I find these proposed changes incredibly disheartening as a long-time advocate for squares, once gain a puff to pures & semis across the board and does nothing to help squares.

Why aren't rogues getting 3x PF?
Why aren't monks (who actually have a bolt spell) gaining 2x spell aim?
Why aren't MoC costs for rogues being addressed?
Why aren't blunt/brawling costs for rogues being brought to parity with OHE?


AIM: m444w
Discord: Ondreian#3875

>> Why aren't blunt/brawling costs for rogues being brought to parity with OHE?

I always found this one odd as well. Is there some sort of design goal that rogues use edged weapons?

-- Robert

>> A halfling magistrate picks up a small rock and throws it at a half-elven bandit in a valiant effort to subdue him.

Having now unburdened myself about the outright problems with the document as it is available right now...

...let me take this opportunity to AGAIN say that I believe the GMs should a) decide on what they want, and b) let the players know what that is about their view of a profession.

(So that things like GM Romulus saying--with the "ToD becoming Mana Disrupt" rewrite--"You're a profession that can double in Spell Aim, so the anticipation is that you are at least singled in it. See also Mana Control..." does not happen again.
Hint: nobody had bothered to TELL the Sorcerers about this.
So some of them--Thalior, Nixie--had 200 ranks in Sorcerer list and a few other Spirit & Elemental, and just beat everything up with warding spells... Until they tried casting at a magic-immune creature.)

.

See specifically bullet 1 of the second post below, #8788.

---

By: KRAKII
Re: Higher CS
On: 7/21/2009
At: 9:20:52 AM
##: 8769

Unfortunately, the GS4 conversion was a great time to totally divorce the CS-casting system from Spell Research and turn it into a double-trainable skill (for those professions who should, by class design, be the ones most likely to double-train in that skill)...
...and the GMs walked right past it.

I suggested this back when the deICE was going on--because that was also a great time to do it, "gigantic changes in mechanics" and all--so that we would then have three different kind of combat skills:
- weapon skills
- bolt skills
- warding skills

Some professions could double in one, some could double in more than one, some--maybe Semis?--could even double in all three... but of course, the training point costs would be astronomical.

And, of course, that would just be for the actual attack skill. What you were attacking with would be something else entirely. (Learning the actual spells.)

.

I would've done it as:
+ the Minor lists being all the attack spells (and open to Squares, at single-train grade in Spell Research), so this would enable Sorcerers to get access to, basically, three lists of attacks [in keeping with them being the big wreckers of the place];
+ the Major lists having all the defense spells and self-cast spells [like Targetting, Bravery, Heroism, RapidFire, whatever], so the pure-Realm casters would reap the benefits of that;
* separated "mana gain" from "level gain" [they actually did do this one!].

For the skills:
+ decide whether any of your Semis are going to bolt- or warding-based, and allow them access there at comparable costs to their weapon skills (maybe one Semi [Bards?] would be Warding-based [could double warding/single bolt], one [Rangers?] would be bolt-based [Flare, Web?] [could double bolt/single warding], and one [Paladins?] would be more physical [could only single both bolt & warding]?) where applicable;
+ allow Squares to single-train in bolts, warding, spell research, and mana; allow bolt-based pure classes [Wizards] to cheaply train in bolts, significantly more expensively train in warding; Sorcerers could conceivably double-train in both but it would be kind of expensive (this would be one of those "do you want to be a bolting caster or a warding caster?" kinds of decisions); other pures would need to have a design decision made: are they supposed to be bolters or warders? Set training costs appropriately.

That way you could have someone (like, ohhh, a Sorcerer) choose to only learn ten or a dozen spells in order to get the attack forms, and then fully double in both Warding Attacks and Bolt Attacks and be a just horrendous killing machine.

.

But did they do it? Either time? Nnnn--ooooooo. :(

So we still have issues of Warding attacks being tied to Spell Research, which means that someone who only single-trains [any Square, most Semis] at best is screwed if they're casting from the same list as someone who can triple-train.

---

And a follow-up a week later:

---

By: KRAKII
Re: Higher CS
On: 7/28/2009
At: 8:34:59 AM
##: 8788

Re-visiting this issue briefly because I was reminded of something else last night when I was leafing through "Creatures & Treasures" volumes 1, 2, and 3. (I admit, mostly I was reading the "Most Potent"-and "Artifact"-level goodies. :)

And that was the whole "multi-train in a skill" issue. The final thing that I would've done in the game redesign--either one of them! [deICE, GS4 conversion]--would be to, once and for all, decide what the deal is with multi-train capability. Romulus, way back when, was talking to Sorcerers about things like Mana Share or Aimed Spells and how the assumption was that if you could double-train in it, then it was part of the profession design that you should be training (at least single) in it.
Except no-one had ever TOLD any of the players about that.

