tdphys Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 I see it as causing a choice when making stats: 1. Might would cause damage to overcome DT, so it would be a good choice for a frontliner against heavily armored opponents, or those with high DEF for which you'll be primarily not critting, but still get reasonable damage against. 2. With a well balanced DT, and crit mods after reduction , crits without might wouldn't be overpowered. If you wanted to do serious damage against heavily armored perps, you'd have to max both might and per, which would make some other stat unbalanced and introduce a vulnerability somewhere. IE, the glass cannon. 3. With a bit of piercing on light weapons, you could be able to still do decent damage by maxing per and critting the pierce. Maybe a little less then the damage by high might + heavy weapons. So I see 3 avenues of damage, moderate to high damage: 1 depends on might 2 depends on per 3 depends on might and per and is the *glass cannon* requiring buffing 2 stats. All of this is dependent on balancing DT, weapons, might and crit, but it could be done. DT becomes the crit counter. Might becomes the DT counter. crit becomes the bane of low armored individuals. Thus all of these model aspects have trade offs and require you to make hard choices strategically and tactically. Hard choices to me is the key to making combat rich and rewarding.
illathid Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I see it as causing a choice when making stats: 1. Might would cause damage to overcome DT, so it would be a good choice for a frontliner against heavily armored opponents, or those with high DEF for which you'll be primarily not critting, but still get reasonable damage against. 2. With a well balanced DT, and crit mods after reduction , crits without might wouldn't be overpowered. If you wanted to do serious damage against heavily armored perps, you'd have to max both might and per, which would make some other stat unbalanced and introduce a vulnerability somewhere. IE, the glass cannon. 3. With a bit of piercing on light weapons, you could be able to still do decent damage by maxing per and critting the pierce. Maybe a little less then the damage by high might + heavy weapons. So I see 3 avenues of damage, moderate to high damage: 1 depends on might 2 depends on per 3 depends on might and per and is the *glass cannon* requiring buffing 2 stats. All of this is dependent on balancing DT, weapons, might and crit, but it could be done. DT becomes the crit counter. Might becomes the DT counter. crit becomes the bane of low armored individuals. Thus all of these model aspects have trade offs and require you to make hard choices strategically and tactically. Hard choices to me is the key to making combat rich and rewarding. Ok, you want Might to negate DT. Why not have might give penetration then instead? Same outcome, but keeps the damage calculation from being overly complicated for no reason. I'm not seeing how having modifiers before DT makes crits any worse or better for low armored folks. Edited January 16, 2015 by illathid 1 "Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic." -Josh Sawyer
tdphys Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 Yeah, that's a cool Idea, I could go with that. I see it as causing a choice when making stats: 1. Might would cause damage to overcome DT, so it would be a good choice for a frontliner against heavily armored opponents, or those with high DEF for which you'll be primarily not critting, but still get reasonable damage against. 2. With a well balanced DT, and crit mods after reduction , crits without might wouldn't be overpowered. If you wanted to do serious damage against heavily armored perps, you'd have to max both might and per, which would make some other stat unbalanced and introduce a vulnerability somewhere. IE, the glass cannon. 3. With a bit of piercing on light weapons, you could be able to still do decent damage by maxing per and critting the pierce. Maybe a little less then the damage by high might + heavy weapons. So I see 3 avenues of damage, moderate to high damage: 1 depends on might 2 depends on per 3 depends on might and per and is the *glass cannon* requiring buffing 2 stats. All of this is dependent on balancing DT, weapons, might and crit, but it could be done. DT becomes the crit counter. Might becomes the DT counter. crit becomes the bane of low armored individuals. Thus all of these model aspects have trade offs and require you to make hard choices strategically and tactically. Hard choices to me is the key to making combat rich and rewarding. Ok, you want Might to negate DT. Why not have might give penetration then instead? Same outcome, but keeps the damage calculation from being overly complicated for no reason. I'm not seeing how having modifiers before DT makes crits any worse or better for low armored folks. I like the higher penetration idea.
Recommended Posts