Arelith

Zaphiel wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:01 pm

AstralUniverse wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:58 pm you're probably getting +2 ab from being on 50% concealment attacking someone without blindfight. Not sure where the last point is from. Yeah. Its nothing special.

Tested on a PC with blindfight. It is still 49AB.

You realize you're flanking, right? If you attack something that isn't attacking you, you get 2 more ab.

Why don't you post your character sheet? Your ab is that plus 4 from ema.

So, 49ab.

You can also get +5 AB from a weapon with GMW. You can still GMW a bronze weapon and then imbue it twice with spellsword imbues. That's +2 more AB from a MDamask weapon. I find that it's actually preferrable to do that on my spellsword/monk.

I would assume they went 8 BG+CoT pre epic and his BAB would be 22 and not 21. That's where the extra point is probably coming from.

Probably, made it very long time ago so can't really remember. It should be about base attack bonus but it is possible.

So you took 8 full bab pre epic and are using gmw, which means no keen and no permanent essences, etc. This, also at the cost of umd and full tumble, and some cl.

You shouldn't go "ab big" in a vacuum. You made sacrifices to get that ab.

AstralUniverse wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:08 pm Also, why would rebuilds be offered when the class didnt lose/receive any free feats? No one's build has changed and probably no one's RP, unless someone was very keen on RPing a damage shields expert on a spellsword.

Actually, a spellsword, lore-wise, would most likely be a damage shields expert. They are a wizard who specializes in melee combat. Why would they not learn or utilize a spell that helps them do melee combat better? In my mind at least, a Spellsword would use spells like shield, mage armor, acid sheath, zoo buffs, stuff that helps them in Melee. If you're playing a Spellsword and you want to sling fireballs and magic missiles from a distance, wouldn't a sorcerer or wizard be better for that? They can summon elementals to hide behind and cast spells from all schools of magic, and typically have much higher CL's since Spellswords tend to dip more levels in other classes such as fighter, weaponmaster, or monk to be really effective and reach a decent AB, whereas the typical wizard or sorcerer only needs to dip three levels in paladin, blackguard, or bard. Removing damage shields from spellswords makes about as much sense as banning them from using swords because swords are op.

Zavandar wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:16 pm So you took 8 full bab pre epic and are using gmw, which means no keen and no permanent essences, etc. This, also at the cost of umd and full tumble, and some cl.

You shouldn't go "ab big" in a vacuum. You made sacrifices to get that ab.

It is with keen edge. So 2d8 more damage on crits. I doubt it is big lose. Ah and it is keen.

NPC Logger Number 2 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:17 pm

AstralUniverse wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:08 pm Also, why would rebuilds be offered when the class didnt lose/receive any free feats? No one's build has changed and probably no one's RP, unless someone was very keen on RPing a damage shields expert on a spellsword.

Actually, a spellsword, lore-wise, would most likely be a damage shields expert. They are a wizard who specializes in melee combat. Why would they not learn or utilize a spell that helps them do melee combat better? In my mind at least, a Spellsword would use spells like shield, mage armor, acid sheath, zoo buffs, stuff that helps them in Melee. If you're playing a Spellsword and you want to sling fireballs and magic missiles from a distance, wouldn't a sorcerer or wizard be better for that? They can summon elementals to hide behind and cast spells from all schools of magic, and typically have much higher CL's since Spellswords tend to dip more levels in other classes such as fighter, weaponmaster, or monk to be really effective and reach a decent AB, whereas the typical wizard or sorcerer only needs to dip three levels in paladin, blackguard, or bard. Removing damage shields from spellswords makes about as much sense as banning them from using swords because swords are op.

I agree that they should have damage shields. I disagree that this update calls for rebuilds.

Zaphiel wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:18 pm

Zavandar wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:16 pm So you took 8 full bab pre epic and are using gmw, which means no keen and no permanent essences, etc. This, also at the cost of umd and full tumble, and some cl.

You shouldn't go "ab big" in a vacuum. You made sacrifices to get that ab.

It is with keen edge. So 2d8 more damage on crits. I doubt it is big lose. Ah and it is keen.

Then you are losing out on enhancement and perm essences.

Not being able to cast biteback spells seems reslly weird and arbitrary considering anyone can do it via scrolls. If an opponent cant breach, then a bard weapon master is still going to win in a similar fashion.

Spell-swords have been overpowered for a while (I have had 3 of different types to 30). Glad to see some changes happening, especially around imbues as they are very powerful. The shield one is a strange one, considering it takes very little lore, or UMD to get access to spell breaches and those are guaranteed to go first.

IMO armor of immolation is infinitely more OP as just an item than any spell-sword shield is considering it's unlimited uses per day. I've seen certain builds built to use that completely nullify any opponent offense and there's very little that can be done about it. So it's odd that changes like this are happening whilst clearly unbalanced items exist elsewhere.