So I would have done two things:
1) Clearly delineate what's what with multi-training.
"If you can triple in it, then the assumption is that you will be singled in it; you may commonly double in it; you might (by choosing to specialize) triple in it. This is a core capability of your profession, and you will be assumed to be a mutant beyond the pale of intended design if you do not at least single in it."
"If you can double in it, then the assumption is that you will dabble in it [.5x or more]; you may commonly single in it; you might double in it."
"If you can only single in it, then the assumption is that your profession doesn't care diddly about the skill; you might dabble in it [anything up to 1x] but will never be any damn good at it."

.

2) Resolve the whole issue of singled being pretty darn good. (Krakii was rolled up with the premise that from levels 30 through 40 she would be exactly as good with her weapons as a Fighter of the same level... and 30+ level fighters were as common as the proverbial virgin with a bag of gold crossing the Empire and arriving with both.)
If you can triple in a skill, then your ranks are on a 6/5/4/3/2/1 progression.
If you can double in a skill, your ranks follow the 5/4/3/2/1 progression that we know.
If you can only single in a skill, your ranks are on a 4/3/2/1 progression.

Forty ranks would be worth 180 skill, or 140 skill, or 100 skill. (Same number of ranks; different skill amount.)

Whereas three people who "max trained" at the same level might have 150 ranks, 100 ranks, and 50 ranks. Their skill values would be 300, 200, and 110. [I threw a bit of a bone to the single-trainers.] By golly, but doesn't that look damn nearly like 3x, 2x, and 1x?!? For, respectively, "triple" and "double" and "single"? Well, damn.

The biggest reason to do this would be combat. The problem that GemStone has always had is that they did not truly implement RoleMaster combat training, wherein you trained in specific weapons (or for boltcasters, specific Directed Spells [your skill for "lightning bolt" might be very different from your skill for "fireball"]) rather than in types of weapons; the cost was assigned by type ["all 1HEdged weapons cost this much"] and then you trained in specifics ["I learn dagger and short sword and longsword and falchion, one rank each."].

This meant that Semi professions started out as good as a Fighter with their weapons, and then got spell-goodies on top. Pure CASTING professions could get to be as good as a Fighter with their weapons, plus defenses, plus disablers; Krakii was one, for crying out loud.
What it should have been was "Fighters start out damn good... and then the rest of y'all are playing catch-up", rather than "by golly, we better implement CMans so that Fighters actually have something."

Imagine if the skill costs were such that Fighters commonly singled in all weapons and often doubled in several [or just doubled in one or two], and Semis very rarely were any more than Singled. Fighters would have the highest Weapon capabilities, and Semis would be using their magics to "catch up"...
...kind of like how it should have been. :)

Sure thing!

Bite-sized version of the whole concept consolidated:
- We have three ways of attacking in this game. Trained skill + stat bonus (weapon), trained skill + stat bonus (bolt/ball spells), and "some amount free for level + some weird-ass formula for number of spells known" + stat bonus (warding spells).
- This is stupid.
- Have three attack skills: weapons, bolt/ball spells, warding spells.
- Decide--and tell the players!--which professions should be which.

- Squares should be able to single in spell attacks, and a greater or lesser expense depending on vision. This means 0p/#m [1], where "#" is large depending on vision.
- Semis may land more toward bolt/ball (Rangers have access to both Web and Fire Spirit) or more towards warding (Bards have Vibe Chant and Holdsong and Rage and Depression and Stunning Shout and Disruption), so they should be able should have costs of 0p/#m, where "#" is larger (if this is NOT their expected expertise) or "#" is smaller (if it IS). [#] training ranks should be adjusted, also; either [1] like Squares (but Semi ranks are cheaper) or [2] because Pures are going be able to triple.
- Pures should be defined by staff vision as bolting, or warding, or conceivably both (Sorcerers), or maybe even more melee-ish, depending on whether they have spells to add to weapon attacks or not.

- If the SKILL granted by ranks were also changed as described, then somebody 50th level "fully trained" who is tripled would have 300 skill; someone that same level "fully trained" who can only double would have 200 skill; and somebody who can only single who is "fully trained"--all three at the same level!--would have 110 skill. Ratio of 3-to-2-to-(okay a bit more than)-1
- Since these are the ATTACK skills... you are strong where you are supposed to be. Make the rest up with spells, CMans, or whatever.
- Someone who CAN triple, but chooses to only double, would still have MORE SKILL than someone who CAN only double. (At 50th level, assuming single, double, and 'only double' for the tripler, skill works out to 110, 200, and 250.)
- This lets someone not-spend those triple points--maybe they want some more shield or armor or shield (Square side) or Lore or MOC or whatever (casting side)--but still be strong-ish in the attacks that they are supposed to be...
- And ALWAYS ahead of the ones who are NOT supposed to be as good.

