|
Post by simpetar on Jan 23, 2022 13:41:27 GMT
Is it possible that damage from Assassin Penetrating Strike be integrated into base damage? It double dips from damage resistance and damage reduction (it has no enhancement bonus), and immunities apply too ofc. Even with 50 levels and 30+ strength modifier it hits for 0 or single digits more often than not, throughout the whole game. Penetrating Strike is the last remnant of on-hit damage that isn't integrated (even GIs got their extra bolt damage treated), and on top of that it is gated behind critical range AND fortitude save.
Second issue with Penetrating Strike is that the penalty to Parry simply is not high enough to render creatures vulnerable to MS, that weren't before. Regular Cornugons (the basic and weakest eligible targets) will not lose their dev crit immunity after Penetrating Strike alone, even when hit by a lvl 80 assassin. Infliction of ((LL + PL) / 2), or even ((LL + PL) / 3) will get the job done, at least for overleveled characters.
|
|
|
Post by yune on Jan 23, 2022 14:07:05 GMT
Is there anything that the parry inflict lets you MS that you couldn't otherwise? I thought about it with curse and without and can't think of anything. I think just curse is enough for superior red/blue slaad, but could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Jan 23, 2022 17:58:51 GMT
We've been asking for PS to be integrated (or buffed in other ways) for almost 10 years now. Perhaps OP will both bump the request made in older threads, as well as hope that The Team That Makes These Decisions (whoever that may consist of nowadays?) suddenly changed their minds. Here's some old threads where this idea was suggested, begged for, or otherwise discussed. This list is not inclusive, and the subject has also arisen in non-"idea" threads as well, such as assassin build threads. highergroundpoa.proboards.com/thread/25676/ass-assin-hghighergroundpoa.proboards.com/thread/25910/worst-classes-quasis-builds-helphighergroundpoa.proboards.com/thread/24150/assassins-ideashighergroundpoa.proboards.com/thread/22875/ideasAs for the criticism/question about the Parry debuff, it's probably worth making a distinction between: --The usefulness of the penalty in conjunction with other skill-dropping debuffs --The usefulness of the penalty as a standalone debuff, independent of stacking with other skill-dropping features I believe that when graded as a combined penalty on top of "standard" debuffs, the Parry penalty achieves a respectable level of quality (at the cost of relegating non-pure assassin builds even more to the trash heap than they were already). Whether or not the feature translates to a material advantage for an assassin operating without other debuffs, is a different question. The answer to this is almost definitely "no," but I'm pretty sure that the feature wasn't designed to make creatures vulnerable to MS that weren't before, after just the PS debuff alone. Should it? That's another question. Was it supposed to? Yet another question, but given the numbers implemented, the answer to that is probably "no" as well. Increasing the penalty to the point of allowing an assassin to single-handedly debuff-to-the-point-of-vulnerability, a mob that's normally immune to MS, would further reinforce the obviation of non-pure assassins (already essentially deleted from viability with the penalty in the first place) and only cement the diversity-reducing nature of the class feature. Aside from the impact on build homogeneity, it seems like a clumsy way to accomplish the goal of just letting assassins MS non-debuffed things that they can't now (so why not just make those desired mobs MS-able, if that's the goal--eg the cornugon from OP example), so I'm not sure it's a great move, anyway. As a side-note, I think that improving a class feature in an orthogonal manner that benefits over-levelled characters more than it does at-level characters (my understanding of the suggestion to boost the parry debuff to allow over-levelled characters to MS cornugons solely by their own debuff) is neither a good idea, nor a great match for the (relatively) recent "make the game cater to over-levelled play less than it used to" approach to development. I think an argument in favor of such a suggestion could be that it resembles PL casters having a SP boost that enables them to largely ignore SR debuffs on zones far beneath their level, but I think that dynamic has largely contributed to the nature of post-PL HG overly-rewarding over-levelled play and overly-encouraging a drag mindset, and this sunken cost should be halted and repaired when possible, not contributed to further.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jan 24, 2022 2:34:49 GMT
While I'm in agreement that Penetrating Strike could use some love, I'm not sure integrating is the best approach, simply because we already have that with fighter whetstone and div might.
