Arelith

Rwby wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:22 am


While that's super nice of you Titania, I do want to echo what others have said and call for more in-game warnings and less Wiki/Forum stuff. While the Wiki/Forums are great to have, I really don't want them to feel like they're mandatory to have any idea what's going on.

I don't have the ability to add IG warnings, so I'm only going to change what I can change. There is a suggestion made on it, so its up to the developers on that one.

In the meantime, the wiki has been updated with such a warning and the new update information. I think as a general notice for all new paths, expect changes!

Cortex wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:29 am I never played a SS, I remember another path having the "experimental warning" upon being selected on character creation, was this not the case with SS?

Just made one to check to see what it did say, and it doesn't actually offer any warning on selection. It does however say that it is experimental on the initial long list of potential subclasses (when it lists them all) but it is at the very bottom and only says (Experimental!) without any other details of what that means.





So I guess it does say, but isn't terribly clear really for many people who are likely new or not expecting/aware of big changes being made without being able to be fixed.

Should all experimental paths be locked behind an RPR wall to ensure new players don't get into these "in flux" builds? And then get (eventually) blindsided?

There should be a warning more broadly about what classes historically have been, and will continue to be, the target of the most mechanical changes:

warlocks, spellcasting paths, etc.

flower wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:43 am I find it absurd that someone is upset he cannot část spells from forbidden school as imbues.


It makes totally no sense it was even possible before…!

I have to agree, if it's forbidden then it should be forbidden. Sort of lessens the pain of a forbidden school if can still imbue with it. I am also a bit confused as to why it was ever allowed.

A while ago i made this post: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=16458&p=137795#p137795

Thank for working towards balancing this class, it's a wonderful class to have.

It's a step in the right direction and the flurry adjustment aids to the often unmentioned or conveniently forgotten bonus damage from a spell blade, Many people 'forget' that a spell blade has hidden damages that are not listed on the character sheet (and all we need is a bronze weapon)



And heres an example of a hit, with the hidden damages included.



18 neg + 19 Elec dmg = 37 dmg?¿? not on my character sheet!!? (Elec hits up to 3 targets so a potential of 19x3 cleave damage.)

I honestly do way to much still, even though i lost the 11 damage, i'm in no way a bad position against anything becuase of it and still tower amongst most classes with less investment.

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:03 pm Should all experimental paths be locked behind an RPR wall to ensure new players don't get into these "in flux" builds? And then get (eventually) blindsided?

There should be a warning more broadly about what classes historically have been, and will continue to be, the target of the most mechanical changes:

warlocks, spellcasting paths, etc.

Locking behind RPR is too restrictive, but I think double confirmation behind a big red all-caps warning about potential changes would work.

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:03 pm Should all experimental paths be locked behind an RPR wall to ensure new players don't get into these "in flux" builds? And then get (eventually) blindsided?

There should be a warning more broadly about what classes historically have been, and will continue to be, the target of the most mechanical changes:

warlocks, spellcasting paths, etc.

I've been at 10 RPR for over a year. RPR is a raffle where you're hoping a DM notices you during an intense long RP session. Not a good indicator of someone being new.

LemonBerry wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:45 pm I honestly do way to much still, even though i lost the 11 damage, i'm in no way a bad position against anything becuase of it and still tower amongst most classes with less investment.

Thanks for the feedback. Even after the latest balancing round, Spellswords are still very strong - perhaps too strong. We will be keeping an eye on them.

Though their description in character creation has been modified recently, a conscious decision was made to retain the (Experimental) tag. Spellsword players should keep that in mind.

LemonBerry wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:45 pm A while ago i made this post: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=16458&p=137795#p137795

Thank for working towards balancing this class, it's a wonderful class to have.

It's a step in the right direction and the flurry adjustment aids to the often unmentioned or conveniently forgotten bonus damage from a spell blade, Many people 'forget' that a spell blade has hidden damages that are not listed on the character sheet (and all we need is a bronze weapon)



And heres an example of a hit, with the hidden damages included.



18 neg + 19 Elec dmg = 37 dmg?¿? not on my character sheet!!? (Elec hits up to 3 targets so a potential of 19x3 cleave damage.)

I honestly do way to much still, even though i lost the 11 damage, i'm in no way a bad position against anything becuase of it and still tower amongst most classes with less investment.

I am not sure why you are surprised that the electric charge cleave damage isn't on your character sheet. You don't have WW damage for X targets on someone else's character sheet either.

Judging by the thread you linked, it also looks like you have a past-Gen Spellsword that still has 1 APR (Or two? Since you didn't fighter-dip for the 16 BAB pre-epic?) more than it ought to have, so I hope that is taken into consideration when discussing future nerfs. It's easy to feel more powerful than you ought to be, when you /are/ more powerful than you ought to be already simply by virtue of when you chose to create that character.

