Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
*Crosspost from WM Folder*
So I've been thinking about playing a Warrior Mage or a Cleric. I've a 30 Cleric that I could continue or start a Warrior Mage from scratch. I didn't enjoy the Cleric very much but this was well before all the spell rewrites and 3.0. I would love to hear what people thought were the pros and cons of each and which you enjoyed playing more. Without having played a Warrior Mage very far (maybe to 10th) here's how I currently view it:
Cleric:
-More in-depth lore and more fun with all the quests
-Awesome Utility with Self-Rez
-Useful to others with Bless, Rez, Spirit Regen
-Great Debilitation & Augmentation at the cost of So-So TM?
WM:
-Ridiculously awesome TM with decent Augmentation and powerful warding against magic
-More time spent in combat due to TM requirements
-Slightly less useful to others with various Augmentation spells
I think the most important distinction is going to be the thematic affinity you feel, i.e., what you enjoy more. Both have access to extremely powerful TM, Debils, anti-magics, and utility. I think Clerics come out a bit on top in terms of potency and variety of their toolbelt, but Warmies also bring some things to the table that are pretty awesome.
Warmies seem to be able to have more offensive stuff going simultaneously, while Clerics seem to have better self buffs. Both have potent anti-magic stuff, though clerics have the spell steal of IT. I would prefer HoT over WB. Warmies obviously have some better TM and ability to buff that TM with Substratum and pathways, but Clerics aren't exactly shlumps here, with FoU, AE, SA. I think OM gives Clerics an advantage over staying buffed more regularly which can prevent getting jumped. Halo and SB can help control engagement, but I suppose FOI, PW, or Shockwave can as well.
Personally, I find Warmies and Clerics to feel the most similar of any two guilds in the game, in terms of their 'playstyle' and strengths and weaknesses.
In a can:
Clerics are jacks of all trades. They have the most potent toolkit in the game right now. Spells are powerful, and they have a vast array of them, including TM and one of the few cyclic debilitation abilities. As well as OM for metamagic. They get a static -10% penalty to 3 magic skills, and a boost to 2 of them (leaving you at a net loss). Devotion's a pig to train. They have a lot of defensive buffs, and some nasty barriers. No. More. Teaching!! Training devotion will teach a mild amount of scholarship, which will probably fill your req there.
WMs: heavily focused on TM spells; minimal utility or defensive buffs compared to clerics (no specific barrier spell, for example). Summoning is super easy to train. Many of the spells have limitations (cannot cast indoors, can only cast in stone floored rooms, etc.).
Both guilds are magic prime. Both, really, come out roughly the same. What I'd say is look at the mechanistic aspects and decide what you like. WM TM is fun; casting fireball and having it explode into fire shards is fun. Rimefang is cool, as is magnetic ballista, etc.
You mention self-rezz, but bear in mind that will be a level 60-80 ability. You have something to look forward to, but it'll take a while to get.
I'd probably recommend dragging out your level 30 guy, playing the cleric for a level or two, then trying a WM up to 10-20 (should take a few days, nothing nasty). Figure out which you like more that way.
I'm a badger, I be badgerin'
Clerics are jacks of all trades. They have the most potent toolkit in the game right now. Spells are powerful, and they have a vast array of them, including TM and one of the few cyclic debilitation abilities. As well as OM for metamagic. They get a static -10% penalty to 3 magic skills, and a boost to 2 of them (leaving you at a net loss). Devotion's a pig to train. They have a lot of defensive buffs, and some nasty barriers. No. More. Teaching!! Training devotion will teach a mild amount of scholarship, which will probably fill your req there.
WMs: heavily focused on TM spells; minimal utility or defensive buffs compared to clerics (no specific barrier spell, for example). Summoning is super easy to train. Many of the spells have limitations (cannot cast indoors, can only cast in stone floored rooms, etc.).
Both guilds are magic prime. Both, really, come out roughly the same. What I'd say is look at the mechanistic aspects and decide what you like. WM TM is fun; casting fireball and having it explode into fire shards is fun. Rimefang is cool, as is magnetic ballista, etc.
You mention self-rezz, but bear in mind that will be a level 60-80 ability. You have something to look forward to, but it'll take a while to get.
