Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd like it if the Psychovampiric Shield had some sort of magical defense. Maybe there could be a feat for ciphers, that provides a defensive bonus for the psychovampriic shield against a special form of magic (that you can choose), that is otherwise hard to come by. 

 

Would also be interesting if Ciphers had some special means to defend themselves against other "psionics", like Vitharcs, or other Ciphers.

I agree indirectly. The Psychovampiric Shield doesn't seem to be a "Shield" per say. I think a more fitting name would be "Psychovampirism" or similar to reflect the ability (I drain your Intelligence to gain Deflection).

 

If there are more than 1 Modal ability for all Classes, I could see how the Cipher could have a "Soul Shield (Modal)" ability (a reversed "Soul Whip" ability, essentially) that gives the Cipher Focus when he/she is attacked and gives Magical Resistance, an excellent Anti-Magic Tank build perhaps, should you face Magical Melee Enemies.

 

Maybe being in "Soul Whip" gives more access to more offensive Cipher spells and being in a more defensive "Soul Shield" mode would give access to more defensive spells (I.E: Can't use all Offensive Abilites when in "Soul Shield", can't use all Defensive Abilities when in "Soul Whip").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are more than 1 Modal ability for all Classes, I could see how the Cipher could have a "Soul Shield (Modal)" ability (a reversed "Soul Whip" ability, essentially) that gives the Cipher Focus when he/she is attacked 

 

 

That's mechanically too similar to the Monk, I'm afraid.


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's why they're using percentages, Lephys.

 

Percentages of base damage added as bonus (e.g. elemental) damage, already balance what you think needs balancing. The slower weapons have higher base damage than faster weapons. +20% shock damage on a stiletto isn't the same as +20% on a two-handed sword. So this "problem" is actually already solved.

 

But, like I said, that's the path of least resistance. Percentages should be the last resort. Designing every weapon type to be useful should be the focus instead and I'm sure they're already doing that. Therefore, you could put a stiletto that does 1-4 bonus elemental damage somewhere in the game, but you'd also put a two-handed sword that does 3-5 bonus elemental damage.

 

I'm more concerned about on-hit effects being scaled/distorted based on weapon speed, such as debuff duration.

I do understand that percentages accomplish this "problem" I described (which, I don't really understand why it gets demoted to an alleged, quotation-mark problem, *shrug*), and I never said that they didn't. That's fantastic that the percentages of the base damage are some how magically automatically adjusted, completely free from adjustments based on speed -- OH WAIT, the base damage was already set based on speed. So, I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make that goes against anything I simply observed.

 

I also never said that this is a problem that is obviously existent here, in P:E's design, and that it needs to be fixed. I merely pointed out that game developers usually make adjustments to weapon damage/effect-potency based on the speed of the weapon, so that such a problem never arises.

 

As for not-elemental-bonus-damage on-hit effects and their durations being "distorted," how is this any different from base damage (that you're apparently fine with?) being "distorted"? Or, as you put it, why is it okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed, but not for any other quantifiable effects to differ for the same reason? If I can hit you every second with a dagger (look, no over the top example, just for you, because I care), and every hit can instill a 5-second debuff, or I can hit you once every 5 seconds with a greatsword, with a chance to instill the same debuff, then you run into the same thing as you do when you don't adjust base damage. ESPECIALLY if the debuff effect doesn't stack (another hit always adds 5 seconds to the duration, rather than resetting it to 5). If it just keeps resetting it to 5 seconds, then you're inherently "distorting" the effect based on attack speed, because the farther the attack speed goes below the duration time, the lesser of an effect each hit is causing. The greatsword, even if it proc'd its effect on every single hit, would never be wasting a single second of redundant effect duration, while the dagger could potentially waste 4 seconds of duration time every hit.

 

 

 

You said something else. You went on with 'oh, you see, bla, speed, 73 attacks per second, bla, should apply shock damage differently'. Then I pointed out that attack speed shouldn't affect bonus elemental damage and the power or duration of on-hit effects because it simply doesn't make sense. Then you did what you usually do. You muddled everything with paragraphs of superfluous text explaining how you said just that, when in fact you said something else entirely.

 

"Or, as you put it, why is it okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed, but not for any other quantifiable effects to differ for the same reason?"