Another side effect of this is that without a damage shield up, that's one less spell from the breach list that needs to be removed on the spell-sword side, make of that what you will.

Tldr; Spellswords def need some tweaking as they are OP and have been for a while, but please do it in a way that makes sense and is consistent?

Spellswords are still OP.

These are probably on balance the right decisions, I back the admins to know what they're doing.

But I gotta be honest, as someone who enjoys both playing and seeing diverse classes and exploring the paths and options mostly for what they are at face value, it gets reeeeeaaaal exhausting when features which are balanced in more or less straight-lacing a class get nerfed or restricted because they're broken once you mix them in with monk.

I said this out loud to myself at first as a joke but honestly the thought hasn't gone away. Do we need monks? Are they better than all the things they limit or curtail because of how much they break?

Cataclysm of Iron wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:09 pm These are probably on balance the right decisions, I back the admins to know what they're doing.

But I gotta be honest, as someone who enjoys both playing and seeing diverse classes and exploring the paths and options mostly for what they are at face value, it gets reeeeeaaaal exhausting when features which are balanced in more or less straight-lacing a class get nerfed or restricted because they're broken once you mix them in with monk.

I said this out loud to myself at first as a joke but honestly the thought hasn't gone away. Do we need monks? Are they better than all the things they limit or curtail because of how much they break?

Monk issues are the same as the paladin/blackguard issues. You only need that 3 level dip to just become insane. I think if the classes key features people go far from a 3 lv. dip are moved to further on in the class it would help SO many things, but just like with anything...when you talk about change or nerfs people that have characters that include those classes will come out of the wood work to defend it with their lives, even if its obvious.

Everyone knows why you take 3 paladin or blackguard.

Everyone knows why you 3 level dip into monk.

Making these features require more of the class instead of just 3 levels will make people at least think a little bit before designing their entire build around one of these dips.

Hazard wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:43 pm Spellswords are still OP.

Not really. Decent AC, mediocre damage, a practically neutered spellbook. A fighter/wm/rogue can be a better spellcaster than a spellsword now and a much better swordsman too. Literally the only thing the spellsword has going for it now is high AC. Druids get better AC but can also have multiple summons and are not limited in what spells they can cast. Monks get better AC and are also immune to magic and faster. Sorcerers can get nearly as much AC but also more spell slots, higher CL, summons, no restrictions on what schools of magic they can use. Same with wizards minus the spell slots, but even then they'll probably still have more spell slots since they can invest more points in Intelligence. If I had known this nerf was coming I would have just built a WM, slapped some essences on a blade, and pretended that I was a spellsword by using scrolls and wands. Imbues are nice but lets be honest 200+ crits 50% of the time is way better.

Good morning yall,

I just want to explain the reasoning behind some of these changes to clear up any confusion.

1. The cold imbue was nerfed because it is way too strong in PvP. I think most people agree on that change so I won't say much more on it.

2. The negative nerf was a PvE nerf. Leveling a spellsword is a cakewalk. Again I think most people can see why this change is necessary.

3. The damage shield nerf was done as a very minor nerf for PvP and PvE. The class needed to be toned down a bit, and this seemed like the least intrusive way to do it. The reasons for it are 1: Again, PvE on a spellsword is a cakewalk, and 2: It is easily removed, but it hurts the spellswords action economy advantage. Any reasonable player is going to use a breach on the spellsword when they have mestil's up, but considering a spellsword can use timestop, Gsanc, or just be prepared and have it up before the fight starts, it gives them a 1 round action advantage when their opponent has to breach it. Removing this is a very slight nerf without significantly impacting their core abilities or style. I'd rather take baby steps instead of suddenly nerfing a class into the ground. Spellsword is still an extremely powerful class without damage shields.

As with everything, these changes will be monitored and adjustments made as necessary. Balance is something I am heavily invested in and am spending a significant amount of time working on alongside other members of the team, and I always appreciate everyone's feedback.

NPC Logger Number 2 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:43 pm

Hazard wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:43 pm Spellswords are still OP.

A fighter/wm/rogue can be a better spellcaster than a spellsword now

To put it politely I've read a lot of crazy things on the forums and yet this might be the new biggest one for me. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

Spellswords get disjunction. They get timestop, they get high CL premo. They get greater sanctuary. These are some of the first things that come to mind. They get other QoL things such as high CL mass haste and they receive something else that's invaluable: since they use spell slots they can cast two spells per round. That's twice the action economy on scrolls and wands.

I'm with you, Aniel. I wonder where people get some of their conclusions about mechanics. And the real kicker is we have people that are very numbers savvy in the community but when they try to advise people they're immediately contradicted or refused or ignored ..for what? I don't even know any more, man.

garrbear758 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:10 pm Good morning yall,

I just want to explain the reasoning behind some of these changes to clear up any confusion.

1. The cold imbue was nerfed because it is way too strong in PvP. I think most people agree on that change so I won't say much more on it.