I'd probably recommend dragging out your level 30 guy, playing the cleric for a level or two, then trying a WM up to 10-20 (should take a few days, nothing nasty). Figure out which you like more that way.
I'm a badger, I be badgerin'
Read the second paragraph of this - So You Want to Be a Cleric? It should help you decide between Cleric and WM (as written by someone who recently left WM for Clericdom)
https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Cleric_Newbie_Help_Guide
As far as debilitation - Malediction and Soul Sickness. CoZ if you pvp. TM - FF will take care of all of it until you have 300 some Holy/TM and can cast Aesrela Everild at 45 mana or so.
https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Cleric_Newbie_Help_Guide
As far as debilitation - Malediction and Soul Sickness. CoZ if you pvp. TM - FF will take care of all of it until you have 300 some Holy/TM and can cast Aesrela Everild at 45 mana or so.
4 bolt is max on AE. I see no reason to get metaspell unless you severly are outclassing whatever you fighting. FOU is my goto. I love it. AE i only use if there clearly only one critter, or one strong critter. Which happens during invasions or during a quest. AE is the only single target tm spell I have. FOU is my only other TM spell. Ooops, I lied. I have HOT. I forgot about that one, so I have two single target TM spell. The three tm based damaging spells I have all fit a need. I gave up on HE and HH. I not really seeing a big need there. Worse case, I bless my weapon and hack it. Only time i might see it being used for me, is if on a quest that happens to have a boss or critter tha only harmed by HE or HH. Other than that, those three spells fit my needs. Now the other spell I do have, that can hurt undead, is Halo. Which I think has tm vs defensives contested. So I am happy with that. I also picked up SA, but I did not get chill spirit.
>WMs: heavily focused on TM spells; minimal utility or defensive buffs compared to clerics (no specific barrier spell, for example). Summoning is super easy to train. Many of the spells have limitations (cannot cast indoors, can only cast in stone floored rooms, etc.).
I disagree only on the minimal defensive buffs part. WM is still the only guild with easy access to spell buffs to all primary defenses (SW - evasion, SUF - parry, AEG - shield). Side note: frankly, I think buffs for just two primary defenses for any guild in this iteration of the game, with 15-20% buffs, is overly generous when you consider skills post ~500 but that's neither here nor there.
WMs don't have a guild-specific physical damage barrier like MPP but then there's MAF, and they do have the best TM defense in the game. Give and take, and it's not much give for the take.
No matter which you choose, if power is your goal, you're looking at the most powerful guilds in the game, by a mile, with very few weaknesses. However, it takes a lot of skill/knowledge/understanding to play a cleric well. Warmie is a bit... faceroll by comparison. In other words, the difference between a novice and expert cleric at equal ranks is a chasm. That's just my opinion.
I disagree only on the minimal defensive buffs part. WM is still the only guild with easy access to spell buffs to all primary defenses (SW - evasion, SUF - parry, AEG - shield). Side note: frankly, I think buffs for just two primary defenses for any guild in this iteration of the game, with 15-20% buffs, is overly generous when you consider skills post ~500 but that's neither here nor there.
WMs don't have a guild-specific physical damage barrier like MPP but then there's MAF, and they do have the best TM defense in the game. Give and take, and it's not much give for the take.
No matter which you choose, if power is your goal, you're looking at the most powerful guilds in the game, by a mile, with very few weaknesses. However, it takes a lot of skill/knowledge/understanding to play a cleric well. Warmie is a bit... faceroll by comparison. In other words, the difference between a novice and expert cleric at equal ranks is a chasm. That's just my opinion.
>WM is still the only guild with easy access to spell buffs to all primary defenses (SW - evasion, SUF - parry, AEG - shield)
I don't know why this keeps getting asserted; Clerics have a shield, evasion, and reflex buff. Bards have evasion, parry, reflex. In terms of what Bards don't have for boosting their defenses, both Clerics and Bards also have cyclic offensive debuffs, and both have physical barrier spells.
>WMs don't have a guild-specific physical damage barrier like MPP but then there's MAF, and they do have the best TM defense in the game. Give and take, and it's not much give for the take.
