Incoming balance change: Parry AC bonus capping at +5

[Ryltar/ Robert Archer]

Funny that 52 ac is an issue your worried about when Sithicus requires dedicated tank with more ac then that to not be killed repeatedly

Yeah.. I think the point is not that they're worried about 52 AC or any other arbitrary number-but that parry was vastly superior to shield use. However, I'd have to agree with what you're pointing out-Sithicus was built around people being able to get their AC up to those points as well as some other things that have been changed recently. As a whole this -3 to -4 points of AC and other changes unrelated to this thread aren't much but when you get to Sithicus every single point to AC you can squeeze out matter a ton. This does even things out a between parry and shield users, it also means that Sithicus just became that much less viable an option. Maybe increasing shield AC on crafted and/or enchanted shields instead would be another solution that wouldn't make the hardest places, which I've seen some of the strongest players around get wiped over and over -before- recent alterations. It doesn't seem to me that the issue has ever been that parry users can get their AC to x amount-just that they can get it so much higher than shield users. So why not just make shields better?

Or we could rebalance siticus so it wouldnt need such insanely high AC? seems the easier option honestly i think if you're pushing 55+ needs on AC anywhere on a low level setting like ravenloft its crazy I mean most of the domains aint even balanced for levels 16+ in lore friendly reality. This would make traveling at lower levels a more viable option too, heck i'd go so far as say make it possible to start a native in any built in domain then from the start area circle out spots that are level friendly from 2-20+ (in big enough domains obviously)

[BahamutZ3RO]

Sword-and-board:

+1 dex bonus (12 dex), +8 AC full plate, +3 tower shield, +5 from Shield of Faith = 17 AC
(No feats necessary)

Dex-based in studded leather

+6 dex bonus, +3 AC studded leather, +6 parry, +2 Improved Two Weapon Defense = 17 AC

You and many other people often forget about one point:

Two weapon users deals way more damage than Shield users. Now they can have same AC but they still have more damage output.

It's common in RPG games the malee and spellcasters which deals more damage is weaker in defense. This doesn't happen right now.

That's only true if they're sneak attacking, which doesn't happen if they're tanking. Generally a person with high dex doesn't get to have high str, so he's likely only looking at base weapon damage (1d4 to 1d6) and whatever else he can get applied to the weapons.

[McNastea]

Funny that 52 ac is an issue your worried about when Sithicus requires dedicated tank with more ac then that to not be killed repeatedly

Yeah.. I think the point is not that they're worried about 52 AC or any other arbitrary number-but that parry was vastly superior to shield use. However, I'd have to agree with what you're pointing out-Sithicus was built around people being able to get their AC up to those points as well as some other things that have been changed recently. As a whole this -3 to -4 points of AC and other changes unrelated to this thread aren't much but when you get to Sithicus every single point to AC you can squeeze out matter a ton. This does even things out a between parry and shield users, it also means that Sithicus just became that much less viable an option. Maybe increasing shield AC on crafted and/or enchanted shields instead would be another solution that wouldn't make the hardest places, which I've seen some of the strongest players around get wiped over and over -before- recent alterations. It doesn't seem to me that the issue has ever been that parry users can get their AC to x amount-just that they can get it so much higher than shield users. So why not just make shields better?

Or we could rebalance siticus so it wouldnt need such insanely high AC? seems the easier option honestly i think if you're pushing 55+ needs on AC anywhere on a low level setting like ravenloft its crazy I mean most of the domains aint even balanced for levels 16+ in lore friendly reality. This would make traveling at lower levels a more viable option too, heck i'd go so far as say make it possible to start a native in any built in domain then from the start area circle out spots that are level friendly from 2-20+ (in big enough domains obviously)

Well, I hardly see how rebalancing an entire domain rather than making some shields better is easier. Making shields better would allow domains to remain unchanged while still putting shield users on par with parry users and make people who have put points and feats in parry past what is now useable feel better about it without having to issue a ton of remakes.

Now, something that -doesn't- sound easier is rebalancing all domains so they have what could be considered starter areas with progressively harder areas the further you get from them-it also doesn't have a lot to do with parry ac

[A normal snake]

In the long run it'd be better to rebalance a domain than give players more power, because if players are more powerful it will allow them to steamroll all of the other content on the server.

[Ryltar/ Robert Archer]

In the long run it'd be better to rebalance a domain than give players more power, because if players are more powerful it will allow them to steamroll all of the other content on the server.

This is exactly my point McNasta short term sure its not an ideal solution but long term it could be

[McNastea]

I guess I don't see it so much as making players more powerful, as there until recently were players that were able to do this. No one would become more powerful than any one player ever has been from this, and like I said it was my impression that the AC numbers weren't the issue but the balance between shield and parry. By restricting parry AC you cut off the higher achievable end from the last... however long the system has been in place-making some of the domains unbalanced. By leaving it how it is and increasing shield AC instead, you level the parry/shield playing field while keeping things balanced between achievable AC and domains/monsters.

If these areas have to be scaled down because the higher end of achievable AC has been reduced so it's on par with people who use shields, then wouldn't keeping the areas the same while increasing shield AC and keeping parry how it was (uncapped) achieve the same result (leveling out parry/shield AC) with less effort (not reworking areas/monsters or doing rebuilds)

I'm not saying that it's wrong to do it by capping parry at 5 and rework areas, I'm pretty okay with that-but this occurred to me and I'd like to know if it's not a more logical solution and if not why it isn't. 

[Bad_Bud]

AC is fundamentally evil, and the more of it there is around, the harder it is to balance anything. It widens the gap substantially between lower power characters and higher power ones, I'd say moreso than any other attribute does.

[McNastea]

Couldn't the same thing be said of AB?