 

No, it is not okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed. Does that answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there are more than 1 Modal ability for all Classes, I could see how the Cipher could have a "Soul Shield (Modal)" ability (a reversed "Soul Whip" ability, essentially) that gives the Cipher Focus when he/she is attacked 

 

 

That's mechanically too similar to the Monk, I'm afraid.

 

I don't think that's a problem. The monk wants to get damaged, so it's an incentive not to wear armor. The cipher with this power up wants to get hit but not significantly damaged, which suggests wearing damage-absorbing armor.


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said something else. You went on with 'oh, you see, bla, speed, 73 attacks per second, bla, should apply shock damage differently'. Then I pointed out that attack speed shouldn't affect bonus elemental damage and the power or duration of on-hit effects because it simply doesn't make sense. Then you did what you usually do. You muddled everything with paragraphs of superfluous text explaining how you said just that, when in fact you said something else entirely.

 

 

 

"Or, as you put it, why is it okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed, but not for any other quantifiable effects to differ for the same reason?"

 

No, it is not okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed. Does that answer your question?

 

 

There are a couple of rationales why attack speed would affect on hit effects. Imagine that the weapon has a capacitor where the effect is charged on to. Recharge speed and capacitor is dependent on the strength of the enchantment, the stronger the enchantment the faster the recharge & larger the capacitor. So say that you have a 10 damage/second charge rate on your weapon and a 10 damage capacitor. This would then mean that you could either hit once per second for 10 damage, after which every attack more per second would have partially charged on hit effect, so 5 damage for 0.5 second of recharge and so on.

 

Another rationale could be weapons size. Imagine that the on-hit enchantment requires a physical body to store the enchantment. Again like a capacitor for electricity. Having a small capacitor store as much energy as a larger one is more difficult, hence the same strength enchantment has a weaker per hit effect for a smaller, quicker weapon compared to a larger one. 

 

And lastly, bigger weapons score bigger hits, allowing for more of the on hit effect to be transferred over. The better the contact on the target is, the better the on hit effect is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there are more than 1 Modal ability for all Classes, I could see how the Cipher could have a "Soul Shield (Modal)" ability (a reversed "Soul Whip" ability, essentially) that gives the Cipher Focus when he/she is attacked 

 

That's mechanically too similar to the Monk, I'm afraid.

Tactically it is not. When the idea is not taken out of context:

 If there are more than 1 Modal ability for all Classes, I could see how the Cipher could have a "Soul Shield (Modal)" ability (a reversed "Soul Whip" ability, essentially) that gives the Cipher Focus when he/she is attacked and gives Magical Resistance, an excellent Anti-Magic Tank build perhaps, should you face Magical Melee Enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In battles against enemies too powerful or resistant to be harmed by the soul whip, cipher is either unable to use advanced techniques (or even repeatedly use minor powers), or is perhaps left with the option of attacking allies to gather the necessary Focus?

....  Not limiting cipher to enemies could have lots of interesting consequences -- and I bet the allies might have a thing or two to say about being used as spare batteries!

 

 

 

 Yes, attacking the monk pre-battle  would buff up both of them. Hmmmm. :getlost:  

 

 
Hmm, I must admit I forgot that about the monks, but it wouldn't necessarily be a problem if you would in any case have to use that route very sparingly lest the recovery times and side effects become a bigger problem than any gain you might get (I'm assuming here that damage to soul heals differently from damage to body), especially if there are enemy ciphers lurking around as well (wouldn't want to use up all your resistance). Also, some allies might demand favours owed in return, while others might walk out of your party or attack the cipher, in some cases at the first attempt already.
 
It could also be interesting in this kind of situation that when there is a fight and your main character isn't the cipher those both characters might become uncontrollable until someone else in the party attacks or helps either of them, showing which side you are on, so to speak, at which point you would gain control of the helped party and an enemy out of the other party, or an enemy of both if you hit them both. And when they are enemies you might arrest one or both of them and take them to your dungeon... Alas, as it is effectively you who would be making the initial decision to attack that ally it might be a bit difficult to justify such consequences, unless you could somehow make the cipher make that decision all by themselves -- perhaps by not explicitly forbidding them of using such methods in a tight corner, which would be rather risky for your party (you might not be only down two fighters -- one of which you can't even choose so it might be your tank -- in a difficult fight but up two more difficult enemies as well, especially if you accidentally hit them with some area effect before you realise what has happened) but could provide the only way of reaching some quest line.
 
Just to list a few possibilities :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... so can we have that cipher-monk love-hate-abuse-romance of needs to spank and be spanked already?