Maybe apply the multiplier to it instead? If I'm reading the dox right, a pure Assassin with +30 str mod would do:
[(50+30)x7]/2 = 280 for non-crit immune with no save [(50+30)x7]/4 = 140 for non-crit immune with save
[(50+30)x7]/4 = 140 for crit immune with no save 0 for crit immune with save
doesn't seem too OP.... (?)
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Jan 24, 2022 17:28:46 GMT
While I'm in agreement that Penetrating Strike could use some love, I'm not sure integrating is the best approach, simply because we already have that with fighter whetstone and div might. I suppose you're saying that the reason it may not be the best approach is because it would too-closely resemble whetstone and div might? The argument being that it would detract from those features, and/or not feel unique enough? I disagree: First, I think that reasoning is backwards: the fact that whetstone and div might both offer integrated damage is an argument in favor of PS being integrated, not against. Compared to an ability such as crippling attack--which is modelled as actually a separate attack, separate source of damage, and separate packet--Penetrating Strike resembles far more whetstone and div might. It's basically just a hyped-up vanilla Massive Critical mechanic: increased physical damage on top of a standard weapon attack, emulating a more-damaging physical portion of the attack itself. The (updated) description even states that the mechanics works by "inflicting added damage that does not trigger kickback" which certainly makes it sound as if the extra damage should be integrated; in fact, we know that the reason the updated doc specifies that it doesn't trigger kickback, is because it is a separate source of damage that did trigger kickback...until that was (thankfully) changed per UPDATE 2020-12-10. Rather than having integrated damage that doesn't trigger kickback, we had separate damage that triggers kickback, which was changed to not trigger kickback, because triggering kickback as a separate source that didn't penetrate soak was bad... Second, I don't think that PS being integrated would step on toes or take anything away from whetstone or div might, any more than either of those detracts from the other already. Again, it just makes sense, in the same way that they both already make sense (and in the way that making whetstone integrated already made sense). If anything, an assassin with access to div might and/or whetstone should have assurance that both of those damage increases will integrate properly not only with each other but also with their PS damage. All three mechanics should merge together and function as a reliable and consistent physical damage increase. We wouldn't think of div might or whetstone competing with the +phys from GMW's enhancement bonus, or from bard song, or battletide, would we (or any of those competing with each other, for that matter)? Instead, we expect that enh bonus and song stack with each other, and battletide, and div might...and when whetstone didn't, it was asked to be changed (or, "fixed," although saying something is broken kind of implictly points a finger of the devs doing something wrong, so let's just say "improved"). Third, as a funny aside, it's just always been a bit of a joke that the ability is actually named "Penetrating Strike" and it doesn't , ehm, penetrate. You'd think that given the name and theme, the one thing it should do, is penetrate... All that said, I understand where you're coming from, and to be fair, I think part of the problem is simply the design of the PS/MS class feature in general (it's cool, don't get me wrong, but I truly believe the entire mechanic needs to be rebuilt from the ground up). Nonetheless, as long as the foundation is staying intact, the floor plan can still change a little bit.... Maybe apply the multiplier to it instead? If I'm reading the dox right, a pure Assassin with +30 str mod would do: [(50+30)x7]/2 = 280 for non-crit immune with no save [(50+30)x7]/4 = 140 for non-crit immune with save [(50+30)x7]/4 = 140 for crit immune with no save 0 for crit immune with save doesn't seem too OP.... (?) What's "the multiplier"? I'm dense (or daft, or both), but where's this from?
