Arelith

People will still play melees, but the meta will favor cha-based meleers (and those that can otherwise pump their saving throws).

It's cost vs. effect.

Getting a decent discipline score is cheap for most classes. Getting a decent will save is not.

Getting a decent fortitude save is cheaper for most classes than will (i.e. it keys off of constitution, a primary or secondary stat for nearly every build).

As for the note that 'not everyone starts with death ward', that's true; however, it's easy to apply within a round. Bear in mind that most death spells have flashy VFX (during which death ward can be applied).

Also, weapon masters are not considered overpowered by anyone familiar with the current meta. They're arguably not even top tier.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:01 am People will still play melees, but the meta will favor cha-based meleers (and those that can otherwise pump their saving throws).

It's cost vs. effect.

Getting a decent discipline score is cheap for most classes. Getting a decent will save is not.

Getting a decent fortitude save is cheaper for most classes than will (i.e. it keys off of constitution, a primary or secondary stat for nearly every build).

As for the note that 'not everyone starts with death ward', that's true; however, it's easy to apply within a round. Bear in mind that most death spells have flashy VFX (during which death ward can be applied).

Also, weapon masters are not considered overpowered by anyone familiar with the current meta. They're arguably not even top tier.

I wouldn't call taking 3 class levels, 33 skill point investment, gear enchantments for every slot and an epic skill focus cheap. That is about as heavy an investment as you can get.

And that's just to be considered viable.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:01 am People will still play melees, but the meta will favor cha-based meleers (and those that can otherwise pump their saving throws).

It's cost vs. effect.

Getting a decent discipline score is cheap for most classes. Getting a decent will save is not.

Getting a decent fortitude save is cheaper for most classes than will (i.e. it keys off of constitution, a primary or secondary stat for nearly every build).

As for the note that 'not everyone starts with death ward', that's true; however, it's easy to apply within a round. Bear in mind that most death spells have flashy VFX (during which death ward can be applied).

Also, weapon masters are not considered overpowered by anyone familiar with the current meta. They're arguably not even top tier.

So... The Meta will change? People might have to put more effort into Will, and less effort into other things, and a different set of characters will shine? Old powerbuilds might be invalidated and new challenges might arise from the ranks?


I mean. This all sounds like a good thing, Peppermint?

Rwby wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:09 am

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:01 am People will still play melees, but the meta will favor cha-based meleers (and those that can otherwise pump their saving throws).

It's cost vs. effect.

Getting a decent discipline score is cheap for most classes. Getting a decent will save is not.

Getting a decent fortitude save is cheaper for most classes than will (i.e. it keys off of constitution, a primary or secondary stat for nearly every build).

As for the note that 'not everyone starts with death ward', that's true; however, it's easy to apply within a round. Bear in mind that most death spells have flashy VFX (during which death ward can be applied).

Also, weapon masters are not considered overpowered by anyone familiar with the current meta. They're arguably not even top tier.

So... The Meta will change? People might have to put more effort into Will, and less effort into other things, and a different set of characters will shine? Old powerbuilds might be invalidated and new challenges might arise from the ranks?


I mean. This all sounds like a good thing, Peppermint?

It does sound like a good thing. It sounds like a very good thing we should be doing right now.

I mean, if you want to invalidate half the classes in a carefully curated environment that's finally nearly balanced, sure. That could be considered a 'good' thing.

We might have fundamentally different notions about game design in that case. To each their own.

I don't think I've ever had so many notifications in one week that are for people agreeing with anything I've said.
I need to go lie down.

Rwby wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:12 am I don't think I've ever had so many notifications in one week that are for people agreeing with anything I've said.
I need to go lie down.

I agree. Go lie down.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Since when means low will save a powerbuild…?

flower wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:15 am Since when means low will save a powerbuild…?

It was a specific example towards a specific kind of powerbuild that is particularly common and relevant to the discussion.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:01 am ….

Also, weapon masters are not considered overpowered by anyone familiar with the current meta. They're arguably not even top tier.

Dr_Hazard89, this quote sums it up.

Dr_Hazard89 wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:46 pm I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Flower, this quote sums it up.

Doubling down on "wm is op" should come with a confirmation message. "Are you sure you want to do this?"

I for one can't wait until the only viable melee's are cot/pal/bg.

Sockss wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:24 am Doubling down on "wm is op" should come with a confirmation message. "Are you sure you want to do this?"

I for one can't wait until the only viable melee's are cot/pal/bg.

The argument is not that WM is OP, if you would look back to my post that I believe triggered the defensive responses. I said why people may consider it OP and stated why.

"This may be why WM is considered OP. Not because they are mechanically OP, but because they have a mechanical method out of anything without having to sacrifice a single thing, and remaining optimal."