- Then all of the spell lists' bonuses can be balanced according to "who should be weak/strong with/against this kind of thing."
- Speaking as someone who regularly MAs to get "all of the outside spells"... most spells should be self-cast. Period.
- Those that are not, should be "presence in group required", like Cleric & Paladin work now.
- Yes, even Bard should probably change, but their durations suck so badly by comparison anyhow, I can see leaving them alone.

- Even if the "skill per rank" is NOT changed, the vision of "who should be good at what" can handle "amateur" status versus "pro" by working with costs and # allowed.
A "gifted amateur" may have a low P/M cost... but only [1] rank allowed.
Somebody who should rightly be tolerably good at but not "up there with the boys" could have [2] allowed... but at higher P/M cost ("you CAN double, but it will COST you to be that good").

Note that that latter situation means that at cap, enough catching up will make them every bit as good as the other profession (which was expected to double from the start).
It also flies in the face of the "if you CAN double then you are expected to at least <this much>" design decision that should be announced to players.
Which means that it is a sub-optimal design, and the benefit-per-rank should be changed anyhow.

Krakii be good at text walls.

Clunk is good at gittin to the short of it.

Short of it is - spells aint fer fiters.


Clunk

(Buy your swords at CBD weapons in Zul Logoth.)

This does seem pretty geared towards pures and semis. The spell aiming change for warriors is virtually pointless, whereas changing pure skill costs for pures is significant, and allowing semi's to double spell aiming is a major change.

Throw the squares a bone, and finally allow them to 3x CM at great cost, or down tweak CMAN costs, or some of the other relatively neutral skills that seem arbitrarily higher priced for squares.

Monks have too high a requirement for MTPs. Standard monk training forces conversion of physical to mental which shouldn't happen for a square.

The FIXSTAT potion gives a warning about losing training points, which normally happens for everyone else, but monks normally gain training points because of this excessive proportion of MTPs in base skills for a profession that has physical prime stats.

Dodge (50% MTP rather than 33% for other squares) is the skill that really sticks out as requiring too high a proportion of MTP in its costs, but its the overall balance that is wrong more than a particular skill that is wrong and it has consequences like mana controls being cheaper for a warrior than a monk due to a warrior normally having their spare TPs as mental while a monk's are physical and mental skills beyond the core have to be paid for by converting PTP.

The game in general is biassed towards MTPs and even warriors eventually convert PTP to MTP, but this general game bias hits monks in the mangler while a warrior is likely to be 2-3x cap before they run out of MTP.

Dodge probably should be 1.5/0.5 for monks, a bit heavier on the physical component than the other squares, but rounding that to 2/0 rather than the current 1/1 would make for a better overall balance.

Estild,

I think I subjected you to many of my thoughts on the discord, but I figured I might as well reproduce them here in a slightly more composed format and where other folks can comment. I know you have already mentioned a willingness to reevaluate 1612, but I thought it would be helpful to lay everything out here. I would also again like to thank you and the rest of the team on discord for spirited and open discussion on these changes.

Sorry for the length. :)

Some worries on the paladin changes.

1st, the expectation of 1x spells and the loss of 1612. I applaud the efforts to ease paladin TPs at lower levels. I think this could do much to make the first 40 levels feel like a paladin and not a discount warrior with future promise of being a paladin. I understand the theory of dropping 1612 also as the expected number of paladin spells will go up. My worry here is in two halves (mainly).

A. While the expected number of paladin spells is going up (from ~0.5x spells to ~1x spells), it is not going to change the actual number paladins learn very much. (1x in life and between 1x and 2x at cap) Indeed part of the reasoning is that paladins already 1x spells, so just make that the expected. I think we will see paladins still doing ~1x in spells with mostly paladin and some minor spirit with more diverse other skills. The real push is to get the spells on or near level like 1625 and 1635, not to gain CS. This will put all paladins someplace between more rounded but with 25 less CS (no 1612) or just as bad off as now. Keeping 1612 on the other hand will keep lower spell and higher redux builds more workable. It will also keep the current (and relatively high) chance to ward for paladins.

On that thread; given the limited max damage and setup nature of paladin spells, and our high armor hindrance, even a relatively small increase in warded off spells will greatly reduce our combat effectiveness. This is extra true for our crowd control options. The "easy to hit but needs extra work after" is a spell style that is seen currently in all three semi classes; Bards have 1005, rangers have mass calm, paladins have 1615/30. Taking ours away would move paladins from our current spot of "least magical semi" to something more like a monk with a shield. The high spell path (1x + 1612) is already in play for many paladins, and the high warding rate has not resulted in anyone really thinking paladin spells are more powerful than other semis or in any way OP. The damage, effects, and creatures are currently well balanced for 1615/30 to be effective but not over powered.

