TOPIC: Proposed change to Monk and Ranger bonuses

Fred K wrote: Ian - you do realize that the monk/ranger problem is actually worse outside of BiS builds? BiS builds have other classes competitive with monk/ranger today - the average player party is at a significant disadvantage without a monk/ranger with comperable equipment to whatever they have. I don't understand the hate for fully geared players (the 1% that you call them) - they help support keeping TD going and don't interfere with your enjoyment of the game (if anything, their presence improves the overall game.) Also keep in mind, they generally aren't the 1% as in the top wealth in the country - they built their collections over many years with a great deal of trading to get to where they are. Yes, there are a small number of very wealthy collectors, you generally don't hear much from them, though.

The solution proposed where the off-hand weapon doesn't get bonuses is the best I'd heard. It is easy to implement (write on-hand and off-hand on the ranger/monk pucks) and brings damage back down under control. Keep in mind, that once that is implemented, some other classes may need to get reigned in as well (Rogue with this year's legendary and Barbarian for next year).

Fred

Would you track mainhand /offhand, or just whichever puck got a higher number gets the damage bonus? IMO, the latter one is probably the best, as it solves the issue of knowing which hand is mainhand / offhand when using a pair of the same weapons.

Endgame wrote:

Fred K wrote: Ian - you do realize that the monk/ranger problem is actually worse outside of BiS builds? BiS builds have other classes competitive with monk/ranger today - the average player party is at a significant disadvantage without a monk/ranger with comperable equipment to whatever they have. I don't understand the hate for fully geared players (the 1% that you call them) - they help support keeping TD going and don't interfere with your enjoyment of the game (if anything, their presence improves the overall game.) Also keep in mind, they generally aren't the 1% as in the top wealth in the country - they built their collections over many years with a great deal of trading to get to where they are. Yes, there are a small number of very wealthy collectors, you generally don't hear much from them, though.

The solution proposed where the off-hand weapon doesn't get bonuses is the best I'd heard. It is easy to implement (write on-hand and off-hand on the ranger/monk pucks) and brings damage back down under control. Keep in mind, that once that is implemented, some other classes may need to get reigned in as well (Rogue with this year's legendary and Barbarian for next year).

Fred

Would you track mainhand /offhand, or just whichever puck got a higher number gets the damage bonus? IMO, the latter one is probably the best, as it solves the issue of knowing which hand is mainhand / offhand when using a pair of the same weapons.

I like the latter solution also. That still gives the Monk / Ranger a little boost, because they have two shots to get that combat bonus, but they don't have the potential to double up the bonus damage.

Fred K wrote:

Kaledor wrote: I have been a sniper ranger for 10 years now. I rather hit 99.99999% of time versus me trying to slide two pucks and never hitting anything! I suck at sliding two pucks as a ranger!

I tried Ranger again at Origins (first time in years) and I'm with you on this. I am pretty accurate with one puck - I can barely get both pucks together to the image of the creature as a ranger - much less be accurate. I took to just sliding one puck anyway (and nudging the second one knowing it's a miss). Then I went back to attacking at range.

Fred

I had the opposite experience at GC. Played ranger for the first time in forever in grind, and hardly ever missed with 2 pucks.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Fred K wrote:

Kaledor wrote: I have been a sniper ranger for 10 years now. I rather hit 99.99999% of time versus me trying to slide two pucks and never hitting anything! I suck at sliding two pucks as a ranger!

I tried Ranger again at Origins (first time in years) and I'm with you on this. I am pretty accurate with one puck - I can barely get both pucks together to the image of the creature as a ranger - much less be accurate. I took to just sliding one puck anyway (and nudging the second one knowing it's a miss). Then I went back to attacking at range.

Fred

I had the opposite experience at GC. Played ranger for the first time in forever in grind, and hardly ever missed with 2 pucks.

You also soaked up more healing that I've ever cast, well, in probably all my TD runs ever combined. It was kind of crazy - here heal 40. Wait, you're not topped off yet?!?

If monsters attacked Monk and Ranger in the dungeon like they did in that grind run, it would be a vary hazardous class to play.

I'm fine with the idea that only one puck gets the damage bonus. It will dramatically change Ranger and Monk builds of course. Especially with the new Ranger Legendary we will see many more ranged rangers. It will put monk and Ranger solidly at the bottom of the pack of damage dealers though with little upside.

I have always argued that melee attackers really get an easy pass in TD. This leads to Monks and Rangers that are just glass cannons. If attacking melee was much more dangerous than ranged then they would have to worry more about AC and HP than they do today.

Let me clarify. The biggest reason Monks and Rangers are so much more powerful than a fighter is poor combat design, plain and simple. If melee was more dangerous than ranged attacks then the builds would have less STR and more defence. In this case the higher AC of a fighter would be a big advantage.

So if every melee attacker takes attacks pretty much every round then the glass cannon approach is less useful. This lowers the damage of dual melee and increases the value of heavy armor. It also encourages more ranged builds.

