Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2020 2:25:36 GMT
At present, Holy Sword wands can be used on your friends. Your neighborhood Bard who naturally gets / uses UMD casts it on your COT who can't use it, and bam, COT has zero need for UMD / Holy Sword rods. With the nerfs to Harper Scout being especially heavy, I feel like this is something that should be self buff only to preserve some of the carrots that Harper offers. You've drastically hurt the value of Harper with cheese like that existing when the boots have been nerfed into oblivion. The value / the flavor the Harper adds is mainly some nice skill selections, UMD, and GR potions. The UMD carrot is diminished heavily. I'd love to see this changed.
Compared another way, Fighter / WM and then Monk vs Harper.
Monk offers all the same skills as the Harper Scout, so you aren't losing anything there. The key variants are Monk AC vs Boots (craptacular now due to duration), GR potions, and UMD. One can argue with the prevalence of Abjuration foci on your druids with the font radius, your GR potions are also mainly worthless. The critical piece was the damage. Let's preserve some of what brought Harper value.
When your friends can use the wands on you, versus it being something you can access yourself, it hurts. Just my thoughts $0.02
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Dec 4, 2020 4:42:56 GMT
Why should holy sword be self buff only? It's been part of the mass buff system for years. What connection is there to Harper added attacks?
Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2020 4:53:39 GMT
No connection to harper added attacks. But, the hits that harper took diminish what it now offers. One of the unique things Harper offers is UMD as a skill that can be taken. Holy Sword wands being able to buff anyone, and not just the user of the wand, diminishes the value that the UMD from Harper offers further eroding the value of Harper. All the draws of Harper are basically gone / shared by other classes and those classes offer more making Harper basically irrelevant. This change would protect that.
|
|
|
Post by kingcamaro on Dec 4, 2020 11:41:21 GMT
Harper Scout gained a boot slot now that the extra attack has been moved to an ability, so while they took some hits, they also got some positive out of it too.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Dec 4, 2020 12:48:49 GMT
not to mention, as already addressed, the "future plan" for HS boots is to make them still "usable", not merely leave them as broken items on broken toons with no recourse.
I barely understand the linkage of concepts in this complaint; seems very specific to certain builds/party makeup but conflated into a far larger issue. UMD isn't a "unique" thing that hs offers--more like, it's a thing that other top-tier 2h splashes didn't offer. hs value surely got eroded; no question about that. then again, it's blindingly obvious that this was a really, really, really good thing, both for overall balance in general, as well as the class itself, considering that what was unique about hs was the fact that it literally was entirely dependent on a single item for a massive bonus, and one that I'd remind was commonly complained about over the years as nonsensical for various reasons (class secret, moliation, spot of breach boots, etc etc).
I agree that hs took a big hit, and atm it certainly seems like hs is basically irrelevant; ofc only time will tell if a) the bonus attack scheme redux supports this redefined uselessness of HS, b) future edits can re-tweak the standing, but it's hard to see a logical connection between holy sword wands self-cast only and "protecting" hs attractiveness.
this reads more like a way to give hs valuation a new angle by addressing something tangential at best. holy sword in general is only exceptionally useful in a relatively small number of zones, and wand-casted buff even more limited; hs was certainly never known for being "the guy that can use holy sword buff on himself" nor was this ability ever considered an important deciding factor in whether or not to take the splash on a class like ftr or wm. manufacturing this value and assigning it to hs is interesting, but I can't agree that it's an established calculation in need of defense--more like a novelty idea contrived to make up for the heavy nerf (which, again, is fine--but the entire point of holy sword wand is to buff other people with it--what else would it exist for?)
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Dec 4, 2020 18:35:19 GMT
What Chir said. Also, this is a backwards way of going about things.
Let's grant the premise that the HS edit nerfed them too hard. Were that the case, about the last thing I would do is make another edit with a lot of knock-on effects to offset it. Especially not one so tangential to the nerf. Instead, we would deal with the nerf itself.
I'm also wary of of letting the pendulum swing too far and fast towards dexers, especially given the perinarch edit. And having the time on Smile link only to dex and cha, while thematically appropriate, does limit the applications for the class. So, suppose we want to broaden those applications. We would probably allow str mod to add to the buff as well, helping duration. On a typical Str build, that would likely increase duration from 1.5 minutes to 3, if we used the same calc.
However, consider: Harpers used to get 10 minutes of bufftime in 2 5-minute packets, at the cost of a freely available boots slot. The HS boots had some useful stuff on them, so let's call it a half slot, fwiw. They gained that half-slot along with the time reduction. However, a level 5 HS also gained a third use, providing a little more tactical flexibility.
