Spellswords (Again and again)

An area to facilitate free-form feedback on systems (in-game or out) related to Arelith.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs, Contributors

User avatar
Iceborn
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:31 am
Location: Dancing on the line between sarcasm and irony

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Iceborn » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:53 pm

The current mechanic sounds terrible.

You can argue that, yes, maybe with more attacks, you have more chances to land your on-hits (and also, 2 extra attacks which are more damage, cool).

But:

To Dual Wield effectively you need to take 3 feats, one of them which, due to Spellsword AB, you can't take virtually until level 15-18. This alone is already an extremely expensive price to pay for a melee build. Going fighter makes this remotely possible, at least.

Dual wield is an optional combat mode, not a constant attack buff. It is situational, because when you are dual wielding you are dropping -4 in both AC and AB. The "increased chances" you have to proc are effectively negated by your number of attacks.

I say -4 AB, because most spellswords that I've seen tend to go rapier (if they are dexers. Str doesn't matter in the case due to the dex requirement of dual wield, making the option vastly less desirable for the build). In most cases, these are normal weapons for them, which even with all the feats is still a -4 penalty. A choice, I suppose.


I have a dual-wielder spellsword in high epics. Right now, those are 3 feats that I would very much rather have invested elsewhere. But I don't want a rebuild - I want dual-wield to be an alluring option for spellswords, because the last update took away the best synergic component it had.
Misc Changes, with the Feats and Skills sublinks.
Available races
Spell Changes
Class Mechanics
Command Guide

Take a look before asking your questions!

User avatar
flower
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:16 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by flower » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:02 pm

As you say dual wield is optional.

Also SS benefits from having off hand empty (bonus AC). If you want to have dual wield being worth you must focus your character onto it. That means to maximise your AB at first, invest feats, and so on. If you také dual wield with full knowledge your AB will be terrible on dual wielding (same ac), then it was fully your decision. And with SS, lets be blunt (and i am sorry for that) but everyone knew SS is too strong, and will be nerfed, yet you did your decision to pick up dual wield to fully exploit overshot ability (imbues). While this is not your fault, just using features by hand, SS was declared fully experimental so....that is all that can be said.

Expect SS to excel in any area of melee (one handed, two handed, dual wielding, being dex-based, being str-based) and so on is a bit too much. No other class ever can reach such potentional and neither SS should imho.

User avatar
Barradoor
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 1:49 am
Location: Tuscon AZ, help I need friends

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Barradoor » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:24 pm

Or they could just disable monk spellswords

Image
Mithreas wrote:get good
eters wrote:I will try to resonate with you in a way you can understand
Peppermint wrote:if Barradoor is the voice of reason you know things have taken a horrible turn
Barradoor wrote:
!!HIGH LEVEL MECHANICS BELOW!!

User avatar
Iceborn
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:31 am
Location: Dancing on the line between sarcasm and irony

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Iceborn » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:26 pm

This must be strange times, when Barrador speaks hard and cold reason.

Also, Flower. You glorious trollbait.
Misc Changes, with the Feats and Skills sublinks.
Available races
Spell Changes
Class Mechanics
Command Guide

Take a look before asking your questions!

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by -XXX- » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:50 pm

Barradoor wrote:Or they could just disable monk spellswords.
Fixed it (?)

User avatar
Scurvy Cur
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Scurvy Cur » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:31 am

It's almost like your build choices on Veritas were always really bad, and it's the nature of nerfs that builds which are only holding onto functionality by a bare sliver are going to have the hardest time surviving a nerf, but this is mostly a function of your decision to stare decent spellsword building right in the eyes and throw six feats straight in the trash (because, let's be honest, those ench focii aren't doing you a ton of favors). This isn't to discourage you from taking whatever you like for RP purposes, or whatever it was you were doing there; by all means do so. I'm just questioning the wisdom of evaluating class changes based on the difficulties facing someone who managed to snatch a mediocre build from the jaws of a truly overpowered class.

A cap on the rate of imbue procs isn't intended solely to reduce the performance of monk spellswords (though they're the ones hit hardest by it because they most desperately needed it). It's also intended to reduce the overall dependability of imbues for all builds, and to equalize how often they're going off, which in turn is an important consideration for striking the proper balance on imbue strength.