I don't hate the idea but I think it's a patch to a different problem.

Kirk Bauer wrote: Let me clarify. The biggest reason Monks and Rangers are so much more powerful than a fighter is poor combat design, plain and simple. If melee was more dangerous than ranged attacks then the builds would have less STR and more defence. In this case the higher AC of a fighter would be a big advantage.

So if every melee attacker takes attacks pretty much every round then the glass cannon approach is less useful. This lowers the damage of dual melee and increases the value of heavy armor. It also encourages more ranged builds.

I don't hate the idea but I think it's a patch to a different problem.

One approach might just be to make retribution damage interact with armor somehow. That said I already kind of feel like ranged is at the point where it's close to if not outright equal to melee in terms of output and far ahead in terms of utility, but that's another kettle of fish.

I'd be cool with this if monks could heal. And shoot ki missiles (spells).

Otherwise I'd be throwing my monk build in the trash can.

This thread is insane with how little forethought and math has gone into this suggestion. Putting monk and melee rangers at rock bottom of the damage dealers. If this occurred, I would guess a 2-handed monk build would do comparable or more damage.

While we're at it, let's make focus a choice. +X spell power OR healing OR poly damage chosen at the start of the game. And let's make all free action spells cast as scrolls. And classes with shields can either attack or benefit from their shield AC per round.

I was originally attracted to monk by the challenging and rewarding slide mechanics. Slide mechanics that I have yet to see more than one other monk do correctly (slide 2 pucks w/ 1 hand, 2nd puck must slide before 1st stops). After this change, why would I even bother when it's easier and more damage to slide a 2-hander? Especially when retribution damage would hit me twice?

If a change is needed, then change 2-handers to increase strength bonus by 50% instead. Then adjust module as needed.

Philip Goodman wrote: I'd be cool with this if monks could heal. And shoot ki missiles (spells).

Otherwise I'd be throwing my monk build in the trash can.

This thread is insane with how little forethought and math has gone into this suggestion. Putting monk and melee rangers at rock bottom of the damage dealers. If this occurred, I would guess a 2-handed monk build would do comparable or more damage.

How would this put monk and melee rangers at the bottom of the damage dealers? The bulk of damage comes from the damage modifier, which is essentially the same across classes, and a viper strike fang is the same average damage as Welfors.

Endgame wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote: I'd be cool with this if monks could heal. And shoot ki missiles (spells).

Otherwise I'd be throwing my monk build in the trash can.

This thread is insane with how little forethought and math has gone into this suggestion. Putting monk and melee rangers at rock bottom of the damage dealers. If this occurred, I would guess a 2-handed monk build would do comparable or more damage.

How would this put monk and melee rangers at the bottom of the damage dealers? The bulk of damage comes from the damage modifier, which is essentially the same across classes, and a viper strike fang is the same average damage as Welfors.

It would lower their damage output but in no way drop them to the bottom of the list.

It would definitely make 2 hand builds deal higher damage with the tokens we now have that specifically boost 2 hand weapon damage.

It would also increase the viability of Archery Rangers as a build by shortening the gap between them.

Monks would still retain their ability to stun enemies and would still retain their normal damage bonus on their first hit each turn, bringing them more in line with the other melee sliding damage dealing classes.

I, for one, don't understand why we're debating this. I think the original proposal if having the damage modifier only work for one puck is bad. And until TPTB chime in and say that they're actively thinking about this, I'm not going to debate that proposal.

Instead, focus on the real imbalances:
AC has become a joke
2 handed weapons don't function as they should

Possible solutions. Every monster does retribution damage, amount based off AC. 15 pts for under 10, 10 pts for under 20, 5 pts for under 30. Adjust as needed.

Make 2 handed weapons use 1.5x their strength modifier for damage (e.g., if your +dmg, strength only, for one handed weapon is +10, its +15 with a 2 hander).

Now discuss.

Matt Goodman wrote: I, for one, don't understand why we're debating this. I think the original proposal if having the damage modifier only work for one puck is bad. And until TPTB chime in and say that they're actively thinking about this, I'm not going to debate that proposal.

Instead, focus on the real imbalances:
AC has become a joke
2 handed weapons don't function as they should

Possible solutions. Every monster does retribution damage, amount based off AC. 15 pts for under 10, 10 pts for under 20, 5 pts for under 30. Adjust as needed.

Make 2 handed weapons use 1.5x their strength modifier for damage (e.g., if your +dmg, strength only, for one handed weapon is +10, its +15 with a 2 hander).

Now discuss.

We're debating it because dual slides make two classes disproportionately high on damage due to the extreme + damage bonuses and it's continuing to get worse as more and more tokens are released.

Also the discussion of the proposed change is the focus of this post. So I'll stay on the focus of the topic and not change to an unrelated suggestion that does not resolve the damage inequality issue.