attack for 14.
>>
>> My max pierce at lvl 21 is 14. My max backstab at this level is 56.
>
>My backstab estimate was off slightly, but my piercing damage was dead on,
yes?
Exactly. I overestimated a bit, I'm hoping for a 15 pierce soon, camping
for the troll hide belt currently ;)
>> >> Warrior:
>> >> 4 chances for max of 40
>> >> + 1 chance for max of 10
>> >You underestimate the power of Warrior strength bonus. This should read
4
>> >chances at 42 damage and a potential kick for 12.
>>
>> Add these up and it's still pretty even.
>
>Let's go through it shall we?
>
>8 chances at a hit for 42, plus a kick for 10 is a max of 346 damage
>
>12 chances at a hit for 14 damage, plus a backstab (optimistically) of 62
is a
>max of 230 damage. A substantial difference, eh?
4 chances at 42, not 8.
*THE ROGUE'S WEAPON IS TWICE AS FAST AS THE WARRIOR'S*
Sorry for the caps, but this is what I've been trying to say. In the time
I get my 12 chances, the warrior only gets 4. If our daggers had the same
speed as a BBC, it would be different. They're twice as fast, so the damage
numbers are really quite close.
>> The 21st level ranger I group with has never hit above 35 with her BBC,
so
>> I don't have much experience with the exact strength bonus.
>
>Rangers do not get even nearly the STR attack bonus that warriors do.
Understood.
I still out-melee the ranger with her BBC ;)
Seriously, if the ranger doesn't taunt the monsters will not stop attacking
me. The cleric can heal them off, and they sometimes randomly attack
the bard (hint, rogues and bards work *very well* together -- monsters
like to expose their backs to rogues standing near bards ;), but without
taunts the ranger can't get stuff off of me.
If my bloodclaw goes off, it takes a few taunts to get the monster off of
me.
>> I was just talking about pure melee damage here. In pure melee *damage*
>> the rogue is, at least in the low twenties, on the same footing if not
>> slightly ahead of the warrior in pure melee *damage*.
>
>I disagree. From being grouped with a a warrior in her low 20s to a
>shadowknight in the high 20s, I can tell you that you WILL be out damaged.
All
>my skills are maxed, and I use a DD and a PGT.
I dunno. I've outdamaged rangers, a monk and a warrior (well, the monk and
warrior were a level below me). I don't think that's going to continue
very well into the high 20s, but I'm doing quite well in melee so far.
My best suggestion for you is to either save up 300 plat or so or just trade
that PGT for a bloodclaw. The 50 damage activation on the bloodlcaw is
*really* nice. IMO, the bloodclaw is the best one-handed weapon that
doesn't
take a level 30+ party to get.
Lowinor Silverleaf
Rogue, 22nd level, Tunare
D. Bingham Brown
Rob Illing wrote in message <377368FE...@newearth.co.uk>...
>* The skill takes about 7 seconds to work from clicking to seeing a result
>* It recycles about once every 10 seconds
>* The animation looks funky, and you can go up to newbies and scare them
with it
>:)
>* If the enemy is on a reasonable amount of health, and they run, you have
no
>chance of catching them without SoW
>* If the enemy runs you will have to wait for 10 seconds before you can
Backstab
>because a successful check initiates a kick attack that "greys out" your
>backstab button.
>* If an enemy dies while you are trying to intimidate, it cancels the skill
and
>you get a message saying "Try intimidating someone other than yourself"
>* The skill improvement message says "Intimidation" and not "Instill Doubt"
Grr. Yet another near-worthless rogue skill.
I just imagine using this in Guk (where my party currently is) and getting
the entire contents of the place trained up on me.
I really, really wish rogues got feign death. I think I'd be perfectly
happy with the rogue class if we had the poison we're promised and feign
death.
Rob Illing
> I guess we need to determine what a 'round' is.
I don't believe that the delay number represents an absolute length of time
between attacks. to be honest, I don;t really understand the game mechanics to
make a definate staement. In fact, the only people who do are the people at
Verant, and they won;t say :)
Even assuming that the rogue does nearly equal damage (which he doesn't) who is
the more valuable to the group?
> Exactly. I overestimated a bit, I'm hoping for a 15 pierce soon, camping
> for the troll hide belt currently ;)
At level 26, I have started to notice the odd 15 damage pierce, once in a blue
moon. I must stress that this is extremely uncommon! I have 87 STR.