I haven't followed the Spellsword process for too long, so I imagine temporary essences NOT stacking with imbuements is a relatively new thing, since you're still listing that to be a thing in your January post above?

Since this has been the only post that has been acknowledged by someone who seems to be a dev, suggesting that there are likely more nerfs coming to this class: how does the damage compare to other well-built melee builds now? A 68 single target hit at level 30 doesn't seem too outrageous.

Cheers! Still enjoying my Spellsword greatly, personally and the nerfs definitely seem to have been necessary so far, would just caution against being too overzealous.

LemonBerry wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:45 pm A while ago i made this post: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=16458&p=137795#p137795

Thank for working towards balancing this class, it's a wonderful class to have.

It's a step in the right direction and the flurry adjustment aids to the often unmentioned or conveniently forgotten bonus damage from a spell blade, Many people 'forget' that a spell blade has hidden damages that are not listed on the character sheet (and all we need is a bronze weapon)



And heres an example of a hit, with the hidden damages included.



18 neg + 19 Elec dmg = 37 dmg?¿? not on my character sheet!!? (Elec hits up to 3 targets so a potential of 19x3 cleave damage.)

I honestly do way to much still, even though i lost the 11 damage, i'm in no way a bad position against anything becuase of it and still tower amongst most classes with less investment.

I agree, it is still, even with all the nerfs, utterly dominant when built correctly and able to take advantage of arelith specific race/spell/feat/class mechanics.

Your ac is going to be in the 70's if dex, 60's if strength, AB will linger around mid 40's (or higher depending on build/weapon), and your damage is extremely high, even higher when you get a fire proc and lower AC which you can afford to fish for as you have 70 something AC.

I hope more changes, like the ones we saw today, are coming.

I want to say one thing about "experimental classes"... Just because someone is playing one doesn't mean they should not have the right to express their opinion about a change on the forum.

"It's a risk to play an experimental class" or similar sentiments are true, but they are a bit condescending and shut down any possible discourse about the changes plus tell people who might be unhappy that their opinions are meaningless.

I am sure almost all class changes are carefully considered by the devs but as we've seen a ton of spellsword tweaks in particular these changes are not set in stone and players should be able to give feedback about them in a section called feedback. It's much better to know the whys behind the change or explain the numbers than just say "you knew the risks."

This isn't directed at anyone here, nor is it an agreement with any player criticism. I actually think the changes are fair and am very happy spellswords are an option again. But whether there is a warning or not, playing an experimental class should not mean you can't have an opinion about a change, especially, again, in a section called "feedback."

Rook wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:48 pm I am not sure why you are surprised that the electric charge cleave damage isn't on your character sheet. You don't have WW damage for X targets on someone else's character sheet either.

I haven't followed the Spellsword process for too long, so I imagine temporary essences NOT stacking with imbuements is a relatively new thing, since you're still listing that to be a thing in your January post above?

LemonBerry wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:45 pm It's a step in the right direction and the flurry adjustment aids to the often unmentioned or conveniently forgotten bonus damage from a spell blade, Many people 'forget' that a spell blade has hidden damages.. etc etc

Not many know, see or remember they have them, it's important to achknowledge this as a thing, though my badly translated across text and bad in general jokes did'nt help, i'm not suprised at how it works at all.. mock suprise does not translate well at all.

As for Temporary Essences... Yes they Stack and in the screenshot you can clearly see one on a +5 GMW Bronze.

LemonBerry wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:13 pm

Rook wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:48 pm I am not sure why you are surprised that the electric charge cleave damage isn't on your character sheet. You don't have WW damage for X targets on someone else's character sheet either.

I haven't followed the Spellsword process for too long, so I imagine temporary essences NOT stacking with imbuements is a relatively new thing, since you're still listing that to be a thing in your January post above?

LemonBerry wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:45 pm It's a step in the right direction and the flurry adjustment aids to the often unmentioned or conveniently forgotten bonus damage from a spell blade, Many people 'forget' that a spell blade has hidden damages.. etc etc

Not many know, see or remember they have them, it's important to achknowledge this as a thing, though my badly translated across text and bad in general jokes did'nt help, i'm not suprised at how it works at all.. mock suprise does not translate well at all.

As for Temporary Essences... Yes they Stack and in the screenshot you can clearly see one on a +5 GMW Bronze.

Oh damn, they actually **do** stack. Good to know! Thanks.

All right; I'll bite. What kind of warnings would players have liked to see here? And when should they stop?

Spellsword may be 'experimental', but nothing about spellsword playstyle or build paths has changed. Numbers have simply been toned down. Intelligence no longer offers damage, but intelligence was never a primary stat for a spellsword (i.e. new spellswords and old spellswords would both stop at 19 int--20 tops.)

