Arcane Blade tweaks

[SageAcrin]

On the other side of things, I think that the 2h option could use a little beef up. The problem is that Two Handed Maiming only has one good skill - Stunning Blow - the other 3 are practically useless. Other weapon trees have stuns + much more. And AB already has a very good stunning skill, unlocked. The most logical thing would be to make Sunder Arms and Sunder Weapons respective effects better so it would actually be worth using them, and change the 4th skill to something even remotely useful to any class.

http://forums.te4.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=36388

[Torokasi]

I agree with the above. GWF alone isn't the issue. The issue is GWF + Flurry (and to a lesser degree assault) + spell procs + arcane destruction procs. Removing the tree from Arcane Blades is the easiest fix. Also Bulwarks don't get much that to me feels unique to them. I know marauders also get this tree but the tree was built for Bulwarks and every time we give it to a new class I feel that's one less thing Bulwarks have going for them. (Otherwise I would have given Battle Tactics to Brawlers a long time ago).

I'm not really too concerned with it being "one less thing" for Bulwarks to have as unique to them - each of the three classes plays incredibly differently (though that's less true with Arcane Blade/Marauder, and I can see the argument now that Marauder's basically a weaker Arcane Blade due to AB getting almost all of its major tricks), though I could see them getting a unique shield tree to sort of complement Bloodthirst for Berserkers. One thing at a time, though, for now.

Sorta mentally toying with a offensive "arcane combat" tree that could replace the three weapons trees, but I make no promises on being at all constructive there anytime soon. so.

Laru: Mmm. Well, part of that is the 2h tree isn't that great - for Berserkers or ABs - outside of Stunning Blow. It could probably use a buff, yeah, in general.

[Hachem_Muche]

Strongly against nerfing GWF, as it's only problematic on Arcane Blade and only now that the weapon trees have been added to the class as well (GWF alone wasn't broken on Arcane Blade). Both Bulwark and Marauder get good use of the skill and would both be heavily hit by any nerf to it - I'm basically positive my Marauder clear would've been a bust without the skill, and it's highly likely my Bulwark run would have as well. Bulwarks need it to get actual lategame damage going considering their horrific bump damage at endgame, and Marauder is entirely about killing fast due to having jack for non-physical defenses ever. Weakening either is a pretty nasty blow to both classes.

You seem to be implying that it's a must have tree for Bulwark and Marauder too, which of course, implies that the tree is either too good or the other trees too weak for those classes. (I get the impression, it's the latter case.)

Let me emphasize this: The problem is that GWF is a damage MULTIPLIER. Game mechanics wise, this a very dangerous thing to have and is almost impossible to balance well.

Edit: Another option: How about limiting GWF to one (or a limited number) procs per turn, rather than changing the rate too much. This would work against dual wielders much more strongly than other classes and would essentially fix the flurry issue.

[tiger_eye]

I don't have much to add to the conversation right now, but I have recently played with both Arcane Blades and Marauders, so I'll share my limited perspective:

I skipped Battle Tactics on my ABs. Not because the tree is weak, but because it didn't match the style I wanted to play with, and ABs have plenty of other talents to invest in. Heh, for my desired AB playstyle, I'd be perfectly fine for dropping Battle Tactics from Arcane Blades. Having it can make them play too similarly to other classes as has been mentioned.

My Marauder is using that tree, and is relying on it. And not just Greater Weapon Focus, but all talents in the tree. Marauders may seem an underpowered class (I really don't think they are) because they lack certain defenses, but man can they kill things. Step Up lets you kill the dangerous things first, and True Grit is actually a good "catch all" defensive skill useful for not dying. Marauders can get incredible Defense too if they want, but my current Marauder is ignoring all defensive skills except for True Grit.

I missed the IRC discussion, but I mostly agree with these suggestions, particularly limiting Arcane Combat to one proc per turn.

To reiterate, it was one proc per turn per spell. So, if you have Lightning, Flame, etc., then each can proc once per turn.

[Torokasi]

You seem to be implying that it's a must have tree for Bulwark and Marauder too, which of course, implies that the tree is either too good or the other trees too weak for those classes. (I get the impression, it's the latter case.)

Let me emphasize this: The problem is that GWF is a damage MULTIPLIER. Game mechanics wise, this a very dangerous thing to have and is almost impossible to balance well.

Edit: Another option: How about limiting GWF to one (or a limited number) procs per turn, rather than changing the rate too much. This would work against dual wielders much more strongly than other classes and would essentially fix the flurry issue.

Bluntly put, on Bulwark and Marauder, GWF is balanced basically through the entire game. On AB, it doesn't seem to be due to multiple other compounding factors, but on those two classes, it's fine. It might be dangerous or impossible to balance in theory - but in practice it does fine for the entirety of the main adventure. If it needs to get capped at about L5/100 dex's effect for stuff like the ID, fine, that's reasonable, but capping it lower or nerfing it in other ways is hurting classes that don't need to be hurt.

Again, I'm basically against nerfing it at all. Remove it from the one problem case, sure - but weakening it is harmful.

Re: other trees on these classes being weaker, that's probably quite accurate... but nerfing GWF does not buff them. If you want to make other builds viable, buff other trees. I don't see that as a legit critique on GWF.