1615/30 are in a really good spot and are the absolute core of our hunting, the proposed changes at best will be no effect but in some cases will make them worse. Paladins are really not in a place where they can handle a nerf to any number of their members.

B. Removing 1612 will lower the possible max CS of any post cap paladin by 25. While the times when 25 more CS for a post capped paladin are somewhat limited (DR, invasions, boss creatures, reim throne room), I think it adds a specific value. The room to grow post cap is one of the big selling points of a semi class. To significantly reduce that potential does harm to all levels of paladins as capped power is a goal to strive for that inspires people to play a class. We have so little pegs to hang our hat on, I'd hate to loose any of them.

2nd, lower total spirit lores. Also a two part issue here.

A. Paladins currently have spells using all 3 spirit lores. The other semi classes have their spells split between 2. If paladins are brought down to 101 max lore ranks, they will not be able to focus on as many spells. A bard or ranger could dump everything into one lore and boost ~50% of their spells, where a paladin doing the same would only do so for ~33%. I would propose considering letting all three semi classes double in one lore (whatever one their spell circle uses), but at a much higher cost than the pures do. The higher cost (and less lore effects) would make it obvious that the pure is expected to and is better at training in lores, but would still keep the magical potential for a semi willing to dedicate the TPs to work on lores. This would also open up room for both rangers and bards to gain new spell lore effects with a third lore type. Playing a bard (badly at times) and a paladin, I have to say that the can 1x now but 2x down the road with 3 paths to pick lore system is vastly superior to max 1x with 2 paths. It offers alot more lore diversity paths with less "this is the best for everyone and they know it" effects. I think something like 0/10 or 0/12, 2x would fit these goals; keeping room for a semi who is dedicated totally to magic to be sort of similar to a pure on some levels but lacking true pure power and letting the more jack-of-all-trade type builds still work.

B. Having 2x lores possible but only attainable post-cap or with extreme sacrifices again adds to the "room to grow" for semis. This is currently present in some sense for both paladins (2x spirit lore) and bards (use for both mental and elemental lores). It is again a powerful inspiration for the long grind to get to a powerful state. Moreover, for paladins in specific, 2x spirit lores allow us effective access to utility spells. The 100's circle has several very good utility spells that really require substantial lore investment. If paladins dropped to 2 lore paths, religion and blessing are the obvious choices thematically. However, no paladin could ever justify spending 50-100% of their lore budget for summoning to make utility spells work (106, 116, 125, 130). Combat necessity would block us from using those abilities and make an already utility starved class even more boring. I may be somewhat uncommon in not using lich and Go2, but it would be a very sore blow indeed if I was forced to go back to 130 with no lore effects. That is the sort of QOL loss that would drive people to third party systems and away from in game abilities.

Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.

I will simply say that a game where everyone has an option to deal with everything will quickly cause boredom.

Instead of finding ways to homogenize what specifically was delineation between class / ability, we should in fact continue to enforce and perhaps even force greater separation between the professions.

I'm very happy Paladins are getting attention.

Not a fan.

Doug

With the Stamina recovery changes... this means that what used to be a "+14 to Stamina Recovery" enhancive for a person with 200 stamina, that would return 28 stamina, is now only half as good.
- Are Stamina Recovery enhancives going to be able to go higher than they do now?
- Will there be a corresponding drop in levels required for those higher benefits?
- Will there be a relaxing of the limits on Recovery caps for SR enhancives? (Looking at HESS certs.)

.

With the Backend Update portion:
- Can the 'list' format be updated to be COLUMNAR, rather than line-of-textual? (Easier to read 'cman info' than it is to read 'cman list', for example.) Name. Mnemonic. Rank being gained. Cost of that rank. I would also like to see "of how many", because I do not always remember that "this one only goes to 3" whereas "these half dozen go to 5." I would be fine with "3 [of 5]" in the "rank being gained" column, for example.
- Since I have recently seen my highlighted title line fail to go off: can the columns for "cman info" and "armor info" and "shield info" be made to be the SAME WIDTH as each other, so that highlighting the title line actually works? (Also looks neater in your word processing document when you save your character info, by level...)
- Referring back to my list of improvements of several months ago: can there be command-line options to "sort by name" (as it will be updated to), "sort by mnemonic", "sort by rank known" (so all of the "learn first rank" are on top, and all of the "learn 5th rank" are on the bottom), "sort by training cost" (so that "rank 1 unarmed spec" [for 9] will show up between your rank2 stances [at 8] and your rank3 stances [at 12], for example), and so on? Some times I want to know "what can I learn quickly, with these few points I have;" other times I want to know "what can I master".
- Please also add a split in the list, between active (what you need to issue a command to do), continuing (like stances), and passive (you've learned it, you're done).
- In fact, for screen scroll in combat, please allow JUST the 'active' ones to be displayed, because some times I need to know "and what was that ReallyCoolThing that will save my ass RIGHT NOW?!?!?"