[Bad_Bud]

Not really. AB is determined primarily by your class and level. AC doesn't have any kind of progression, and can balloon much higher much sooner.

[McNastea]

But AB always has that d20 added to it-AC is static, so of course AC is going to be a higher number than somethings AB unless you wanna get hit every single time they take a swing. It's never seemed to me no matter what character I'm playing on that achievable AC has been unbalanced compared to what AB you have to defend against. If being able to get AC higher makes it harder to balance I'll take your word for it but I also feel like that balance has been achieved, with the exception to this potentially throwing it off a bit in the highest lvl areas. Again, I'm not suggesting anyone get more AC than anyone in the past year or two has been able to get-only to put shield users up there with parry users in terms of what they can possibly get instead of lowering parry users to what shield users can get now. Like I said, it seems a far more logical and less involved solution but from what people have said I'd assume that's not the case-so now I guess I'm asking, why isn't it?

[Bad_Bud]

I've tried my best, and I know others have tried their best to improve the playability of alternative styles and tactics without having to nerf anyone, but you can't raise that bar forever. I think Ophis already provided the answer to your question.

[Merry Munchkin]

You and many other people often forget about one point:

Two weapon users deals way more damage than Shield users. Now they can have same AC but they still have more damage output.

Anyone dual-wielding will end up (in the best case scenario) with a -2 on both the main hand attack and off-hand attack, and that is only if the off-hand weapon is light (or a double weapon).  This basically means that the dual-wielder will hit 10% fewer times, and will be hitting with an off-hand weapon with only half their normal STR bonus.  The additional damage, coupled with the 10% less chance of getting a hit, may mean that the dual-wielder may actually be hitting for less average damage per attack.

[Merry Munchkin]

AC is fundamentally evil, and the more of it there is around, the harder it is to balance anything. It widens the gap substantially between lower power characters and higher power ones, I'd say moreso than any other attribute does.

At this point, I no longer care what the bonus is set at, so long as I can rebuild my character.  This fundamentally changes how characters get constructed.  My rogue has, by level 20, 200 skill points to allocate but only 14 feats to work with.  There is no way in heck that I would be allocating ANY feats to parry, when I can max out my parry bonuses using skill points alone (and I don't even need to allocate the max skill points to get it).  Moreover, since my peak AC is likely going to be substantially lower that it might otherwise have been (and my rogue, fully buffed, might only get into the mid-30s with his AC right now) this also fundamentally changes how I approach combat since my survival rate just plummeted dramatically, which changes the type of combat feats I would normally take as well.

[Arael]

That's only true if they're sneak attacking, which doesn't happen if they're tanking. Generally a person with high dex doesn't get to have high str, so he's likely only looking at base weapon damage (1d4 to 1d6) and whatever else he can get applied to the weapons.

They deal more damage on normal attacks too. I still believe AC from parry should be even more lowered.

Two Extra attacks per round, 1.0x + 0.5x STR modifier, 100% Damage Modifier on Off-hand weapon, 1d6 weapon have often 18/20 threat range.

You say they deal more damage only if not Tanking, so as Tanker they deal same damage and have same AC, while if they don't tank deal more damage? Shield users haven't this choice.

Anyone dual-wielding will end up (in the best case scenario) with a -2 on both the main hand attack and off-hand attack, and that is only if the off-hand weapon is light (or a double weapon).  This basically means that the dual-wielder will hit 10% fewer times, and will be hitting with an off-hand weapon with only half their normal STR bonus.  The additional damage, coupled with the 10% less chance of getting a hit, may mean that the dual-wielder may actually be hitting for less average damage per attack.

Of course, it has been like this to reduce the damage done because it was already hight. Dex gives one of the best benefits for the setting to most builds (AC, AB), if dual wield was compared 1:1 to single weapon user, it would make them useless.

I remember when one year ago I wrote how parry was unbalanced, I been replied "It is fine as it is" or "It is very good, only problem is to find the skill points to spend in it".

[camrik]

McNastea has it right: the whole point here is to balance parry with shield users. It is very clear to me that parry was a better way to build a character than shield before the new change. It seems better balanced now but, like Araël, I'm not sure parry is not, still, superior to shield.

At least it is debattable now.

[BahamutZ3RO]

McNastea has it right: the whole point here is to balance parry with shield users. It is very clear to me that parry was a better way to build a character than shield before the new change. It seems better balanced now but, like Araël, I'm not sure parry is not, still, superior to shield.

At least it is debattable now.

I've got plenty of both types of tanks, and I honestly don't prefer one to the other. Sword and board has a few nice things going for it that people are quick to discount: Shields have a lot of nice bonuses, shields allow you to block ranged attacks, your ab stays higher, your damage is higher, you can wield a larger weapon - and most of the best weapons are bastard swords/long swords. You also get to hang on to a TON of feats and you can put your skill points elsewhere.

Two Extra attacks per round, 1.0x + 0.5x STR modifier, 100% Damage Modifier on Off-hand weapon, 1d6 weapon have often 18/20 threat range

I'd argue that most dual-wielders are only going to get one extra attack per round, since most of them aren't fighters so much as rogues and the like. This is true of all of mine, at least. And the STR modifier thing is negligible since, as I said before, most dual-wielders don't really have much in the way of str.

All things being equal, I still prefer to tank as sword-and-board because that's what they're meant for. More likely to hit enemies while tanking, more likely to stay in the fight longer due to being able to block ranged and having a larger hp pool to work from. I loathe having to tank things on Edwin because he has to whittle enemies down 5 hp at a time. If I had a tank with me and I could flank, it'd be much easier.

[RedwizardD]

Would it be out of place to suggest the server itself (including the whole of it's system) could stand a balance checking? Perhaps run some testing to see how the different systems are used by those of middling skill levels. Any system is going to have those who try to max out certain aspects.