So, what was the value of that half slot and the extra flexibility it and the extra use provides? What should HS Smile duration be now, bearing in mind that we want them neither useless nor as ubiquitous as they were? 7.5 minutes?6? 8?
Discussion welcome.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by manuka on Dec 4, 2020 19:32:05 GMT
HS effectively got a damage nerf, assuming you used the boots effectively to maximize the combat time. And in compensation they got a defensive buff(can use good boots) this damage nerf along with the 20% 2h reduction, losing 1 attack and the recent wepbuff nerfs is a lot. The problem is that the best tank in my personal opinion is the highest damage tank. So giving HS a damage nerf and a defensive buff isn't helping end game fantasy. With a high skill level at playing the game its already possible to become more than tanky enough to maximize dps uptime. So effectively the hs nerf makes them better for weaker players and worse for more skilled players who can give up the defensive bonus of good boots, removing some of the skill to reward ratio from the game. This is potentially the same problem with the wrap changes, you gain defensive power(use a better cloak) at the cost of damage. Again removing a way u can use player skill to gain damage with giving up defense
I would suggest reverting the hs changes and instead remove the elemental immunities from the hs boots. To give players an option to increase damage at the cost of defense
Also I think wrap should be changed back to what it was but have the 10% phys immunities removed, making the decision to use a wrap more risky. Or potentially add back in the limbo p2h gloves that gave the extra attack
This would make you really consider if you can use hs boots and wrap to gain damage at a massive defensive loss. Giving more options to players and adding more use for player skill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2020 19:59:12 GMT
I differ from Manuka here on a couple points. I will tailor my thoughts to the Harper changes specifically as that is this threads intent.
I think for duration, your XR maxed toons range anywhere from 66-76 to a core stat. Whether that be DEX / STR / CHA. The increase in uses paired with the item slot availability are huge wins for the character.
I think three uses at 2.5 minutes per use, or 7.5 minutes of total buff time, down from 10, but as stated a lot more tactical control afforded in the application strikes a fair balance. I think adjusting the modifiers so this is reached at let’s say 68 of a stat for a more balanced character, and those going extreme I.e. 72+ into a stat gain a slightly better duration but will feel whatever costs that has on their character for such heavy investment (possibly lower skills due to INT, lower overall Hp due to lower CON, etc).
I understand from both your and Chiralitys posts I was approaching this from the wrong angle and I appreciate that feedback. I would say that I find Holy Sword wands to be way more impactful than Chirality may value you them but that’s fine. Different strokes for different folks.
My aim was to preserve some of the unique pieces of the class and an adjustment to the buff times really does balance that I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2020 22:43:52 GMT
I understand from both your and Chiralitys posts I was approaching this from the wrong angle and I appreciate that feedback. I would say that I find Holy Sword wands to be way more impactful than Chirality may value you them but that’s fine. Different strokes for different folks. If you value Holy Sword wands... why would you want them limited to Harper Scout? It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Dec 5, 2020 0:02:47 GMT
I would say that I find Holy Sword wands to be way more impactful than Chirality may My aim was to preserve some of the unique pieces of the class I find them pretty impactful--just not in a proprietary sense, considering that several classes and many builds share UMD in common, and these wands are usable by all of them. I don't see what is unique about HS either having UMD, or benefiting from these wands. I don't see where the concept of holy sword wands being a "unique piece of the class" comes from, unless that class is actually the one with the spell on their list. If anything, your argument would be better-suited to an application such as preserving the unique-ness of paladins for being able to cast the spell in the first place. It's far easier to see a thread of commonality in restricting holy sword wands to self-use by paladins, than by restricting the targeting of the wands to only the UMD-ranked wand activator upon themselves. How does the thought process flow from having class A that actually creates the wand, class B that is any UMD user, and then class C which just got nerfed? How is letting anyone with UMD use the wand, to target anyone else, hurting in any way or infringing upon the power of class C? How is class C, one of multiple classes with UMD, getting a nerf-repairing improvement, by only allowing wand-users to target themselves? You're essentially saying (I think?) that because HS has UMD, and UMD classes can use the wand, no one except UMD classes should be able to benefit from the wand that they themselves activate; and that would equal a buff for HS to make up for a nerf. Just hard to follow the logic, even with the assumption that HS is the only top-tier damage dealing splash with UMD. If you find holy sword wands so impactful, I wonder if you'd agree that the ability of anyone with UMD to activate these wands, let alone buff anyone else with them, is, in