For the first 100 levels, yes.

Once a character hits cap--which I've seen done in about a year, may be even faster now...--then these limits mean less. Eventually, that character will get enough experience to be fully doubled in <whatever it is>, so they'll be just as good as the one who can do it for a lesser cost from the start. Doubled is doubled.
(Note that my suggestion to "change what a given rank is worth" would address this, too. :)

.

The biggest difference between spellcasters is "you do or do not get access to Spell List X/Y/Z."

The biggest difference between squares is "you are primarily really good at melee, you are primarily really good at sneak attacks, or you are primarily really good at UAC."

The biggest differences between spellcasters (to include semis) and squares are that:
a) one set cannot even learn Armor & Shield points, so they must devote (more of) their (already more expensive) CMan points to defense against the creatures that can do whatever those are; and
b) one set has the possibility of saving some of their (already somewhat less expensive) CMan points by getting (better) access to some of those skills through Guild.

>>The number of wizards blows away every other profession and they're arguably the most versatile in the game.

The reason for this observation has little to do with 'arguably the most versatile'. I'd also challenge that interacting with quite nearly any wizard in game is a difficult challenge tending on the spectrum towards 'foolish errand'. . . unless you've scheduled an appointment and have a note.

I'm not going to try to walk the rest of the list and point out the flaws in equating something as long-reaching as game diversity in an uncapped training system scenario to numbers in-game today, especially since we've spent the last decade chipping away at that diversity to a not-insignificant degree.

Robert's almost right.

And again, paladins deserve this. That doesn't make everything on the plate a good thing just because paladins need the bump.

Still not a fan.

Doug

>>Even if we imagine a true extreme where every profession plays exactly identically in combat, people would still find preferences in utility and flavor.

Closer, but still should not be the goal.

>>I'd also argue that there's a problem if the number of professions who have options to deal with everything is more than none of them but fewer than all of them.

And this is absolutely true. . . as long as everything is limited to combat, as you have observed. Other outlets would be ideal. And I have no real problem with services by profession - until it becomes so out of whack and disjointed as enchant and ensorcel have become. But that is a slightly different issue, too.

The core of the problem is that achievements need other outlets, and no one profession should be able to exercise all of those outlets. That is, however, where we have been trending, no?

Doug

"1008 - this ourtight sucks. The mana cost is too high for the damage output, not to mention if you don't sink a ton of EL:A ranks into your build the spell really sucks." -- BBRodriguez

The issue isn't so much that Banshee's Wail/1008 sucks so badly--repeated rounds of nausea and "oh look, it's prone... again!" is pretty darn nice for weapon swingers--it's that for a mere +2 mana you get the single-cast version of Disruption/1030, which is just stupidly powerful.

I think one way they could bring Disruption a bit more in line would be to halve the benefit of ML:Manipulation ranks. You halve the mana cost of open vs. targeted already, right? So Lore ranks give +0.6hp for open, and +0.3hp for targeted.

Another possibility would be to leave it as powerful as it is, but jack it up to the 40th level slot. Solely to increase the mana requirements by +10 from where they are now. (So 40/20 to cast/renew open, and 30/15 to cast/renew single-target.)

Would a 15-mana single-target Disruption (basically, "exactly like it is now") be to powerful compared to an 8-mana Banshee's Wail/Stunning Shout/1008? No, that's actually about the correct level of power. Or maybe add a little kick to it, since it is a 40th level spell.

And hey, Bards would get their "OhCrap!" spell ten levels sooner, so maybe that'd be a good thing. :)

A couple of quick notes:

If you're simply asking "why isn't X being updated?", that's insufficient to prompt any discussion or actual change. If you think something should be changed, you need to make the case for it. You may have a legitimate reasoning on why it should be one way or another, but we don't know what your reasoning unless you share it.

Don't assume anything stated (by anyone) on Discord was read or considered. Unless it's posted here, it's not. Chat on Discord is too fast paced, easy to miss messages, and mostly just casual and unofficial. It's good for brainstorming, but it's not practical for actual in-depth design conversations. So even if you stated something there and you want it to be considered, you need to also state it here.