[Hachem_Muche]

So.. the consensus so far appears to be:

-- Remove the Battle-Tactics tree from Arcane Blades
-- Limit Magical Combat procs to one per (eligible) spell per turn

Or in other words, pretty much what SageAcrim originally posted. Is that about right?

Re: other trees on these classes being weaker, that's probably quite accurate... but nerfing GWF does not buff them. If you want to make other builds viable, buff other trees. I don't see that as a legit critique on GWF.

Be aware that if these classes get buffs, GWF may need to be nerfed to compensate.

[Torokasi]

So.. the consensus so far appears to be:

-- Remove the Battle-Tactics tree from Arcane Blades
-- Limit Magical Combat procs to one per (eligible) spell per turn

Or in other words, pretty much what SageAcrim originally posted. Is that about right?

Re: other trees on these classes being weaker, that's probably quite accurate... but nerfing GWF does not buff them. If you want to make other builds viable, buff other trees. I don't see that as a legit critique on GWF.

Be aware that if these classes get buffs, GWF may need to be nerfed to compensate.

Honestly, I'm not worried about nerfing GWF until A) such buffs are implemented and B) they lead to one of the classes being about as broken as AB apparently is now lategame. Pre-emptively nerfing it also strikes me as pointless.

And yeah, I basically will agree with what SageAcrin originally posted, though I'd be more interested in dropping the weapons trees. Dropping the Battle Tactics tree is fine, too.

[Grey]

Maybe Arcane Combat needs to trigger cooldowns when it procs. This would not impact on the early game much, but would stop craziness in the late game. It would also encourage investing in all 3 proc spells instead of being able to get away with focusing on just 1.

[lukep]

Full cooldown, or reduced? I could see it working with 3/3/2/2/1 cooldown applied, based on arcane combat talent level.

[Nori]

Hmm, interesting. I can see how that could get rather powerful...

I like Grey's idea though. Just have it apply a 3/2/1/1 cooldown like Lukep suggested. Then nothing else would have to be changed... Max that could be applied is 3 spells, but then nothing the next turn. Could also make it so that flurry can't proc spells? Or could only proc one?

[Grey]

I think a cooldown of 3 is just fine. Means you can get at most 1 proc per turn, which is what was suggested earlier in the thread. Early in the game this makes almost no difference, and as you raise your proc chance in the mid-game you'll be forced to branch out your class points into other spells to take full advantage of it.

[SageAcrin]

I'm not sure the cooldown is really necessary.

The 3/3/2/2/1 version strikes me as reasonable, but on the other hand it's essentially a minor cosmetic change. On average, you'll end up about in the same spot as just preventing the skills from procing repeatedly in the same turn. Also, since Arcane Combat is an obvious L5 due to how central the ability is to their playstyle, the difference between 3/3/2/2/1 and flatrate 1 CD is that you make people want to 5 it even more than they do, which is sorta boring.

I guess adding a single turn CD keeps dualwielding under control, moreso than the other idea... but do note that's a rather hard build to get going, since you have to level Dex, normally not a stat ABs have to level.

I'm basically neutral on that, to put it simply. If people think the dualwielding sounds powerful enough to need more special limitation, that's fine, just tossing out impressions.

[donkatsu]

One thing I really like about the cooldown idea, as well as the 'one proc per spell per turn' idea, is that it solves the problem of having more than one tier 1 spell actually making you worse. There are very few talents that harm you just for having them, and Lightning on an Arcane Blade is one.

[supermini]

Let me emphasize this: The problem is that GWF is a damage MULTIPLIER. Game mechanics wise, this a very dangerous thing to have and is almost impossible to balance well.

Casters get damage multipliers everywhere on gear. You end up with 100+ % damage multiplier on your favourite element. Just looking at weapons, endgame staves have a 30% damage multiplier. If GWF is not balanced, neither is that.

In case of arcane blades, GWF is problematic because they do quite enough damage without the multiplier from GWF, now that they have weapon trees.

[NEHZ]

I'm not sure the cooldown is really necessary.

The 3/3/2/2/1 version strikes me as reasonable, but on the other hand it's essentially a minor cosmetic change. On average, you'll end up about in the same spot as just preventing the skills from procing repeatedly in the same turn. Also, since Arcane Combat is an obvious L5 due to how central the ability is to their playstyle, the difference between 3/3/2/2/1 and flatrate 1 CD is that you make people want to 5 it even more than they do, which is sorta boring.

I actually don't level Arcane Combat beyond the first level, unless I just happen to have a spare skillpoint. I always try to go for Arcane Destruction and try to get a nice amount of damage without requiring to much mana, allowing me to save points on willpower. Putting those spells on a cooldown of 3 would make relying on normal attacks to proc the spells very unatractive, if it isn't buffed in any other way. (ie, lower mana cost or a physical power modifier)

What I'm trying to say is that with a cooldown of 3/3/2/2/1 it's no longer interesting to use it as part of a build instead of focusing your entire build on it.

As for the original subject: it's really flurry that's responsible for the biggest amount of damage. If I understand this well, GWF doubles the damage, while flurry triples it. Spread over multiple turns GWF will deal more damage than flurry, but in terms of dealing massive damage in a single turn it's flurry that does it.