It is only in comparison to much weaker things that they're being used as an example of unfairness in expectations and balance.

"I wouldn't call taking 3 class levels, 33 skill point investment, gear enchantments for every slot and an epic skill focus cheap. That is about as heavy an investment as you can get."

Sockss wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:24 am Doubling down on "wm is op" should come with a confirmation message. "Are you sure you want to do this?"

I for one can't wait until the only viable melee's are cot/pal/bg.

I'm not aware of anywhere anyone has gone down once, much less doubled down on 'OH NO, BUT WEAPONMASTERS'.

They've simply been raised in the context of, 'There are other things other than mages which can kill you in a round, and we cope perfectly well with them too. - Therefore enchantment is not bad, and is just one of the many ways you can lose horribly, and that's okay.'
Indeed, losing horribly to enchantment is more fun than losing horribly to weapon masters. Their place in the meta is irrelevent to that.

The only melee I can think of that can reliably kill you in a round (barring a very weak build or extreme mechanical misplay) is a smiter or a lucky scythe-WM. And I wouldn't argue that either is particularly healthy design.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:44 am The only melee I can think of that can reliably kill you in a round (barring a very weak build or extreme mechanical misplay) is a smiter or a lucky scythe-WM. And I wouldn't argue that either is particularly healthy design.

I would wager reasonable money the majority of Arelith consists of weak builds, mechanical misplay, classes who were redesigned partway through and don't function as well, and characters under level 30 who havn't yet optomised.

It seems a bit extreme to me to go from "some people have bad builds/play badly" to "ending combat in a round regardless of player skill is good game design".

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:50 am It seems a bit extreme to me to go from "some people have bad builds/play badly" to "ending combat in a round is good game design".

I'll concede that. But that seems a flaw of 3.5 in general. We're not going to do away with Death Spells, or WMs with obnoxious damage or [Did I mention Implosion, again?] So bringing enchantment in line with it's competitors seems an easier undertaking than trying to eliminate short combat all together.

Except: what sort of mage relies solely on enchantment?

Jagel wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:59 am Except: what sort of mage relies solely on enchantment?

Isn't the point no mage even uses enchantment because it's garbage and that's what [Some?] of us want to change?

Moreover, Arelith has taken steps away from that kind of meta (e.g. evocation nerfs, timestop nerf). One round combat is not healthy.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:44 am The only melee I can think of that can reliably kill you in a round (barring a very weak build or extreme mechanical misplay) is a smiter or a lucky scythe-WM. And I wouldn't argue that either is particularly healthy design.

I very strongly disagree with this. If you are talking about level 30s and totally buffed, yes. The WM is not killing you in a round, unless you screw really bad.

What people never take into account is that PvP more often than not is not played in those situations. The WM will catch you unbuffed, the mage will catch you without Clarity or Mind Blank. Builds should also be measured by how they perform under unoptimal situations. Clerics do poorly for instance. PvP is also fought in lower levels and WM damage caps pretty much early on.

One reason the barbarian/WM kensei was so deadly was that it could get in your face and kill you before you drank a pot or used a wand, it was a build that performed really well in those situations.

It is not particularly interesting to die to a meleers in a round because you don't walk around buffed, neither it is to a mage because you don't walk around with a mind blank/freedom.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:00 am Moreover, Arelith has taken steps away from that kind of meta (e.g. evocation nerfs, timestop nerf). One round combat is not healthy.

I disagree. It's a perfectly normal part of the game. That's what those spells are supposed to do. Them being able to do so is just as fair as a WM being able to knock you over and crit you for 100+ damage each hit.

Enchantment should be buffed, it's weak.

Removing clarity effectiveness would buff enchantment but in a profoundly unhealthy way.

As it is, you can play around clarity. There's a good middle ground in that a will save is good to have, but if you don't, it doesn't invalidate you completely against any caster. (and therefore only allowing a very narrow range of classes to be viable.)

Sure it is possible to have balanced around not being able to access immunities but it would take a huge amount of time and you'd, eventually, only end up back in a very similar spot as to where we're standing now.

It does seem at times that we play very different games. WM's killing you in a round (etc) is symptomatic of you having a bad build, being extremely unlucky or playing very poorly. Even being kd'd by something is symptomatic of that.

It's important to realise that because of the d20 system things are largely balanced around averages, so personal experience is not the best measure of class competency. It's also important to realise that because this is a game, people might play better than you, which is something that can't be accounted for (we don't have the old RTS handicap buttons).

The goal of balancing is to make as many things viable as possible. Enchantment can be made viable without destroying the viability of that vast majority of classes,, so that would be the best way to go.

Sockss wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:41 am Enchantment should be buffed, it's weak.

Removing clarity effectiveness would buff enchantment but in a profoundly unhealthy way.

This.