We're not using this opportunity to simply buff/up tweak any profession. Paladins are arguably receiving the most updates because it was agreed upon their training cost were too constrained. Most other changes are logical updates to standardize a few design parameters, but even then, we sometimes opted not to update certain costs due to the potential down tweak. Most costs that went up were offset by other costs going down.

Adding or removing skills is outside the scope of this update.

GameMaster Estild

So... it hasn't escaped my notice that most of clerics' physical skills are still slated to remain cheaper than the other pures despite wizards and empaths being the superior war pures by a long shot.

I wasn't going to bring that up since years of asking for a more physical build for clerics has gotten me nowhere, but then this came in:

ViduusToday at 9:15 AM

Paladins have moved from this weird almost a square, but not a square place to being a semi.

That's what the 0/17 is signaling

there's ups an downs to that shift

One up is that we're looking into supporting a magical path for paladins.

I'm glad to see it since that too is something I've asked for, just less fervently. I hope and trust that serious consideration is being given to the identities of paladins and clerics simultaneously since they're interlinked. I'd like to see any of the following options:

A - Giving paladins a more magical path and giving clerics a more physical path, on the basis that since the former doesn't tread too far on the latter, the latter also doesn't tread too far on the former.

B - Giving paladins a more magical path which includes the use of chrisms, then offering clerics an option to convert.

C - Committing to empaths (at very least) and possibly also wizards as supported war pures by lowering their physical costs, then offering clerics an option to convert to empaths.


Only C would have anything to do with skill changes, but it's all interrelated regardless. With the New Player Experience team still hard at work (I assume), this is a time to assess the approachability of the game from the perspective of fresh eyes--and one of the first things those fresh eyes see is the skill system during the character creation process, acting more or less as an introduction or primer to what that profession offers.

So I believe it's important that it's as immediately understandable at a glance as is feasible, even to a new player, with fewer chances to mislead. The alternative is expecting new players to either spend hours researching the wiki and crunching numbers before they jump in, or spend (fewer) hours consulting with established players who have already done that for them. Neither seems really tenable to me, and this game's incredibly intense learning curve could use the help for easing in.

(Incidentally... When returning four years ago, I actually did spend a few hours digging through the wiki while trying to decide between cleric/empath/paladin/ranger and still somehow walked away with the mistaken idea that clerics were the best physical pure, based on skill costs. In lieu of experience, I would never have been able to determine the comparative physical and magical prowess of the other three professions either, never mind comprehending how sheer AS/CS numbers interact with setups, disablers, and boosting effects. Three of the four professions I was considering weren't a fit for what I wanted, at least combat-wise, but it took years and ultimately playing all of them to figure that out.)

Looking at my post there are lots of numbers below. So I am adding a summary here. My overarching argument is that paladins most effective crowd control method would be severely limited under the new CS structure. In an attempt to be relevant I am picking a level range that currently needs help from the TP changes but is old enough to have a good chunk of spells and be hunting things that might actually fight back. I selected a hunting grounds with a variety of pure/semi/square creatures (Shan). 1650 is not possible yet at this level and even at level 50 it has very limited total uses. mstrike is a very dangerous opening move against a swarm at this level and would be inferior to 1630 (Because the paladin would be dead). Thus, my calculations are for the best ability available (1630 for paladin and what seems best for bard/ranger) I am also including single target spell attacks as they are viable in many swarms and in general hunting.

A...
lvl 42 Paladin currently hunting shan like leveled dealing with a 4 creature swarm has a 37% chance to prone 3 or 4 out of the 4 on a cast of 1630 (with 25 lore ranks)
lvl 42 Paladin hunting shan like leveled under the new expected training plan would have an 11.5% chance to prone 3 or 4 out of the 4 on a cast of 1630 (with new maxed lores)
lvl 42 Paladin hunting shan under the new TP plan spending all gained TPs into more paladin ranks would have a 21.6% chance to prone 3 or 4 out of the 4 with 1630.

In single combat the paladin in shan has a chance to prone by 1615 of
Current: 50-73%
New: 23-41%
New max: 37-60%

Against a swarm a bard has an unknown chance to prone by 410 (no formula, but I think it is better than 11.5%)
Against a swarm a ranger has an unknown but very high chance to ward all foes with mass calm. With 1x lore the ranger has a 34% chance to induce RT in 3 or 4 of the 4 foes with breeze (28.4% if in brig).

Against a single target a bard has a chance to prone by CS spell of 49.3% using what I think is a generous assumption for the creature stats (no bard spell failure RT or mana loss). They would have an unknown chance to prone by 410.
Against a single target a ranger has an unknown chance to prone by spell(I have no formula for tangleweed or spike thorn)

The third version of each paladin calculation (new max) gets slightly better with each level and is best at level 100, where it is effectively a wash with current training.