I dunno, I think GhS, WORM, GJ, SP, and EY are all pretty decent feeling defenses against TM. VEI is pretty great, but also fairly niche, as a trade off; it doesn't do anything to debilitation.
> you're looking at the most powerful guilds in the game, by a mile, with very few weaknesses.
Ehhhh. I dunno. I think the weaknesses evident to Warmies are pretty evident, and pretty reasonable. Warmies are one of the guilds I consider fairly balanced in terms of their strengths and weaknesses, though I think the multiple avenues of damage output is probably unparalleled, or on par with the broken outputs of zombie + construct + USOL + TM. MAB + cyclic + TM with pathway, afterall.
>I don't know why this keeps getting asserted; Clerics have a shield, evasion, and reflex buff. Bards have evasion, parry, reflex. In terms of what Bards don't have for boosting their defenses, both Clerics and Bards also have cyclic offensive debuffs, and both have physical barrier spells.
Clerics cannot buff parry, bards cannot buff shield. That's why he is stating that only WMs can buff all 3 defenses (evasion, shield, parry). That's all he's saying.
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Clerics cannot buff parry, bards cannot buff shield. That's why he is stating that only WMs can buff all 3 defenses (evasion, shield, parry). That's all he's saying.
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>I dunno, I think GhS, WORM, GJ, SP, and EY are all pretty decent feeling defenses against TM. VEI is pretty great, but also fairly niche, as a trade off; it doesn't do anything to debilitation.
I was really referring to AC, not VOI. AC disallows most of its caster's TM spells, sure, but it's still the best TM defense. People can argue GHS v. AC if they want but I won't. To me, GHS is a close second.
I was really referring to AC, not VOI. AC disallows most of its caster's TM spells, sure, but it's still the best TM defense. People can argue GHS v. AC if they want but I won't. To me, GHS is a close second.
>> I disagree only on the minimal defensive buffs part. WM is still the only guild with easy access to spell buffs to all primary defenses (SW - evasion, SUF - parry, AEG - shield).
Barbarians can buff them all:
Parry: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Python_Form
Evasion: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Piranha_Form
Shield (and Stamina: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Tornado_(berserk)
Reflex (and balance): https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Monkey_Form
Though I would wager it takes more ranks for a barbarian to keep all of those buffs active than a Warrior Mage, and of course those ranks will come much slower as a magic tert.
Barbarians can buff them all:
Parry: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Python_Form
Evasion: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Piranha_Form
Shield (and Stamina: https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Tornado_(berserk)
Reflex (and balance): https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Monkey_Form
Though I would wager it takes more ranks for a barbarian to keep all of those buffs active than a Warrior Mage, and of course those ranks will come much slower as a magic tert.
I thought Starlear in the Warmie thread said that WMs can buff everything defensive, though I think you're right, that the point was only 'can buff defensive skills'. In terms of defensive toolkits, I think WMs are exactly mediocre.
>I was really referring to AC, not VOI. AC disallows most of its caster's TM spells, sure, but it's still the best TM defense. People can argue GHS v. AC if they want but I won't. To me, GHS is a close second.
Really? Huh. I'd disagree with you. Personally, I think the specific to TM spells are inferior to the anti-Magic spells, and think ACs has a boon (reflect) and a negative (hinders your outgoing TM), while GhS has a boon (also affects ranged weapons), and no negative.
I think a lot of Warmie spells are pretty niche, which makes them good for those situations, but less useful overall.
I still think the primary difference between Cleric vs Warmie is the defensive vs offensive emphasis, which isn't HUGE, and the overall theme.
>Barbarians can buff them all:
Yeah, I was talking spells specifically because they're mostly comparable. I know barbs can buff all primary defenses but they also have weird pseudo-magic and can't (easily?) keep all buffs up at once and have cooldowns and stuff. Apples and oranges, in other words.
>JHALIASCLERIC
I've substantiated my claims in other threads with ranks and logs and stuff showing how it's virtually impossible to hit someone with most primary defenses in a tertiary skill set, incl. cleric and WM, without serious debilitation (i.e. not just a stun or immobilize) and a significant advantage in terms of offensive skill ranks or a small number of abilities labeled as overpowered. I believe the cause is big buffs in the upper ranks because I could hit those folks when neither of us buffed up. The exceptional debilitation suite those guilds tend to have to keep people or things at range, prone, imbalanced for the duration of combat without diminishing returns compounds the problem.