Spellswords are weaker but build and play the same. And on paper, they still look pretty good.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:33 amAll right; I'll bite. What kind of warnings would players have liked to see here? And when should they stop?

[Experimental] in red before the path, if it's still being developed. (not just tweaked over time, like most) Selecting brings up another message with a more in depth disclaimer a la Mark of Destiny, and a second confirmation.

It really only needs to be made clear at character creation, (or NPC path selection) because after that it's too late. If anyone fails to get the message after that much, they deserve to be surprised later on.

Hypothetically speaking, what would you have chosen to do differently with your old spellsword build in light of the new changes?

But every class/path is open to changes. Literally every one. Should every class and path be tagged with 'experimental'?

I can see the logic for classes that are reworked and build/play drastically after an update (and usually when that happens nowadays, rebuilds are offered), but I don't see how the case of spellswords here differs from when, say, rangers were tweaked. Or fighters were toned down.

Spellswords have not been reworked. They've been toned down. They haven't even been touched in months. And now they build and play the same.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:45 am But every class/path is open to changes. Literally every one. Should every class and path be tagged with 'experimental'?

I can see the logic for classes that are reworked and build/play drastically after an update (and usually when that happens nowadays, rebuilds are offered), but I don't see how the case of spellswords here differs from when, say, rangers were tweaked. Or fighters were toned down.

Spellswords have not been reworked. They've been toned down. They haven't even been touched in months. And now they build and play the same.

While a fair comment, I think there's certainly a cluster of classes that have swung back and forth wildly in terms of mechanical change. Rangers don't deserve a warning, but some do.

Phoxly wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:45 pm

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:03 pm Should all experimental paths be locked behind an RPR wall to ensure new players don't get into these "in flux" builds? And then get (eventually) blindsided?

There should be a warning more broadly about what classes historically have been, and will continue to be, the target of the most mechanical changes:

warlocks, spellcasting paths, etc.

I've been at 10 RPR for over a year. RPR is a raffle where you're hoping a DM notices you during an intense long RP session. Not a good indicator of someone being new.

Can confirm, been playing ten plus years, RPR has never moved. Been involved in a lot of big events. 'Tis a raffle. Therefore, most prestige classes shouldn't be locked behind it unless for realism in the setting reasons, such as we have.

Peppermint wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:33 amSpellsword may be 'experimental', but nothing about spellsword playstyle or build paths has changed.

It has, I am forever locked out of using Life Leech. Changes my playstyle up a good bit actually.

You should have considered that before banning the only spell school with access to negative energy, then.

TimeAdept wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:17 pm You should have considered that before banning the only spell school with access to negative energy, then.

Being a function of the game, why would I?

Drak wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:10 am

TimeAdept wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:17 pm You should have considered that before banning the only spell school with access to negative energy, then.

Being a function of the game, why would I?

Alt+f4 to avoid pvp is a function of the game too; do you do that as well?

Drak wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:10 am

TimeAdept wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:17 pm You should have considered that before banning the only spell school with access to negative energy, then.

Being a function of the game, why would I?

Exploiting what is plainly an exploit can't really be defended as "a function of the game" can it? In this case we have a spell school that is clearly listed as "prohibited" or "Forbidden" that you should be entirely unable to cast any spells from, even via scrolls/wands/potions. So being able to imbue with that school is very obviously unintended behavior, and basing a build around that is bound to come crumbling down when the bug is fixed.

Based on the referenced information in this thread, it was not a bug to be able to neg. imbue after barring necromancy. My search function always says please try again later (Does this happen to anyone else?) so I can't verify. But I do recall reading that it was intended by the designer from a secondary source somewhere on the boards. If intended, the primary difference between this nerf and others is that neg. imbue wasn't completely removed, it was removed from those who made the choice to bar necromancy based on information that it wasn't an exploit to be able to imbue from the restricted spells.

With that said, you can't trust everything you read on the forums and there's certainly no fault in the dev team for changing things up. While I don't particularly like the way the "what did you expect" argument has been used, it's perfectly valid for Arelith. You always get the sacrifice option and if you get a major reward you'll be praising this nerf.

For what it's worth, I agree that losing neg. imbue would change your play style. Based on my limited experience, the negative imbue is essential to being able to survive as a low hp melee toon. I would guess the healing ability is less essential once you reach epics and get EMA but if I were making a new spellsword, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that losing neg. imbue is the best choice. With a rebuild, no one is making their toon better than it was before the nerf, and you still have to choose to lose something. There seemed to be so few spellswords still playing, and even fewer who barred necromancy, I would support allowing those few to rebuild. There's no way around it, if you bar necromancy you lose the best imbue. Now everyone knows.

Also, looking at the screenshots above - I think the 'hidden damage' from neg. imbue is not properly dividing by 2.