_____________________________________________________________

Additional details down here.

For my example I am going to use a diverse mid level hunting grounds, Shan. There is probably some variation but I will take the first of each creature I check (my testing casts at the very bottom). All should be base level 42, but might vary a little bit from that. I will also assume a level 42 human paladin with stats set for max at level 100. GS4 stat cruncher on my first try says Wis 62 at level 0, That would be 79 at level 42 for a bonus of +15. I will further assume they are about 2x in armor, enough to get fully trained for hauberk and learn 2 ranks of fluidity.

Under the proposed new 1x expected training path, this paladin would have 43 spells (depending on how you want to count current level) I am going to count the 44th as with the next level. Folks debate on how to divide up the early level spells. In my opinion 1635 is shockingly important and this paladin would have trained for it at least. If they do not want to raise, let us take them at 1636/107. That would be my split at this level. This gives the paladin a CS of 42(3) + 36(1) + 7(.33) + 15 or 164. Add another 5 points for a bonded weapon to make it 169

Under the new CS model.

D100 needed to hit
shan wizard 101- (169-138+25) =46
Shan ranger 101- (169-133+9) = 56
Shan cleric 101- (169-136+17) = 51
Shan warrior 101- (169-126-13) = 71

If our paladin comes up against a single like leveled foe in this hunting grounds and wants to open with a disabling spell (of which all of their options would be CS based), the following would happen.

Spell is cast. Paladin has a 92% chance to not fail hindrance and at best a 52% chance to ward the target. Assuming they are using 1615 (the best single target spell), that is a combined 47.8% chance to incapacitate the creature. This is the absolute best matchup, against an elemental caster in light armor. For the other creatures in the area the chances of incapacitation (kneeling with RT) are 40.5%, 45.1% and 26.7%. The warrior is just not going to be viable this way, so probably would just stance dance those. The casters can all do nasty tricks so disabling fast is better and spells are good for that (for now). (double checking I might have not counted the 1 D100 roll that is exactly a 101, we will chalk that up to the fumble% being added in, doesn't change the results substantially)

Now let us imagine that the paladin comes upon a swarm of 1 of each creature type. What are the odds of casting the only good paladin crowd control option (1630) and keeping 3 of the 4 of those creatures occupied so the last one can be fought. First let us note that all of our knockdown rates are now cut by 15% because 1630 does not have a possible 100% kneeling effect, even with max lores (which I assumed the paladin had in the last calculations). The chance for each is now 40.6%, 34.4%, 38.3% and 22.7%. The odds of taking out any 3 of those on a cast of 1630 would be the sum of each set of 3 combinations. My somewhat rusty statistics puts that at .043 + .0178 + .0228 + .0196 or a 10.32% chance. We can add the odds hitting all 4 to bring the total good result to 11.5%

Let us now consider the nominally two most similar classes to paladins, bards and rangers. I am going to stick with what seems the most appropriate skill to use in the situation, as I did for the paladin.

First a bard,

Against a single target, the bard could utilize the CS based attack 1005 (lullabye). At level 42 the bard's calculations should go something like this (42x5 + 32 + 15 +D150) - (42x5 + 21 + (dis stat bonus, not sure on this I will just give it +20 as a safely high number). I assumed 410/1032 as the spell split. The needed result to force them onto the ground would be an 80, so the bard would need a D150 roll of anything between a 74 and 150. That is a 49.3% chance to work.

Against a group of targets, the most effective choice for the bard would probably be Ewave. I have no idea how to calculate the chance for 10 ranks of elemental spells ewave to knock over shan... My experience is that it is pretty good but I will need someone to test in person or else a GM to give those numbers. My experience is sonic disruption is not good at this level, but better trained bards might find it a good method.

Next look to the ranger.

Against a single target, the ranger might hide, cast tangle weed, cast spike, or use the CS attack sunburst. Sunburst calculations would be the same chance as the "new" paladin above (except probably lower hindrance but I do not know what armor a ranger at 42 would be in). I am not sure on the exact failure rate for spikethorn or tangle weed but I am willing to bet they beat out the paladin warding chance.

Against a swarm the ranger is not as well prepared as the bard. It seems like at this level breeze and mass calm are the best crowd control. We do not have the formula for the hidden CS calculations for mass calm, but it is very hard to avoid. Breeze is very lore based but at 1x it would have a 70% chance to hinder the movement (RT, IIRC) each creature. That is a 34% chance to keep busy 3 or 4 of the total foes. I would call this a bad deal overall for the ranger. It might be considered appropriate for a hide/ambush based character to struggle against 4 foes (I think shan sniff you out extra easy). If I was going to fight them, mass calm would be my choice. I am assuming double leather for the ranger at this level but you can change that chance to hit to 29.4% if they are in brig and fully trained for it.