fact, unfairly stepping on the toes of the few sources of onhit dispelling effects, such as paladins and staffies--let alone threatening the very existence of MoaD weapons. Isn't the fact that a bard can use a holy sword wand at all, entering the territory that should be reserved for other classes (and an entire set of weapons that virtually never see any use)? tldr; Why is the bard's ability to click another tank with the wand taking anything away from HS? Or are you saying only HS should be able to use the wand to make up for their crippling nerf? If so, why not just suggest that instead of implying that UMD classes supporting other primary damage-focused tanks without UMD is a bad thing? I think you'd be better-served suggesting actual improvements to HS' own unique features (such as crafting potions, or wearing cool boots), rather than proposing that tanks other than HS, getting buffed by a bard's holy sword wand that a paladin made them, is a bad thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2020 0:24:24 GMT
I would say that I find Holy Sword wands to be way more impactful than Chirality may My aim was to preserve some of the unique pieces of the class I find them pretty impactful--just not in a proprietary sense, considering that several classes and many builds share UMD in common, and these wands are usable by all of them. I don't see what is unique about HS either having UMD, or benefiting from these wands. I don't see where the concept of holy sword wands being a "unique piece of the class" comes from, unless that class is actually the one with the spell on their list. If anything, your argument would be better-suited to an application such as preserving the unique-ness of paladins for being able to cast the spell in the first place. It's far easier to see a thread of commonality in restricting holy sword wands to self-use by paladins, than by restricting the targeting of the wands to only the UMD-ranked wand activator upon themselves. How does the thought process flow from having class A that actually creates the wand, class B that is any UMD user, and then class C which just got nerfed? How is letting anyone with UMD use the wand, to target anyone else, hurting in any way or infringing upon the power of class C? How is class C, one of multiple classes with UMD, getting a nerf-repairing improvement, by only allowing wand-users to target themselves? You're essentially saying (I think?) that because HS has UMD, and UMD classes can use the wand, no one except UMD classes should be able to benefit from the wand that they themselves activate; and that would equal a buff for HS to make up for a nerf. Just hard to follow the logic, even with the assumption that HS is the only top-tier damage dealing splash with UMD. If you find holy sword wands so impactful, I wonder if you'd agree that the ability of anyone with UMD to activate these wands, let alone buff anyone else with them, is, in fact, unfairly stepping on the toes of the few sources of onhit dispelling effects, such as paladins and staffies--let alone threatening the very existence of MoaD weapons. Isn't the fact that a bard can use a holy sword wand at all, entering the territory that should be reserved for other classes (and an entire set of weapons that virtually never see any use)? tldr; Why is the bard's ability to click another tank with the wand taking anything away from HS? Or are you saying only HS should be able to use the wand to make up for their crippling nerf? If so, why not just suggest that instead of implying that UMD classes supporting other primary damage-focused tanks without UMD is a bad thing? I think you'd be better-served suggesting actual improvements to HS' own unique features (such as crafting potions, or wearing cool boots), rather than proposing that tanks other than HS, getting buffed by a bard's holy sword wand that a paladin made them, is a bad thing. You’re absolutely right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 0:54:20 GMT
Can Tymora's Smile be expanded to include STR modifier as well please?
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Dec 7, 2020 15:44:35 GMT
We're still debating this.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by woqued on Dec 7, 2020 17:13:59 GMT
On Harpers and extra attacks in general:
Weapon buff change to help out caster tanks, who CAN'T splash harper anymore (stacking issues), excluding Divines (already prone to having or going Cha, not primary beneficiary of STR mod inclusion). Biggest winners should STR mod be added instead of some other buff to duration are Paladins, BGs, Barbs and Fighters, followed not-very-closely by Monks and WMs, followed by AAs. Ranking based on access to stats and capability of going Harper without losing attacks due weaker effect/access to DP casting items now.
Bards no longer care about Harper, CoTs and SDs didn't either but now they really really don't. Every caster tank that may have entertained the idea but likely not benefit off it much beyond sated curiosity - bk, staffy, bfm; also completely ignore the splash now. Sidenote: Wrap/Belt being worse for DP also means they punish you harder than before if you rely on getting the BAB attack progression of T1 classes, applies to AA/Rog/Assa/SD/RDD/Monk. I would like to see a PDK and/or Harper change that allowed these two splash classes to circumvent that -1 attack, since caster tanks have their own way of circumventing this issue that seems to balance things out very well - they are more fun to play without completely overtaking T1 classes, I see no issue with giving this benefit via a splash cost to the second class citizens.