User avatar
Iceborn
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:31 am
Location: Dancing on the line between sarcasm and irony

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Iceborn » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:15 am

One myth to discredit, first.
There's this notion that spellswords are terrible DC casters and they cannot and should not ever use any DC based spell on the argument of not having int as their primary stat.
Your standard mage will have about 38 int, at end build? More or less.
A spellsword can have 32. That's a -3 DC on the difference.


Ignoring that.
There's something glorious in the great and glaring weaknesses and overwhelming power that the spellswords can have. Yes, there's fifty million pages in the building threads on how to even your build to cover most of your bases. I built my character relying on many things that I knew could change. I didn't care because they did not compromise the main bite of the playstyle, it just meant that there were more things that could potentially send me to say hi to Aunt Agna in the fugue plane if I was not careful.

Veritas was not remotely a poorly built character. He could have been optimized. Surely, I could have taken abjuration def, go kama monk from the beginning, maximize saves and obsessively farm items to wear a full 3-stat set for MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. But that is never a healthy outlook to take. Instead, I chose to build to push where I wanted him to shine. That was also something that I knew that would be nerfed sooner or later, when he was at the peak of his offensive power.


This is neither about me bemoaning about a character that is suddenly a lot less powerful. V has been on the shelf for some time, and will remain there, and when I feel like I want to play him, I'll play him regardless whether he can take Paush alone or needs to hide behind your friendly neighborhood horc under -guard like a 120 years old cripple.

But neither I'm in a hurry to see it fixed. I've expressed my point of view, and stomped my feet enough. Like the rest of you, all I can do is sit and watch, and hope that a solution comes that makes the build option desirable, and not a masochistic endeavor.
Misc Changes, with the Feats and Skills sublinks.
Available races
Spell Changes
Class Mechanics
Command Guide

Take a look before asking your questions!

User avatar
Scurvy Cur
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Scurvy Cur » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:48 pm

Iceborn wrote:One myth to discredit, first.

Veritas was not remotely a poorly built character. He could have been optimized. Surely, I could have taken abjuration def, go kama monk from the beginning, maximize saves and obsessively farm items to wear a full 3-stat set for MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. But that is never a healthy outlook to take. Instead, I chose to build to push where I wanted him to shine. That was also something that I knew that would be nerfed sooner or later, when he was at the peak of his offensive power.
This isn't about whether you could have optimized better, or whether this is something we want to encourage/discourage, although I will resoundingly contest that dual rapiers on a class whose chief weakness is an sub-standard AB is a mere "failure to ruthlessly optimize".

This is about whether spellsword should be balanced around the typical power level of someone that's trying to build right, or around a guy who wasted 6 feats. We objectively have to do the former, while simultaneously curtailing some of the most obvious forms of abuse.

Now, onto some specific points where you've been either wrong or misguided.

Most DW Spellswords Probably Dual Rapiers
iceborn wrote: I say -4 AB, because most spellswords that I've seen tend to go rapier (if they are dexers. Str doesn't matter in the case due to the dex requirement of dual wield, making the option vastly less desirable for the build). In most cases, these are normal weapons for them, which even with all the feats is still a -4 penalty. A choice, I suppose.
Most dex dw spellswords go quarterstaff actually, since it comes in 4 AB higher than dual rapiers.

While rapier is a common choice for dex spellswords who are using 1h weapons, Veritas to date is the only one I've seen dualing rapiers. The rest of them have had the good sense not to try this.

DW Spellswords Bad Now
I have a dual-wielder spellsword in high epics. Right now, those are 3 feats that I would very much rather have invested elsewhere. But I don't want a rebuild - I want dual-wield to be an alluring option for spellswords, because the last update took away the best synergic component it had.
Far from it. They've lost an incredible amount of potency, I'll grant that, but SS is still a class that benefits from high APR, due to the fact that they get 10 + 2d12 flat damage to every single attack by wizard 21.

The biggest impact of this change to dual wielders is as follows:

- No longer possible to ramp acid stacks through the roof in a matter of seconds.
- The ability to pull in 140-160 healing per round is gone now in most PvE content. Worth noting that even with just the nerf to negative itself, this number is still 70-80 hp per round.
- Rate of debuff application from imbues is dramatically lowered. DW spellswords of all sorts benefitted from the fact that even a 10-20% application rate is a lot when a target is faced with that sheer volume of attacks.

