TOPIC: Proposed change to Monk and Ranger bonuses

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: Since we are debating the bonuses applied by strength why not just give half the bonus rounded down to each puck? As in each arm contributing to half the strength in the cases of monk and ranger. Then you still have full strength for the two handed builds. We may need to make an adjustment to the classes that only use single handed weapons...

I thought about that option in my original post, but it seemed like too big a penalty to the Monk and Ranger. They would have to hit on both slides to get the same damage bonus that the other classes get with one slide. If they only hit with one of the two slides, they get half the damage bonus the other classes get with one slide.

Yep, that's why the current suggestion is that if either weapon hits it gets full modified damage and if both hit the second one gets unmodified damage. That way they are at equal levels if 1 hits and slightly ahead if 2 hit.

There could also be something built into each class that allows for certain fights to give full bonuses to both, such as Monks Flurry dealing full damage 1/room or Rangers dealing full damage vs Giant race monsters.

That was actually my original suggestion, and I think Matthews previous suggestions as well. Even after all the comments it seems like the perfect, balanced, solution.

I'd hesitate to add something to the class to give full damage to both weapons, because that might become confusing to the DMs as to when to give full damage or when to give bonus damage to just one.

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: Since we are debating the bonuses applied by strength why not just give half the bonus rounded down to each puck? As in each arm contributing to half the strength in the cases of monk and ranger. Then you still have full strength for the two handed builds. We may need to make an adjustment to the classes that only use single handed weapons...

I thought about that option in my original post, but it seemed like too big a penalty to the Monk and Ranger. They would have to hit on both slides to get the same damage bonus that the other classes get with one slide. If they only hit with one of the two slides, they get half the damage bonus the other classes get with one slide.

Yep, that's why the current suggestion is that if either weapon hits it gets full modified damage and if both hit the second one gets unmodified damage. That way they are at equal levels if 1 hits and slightly ahead if 2 hit.

There could also be something built into each class that allows for certain fights to give full bonuses to both, such as Monks Flurry dealing full damage 1/room or Rangers dealing full damage vs Giant race monsters.

That was actually my original suggestion, and I think Matthews previous suggestions as well. Even after all the comments it seems like the perfect, balanced, solution.

I'd hesitate to add something to the class to give full damage to both weapons, because that might become confusing to the DMs as to when to give full damage or when to give bonus damage to just one.

I hesitate to consider the optics of taking something with one hand and giving it back with another. I recall people were not happy when bracers of the Zephyr were clarified in this manner to make room for the cabal items for example. IMO if something is problematic enough to remove just do it and move on as quickly as possible.

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.

A barbarian getting bonus for fighting two handed should put them at the top of the damage bonus compared to other fighters. If not, the comparison is questionable.

edwin wrote:

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.

A barbarian getting bonus for fighting two handed should put them at the top of the damage bonus compared to other fighters. If not, the comparison is questionable.

Assuming equalish gear it unquestionably does for the vast majority of party cards that come through my room. About the only instance where it might not happen are incredibly high gear sinarios where damage bonus/items far out weigh the barbs damage bonus. But the very much the minority.

edwin wrote:

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.

A barbarian getting bonus for fighting two handed should put them at the top of the damage bonus compared to other fighters. If not, the comparison is questionable.

What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

As for the actual number listed on the damage portion of the party card, 2H weapon users can get the biggest number, and barbarian is already the top of that list. I believe the lead only increases with 2020 tokens.

Endgame wrote: What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

In all my time I have never seen anything formal regarding this. Also, I have it on good authority that each class is different and special. This is supposed to be a teamwork experience not who's damage is larger.

Ed

PS - It will be a question I ask on a future podcast.

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

In all my time I have never seen anything formal regarding this. Also, I have it on good authority that each class is different and special. This is supposed to be a teamwork experience not who's damage is larger.

Ed

PS - It will be a question I ask on a future podcast.

If the idea is that it's about teamwork, and it doesn't matter who does the most damage, then I suppose Monk and Ranger players should not object to changes in their damage output.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

In all my time I have never seen anything formal regarding this. Also, I have it on good authority that each class is different and special. This is supposed to be a teamwork experience not who's damage is larger.

Ed

PS - It will be a question I ask on a future podcast.

If the idea is that it's about teamwork, and it doesn't matter who does the most damage, then I suppose Monk and Ranger players should not object to changes in their damage output.

Mehhh. Using that argument the rest of the party shouldn’t care that they do more, so why even have this discussion? :-p

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:
If the idea is that it's about teamwork, and it doesn't matter who does the most damage, then I suppose Monk and Ranger players should not object to changes in their damage output.

Mehhh. Using that argument the rest of the party shouldn’t care that they do more, so why even have this discussion? :-p

Because we dont have anything else right now, so our old, unresolved arguments are the best we can debate.

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

In all my time I have never seen anything formal regarding this. Also, I have it on good authority that each class is different and special. This is supposed to be a teamwork experience not who's damage is larger.

Ed

PS - It will be a question I ask on a future podcast.

If the idea is that it's about teamwork, and it doesn't matter who does the most damage, then I suppose Monk and Ranger players should not object to changes in their damage output.

Mehhh. Using that argument the rest of the party shouldn’t care that they do more, so why even have this discussion? :-p

As long as everyone is more or less within the pack it should be fine. IMO the only reason to talk about it is when one class starts to get left behind or pulls to far ahead. Might or might not be the case here.

Picc wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

In all my time I have never seen anything formal regarding this. Also, I have it on good authority that each class is different and special. This is supposed to be a teamwork experience not who's damage is larger.

Ed

PS - It will be a question I ask on a future podcast.

If the idea is that it's about teamwork, and it doesn't matter who does the most damage, then I suppose Monk and Ranger players should not object to changes in their damage output.

Mehhh. Using that argument the rest of the party shouldn’t care that they do more, so why even have this discussion? :-p

As long as everyone is more or less within the pack it should be fine. IMO the only reason to talk about it is when one class starts to get left behind or pulls to far ahead. Might or might not be the case here.

It seems like a pretty obvious problem & solution in this case though. As the Melee Damage bonuses get higher and higher, since the Monk and Ranger classes get to count it potentially twice instead of once like other classes, they will get more and more out of balance with the damage outputs of the other classes. By making a switch so that they count it a maximum of one time like all other classes, it balances them with the other classes.

Mike Steele wrote:

Picc wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: What is the official design statement for damage rankings among classes? Who is supposed to be first / second / third, etc?

In all my time I have never seen anything formal regarding this. Also, I have it on good authority that each class is different and special. This is supposed to be a teamwork experience not who's damage is larger.

Ed

PS - It will be a question I ask on a future podcast.

If the idea is that it's about teamwork, and it doesn't matter who does the most damage, then I suppose Monk and Ranger players should not object to changes in their damage output.

Mehhh. Using that argument the rest of the party shouldn’t care that they do more, so why even have this discussion? :-p

As long as everyone is more or less within the pack it should be fine. IMO the only reason to talk about it is when one class starts to get left behind or pulls to far ahead. Might or might not be the case here.

It seems like a pretty obvious problem & solution in this case though. As the Melee Damage bonuses get higher and higher, since the Monk and Ranger classes get to count it potentially twice instead of once like other classes, they will get more and more out of balance with the damage outputs of the other classes. By making a switch so that they count it a maximum of one time like all other classes, it balances them with the other classes.

That makes sense since items are not restricted to exclude monks and rangers from use or using the bonuses twice.