TOPIC: Proposed change to Monk and Ranger bonuses

The main reason (from what I can gather) that Ranger and Monk are so powerful is that they get to add their combat bonuses to two sliders instead of one.

What if we treated the melee damage bonus kind of like a pool, like with area attack spells or LoDS healing? Just apply the damage bonus to the first Monk or Ranger slider the DM gets to that hits in combat, and if the second slider from the Monk or Ranger also hits it just gets the base weapon damage. That shouldn't be too hard for the DM to deal with.

That would really help level the melee playing field (and ranged for the Monk when using GoTFF).

Not making a judgment one way or the other yet, but how would you adjudicate the following scenarios


1. One puck crits, one puck doesn't?
2. Two pucks crit, one is the relic, one is the legendary for arguments sake?
3, The first puck thrown misses, the second hits?
4, How would the pool interact with charm of shadow shot?

Picc wrote: Not making a judgment one way or the other yet, but how would you adjudicate the following scenarios


1. One puck crits, one puck doesn't?
2. Two pucks crit, one is the relic, one is the legendary for arguments sake?
3, The first puck thrown misses, the second hits?
4, How would the pool interact with charm of shadow shot?

I'd recommend picking a token that was a critical hit. If both critical hit, take either one, the damage bonus is doubled either way.

I think a ranged token with Charm of Shadow shot would work just like it does now.

If one melee weapon token hits and the other misses, the one that hit gets the damage bonus.

Average combat is 3-4 rounds,
How about old school style
They need to warm up,
Round one, Slide one,
On 3 round combat it’s a net loss of
16.6% damage potential and
On a 4 round combat it’s a loss of
12.5%

For a few years now I’ve been advocating this for monk / ranger:

If both pucks hit, the lower hit score is completely unmodified.

In one fell swoop we’d fix the current and future balance problems with these classes, which will only continue to get worse over time as every new str or melee booster benefits them more than the other classes as is.

Alternatively the fighter legendary should give fighters a way to deal double damage on every attack (say if they slide over a 15).

Matthew Hayward wrote: For a few years now I’ve been advocating this for monk / ranger:

If both pucks hit, the lower hit score is completely unmodified.

In one fell swoop we’d fix the current and future balance problems with these classes, which will only continue to get worse over time as every new str or melee booster benefits them more than the other classes as is.

Alternatively the fighter legendary should give fighters a way to deal double damage on every attack (say if they slide over a 15).

Matthew, I guess I missed your earlier posts on this, but we're in complete agreement. I think having the lower hit score be unmodified solves both current and future balance problems.

Matthew Hayward wrote: For a few years now I’ve been advocating this for monk / ranger:

If both pucks hit, the lower hit score is completely unmodified.

In one fell swoop we’d fix the current and future balance problems with these classes, which will only continue to get worse over time as every new str or melee booster benefits them more than the other classes as is.

Alternatively the fighter legendary should give fighters a way to deal double damage on every attack (say if they slide over a 15).

Does the fighter need to deal more damage?

Honestly, I don't think it matters which class deals the most damage, as long as its 1) intended, 2) consistent, and 3) has an opportunity cost.

What is a bad idea is to keep juggling who is in the lead in a permanent creep treadmill. Book end it, and then stick to it and be consistent. If the Monk is supposed to be #1, the monk is always #1 and no class shall surpass it. This makes it much easier to balance long term as you have your #1, your #12, and everything inbetween and then you work the area in the middle for development. Sure, the Monk deals more damage than the fighter, BUT the fighter gets to wear heavy armor.

the same idea works for items as well. Armor / set X is the AC set. No armor shall surpass it, but we can have armor that is less AC but adds + stats, or + saves. Ideally you then develop a formula around something like 1 save is worth .5 AC, and 1 str is worth 3 AC, etc. You can spend ages filling in the gaps without ever having to deal with something like AC creep.

Any reason we couldn't just split the damage modifier to each puck. As in, if the monk or ranger has +30 to damage, each puck gets +15?

Would that disadvantage monks and rangers too much?

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Any reason we couldn't just split the damage modifier to each puck. As in, if the monk or ranger has +30 to damage, each puck gets +15?

Would that disadvantage monks and rangers too much?

I thought about that, it would be simpler because the party card could capture that, but they'd only get half of their bonus if only one puck hit.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Any reason we couldn't just split the damage modifier to each puck. As in, if the monk or ranger has +30 to damage, each puck gets +15?

Would that disadvantage monks and rangers too much?

I feel that might be an over-correction - they'd have to hit on both pucks to deal damage comparable to classes that hit with one puck.

But maybe?

I guess you could view it as they get to score 1/2 a hit sometimes when they would have wiffed otherwise?

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Any reason we couldn't just split the damage modifier to each puck. As in, if the monk or ranger has +30 to damage, each puck gets +15?

Would that disadvantage monks and rangers too much?

I thought about that, it would be simpler because the party card could capture that, but they'd only get half of their bonus if only one puck hit.

Same concept could apply to spell casting in a round. Split the bonus up between all spells cast.

Similarly for healing bonus.

edwin wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Any reason we couldn't just split the damage modifier to each puck. As in, if the monk or ranger has +30 to damage, each puck gets +15?

Would that disadvantage monks and rangers too much?

I thought about that, it would be simpler because the party card could capture that, but they'd only get half of their bonus if only one puck hit.

Same concept could apply to spell casting in a round. Split the bonus up between all spells cast.

Similarly for healing bonus.

I'm not sure I see the similarity. Normally spellcasters just cast one spell in a round, while Monks and Rangers slide two pucks for melee. The pool concept is used for spells that hit multiple targets. The exception was LoDS, which was nerfed.