As a whole, guilds' ability suites don't feel balanced around the current iteration of combat. Revisiting barriers for 3.2 is a good start to fixing the problem, but I think reassessing guilds' debilitation suites would be an excellent next step since combat is so incredibly dependent on them now. I'm not saying to nerf anyone. Hell, I'd like to see even more; they add creativity to combat. I'm saying all guilds should be on relatively even footing (in terms of quality, not specific function) when it comes to debilitations for this version of combat (3.x) and more of them need some sort of diminishing returns timer because they can be just as annoying as perpetual stuns.
Sorry for going off topic. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
>KAELRX
You've got the right idea, but I say read up on the lore for each and play both for a little while. I rolled a WM back in the day because I was enamored with the idea of it, big flashy spells, cool familiars and all but it just didn't stick. Even after the 3.0, which made huge improvements to the guild, I just don't really have any more desire to play my WM than when all anyone needed for great offense was lightning bolt, chain lightning and aether lash.
The game may change tomorrow, making clerics or WMs different than they are now. The best reason to play any guild in DR is fun and lore and the other intangibles. Otherwise, as with any game, you're just setting yourself up to hate playing the moment tweaks don't go your way.
Yeah, I was talking spells specifically because they're mostly comparable. I know barbs can buff all primary defenses but they also have weird pseudo-magic and can't (easily?) keep all buffs up at once and have cooldowns and stuff. Apples and oranges, in other words.
>JHALIASCLERIC
I've substantiated my claims in other threads with ranks and logs and stuff showing how it's virtually impossible to hit someone with most primary defenses in a tertiary skill set, incl. cleric and WM, without serious debilitation (i.e. not just a stun or immobilize) and a significant advantage in terms of offensive skill ranks or a small number of abilities labeled as overpowered. I believe the cause is big buffs in the upper ranks because I could hit those folks when neither of us buffed up. The exceptional debilitation suite those guilds tend to have to keep people or things at range, prone, imbalanced for the duration of combat without diminishing returns compounds the problem.
As a whole, guilds' ability suites don't feel balanced around the current iteration of combat. Revisiting barriers for 3.2 is a good start to fixing the problem, but I think reassessing guilds' debilitation suites would be an excellent next step since combat is so incredibly dependent on them now. I'm not saying to nerf anyone. Hell, I'd like to see even more; they add creativity to combat. I'm saying all guilds should be on relatively even footing (in terms of quality, not specific function) when it comes to debilitations for this version of combat (3.x) and more of them need some sort of diminishing returns timer because they can be just as annoying as perpetual stuns.
Sorry for going off topic. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
>KAELRX
You've got the right idea, but I say read up on the lore for each and play both for a little while. I rolled a WM back in the day because I was enamored with the idea of it, big flashy spells, cool familiars and all but it just didn't stick. Even after the 3.0, which made huge improvements to the guild, I just don't really have any more desire to play my WM than when all anyone needed for great offense was lightning bolt, chain lightning and aether lash.
The game may change tomorrow, making clerics or WMs different than they are now. The best reason to play any guild in DR is fun and lore and the other intangibles. Otherwise, as with any game, you're just setting yourself up to hate playing the moment tweaks don't go your way.
<<Bards don't have an offensive debuff, cyclic or otherwise.
DALU doesn't debuff STR and AGI anymore?
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DALU doesn't debuff STR and AGI anymore?
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
<<It doesn't debuff OF.
That wasn't what was stated. Offensive debuffs are more encompassing than just a debuff to offence factor.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
That wasn't what was stated. Offensive debuffs are more encompassing than just a debuff to offence factor.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
I'm surprised anyone would say that strength and agility debuffs don't constitute an offensive debuff. How would a strength/agility debuff not reduce OF? Isn't OF determined by Strength, Agility, and the skill being used?
>Sorry for going off topic. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
Hmm. Ok, yeah, we can revisit this when 3.2 hits I suppose.
> I meant, "Since Str/Agl are involved in OF, debuffing them would seem, to me, to be an OF debuff".
There are buffs/debuffs that directly affect OF, rather than one of its constituent factors. When I said OF debuff, that's what I was referring to.