All three of these points badly needed to change. There are basically three ways to do this:

1) Nerf imbue effects to the point that it doesn't matter much if you fail the save. (Read: Make imbues bad for everyone).
2) Nerf the DC to the point that even DW spellswords are applying the debuff, acid stacks, and healing in a slow and reasonable fashion. If imbues are balanced around the guy rolling them 8 times per round, then they'll probably be too weak for single wield spellswords. (Read: Make imbues only good for dw spellswords)
3) Restrict the proc rate so that all spellswords roll the dice equally often, and then tinker with the effects themselves from there.

Of the three, the one that preserves the largest number of valid playstyles is actually the one that was picked.

Shameless Hyperbole
I could have taken abjuration def, go kama monk from the beginning, maximize saves and obsessively farm items to wear a full 3-stat set for MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY.
No. Really all you had to do is not dw rapiers or take a spell school that's a poor buy on spellswords. These have always been reasonably poor choices.

(Aside: kama spellsword is kind of bad now, qstaff gets identical ac and more ab/damage).

Acid Imbue

Probably still not worthless, but I'll hit some stuff with it a few times in PvP, which is where it's at its best. Each successful proc is going to add something like 70 bonus damage, if fights last a long time. Regardless, the old acid imbue definitely needed to go. It wasn't really handy in PvE because of the prevalence of acid immunity and most monsters with huge hp pools also having 40+ fort, but in PvP, this imbue was absolutely devastating. I used the old version in roughly 5 fights against other players. There were a few key dynamics fostered by the ability to acid spike someone.

:arrow: It became impossible for them to flee. When you're up at 80-100 damage/round for 9 rounds, most builds are spending a very large portion of their time trying to stay alive (and probably getting hit more often in the process)

:arrow: The need to heal flat foots a huge number of people, making them vulnerable to further acid bullying.

:arrow: In a couple of large-scale engagements, it let me simultaneously pressure down 3 targets at once, since I could reliably 3-4 stack someone and then move onto the next target, with the knowledge that each person I'd traded 2 flurries with was effectively either out of the fight for 9 rounds to heal, or alternatively dead.


User avatar
Iceborn
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:31 am
Location: Dancing on the line between sarcasm and irony

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Iceborn » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:25 am

Alright. Let's keep beating this dead horse. Because I don't have the common sense to nod and smile and offer a condescending pat in the head when I should.
Scurvy Cur wrote:
Iceborn wrote:One myth to discredit, first.

Veritas was not remotely a poorly built character. He could have been optimized. Surely, I could have taken abjuration def, go kama monk from the beginning, maximize saves and obsessively farm items to wear a full 3-stat set for MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. But that is never a healthy outlook to take. Instead, I chose to build to push where I wanted him to shine. That was also something that I knew that would be nerfed sooner or later, when he was at the peak of his offensive power.
This isn't about whether you could have optimized better, or whether this is something we want to encourage/discourage, although I will resoundingly contest that dual rapiers on a class whose chief weakness is an sub-standard AB is a mere "failure to ruthlessly optimize".
Sub-standard compared only to full BAB classes. And then, not by much considering they still get free AB that they should not. Very personally speaking for a moment, I know this is not the first time you've used the highest end of the AB formulas as reference for an average.

Balance, in my humblest opinion, doesn't work that way.
Scurvy Cur wrote: This is about whether spellsword should be balanced around the typical power level of someone that's trying to build right, or around a guy who wasted 6 feats. We objectively have to do the former, while simultaneously curtailing some of the most obvious forms of abuse.
I agree with what you say here in concept.
The rest is questionable.
"Build right" is not instant synonym to taking luck of heroes in every build, Scurvy.
Nor for that matter I wasted six feats. The idea that I got of the spellsword was that of a character that could perform adequately in both spell and melee; taking enchantment foci, entirely from a mechanical perspective, was not a poor choice in the slightest. Considering the many spells that we have to drop will saves and the excellent selection of enchantment spells available for the wizard spellbook, this was a great tool to have in many situations, and the sheer offensive power that dual wield afforded was cause for hilarity.