Without more backend knowledge I cannot run exact statistics on several of those abilities, but anecdotally I would say they are higher than an 11% chance to hit 3 or 4 out of 4 at level 42.

_________________________________________________________

If our paladin was hunting today while being 1x in spells, the odds for hitting each creature go up by 25% before counting armor effects. I am going to save the reader the trouble of seeing all of those calculations here based on the following premise, no one is currently asking for an increase in CS relative to right now. I will just summarize that the paladin has a 50-73% chance to knock out the single targets with 1615 and a 37% chance to knock out 3 or 4 of 4 of them with a cast of 1630.

If our new form paladin opted to spend all 430 saved TPs from the new system and dump them into spells, they would be able to learn 13 additional spells (1 1x and 12 2x costs). This would generate a CS boost of 6 + .75(7) or ~11. This would result in anything between a 37%% and 60% chance to knock out one of the single shan with 1615. Using 1630 would have a 21.6% chance to knock out 3 or 4 of the 4 room swarm.

_____________________________
My testing to get TDs and CvAs.

You gesture.
CS: +472 - TD: +138 + CvA: +25 + d100: +13 == +372
Warding failed!
A shan wizard appears to be overwhelmed by some burdening force.

You gesture.
CS: +472 - TD: +133 + CvA: +9 + d100: +69 == +417
Warding failed!
A shan ranger appears to be overwhelmed by some burdening force.

You gesture.
CS: +472 - TD: +136 + CvA: +17 + d100: +29 == +382
Warding failed!
A shan cleric appears to be overwhelmed by some burdening force.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.

You gesture.
CS: +472 - TD: +126 + CvA: -13 + d100: +46 == +379
Warding failed!
A shan warrior appears to be overwhelmed by some burdening force.




Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.

"1 handed weapon skills (archery" -- Clos

I submit that archery (the Ranged weapon skill) is actually two-handed. Try using a bow one-handed some time, and get back to us about how well that works out....

Only have Menos as a paladin to play with. Can we change levels over on the test server?

>The lower level the caster, the more difficult warding is. As stated in Discord, every warding caster has this issue at lower levels. The stated problem is not unique to paladins. But the problem also goes away as you level up. Run the numbers again at level 60, 80, and 100.

Absolutely true. The effect of flat rate boosts decrease as you gain levels and more levels also gives time for the TP gain to build up. But the problem being solved by these changes is not a level 100 problem. The TP constraints are most felt at early levels and that is where the lost of CS is going to be most strongly felt. 42 may not be the best level to see the negatives as I picked it based on what I could wander into while not hunting spirit beasts. I am thinking a few more levels when stuff is tossing up warding buffs might be a bit worse, but I will have to see.

>That's still one hunting ground, potentially with the highest TD creatures in that level range. Here are the results from a good number of other hunting grounds that show much less of an issue:

This I didn't know, only grabbed the first grounds in that area that had a mix around the same level. The wiki did not have listings for paladin or ranger circle for anything out west. I was going to do bonespear but the biggest thing was also the only one with spells and I thought that would mess things up for mathing from just one level. I have a much better feel for how TDs look out east, but I am stuck out west until I can find a Jantalarian piper.

>Swarms are not really an issue at this level range. A paladin is more likely to be casting Divine Strike (1615) than Judgment (1630), especially at this level due to mana constraints. I disagree with basing the comparison upon the chance to force a creature to kneel, but if we were, you should be using 1615 which has a higher base chance of 15%.

I disagree with the first part of that statement. By the 40's and onward creatures start picking up alot of nasty tricks. Having a way to deal with more than one creature at a time is a valuable skill. 1615 is also a practical tool for that and does have (in the math I was trying to do) a 100% kneel rate on hit. I was assuming maxed religion lore for both. I don't think many paladins would actual have that much lore at this point under the old or new system, but I also don't know what the new lore progression would be like.

>Did you actually test this in game? Using the same stats and spell rank allocation, I'm showing a CS of 183.

This is what I get for trying to calculate formulas in a google calculator at 1 in the morning. I think I swapped the 36 (spells) and the 42 (level). I will wait until I can actually sit down for a couple of hours on the weekend to travel to different grounds and get TDs and build an excel sheet to calculate out hit probabilities. For what it is worth, the discord conversations were from a couple of currently level 50-60 paladins so my theory was not out of whole cloth, I just fumbled here.

Thank you for taking the time to read through my ramblings. I'll see if I can't square things up more next go round.

Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.

>>I want to as much as possible avoid seeing that happen to others.

Truest of wisdom and insight right here (with all the supporting points). These concepts really must become design goals and drive everything, including documentation, etc.

Doug