They complete each others and hate the other and themselves for it.

 

Because that'd totally be everybodys cup of tea.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of rationales why attack speed would affect on hit effects. Imagine that the weapon has a capacitor where the effect is charged on to. Recharge speed and capacitor is dependent on the strength of the enchantment, the stronger the enchantment the faster the recharge & larger the capacitor. So say that you have a 10 damage/second charge rate on your weapon and a 10 damage capacitor. This would then mean that you could either hit once per second for 10 damage, after which every attack more per second would have partially charged on hit effect, so 5 damage for 0.5 second of recharge and so on.

 

 

Another rationale could be weapons size. Imagine that the on-hit enchantment requires a physical body to store the enchantment. Again like a capacitor for electricity. Having a small capacitor store as much energy as a larger one is more difficult, hence the same strength enchantment has a weaker per hit effect for a smaller, quicker weapon compared to a larger one. 

 

And lastly, bigger weapons score bigger hits, allowing for more of the on hit effect to be transferred over. The better the contact on the target is, the better the on hit effect is.

 

Inchresting example... if you want to put it that way, I would rather look at the enchantment as a battery, not a capacitor. Should we reintroduce durability then?

 

You are mixing things up; weapon size, speed, damage..

There could be a variety of combinations.

Big weapon, made of wood, very fast attack speed (wielder is skilled and strong).

Small weapon, high damage - weapon is very sharp, slow attack speed (wielder is not skilled).

 

What does you capacitor prefer?

 

 

Now, let's be serious. Here's an example of on hit effects, posted in this same thread:

 

2wg9emh.png

 

It's quite simple.

Korax the Ghoul tries to hit a Gnoll. Attack roll successful! Now the Gnoll has to save vs death or be paralyzed. Save successful! Still suffers 4 damage from the hit though.

 

It's the same in PE. Just substitute saving throw with defense roll. There's no need for batteries, capacitors, measuring attack speed.. it's simply an enchantment, an effect, often rather supernatural. You hit your opponent with a full hit? Good, now the effect has a chance to be applied on the target, if a specific defense fails. There's no need to complicate and warp things just for the sake of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Inchresting example... if you want to put it that way, I would rather look at the enchantment as a battery, not a capacitor. Should we reintroduce durability then?

 

You are mixing things up; weapon size, speed, damage..

There could be a variety of combinations.

Big weapon, made of wood, very fast attack speed (wielder is skilled and strong).

Small weapon, high damage - weapon is very sharp, slow attack speed (wielder is not skilled).

 

What does you capacitor prefer?

 

 

Now, let's be serious. Here's an example of on hit effects, posted in this same thread:

 

 

It's quite simple.

Korax the Ghoul tries to hit a Gnoll. Attack roll successful! Now the Gnoll has to save vs death or be paralyzed. Save successful! Still suffers 4 damage from the hit though.

 

It's the same in PE. Just substitute saving throw with defense roll. There's no need for batteries, capacitors, measuring attack speed.. it's simply an enchantment, an effect, often rather supernatural. You hit your opponent with a full hit? Good, now the effect has a chance to be applied on the target, if a specific defense fails. There's no need to complicate and warp things just for the sake of it.

 

A battery runs out. An enchantment doesn't, hence capacitors that recharge. The 3 examples were all separate reasons why hit-speed would affect on-hit effects, the point wasn't that all would be used simultaneously to explain why speed affects on-hit effects. And the reason why attack-speed should affect on-hit effects is obvious if you ask me. A enchantment that can deliver 5x10damage/second is quite a bit more powerful than a enchantment that delivers 1x10damage/second. Just think of it like it was physics. One has significantly more energy than the other, so it should be much more valuable/harder to craft. Heck, if each hit should deliver the same amount, then the best weapon would be something like a multitailed whip. You can swing it like crazy and each tail scoring a hit is another 10 damage. Get it wrapped around your target and you've got an infinite amount of damage being delivered. After all, if the enchantment can deliver the same amount of damage per hit no matter how often per second you hit something, then the logical maximum is infinite amounts of damage per second. Just doesn't make sense. The reason that has been the case pen-and-paper rule-set games is simplicity, something that isn't a problem once you remove the pen and paper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valorians, but your current example isn't balanced, because you didn't say anything about how base damage or weapon speed affect the enchantment. In your example a faster-than-light dagger (roughly 10^9 hits per turn) that does 0 damage each hit has a 100% chance of paralyzing the target in one turn. A hammer that hits once per turn only has a small chance of maybe 10%.