Those were never wasted feats. Instead, consider not what I had, but what I didn't have:
Blindfight - countered by the modicum use of Dust of Appearance
Knockdown/Improved Knockdown - Countered by a Ring of the Ram, if I needed it (I didn't).
Weapon Specialization/Epic Weapon Specialization - Not needed due to the absurd amounts of damage that dual wield was affording.
Abjuration/Abjuration def - I originally built for the +3 of dispel, and then I simply accepted it as a weakness.
Improved Expertise - valuable, but optional.

Even now, in retrospective, you can afford the choices that I made. Dual wield is an incredibly less alluring option to what it was. And if ignoring the spell focus feats is the best choice, then there's something wrong with the class, or with my perception toward what a spellsword should be.

Scurvy Cur wrote: Now, onto some specific points where you've been either wrong or misguided.

Most DW Spellswords Probably Dual Rapiers
iceborn wrote: I say -4 AB, because most spellswords that I've seen tend to go rapier (if they are dexers. Str doesn't matter in the case due to the dex requirement of dual wield, making the option vastly less desirable for the build). In most cases, these are normal weapons for them, which even with all the feats is still a -4 penalty. A choice, I suppose.
Most dex dw spellswords go quarterstaff actually, since it comes in 4 AB higher than dual rapiers.

While rapier is a common choice for dex spellswords who are using 1h weapons, Veritas to date is the only one I've seen dualing rapiers. The rest of them have had the good sense not to try this.
Read the part at the beginning that says "I've seen" and immediately followed by "tend".
But I'll admit I completely forgot about qstaff builds when I was writing that paragraph.
The build basically negates the AB penalty, but has no one-hand mode to enjoy of the shield AC, and using 4 imbues steadily instead of 2 was pretty good. The option to switch dominant hand, too.

Too bad I didn't have the "sense" and went rapier.
Scurvy Cur wrote: DW Spellswords Bad Now
I have a dual-wielder spellsword in high epics. Right now, those are 3 feats that I would very much rather have invested elsewhere. But I don't want a rebuild - I want dual-wield to be an alluring option for spellswords, because the last update took away the best synergic component it had.
Far from it. They've lost an incredible amount of potency, I'll grant that, but SS is still a class that benefits from high APR, due to the fact that they get 10 + 2d12 flat damage to every single attack by wizard 21.

The biggest impact of this change to dual wielders is as follows:

- No longer possible to ramp acid stacks through the roof in a matter of seconds.
- The ability to pull in 140-160 healing per round is gone now in most PvE content. Worth noting that even with just the nerf to negative itself, this number is still 70-80 hp per round.
- Rate of debuff application from imbues is dramatically lowered. DW spellswords of all sorts benefitted from the fact that even a 10-20% application rate is a lot when a target is faced with that sheer volume of attacks.

All three of these points badly needed to change. There are basically three ways to do this:

1) Nerf imbue effects to the point that it doesn't matter much if you fail the save. (Read: Make imbues bad for everyone).
2) Nerf the DC to the point that even DW spellswords are applying the debuff, acid stacks, and healing in a slow and reasonable fashion. If imbues are balanced around the guy rolling them 8 times per round, then they'll probably be too weak for single wield spellswords. (Read: Make imbues only good for dw spellswords)
3) Restrict the proc rate so that all spellswords roll the dice equally often, and then tinker with the effects themselves from there.

Of the three, the one that preserves the largest number of valid playstyles is actually the one that was picked.
The main reason of going dual-wield with a spellsword was that the imbues were directly tied to the number of attacks you had. I can eat a nerf just fine, but the update invalidates the advantage in synergy that dual-wield had.

Here. I even have a suggestion out of the oven:
The first attack in every flurry has 100% chance to proc (with save and all, of course)
Every subsequent attack in the same flurry has 50% less chance to proc than the last.
So a character with, say, 10 attacks (why not?), has 100%, 50%, 25%, 12% chances to proc, provided they land the four attacks in their first flurry.

Scurvy Cur wrote:
Acid Imbue

Probably still not worthless, but I'll hit some stuff with it a few times in PvP, which is where it's at its best. Each successful proc is going to add something like 70 bonus damage, if fights last a long time. Regardless, the old acid imbue definitely needed to go. It wasn't really handy in PvE because of the prevalence of acid immunity and most monsters with huge hp pools also having 40+ fort, but in PvP, this imbue was absolutely devastating. I used the old version in roughly 5 fights against other players. There were a few key dynamics fostered by the ability to acid spike someone.