As an aside: does Str play a role in OF? I didn't think so.
There are buffs/debuffs that directly affect OF, rather than one of its constituent factors. When I said OF debuff, that's what I was referring to.
As an aside: does Str play a role in OF? I didn't think so.
>>There are buffs/debuffs that directly affect OF, rather than one of its constituent factors.
IIRC these went away with 3.1 in favor of direct skill/stat buffs. Again IIRC, OF buffs were much stronger than skill buffs, and were a big source of complaints and GvG so they just switched everything to directly buffing a skill. That's why most of the melee weapon buffs only buff what is in your right hand, and will change when you change weapons, this can be checked with EXP MODS.
Debuffs may actually directly attack OF and DF though.
>>As an aside: does Str play a role in OF? I didn't think so.
I could be very wrong on this, but I think it does indirectly through the power stat on weapons. I will admit I'm really fuzzy on how player and weapon stats interact with each other now though.
IIRC these went away with 3.1 in favor of direct skill/stat buffs. Again IIRC, OF buffs were much stronger than skill buffs, and were a big source of complaints and GvG so they just switched everything to directly buffing a skill. That's why most of the melee weapon buffs only buff what is in your right hand, and will change when you change weapons, this can be checked with EXP MODS.
Debuffs may actually directly attack OF and DF though.
>>As an aside: does Str play a role in OF? I didn't think so.
I could be very wrong on this, but I think it does indirectly through the power stat on weapons. I will admit I'm really fuzzy on how player and weapon stats interact with each other now though.
<<I'm surprised anyone would say that strength and agility debuffs don't constitute an offensive debuff. How would a strength/agility debuff not reduce OF? Isn't OF determined by Strength, Agility, and the skill being used?
I think they were reading it as offence [factor] debuff rather than offensive debuff. Kind of how defensive buff and defence [factor] buff has been muddied earlier in the thread.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
I think they were reading it as offence [factor] debuff rather than offensive debuff. Kind of how defensive buff and defence [factor] buff has been muddied earlier in the thread.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Oh look... a page #2 where this was already said straight from the source. Oops! ;)
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
<<Rage is OF
Isn't Rage just an accuracy buff now? I though OF was a bit more comprehensive than just an accuracy increase. Like it's a multiplier after most attack calculations are completed. I admit I'm not the most versed on what actually constitues offence factor beyond it affects an attacks success and damage output.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Isn't Rage just an accuracy buff now? I though OF was a bit more comprehensive than just an accuracy increase. Like it's a multiplier after most attack calculations are completed. I admit I'm not the most versed on what actually constitues offence factor beyond it affects an attacks success and damage output.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
>I thought accuracy = OF? I.e., chance to hit, and success over that + some other things = OF = damage dealt.
More or less. OF is calculated, DF is calculated, if OF > DF then you hit, the amount of damage is determined by OF - DF + other things.
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
More or less. OF is calculated, DF is calculated, if OF > DF then you hit, the amount of damage is determined by OF - DF + other things.
Don't forget to vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
>>I was under the impression that excess 'to hit' was used in the damage calculation, though I've no idea how one would tease that apart.
This was true in 2.0 and was why damage was way out of control. If you have excess to-hit points I believe they still help damage somewhat, but nothing like it used to be.
This was another major complaint in 3.0 also, and was another reason most weapon buffs switched to direct skill boosts. I believe the only major factors in damage now is weapon stats and skill with excess to-hit points and maybe strength being modifiers.
As for what RAGE is now, E-pedia lists it as an accuracy boost which shouldn't really amount to much in today's combat, but I haven't had my bard active in 3.1 to say if that is true or not.
How I understand 3.1 combat though accuracy != damage boost.
This was true in 2.0 and was why damage was way out of control. If you have excess to-hit points I believe they still help damage somewhat, but nothing like it used to be.
This was another major complaint in 3.0 also, and was another reason most weapon buffs switched to direct skill boosts. I believe the only major factors in damage now is weapon stats and skill with excess to-hit points and maybe strength being modifiers.
As for what RAGE is now, E-pedia lists it as an accuracy boost which shouldn't really amount to much in today's combat, but I haven't had my bard active in 3.1 to say if that is true or not.