I'd be interested to know where you aquired a Bloodclaw from. I only just
managed to get a Dragoon's Dirk at level 25, and that was because I paid through
the nose for it.
> 4 chances at 42, not 8.
>
> *THE ROGUE'S WEAPON IS TWICE AS FAST AS THE WARRIOR'S*
OK, let's accept that for a moment and go on below...
> Sorry for the caps, but this is what I've been trying to say. In the time
> I get my 12 chances, the warrior only gets 4. If our daggers had the same
> speed as a BBC, it would be different. They're twice as fast, so the damage
> numbers are really quite close.
This being the case, excluding special attacks like kick, slam and backstab the
damage comes out about equal.Allow a backstab and the rogue actually does more!
Yipee... OK now here's the kicker:
To pay for this we get: Lower defence caps, less HPs, less armour, less choice
of weapons and broken skills.
So while your argument on damage is ultimately right, it doesn't mean the
classes are balanced.
> >Rangers do not get even nearly the STR attack bonus that warriors do.
>
> Understood.
> I still out-melee the ranger with her BBC ;)
Is the ranger fully buffing herself? Who is the one who can heal between
fights? Who is the one who can track?
Perhaps your ranger should kick out that BBC and get a weapon of comparable
level to your Bloodclaw. Then you'd see a definate difference.
> >> I was just talking about pure melee damage here. In pure melee *damage*
> >> the rogue is, at least in the low twenties, on the same footing if not
> >> slightly ahead of the warrior in pure melee *damage*.
Pure melee damage is not the only factor.
> I dunno. I've outdamaged rangers, a monk and a warrior (well, the monk and
> warrior were a level below me). I don't think that's going to continue
> very well into the high 20s, but I'm doing quite well in melee so far.
This is only useful if you want to killsteal.
OK, you won the damage argument :) However, let's put that alongside all the
other factors. It doesn't remotely balance out.
> My best suggestion for you is to either save up 300 plat or so or just trade
> that PGT for a bloodclaw. The 50 damage activation on the bloodlcaw is
> *really* nice. IMO, the bloodclaw is the best one-handed weapon that
> doesn't take a level 30+ party to get.
Sorry, but I refuse to wield 2 daggers. 2 daggers and I might as well rename my
class from "rogue" to "street punk". Do you realise how pathetic it looks?
And I beg to differ on the availability of the Blooclaw weapon. I only ever
seen one Bloodclaw, and that was on a level 30 rogue.
Cheers,
Rob
JysIin
calculator and bottle of Tylenol to muddle through it all::
Keith C. Estanol
: That's the crux of the matter. Magician's pets aren't that easy
: to control. Yeah, you can tell them to sit tight and wait. But
: more often than not the pets wander while you're fighting. The
: pathfinding also leaves a bit to be desired. Your argument
: pre-supposed that skill in controlling pets is an important
: factor in determining the magicians' worth. Unfortunately skill
: has something but not much to do with controlling pet. You
: can't deny that dungeon fighting becomes unavoidable eventually.
: That's just a simple fact.
Well. It's a matter of skill. It's not just a matter of sitting your pet
down in any old place. You have to figure out just how fast your pet runs
through a certain set of corridors, which corridors they run through when
they sense that you're in danger, and their 'danger sense' distance.
For example, after clearing out the beginning areas of Infected Paw, you
can sit your pet some distance away from the Gnoll Shaman room, go annoy
some Gnoll Guards and run back to your pet. If you placed your pet too
close to the room, he'll pursue the Gnoll Guards into the room and
bring back the train. If you put him too far away, he'll never make it in
time to help you out. But at the right distance, he will attack and kill 2
or more Gnoll Guards + other misc Gnolls after you train them back to him.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work if there are already massive trains running
around. But if there are massive trains running around, there is little
you can do but step aside and let them through, and many times they won't
just pass through your area.
--
Keith C. Estanol / st...@san.rr.com / Systems Administration
Linux / Quake2 Weapons Factory / Lawful Evil
Steven Le
wrote:
<snip alot of stuff>
Don't forget the holyswords. Dual wield holyswords is a bad thing,
and too powerful. I bet the paladins love the idea of dual wield!
Jeff K.
Steven Le wrote in message <378452c3...@news.pdq.net>...
><snip alot of stuff>
>Don't forget the holyswords. Dual wield holyswords is a bad thing,
>and too powerful. I bet the paladins love the idea of dual wield!
Agreed. Which is why I never suggested giving paladins dual wield. :)