:arrow: It became impossible for them to flee. When you're up at 80-100 damage/round for 9 rounds, most builds are spending a very large portion of their time trying to stay alive (and probably getting hit more often in the process)

:arrow: The need to heal flat foots a huge number of people, making them vulnerable to further acid bullying.

:arrow: In a couple of large-scale engagements, it let me simultaneously pressure down 3 targets at once, since I could reliably 3-4 stack someone and then move onto the next target, with the knowledge that each person I'd traded 2 flurries with was effectively either out of the fight for 9 rounds to heal, or alternatively dead.
Why are you going on about the old acid imbue? We all know that the stacking bug was completely monkey bananas and assortments of apes.
The current acid imbue is not a desirable choice when you have other imbues that are still dealing damage on hit, like lightning and negative - and those have other effects as well.


NOW. This is a post that I write sourly. I do not agree with you, Scurvy, and I do not like a great deal of your perception of the game and the emphasis in mechanics that you have, but I still respect the time you took to address all these points from your perspective, however jabbing it may have been.
Now let's let it rest, please?
Misc Changes, with the Feats and Skills sublinks.
Available races
Spell Changes
Class Mechanics
Command Guide

Take a look before asking your questions!

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:28 am

I honestly think trolling is less uncomfortable than this exchange.
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
One Two Three Five
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:09 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by One Two Three Five » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:38 am

scurvy over here like

Anyway, maybe a temporary lock is a cool idea, huh?
The devil does not need any more advocates
Clerics are just socially acceptable warlocks.

User avatar
RedGiant
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:39 am
Location: North of Babylon

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by RedGiant » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:24 am

Don't lock it. I think I just got enough credits for an associates degree from reading this.
The GrumpyCat wrote:I CLICK THE HOSTIBLE BUTTON NOW U ARE DED!
Irongron wrote:The slaughter, i am afraid, will not abate.

User avatar
Cortex
Posts: 3553
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Cortex » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:51 am

my contribution to the topic is that rapiers are crappy dual wield weapons
:)

User avatar
BegoneThoth
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:20 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by BegoneThoth » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:56 am

Blindfight - countered by the modicum use of Dust of Appearance
Knockdown/Improved Knockdown - Countered by a Ring of the Ram, if I needed it (I didn't).
Weapon Specialization/Epic Weapon Specialization - Not needed due to the absurd amounts of damage that dual wield was affording.
Abjuration/Abjuration def - I originally built for the +3 of dispel, and then I simply accepted it as a weakness.
Improved Expertise - valuable, but optional.
Not entering this argument, not entering this debate, I just want to point out some inaccuracies with this part of the post, in case someone comes along and reads it, thinking it's accurate.

Blindfight is not "countered" (I believe you're suggesting 'replaced' and not 'countered') by dust. Not only is dust expensive and single use, it only breaches when you break the aura, so if you invis purge, and they re-invis in your face, you now need to move away to re-invis-purge them, provoking attacks and flat-footing yourself. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, dust does not counter non-invis forms of concealment, such as Displacement, a spell often used liberally by those who can repeatedly cast it, and monster/ability concealment, which are prevalent in pve. Also note, Blind-Fight is 100% mandatory on every melee build, end of discussion.

Improved Knockdown is not on 'ring of the ram,' and a very important feat if you want to knock things down; If you dont have improved knockdown, good luck knocking down mobs bigger then you, which the endgame has many of, and those mobs often have caster variants with spells you want to stop. Ring of the ram also takes up a ring slot, which is a pretty valuable slot with the new rune system allowing people to push item slots to a higher value then previously. This is not a substitute.

Weapon Spec is free damage on the table. Why leave free damage on the table? if the Spellswords strength is damage and AC, why not take two trivially easy to obtain feats to hone the path's big strength as much as you can? Why diminish the biggest advantage you have? This is essentially true of all high-damage melee, if that's the goal of the build, do not compromise.

Abj is really good on a wizard and it's a huge waste to not take it, moreso if you're down CL because you went fighter (which you should do). Ward-teleport prevents lens cowering from pvp and you can drop a pretty big bomb instantly with the ward; a free chance to win whatever you're in essentially without flat footing yourself. Not to mention immunity to IGMS. It's almost mandatory, in my opinion, on a spellsword.