 

You can either balance that by tying the enchantment to the base damage, or to weapon speed.

1) Tying it to weapon speed: That's the capacitor example, in which the weapon needs a small time to regain full enchantment power again. Both weapons have the same chance to paralyze the target in one turn.

2) Tying it to base damage: That's the battery example, in which it has an (in this case infinite) pool of enchantment power from which it releases small bursts. For some reason weapons with more damage also release larger bursts.

 

I have to say though, bringing skill into the discussion by implying that it would affect weapon speed is not going to help anyone. Skill could also affect base damage, or both. And that's not important anyway - weapons need to be balanced at the same skill level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said something else. You went on with 'oh, you see, bla, speed, 73 attacks per second, bla, should apply shock damage differently'. Then I pointed out that attack speed shouldn't affect bonus elemental damage and the power or duration of on-hit effects because it simply doesn't make sense. Then you did what you usually do. You muddled everything with paragraphs of superfluous text explaining how you said just that, when in fact you said something else entirely.

I "said something else." AKA you misunderstood me. It happens. That's why I clarified. I'm not sure what calling me out on "muddling" it up does, when I've already acknowledged that I was very much to blame for the misunderstanding. If it makes you feel better though, *shrug*.

 

I'll take the lack of complaint about the point I'm claiming to have made to mean that you don't actually have a problem with anything about it, and the only problem you have is with my lack of perfection in presenting points. My apologies. I'll try harder next time. But, I warn you; I still may "muddle" things up with lots of words that could mean hundreds if not thousands of different things, and you still may believe it was somehow deliberate. I apologize for my powerlessness in that regard, as well.

 

No, it is not okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed. Does that answer your question?

Truly?

 

Percentages of base damage added as bonus (e.g. elemental) damage, already balance what you think needs balancing. The slower weapons have higher base damage than faster weapons. +20% shock damage on a stiletto isn't the same as +20% on a two-handed sword. So this "problem" is actually already solved.

So, here, when you non-chalantly mention slower weapons having higher base damage than faster weapons, and how the application of bonus damage as a percentage of base damage works wonderfully because of that very relationship between base damage and weapon speed, I guess you were just pretending to be totally fine with it? Or, you just like to wait until someone asks about a specific concern to actually point out said concern?

 

 

@JonR:

 

I very much like that idea. I see the purely-gameplay-balance demand for certain things that don't necessarily make much sense, but it's always great when you can make them actually fit the lore.

 

I mean, if the frequency with which you "attack" has no impact on the potency/duration of an on-hit(touch) effect, then people who lived in the world of such enchantments would simply abandon swords and switch to large, entangling nets. Have fun dodging a net. It deals 10 lightning damage every infinitely-small increment of time! 8D! So that's... infinite damage per second?

 

That might even add a whole 'nother dynamic, if the effect/damage is met with any kind of defensive threshold. Maybe your dagger consistently does 5 lightning damage (every second), but, if you let it build up to full capacity before discharging it with an attack, it actually deals something like 25 damage. So, certain enemies could, potentially, consistently ignore/negate 5-or-more incoming lightning damage, thus requiring you to attack less frequently to actually break through the threshold. Of course, without some sort of defensive stance, this would result in a very silly "click click click, run away! Okay now turn around and attack!" pattern, heh. Still, it's interesting.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  Druids and clerics are both really powerful spellcasters in 3.X.  That they have good melee capability on top of that is icing on the cake.

I just have to echo this. The 3E Cleric is a massively powerful class.

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You said something else. You went on with 'oh, you see, bla, speed, 73 attacks per second, bla, should apply shock damage differently'. Then I pointed out that attack speed shouldn't affect bonus elemental damage and the power or duration of on-hit effects because it simply doesn't make sense. Then you did what you usually do. You muddled everything with paragraphs of superfluous text explaining how you said just that, when in fact you said something else entirely.

I "said something else." AKA you misunderstood me. It happens. That's why I clarified. I'm not sure what calling me out on "muddling" it up does, when I've already acknowledged that I was very much to blame for the misunderstanding. If it makes you feel better though, *shrug*.

 

I'll take the lack of complaint about the point I'm claiming to have made to mean that you don't actually have a problem with anything about it, and the only problem you have is with my lack of perfection in presenting points. My apologies. I'll try harder next time. But, I warn you; I still may "muddle" things up with lots of words that could mean hundreds if not thousands of different things, and you still may believe it was somehow deliberate. I apologize for my powerlessness in that regard, as well.