How I understand 3.1 combat though accuracy != damage boost.
You mean agility? Reflex is the defense stat.
Agility and weapon balance play no part in damage calcs as far as I am aware, outside of excess to-hit points and that is minor. Agility is the biggest factor in to-hit with weapon balance playing a minor part or just being a modifier. If you remember, not too long ago Kodius had to create another critical hit/miss system that was based on weapon balance because it really had no effect otherwise.
I will add that my memory on all this is foggy since combat has been in a constant state of change and adjust for almost 3 years now, but I do know 3.0 combat divorced to-hit and damage because it was a big reason for the one hit kills in 2.0.
Agility and weapon balance play no part in damage calcs as far as I am aware, outside of excess to-hit points and that is minor. Agility is the biggest factor in to-hit with weapon balance playing a minor part or just being a modifier. If you remember, not too long ago Kodius had to create another critical hit/miss system that was based on weapon balance because it really had no effect otherwise.
I will add that my memory on all this is foggy since combat has been in a constant state of change and adjust for almost 3 years now, but I do know 3.0 combat divorced to-hit and damage because it was a big reason for the one hit kills in 2.0.
> If you have excess to-hit points I believe they still help damage somewhat, but nothing like it used to be.
Damage increases with the quality of your to-hit roll up until a point; there is a number X such that additional success stops helping once you pass X. Well, that's not entirely true, because of over-kill mechanics. There is another number Y which is much much bigger than X, and if your to-hit roll passes Y, then you get a massive damage boost. It's so that high level characters can destroy rats.
> This was another major complaint in 3.0 also, and was another reason most weapon buffs switched to direct skill boosts. I believe the only major factors in damage now is weapon stats and skill with excess to-hit points and maybe strength being modifiers.
Strength is definitely a modifier; the weight of that modifier is based on weapon suitedness. And Kodius has mentioned that weapon skill also plays a roll.
> Is reflex + weapon balance used in damage calculations, or just 'to hit'? If the former, then huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh...
Balance is, sort of. Remember that number X I mentioned above? The better your weapon balance, the higher X goes. So a better balanced weapon will get more benefit out of accuracy, and of course agility will help you be more accurate.
> As for what RAGE is now, E-pedia lists it as an accuracy boost which shouldn't really amount to much in today's combat, but I haven't had my bard active in 3.1 to say if that is true or not.
Elanthipedia is correct. There are pros and cons to this: pros include working with every weapon, including offhand wielding, and not needing to wait for it to update when you change weapons; the major con is that it has minimal effect on damage, and is less valuable when attacking targets you can reliably hit.
Damage increases with the quality of your to-hit roll up until a point; there is a number X such that additional success stops helping once you pass X. Well, that's not entirely true, because of over-kill mechanics. There is another number Y which is much much bigger than X, and if your to-hit roll passes Y, then you get a massive damage boost. It's so that high level characters can destroy rats.
> This was another major complaint in 3.0 also, and was another reason most weapon buffs switched to direct skill boosts. I believe the only major factors in damage now is weapon stats and skill with excess to-hit points and maybe strength being modifiers.
Strength is definitely a modifier; the weight of that modifier is based on weapon suitedness. And Kodius has mentioned that weapon skill also plays a roll.
> Is reflex + weapon balance used in damage calculations, or just 'to hit'? If the former, then huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh...
Balance is, sort of. Remember that number X I mentioned above? The better your weapon balance, the higher X goes. So a better balanced weapon will get more benefit out of accuracy, and of course agility will help you be more accurate.
> As for what RAGE is now, E-pedia lists it as an accuracy boost which shouldn't really amount to much in today's combat, but I haven't had my bard active in 3.1 to say if that is true or not.
Elanthipedia is correct. There are pros and cons to this: pros include working with every weapon, including offhand wielding, and not needing to wait for it to update when you change weapons; the major con is that it has minimal effect on damage, and is less valuable when attacking targets you can reliably hit.
I did mean agility, my typo.
I thought balance and suitability were multipliers on agility and strength. This information makes me worried about the long-term viability of lighter weapons compared to heavier weapons, and the viability of agility heavy characters who deprioritize strength.