Imp expertise is good on spellswords because of their inherent high AC and lower AB. Because they have lots of attacks and lower AB, you can be in a situation where all but your first attacks need a 20 to hit, in those cases, hit imp expertise at a marginal loss of AB, but picking up enough AC to put them in the same situation as you, except you have more attacks and realistically do more damage when you hit. Imp expertise is mandatory on any high AC build for this reason; if you have an advantage as a build, push it as far as you can.
Last edited by BegoneThoth on Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
\

User avatar
One Two Three Five
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:09 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by One Two Three Five » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:11 am

In fairness to Iceborn-
The current 'meta' spellsword doesn't use epic weapon spec because their fighter levels are all pre-epic and the alternatives to get it all lose something or other. IDK. Your mileage may vary.

And ward teleport and ward aren't useable (or shouldn't be?) on spellswords because of the epic spell lock. (But they ARE very good abilities.)
The devil does not need any more advocates
Clerics are just socially acceptable warlocks.

User avatar
Scurvy Cur
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Scurvy Cur » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:13 am

Iceman wrote: I do not like a great deal of your perception of the game and the emphasis in mechanics that you have
Entire post can be boiled down to a solitary sentence.

This is a fine stance to have, but a little misplaced in a mechanics feedback thread, don'cha think?


User avatar
BegoneThoth
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:20 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by BegoneThoth » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:17 am

One Two Three Five wrote:In fairness to Iceborn-
The current 'meta' spellsword doesn't use epic weapon spec because their fighter levels are all pre-epic and the alternatives to get it all lose something or other. IDK. Your mileage may vary.

And ward teleport and ward aren't useable (or shouldn't be?) on spellswords because of the epic spell lock. (But they ARE very good abilities.)
Oh yeah, they don't get spell abilities. My mistake.

It's still pretty much mando though, in my opinion, due to the dispel bonus's it gets you.
\

ProbablyAMage
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:25 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by ProbablyAMage » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:31 pm

Having read.....all of this. The changes seem reasonable. If they're too much (unlikely) or not enough (more likely) I'm sure it will become apparent after a month or two.

User avatar
I_Am_King_Midas
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by I_Am_King_Midas » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:03 pm

Are people primarily doing monk spellswords still over everything else?
Last character: Vahrix Amolyn

User avatar
Scurvy Cur
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Scurvy Cur » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:38 pm

Give it a month or two post-nerf for an answer on that. Monk spellswords have lost a fair bit since the nerfs started going in:

Loss of the CL bonus vs dispels hurt them worst of all because the thing that makes them work is buffing everything save charisma with trans focus, so anything that makes their ability to quint-buff stats more tenuous hurts them worse than it hurts spellswords primarily buffing only 3-4 stats.

The imbue proc cap hurts them worse than any other setup.

Kama was specifically patched a while ago to remove the spellsword empty offhand AC.

They should still be fairly solid, but I'm not sure that they'll be overwhelmingly popular.


Old Kentucky Shark
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Old Kentucky Shark » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:27 am

I just gave this thread a read, and while I do think the changes seem warranted, the tone of some of the responses was a little hard to read, and smacked of a 'you don't play like I do so you don't get an opinion' mentality. I think we can probably debate the points of an update without trying to build shame someone for not optimizing.

User avatar
telmarael
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:58 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by telmarael » Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:30 am

One Two Three Five wrote:scurvy over here like

Anyway, maybe a temporary lock is a cool idea, huh?
Only if of the class itself, because it definitely looks like the whole attention of the player base is focused primarily on SS since their release :|
- "I would rather not touch this shiny pile of gold", said her conscience
*sounds of explosion*

User avatar
Cortex
Posts: 3553
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Cortex » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:30 pm

build shame
:)

User avatar
Thanatosis
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:47 pm

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by Thanatosis » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:32 pm

the fact someone complains of "build shaming" is apex Arelith forums tbqh
BegoneThoth wrote:Hardcore player here

User avatar
One Two Three Five
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:09 am

Re: Spellswords (Again and again)

Post by One Two Three Five » Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:05 pm

'whole attention of the player base' and 'one person seemed to get really mad and the forum jumped on it, this happened twice' aren't really the same thing tbh. I imagine most of the playerbase, like with most mechanical discussion, doesn't care and has spent these forum threads logged in in front of but never inside the Nomad
The devil does not need any more advocates
Clerics are just socially acceptable warlocks.

Post Reply