 

No, it is not okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed. Does that answer your question?

Truly?

 

Percentages of base damage added as bonus (e.g. elemental) damage, already balance what you think needs balancing. The slower weapons have higher base damage than faster weapons. +20% shock damage on a stiletto isn't the same as +20% on a two-handed sword. So this "problem" is actually already solved.

So, here, when you non-chalantly mention slower weapons having higher base damage than faster weapons, and how the application of bonus damage as a percentage of base damage works wonderfully because of that very relationship between base damage and weapon speed, I guess you were just pretending to be totally fine with it? Or, you just like to wait until someone asks about a specific concern to actually point out said concern?

 

 

@JonR:

 

I very much like that idea. I see the purely-gameplay-balance demand for certain things that don't necessarily make much sense, but it's always great when you can make them actually fit the lore.

 

I mean, if the frequency with which you "attack" has no impact on the potency/duration of an on-hit(touch) effect, then people who lived in the world of such enchantments would simply abandon swords and switch to large, entangling nets. Have fun dodging a net. It deals 10 lightning damage every infinitely-small increment of time! 8D! So that's... infinite damage per second?

 

That might even add a whole 'nother dynamic, if the effect/damage is met with any kind of defensive threshold. Maybe your dagger consistently does 5 lightning damage (every second), but, if you let it build up to full capacity before discharging it with an attack, it actually deals something like 25 damage. So, certain enemies could, potentially, consistently ignore/negate 5-or-more incoming lightning damage, thus requiring you to attack less frequently to actually break through the threshold. Of course, without some sort of defensive stance, this would result in a very silly "click click click, run away! Okay now turn around and attack!" pattern, heh. Still, it's interesting.

 

 

 

You need to stop misunderstanding the context constantly and stop taking things out of context constantly.

 

Concentrate, the context is this:

 

Weapons with higher base damage will have a slower attack speed. This is fine. That's called balancing weapons and not making half weapons obsolete.

 

Now. Try to imagine a wizard that has this spell that makes your weapon BURN. And you do bonus fire damage.

 

Why would this magical fire care for the speed or damage of the weapon? Right, you could say because balance. I respond: tactics. If you have a lot of people with fast weapons, you'd maybe want to pick this spell instead of another one and have it ready in your spell book (because fixed fire damage). It doesn't cause an imbalance, unlike designing higher damage weapons to also be faster weapons. Do you undestand the point, even just a bit?

 

Let's expand it.

Why do I find it even more problematic to twist effects based on attack speed. Increasing this bonus elemental damage because you hit HARDER is something I can accept, but to decrease it because you attack FASTER.. just NO.

Even more so for real on hit effects that are not just bonus elemental damage. Those effect should not care about how fast or hard you hit. Why would a curse effect care if you hit once in 3 second or 3 times in a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now. Try to imagine a wizard that has this spell that makes your weapon BURN. And you do bonus fire damage.

 

Why would this magical fire care for the speed or damage of the weapon? Right, you could say because balance. I respond: tactics. If you have a lot of people with fast weapons, you'd maybe want to pick this spell instead of another one and have it ready in your spell book (because fixed fire damage). It doesn't cause an imbalance, unlike designing higher damage weapons to also be faster weapons. Do you undestand the point, even just a bit?

 

Let's expand it.

Why do I find it even more problematic to twist effects based on attack speed. Increasing this bonus elemental damage because you hit HARDER is something I can accept, but to decrease it because you attack FASTER.. just NO.

Even more so for real on hit effects that are not just bonus elemental damage. Those effect should not care about how fast or hard you hit. Why would a curse effect care if you hit once in 3 second or 3 times in a second.

Temporary elemental damage that's dependent upon a spell that must be actively cast by (per example) a Wizard? Of course it shouldn't be adjusted. It's not coming from the weapon. It's coming from a spell. That spell is fundamentally no different than a DOT, only with the dynamic of the hits with a weapon determining when and how often it damages. The source of the damage is the spell, not the weapon, so the damage is balanced against the spell's cast speed/resource-requirements. Not the weapon's.