I'm a bit surprised all the of/df adjusting spells or abilities haven't been brought in line, like rage and malediction... What else is still out there?
> I thought balance and suitability were multipliers on agility and strength.
That is basically what they are, although balance also affects a few things independently of agility (critical fumble/success; affect of hit-success on damage).
> This information makes me worried about the long-term viability of lighter weapons compared to heavier weapons
Light weapons are supposed to be balanced by their more frequent attacks (because of both shorter RT and lower fatigue cost). The net effect should be that light weapons do more dps against lightly armored targets and less against heavily armored targets. This can be a tricky balance to strike, though, so it may not be quite there.
> I'm a bit surprised all the of/df adjusting spells or abilities haven't been brought in line, like rage and malediction... What else is still out there?
Those are the only two that I can think of. I don't know if they're out of line, per se. Just different.
When 3.1 first dropped, Rage was a weapon booster like a lot of others, but it had a bunch of bugs and usability issues. I groused a fair amount on the boards, and not long after it was changed back to an OF booster. That may have just been a coincidence of timing, though.
That is basically what they are, although balance also affects a few things independently of agility (critical fumble/success; affect of hit-success on damage).
> This information makes me worried about the long-term viability of lighter weapons compared to heavier weapons
Light weapons are supposed to be balanced by their more frequent attacks (because of both shorter RT and lower fatigue cost). The net effect should be that light weapons do more dps against lightly armored targets and less against heavily armored targets. This can be a tricky balance to strike, though, so it may not be quite there.
> I'm a bit surprised all the of/df adjusting spells or abilities haven't been brought in line, like rage and malediction... What else is still out there?
Those are the only two that I can think of. I don't know if they're out of line, per se. Just different.
When 3.1 first dropped, Rage was a weapon booster like a lot of others, but it had a bunch of bugs and usability issues. I groused a fair amount on the boards, and not long after it was changed back to an OF booster. That may have just been a coincidence of timing, though.
Illiena explained it much better than I could.
>>This information makes me worried about the long-term viability of lighter weapons compared to heavier weapons, and the viability of agility heavy characters who deprioritize strength.
Don't get me started on this. I will just say that when I PvP I only backstab, because even using a haralun scimitar with great slice against light armored opponents I outclass, it is still a papercut fest. The current status quo is the heavier the weapon the better.
>>This information makes me worried about the long-term viability of lighter weapons compared to heavier weapons, and the viability of agility heavy characters who deprioritize strength.
Don't get me started on this. I will just say that when I PvP I only backstab, because even using a haralun scimitar with great slice against light armored opponents I outclass, it is still a papercut fest. The current status quo is the heavier the weapon the better.
>Light weapons are supposed to be balanced by their more frequent attacks (because of both shorter RT and lower fatigue cost). The net effect should be that light weapons do more dps against lightly armored targets and less against heavily armored targets.
How are these two points related? Vitality buffers making lighter weapons do less damage?
And yeah, I understand that actual fine tuning all this is an exercise in juggling a dozen complaining badgers.
> How are these two points related? Vitality buffers making lighter weapons do less damage?
No vitality buffer doesn't play into this, since what we're measuring is vitality damage.
Consider a foe with armor that subtracts 6 points of damage from every attack. Your rapier can make two 8 point attacks in the time it takes your claymore to make one 12 point attack. So against this foe, the rapier deals 4 points of damage in the time it takes the claymore to deal 6. Advantage claymore.
But then another foe shows up with armor that only subtracts 2 points. Against this foe, the rapier deals 12 points of damage for every 10 that the claymore deals. Advantage rapier.
Numbers pulled from a turkey's stuffing hole, of course.
No vitality buffer doesn't play into this, since what we're measuring is vitality damage.
Consider a foe with armor that subtracts 6 points of damage from every attack. Your rapier can make two 8 point attacks in the time it takes your claymore to make one 12 point attack. So against this foe, the rapier deals 4 points of damage in the time it takes the claymore to deal 6. Advantage claymore.
But then another foe shows up with armor that only subtracts 2 points. Against this foe, the rapier deals 12 points of damage for every 10 that the claymore deals. Advantage rapier.
Numbers pulled from a turkey's stuffing hole, of course.