Back to the parry penalty, I think it would be helpful and enlightening for a dev to share any thoughts on the design process behind the parry debuff concept and calculation. How was it derived? What mobs was the new feature intended to unlock as MS-able? What result was it intended to achieve? Was it supposed to give assassins a way to MS things without external debuffs, that they normally can't MS unless Parry is debuffed by someone else? Was it supposed to offer a faster/more reliable method for dispatching the same MS targets as before? Was it intended to have low impact in the current environment but aimed at delivering a return in future zones?
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Jan 24, 2022 20:07:14 GMT
While I'm in agreement that Penetrating Strike could use some love, I'm not sure integrating is the best approach, simply because we already have that with fighter whetstone and div might. Fighter whetstone (just like a myriad of other added damage, for instance weapon buffs, slinger bullets, or most recently GI bolts) was not integrated originally, and fighters were bad, really bad then. (See update notes from 2010-07-24, that should give you an idea how outdated Penetrating Strike concept is.) More of the same, just on a bigger scale. Couldn't have said it better.
|
|
|
Post by desocupado on Jan 24, 2022 22:59:02 GMT
The name Penetrating strike makes me think about irresistible damage.
Cots had that like two decades ago, right?
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Jan 25, 2022 5:40:52 GMT
The name Penetrating strike makes me think about irresistible damage. Cots had that like two decades ago, right? Yes. Irresistable damage was (for the most part) removed a while ago and for a good reason. Until it made a subtle comeback in the form of consumables - but that is a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Jan 25, 2022 6:25:53 GMT
"irresistable damage" is just another way of referring to the damage increase effect, which ignores creature immunity and resistance if it's a non-physical type (although it does respect object hardness). Hence, it's "not resistable" when it's of the types that our brains associate with it, such as divine (div might, div wrath).
It's present in the (vanilla) game by default, and used in several places, which is why CoTs had it: the bonus damage from divine wrath is implemented as a damage increase effect in the base game, and since it's div, voila, "irresistable."
When of phys type, damage increase is "integrated" and is "resistable" (respecting a creature's soaks, imms and resists) as "expected" (assuming no one would expect that non-physical damage increase effects ignore imm/resist, as there's no PnP precedent or logical reason that they should).
To the point deso is making, it's surely incompatible with HG's longstanding balance theory to re-introduce a flat "irresistable" damage feature (or at least one capable of doing anything noticeable--it's possible that some very low number, which could therefore just translate into an easily-calculatable damage-per-round "class buff," might not be overpowered, but it seems a bit clunky and clumsy for HG. Then again, it'd probably be effective: giving someone like a rogue or assassin an "irresistable" 5-10 extra damage per attack would probably be an interesting experiment).
In the case of PS, this would mean having it deal damage of a type other than phys, which would also make it incompatible with feel/logic as well (although, on that note, having it deal internal damage would make a hell of a lot of sense, but that's offtopic for this post). Despite the introduction of a "new" "irresistable" damage source/"feature" (it's essentially a class feature) that simp referenced, having PS ignore immunity and resistance probably wouldn't, and probably shouldn't, fly. (Though, again, cloaking it in the thin guise of a pseudo-damage like internal might both leverage kewl custom HG stuffz as well as offer some kind of middle-of-the-road solution).
At any rate, I agree that it should definitely penetrate, somehow, in at least some way. I think there's most likely a few different approaches that could be taken to arrive there, but we should certainly be wary of the potential for balance issue that anything ignoring imm/res/soak entirely assuredly brings. In my view, the best solution would be either an integrated bonus, or perhaps changing the feature itself to do internal damage (although the formula used would have to be carefully-designed and also adjusted with other mod updates, and re-doing mob stats, especially en masse, is obviously not something that's fast or fun); of course, as I mentioned above, I also happen to think that the entire class feature should be re-designed as well.