Access to attacks being limited by taking out DP buffs from Items meant Harper received value relatively, however the stacking issue added made Harper lose value in return - not stacking with PDK buff, Fervor or Caster tanks buffs which hit Harper Bards in particular, to the point of buildkilling I'd say, not even accounting for the duration change or PDK inclusion as competition.
Since I mentioned Fervor, the duration is too low now. It's worse than masshaste spamming effectively, yet costing a Paragon; the duration is so low that it is not relevant for normal map clear, so it is almost exclusively a boss tool that doesn't even help your caster tanks and slingers, nor stack with PDK/Harpers, and only half-way helping CoTs and SDs. That is a humongous pool of characters you're supposed to help that don't receive benefit, for a 2 minute buff. It has felt really weak and negligible in playtesting so far. If it's too strong to be balanced via duration, might as well rework it to something else and put the attacks further behind bars to increase the value of PDK as a supportive tool. Similarly to Harper, I think the duration nerf is completely unwarranted due to the fact that a huge portion of classes do not benefit from it at all and overlap with PDK. The stacking change was enough to set them back. Harper having 3 charges instead of 2 means tactical access, so lowering overall duration to 2,5mx3 or 3mx3 net total of anything seems fine for Harper, and 4ish mins for Fervor.
All in all I think the duration changes went overboard on both Fervor and Harper, which woulda made /more/ sense (still overboard) if the buff stacking wasn't limited as it was, but the antisynergies do as much damage to these abilities as the relative value gained from exclusivity. As such, at least a portion of the buff duration should be returned to said classes/paragon, or reworked in some other way to buff them. Sorry about the walls of text as per usual, just want to explain the thought process.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Dec 7, 2020 17:57:55 GMT
If you want to persuade us, you'll need to flesh this out a bit. On Harpers and extra attacks in general: Weapon buff change to help out caster tanks, who CAN'T splash harper anymore (stacking issues), Obviously they can. So you're arguing it's not worth it. You'll have to elaborate on why. Yup. This was one of the target class types for the Smile edit. Ok. Why? I think this is your explanation: but it lacks clarity. Can you elaborate? Why not? Especially dex variants? Based on theorycraft or actual playtest? It's been 6 days. There's a PDK edit going in next update that makes it grant the number of attacks of a pure fighter, nonstacking with DP (since the extra attack is already given by PDK lvl 4 automatically). Level 4 PDKs will still benefit from the lvl 45 and 55 bonus attacks from the DP/Tenser's-type added attacks. Agreed on it having an impact. Is any of this playtested? The only input i have is that end-run times are essentially the same, which I'm fine with, given the current 20% reduction in encounters and suddenly non-optimal builds running them. Given that it stacks with MH, this doesn't make much sense. Care to elaborate? I don't accept the premise that a pspell, which you get multiple uses of per map (especially with use of bios), is only useful if it lasts an entire map. That seems like pablum for people upset with nerfs, not reasoned analysis. It's a mass DP. It's the only spell that can boost by 2 or more in an AoE. And it benefits CoTs, SDs, and HSs MORE than it used to (adding up to 2 attacks where previously they could not benefit at all, if they had the ability to add attacks themselves via levels or boots). Given that we did just that - balancing it via duration, and also given that you're advocating for increasing the duration, this is a really odd thing to say. Not following you. Being less powerful than it is, you are naturally going to feel its effects are disappointing compared to its pre-nerf effects. How it 'feels' (referencing our earlier comment, as well as the unsupported contentions of this quote) is not of interest to me in the slightest, at least in the short run, because of post-nerf blues. What matters is its actual impact on builds and runs, which will vary by situation. Are we talking about people speedrunning Limbo with fairly homogenous parties and no cleric, or balanced parties? The value of the HS attack is going to vary based on the availability of alternatives. Given that you seem to be overlooking some of the actual workings of the spell pre- and post-edit as noted above, I'm disinclined to give much weight to this opinion. That said, I'm not set on an outcome yet on Smile (though I think Fervor is about right as is). What I'm curious to hear, and what I would lend credence to absent further playtest, is a list of builds which might consider an HS splash at this time, and a list those that would additionally be viable if the duration were refactored to include Strength somehow, along with clearly reasoned analysis as to why. The goal is not to make HS as powerful as it was (it was nearly ubiquitous for DPS tanks), but not to nerf it to unplayable. So far I'm not getting a lot of useful input on deciding where we're at on that spectrum. Funky
|
|