2. The negative nerf was a PvE nerf. Leveling a spellsword is a cakewalk. Again I think most people can see why this change is necessary.

3. The damage shield nerf was done as a very minor nerf for PvP and PvE. The class needed to be toned down a bit, and this seemed like the least intrusive way to do it. The reasons for it are 1: Again, PvE on a spellsword is a cakewalk, and 2: It is easily removed, but it hurts the spellswords action economy advantage. Any reasonable player is going to use a breach on the spellsword when they have mestil's up, but considering a spellsword can use timestop, Gsanc, or just be prepared and have it up before the fight starts, it gives them a 1 round action advantage when their opponent has to breach it. Removing this is a very slight nerf without significantly impacting their core abilities or style. I'd rather take baby steps instead of suddenly nerfing a class into the ground. Spellsword is still an extremely powerful class without damage shields.

As with everything, these changes will be monitored and adjustments made as necessary. Balance is something I am heavily invested in and am spending a significant amount of time working on alongside other members of the team, and I always appreciate everyone's feedback.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss reasons for changes. That's almost unprecedented and valued greatly.

Regarding the damage shield nerf, I'd agree that coming out of Gsanc there's some small advantage to having damage shields. However, given you're full-buffing in a gsanc, dropping a breach during/post that is quite standard behaviour regardless of a damage shield.

My main concern with this change is it's not new-player friendly, or player-who-doesn't-follow-mechanics-closely friendly.

If you are more involved balancing it might be worth discussing with myself, or someone else knowledgeable about mechanics. Some of the comments in the Arelith discord (regarding IE) and on the forums (re dispel) are very concerning for someone primarily involved in balancing things.

Again though, I'd like to reiterate how fantastic it is some reasoning/objectives were given for the changes. That allows for much, much better feedback from everyone. Thank you for doing that.

garrbear758 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:10 pm Good morning yall,

I just want to explain the reasoning behind some of these changes to clear up any confusion.

1. The cold imbue was nerfed because it is way too strong in PvP. I think most people agree on that change so I won't say much more on it.

2. The negative nerf was a PvE nerf. Leveling a spellsword is a cakewalk. Again I think most people can see why this change is necessary.

3. The damage shield nerf was done as a very minor nerf for PvP and PvE. The class needed to be toned down a bit, and this seemed like the least intrusive way to do it. The reasons for it are 1: Again, PvE on a spellsword is a cakewalk, and 2: It is easily removed, but it hurts the spellswords action economy advantage. Any reasonable player is going to use a breach on the spellsword when they have mestil's up, but considering a spellsword can use timestop, Gsanc, or just be prepared and have it up before the fight starts, it gives them a 1 round action advantage when their opponent has to breach it. Removing this is a very slight nerf without significantly impacting their core abilities or style. I'd rather take baby steps instead of suddenly nerfing a class into the ground. Spellsword is still an extremely powerful class without damage shields.

As with everything, these changes will be monitored and adjustments made as necessary. Balance is something I am heavily invested in and am spending a significant amount of time working on alongside other members of the team, and I always appreciate everyone's feedback.

I just typed a big post and my phone ate it.

1. It is strong in PvP and I've asked for it to be nerfed before. I just think the better way to do it is to make FoM remove it. It currently PREVENTS it, but it does not remove it.

2. Neg imbue is definitely strong for PvE and I won't dispute that. I just pointed out what I did to clarify that it won't affect PvP (which didn't seem to be the intention, so we are on the same page). I don't really understand why it needed to be nerfed, though, when spellswords aren't the best soloers. Warlocks and (b)clerics exist and are much better. To be clear, I'm not calling to nerf them. I just usually don't worry as much about nerfing for PvE reasons.

3. As I said, this is the nerf I take the most issue with. It doesn't actually affect action economy that much. If they cast it during gsanc, then there's likely other breachable spells that you'd want to remove, too. Premo, shadow shield (it gives 1 more nat AC over EMA), greater stoneskin, spell mantle. With damage shields at the top of the list, you'd remove it for sure and then something else anyway (assuming a breach wand). You would most likely want to cast a breach REGARDLESS of the damage shield. With them being at the top of the list, it is GUARANTEED that it would be removed. Action economy hasn't changed. If they cast it in your face, then they have the potential to incur an aoo and otherwise just be hit and interrupted, which is a loss of action economy on the spellsword's part. If the cast it during time stop, that's a huge waste of time stop. And I don't think we want to open the can of worms that is assuming rounds/lvl spells are up before PvP. There are WAY too many variables to consider there.

After further discussion and some valuable input from here, we are going to revert the damage shield change. The two imbue changes will stay.

garrbear758 wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:48 pm After further discussion and some valuable input from here, we are going to revert the damage shield change, The two imbue changes will stay.

Yay! And yay for the imbue nerfs.

Thank you.

Thank you for letting us keep our damage shields.