 

Is a temporary weapon-burning spell cast by a Wizard really the ONLY thing you can possibly fathom as constituting an on-hit effect? I guess I just MUST be a nonsensical person? So, when you think "Hmm... it would really only make sense when applied to permanent enchantments on weapons, etc., just like the permanent base damage of the weapon," you immediately think "but he couldn't have been talking about that. He must have been talking about when a Wizard lights a sword on fire." Why do you think I made examples citing a weapon that "does X lightning damage"? Don't you think I would've specified if I meant "only temporarily, because a Wizard made it so with his finite magic ammo"?

 

Seriously, man. For realsies. I'm gonna get you a Jump To Conclusions Mat, from the film Office Space. It has conclusions on it... and you can jump to them. 8D


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go even futher and attach elemental damage, and even other effects to DPS of weapon. 

 

example

 

fire damage bonus 10%dps

2handed hammer 

 

100 damage per hit

1 attack per 10 seconds

 

10dps

1fire dps

10 fire damage per hit

 

1handed sword

 

10 damage per hit

10 attacks per 10 seconds

 

10dps

1fire dps

1 fire damage per hit

Edited by Chilloutman
  • Like 1

I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young man, if I hear you use the word 'dps' one more time, it's off to your room for the remainder of the week! I won't tolerate talk like that in this house, no sir!

  • Like 1

"Bones heal, chicks dig scars, pain is temporary, glory is forever."

What is glass but tortured sand?
Never forget! '12.01.13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about average damage, better? Doesnt capture it too precisely but I dont want to offend you anymore :)


I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the faster weapon still has it's advantage of being faster and therefore having more chances to hit, to do critical damage and apply any on hit stuff more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now. Try to imagine a wizard that has this spell that makes your weapon BURN. And you do bonus fire damage.

 

Why would this magical fire care for the speed or damage of the weapon? Right, you could say because balance. I respond: tactics. If you have a lot of people with fast weapons, you'd maybe want to pick this spell instead of another one and have it ready in your spell book (because fixed fire damage). It doesn't cause an imbalance, unlike designing higher damage weapons to also be faster weapons. Do you undestand the point, even just a bit?

 

Let's expand it.

Why do I find it even more problematic to twist effects based on attack speed. Increasing this bonus elemental damage because you hit HARDER is something I can accept, but to decrease it because you attack FASTER.. just NO.

Even more so for real on hit effects that are not just bonus elemental damage. Those effect should not care about how fast or hard you hit. Why would a curse effect care if you hit once in 3 second or 3 times in a second.

Temporary elemental damage that's dependent upon a spell that must be actively cast by (per example) a Wizard? Of course it shouldn't be adjusted. It's not coming from the weapon. It's coming from a spell. That spell is fundamentally no different than a DOT, only with the dynamic of the hits with a weapon determining when and how often it damages. The source of the damage is the spell, not the weapon, so the damage is balanced against the spell's cast speed/resource-requirements. Not the weapon's.

 

Is a temporary weapon-burning spell cast by a Wizard really the ONLY thing you can possibly fathom as constituting an on-hit effect? I guess I just MUST be a nonsensical person?

 

 

 

Oh Lephys... temporary bonus elemental damage for an unspecified target weapon is exactly the type of situation where percentages could balance things out (even if unneeded). Already enchanted weapons, you know, have been designed with the weapon's attack speed in mind and bonus damage & co. as a percentage is absolutely not necessary.

 

Anyway, it would be interesting to have it explained how does attack speed affect different types of on hit effects, if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds quite intriguing to me.  I've always looked for some sort of magic/melee hybrid - a melee heavy fighter with magical augmentation.  Someone to dive into a fight yet wield useful magical abilities.  Charging in with a Mind Wave and then blasting everyone with the Soul Shock...  This sounds like my kind of fighter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Soul Shock - The cipher causes an ally's soul to "crack" and violently release energy into the physical world. The resulting explosion of electrical (Shock) energy damages everyone nearby except the target (attacks Reflexes)."

 

The description for this one causes me some problems... the idea that you make an ally's soul "crack" without harming them seems really odd.

Maybe this is explained elsewhere in the lore, but I would expect a "cracked" soul to be a really bad thing.

Maybe this should be used on enemies instead? or maybe the ally should be harmed? (high risk, high reward type thing), or maybe just avoid words with as damaging conotations as "crack"?

Just my thoughts :)

Depending on the amount of damage it could have no effect. If it has the effect on the soul a papercut would on a person's skin, while it might not be comfortable, it certainly wouldn't cause any real harm.


"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...