If it stays as-is, then the concept of doing extra damage to stuff that can't be insta-killed via MS is satisfying, but clearly needs an implementation that is a bit less vulnerable to the more-or-less module-wide application of soak that, unless I'm mistaken, was probably put in place specifically to make these types of damage packets no longer very threatening (in the way that manticore spikes once were). Even without soak, and even after pro-dexer/pro-low-phys-packet changes, phys imm/res on HG endgame mobs is heavily-angled towards nullifying quite a bit of physical damage, so the fact that penetrating strike doesn't really penetrate very well even on the trash that get insta-killed anyway, largely invalidates what should be a very useful tool in the assassin's toolbox.
Speaking of penetrating on stuff that doesn't get insta-killed...aren't assassins kind of supposed to assassinate important, unique, high-priority targets, by the way? The trash-slaying shock trooper, the specialist in blitzing through the garbage mobs that are efficiently insta-killed in any number of other ways, by both casters and other tanks with big damage crits--and that that watches Real DPSers deal with the VIP Big Boys and bosses...this is the HG archetype, which I find rather backwards, but that goes back to re-designing the class feature...
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jan 25, 2022 9:11:13 GMT
I disagree: First, I think that reasoning is backwards: the fact that whetstone and div might both offer integrated damage is an argument in favor of PS being integrated, not against. Compared to an ability such as crippling attack--which is modelled as actually a separate attack, separate source of damage, and separate packet--Penetrating Strike resembles far more whetstone and div might. It's basically just a hyped-up vanilla Massive Critical mechanic: increased physical damage on top of a standard weapon attack, emulating a more-damaging physical portion of the attack itself.I understand what you're saying, but I'm really only thinking as a builder. I already have options with integrated damage...I'd like to try something different. Not a competition, just another way to skin a cat. Maybe apply the multiplier to it instead? If I'm reading the dox right, a pure Assassin with +30 str mod would do: [(50+30)x7]/2 = 280 for non-crit immune with no save [(50+30)x7]/4 = 140 for non-crit immune with save [(50+30)x7]/4 = 140 for crit immune with no save 0 for crit immune with save doesn't seem too OP.... (?) What's "the multiplier"? I'm dense (or daft, or both), but where's this from? Typo....I meant "a multiplier" and used the MS DC bonus scale. AA has a similar mechanic for seeker arrow but for much lower damage, and I believe it's only 1/round (can somebody confirm?). This model should move Assassin into more of a DPS role as they would be able to land more than 1/round, but would still have lower AB and number of attacks than other DPS tanks...if the other DPS tanks are assault rifles, Assassin would be the shotgun. Both are lethal, only in different ways. That's consistent with their NWN description as masters of "dealing quick, lethal blows" who "carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision". Might even be able to move into a sword-n-board niche by limiting it to main-hand weapon only. Again, not to take away from anything else....it's just about build diversity.
|
|
|
Post by boroie on Jan 25, 2022 9:38:13 GMT
Keep Penetrating Strike as it is and change the damage type to Internal? That way the damage lands (on applicable targets) and it fits thematically. That seems an easy fix rather than completely re-working the class feature.
|
|
|
Post by chainlink on Jan 25, 2022 9:44:54 GMT
Also make it based on the applicable stat (Str or Dex) so that Dex sins don't lose out.
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Jan 25, 2022 11:52:43 GMT
I understand what you're saying, but I'm really only thinking as a builder. I already have options with integrated damage... That was the point I was trying to get across: integrated on-hit damage is now the baseline. Damage being integrated is not a "special ability", it is the standard, no matter what source it comes from: weapon buffs, divine might, etc. Penetrating Strike is the only exception. You could make the argument that rogue Crippling Attack falls into the same category; it isn't on-hit however, but rather swift action activated by command. (Crippling Attack alone also hits like a wet noodle, but at least the XR gloves make it useful.)
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Jan 25, 2022 11:56:55 GMT
Keep Penetrating Strike as it is and change the damage type to Internal? That way the damage lands (on applicable targets) and it fits thematically. That seems an easy fix rather than completely re-working the class feature. This could be a way to go. However, if you spend an afternoon in the hell arena spamming KV, you will probably learn that esoteric immunities (including internal) are quite common.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Jan 25, 2022 17:49:54 GMT
I understand what you're saying, but I'm really only thinking as a builder. I already have options with integrated damage...I'd like to try something different. Not a competition, just another way to skin a cat. You're saying that "as a builder" you want to manufacture a reason not to make the damage integrated? You'd rather create something new and different, and the excuse to not make it integrated is because it lets you invent something else? I disagree, once again (also, not sure what you mean by "as a builder"--builders don't generally avoid using existing tools simply for the sake of inventing a new one). That kind of reasoning, especially in engineering, is often a trap. Designing and balancing, as well as code implementation, are things that should follow simple principles, and an architect should rarely give in to the temptation to needlessly embellish their work with features that exist solely to demonstrate how many cool things are possible. I wasn't under the impression that "competition" came into this at all, but, since you mention it: the perspective you're taking, and the argument you make, almost forces a competitive angle. You see competition between ideas, but we're just looking at ways to make something work better. As simpetar mentioned, I think you're kind of looking at the entire discussion from a different viewpoint, which is fine. Unfortunately, now more than ever, I don't think there's much room for extravagant or redundant development. ]Typo....I meant "a multiplier" and used the MS DC bonus scale. I see. Interesting idea, but not one I'd support. I'm immediately turned off by the fact that linking the feature twice to level, just punishes non-pure builds, and hurts build diversity, even more than is already the case. The notion of having the bonus damage scale off assassin level, and then multiplied by the MS DC (which also, itself, scales off assassin level) translates into yet another reinforcement of going pure. Anyway, a double dependence on assassin level is just not an elegant approach, in my opinion--no offense. Also, the idea of a multiplier is basically just adding another term to a formula that's already arguably overcomplicated and obscure. Taking the existing calculation and just multiplying things doesn't accomplish anything that wouldn't be done easier by simply improving the scaling or base constant of the earlier terms. This model should move Assassin into more of a DPS role as they would be able to land more than 1/round, but would still have lower AB and number of attacks than other DPS tanks...if the other DPS tanks are assault rifles, Assassin would be the shotgun. Both are lethal, only in different ways. That's consistent with their NWN description as masters of "dealing quick, lethal blows" who "carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision". Might even be able to move into a sword-n-board niche by limiting it to main-hand weapon only. Again, not to take away from anything else....it's just about build diversity. To be clear, you're talking about buffing the damage of a feature that already exists? You're not really introducing a new "model," unless I missed something (the model already exists, it just doesn't work very well, which is the point of the thread), so the gun analogy and explanation is kind of more just re-iterating ground we've already covered. As for the mainhand weapon only part: given that dual-wielder assassins received quite the buff after being able to hone offhand weap, I actually wouldn't be opposed to something that introduces a true snb niche. However your proposal wouldn't really establish a niche, it would just give something to both dual-wielders and non-dual-wielders; without rewarding or incentivizing snb more, you're not really moving into a niche, but just kind of limiting the increase in power that a dual-wielder would receive if the class were granted such a buff. Not to be nitpicky but it's interesting that you are against "integrated damage" because "you already have options with integrated damage" and you would "try something different" but you note that your idea is more or less copying an AA feature with its damage implementation... Not to be snarky, but turning up your nose at the simple and obvious solution of having integrating PS damage, because it's not a different enough mechanic, is odd; turning around and using the same feature but with the damage calculation borrowed from an AA mechanic...I don't see the novelty there. Really, you're re-inventing the wheel with new numbers but it's not a new wheel, or a new model, or a new mechanic, it's just a new way of scaling the numbers, whereas we have spent a decade asking for exactly the same outcome as you (have PS work the same way but deal more damage). You want to keep the damage as a separate source but make it a bigger number in the hopes of getting through the soak that kills it, we want to integrate the damage into the attack that triggers it, in the hopes of getting through the soak that kills it. Almost seems like you're just arguing against integrating the damage simply for the sake of suggesting something else that you can call your own idea, to be honest.
|
|