Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 04:09 PM CDT
Hey, Estild -

Can you share with us the formula for the benefits of maneuver defense provided by 1109 / Empathic Focus?

In an effort to be totally transparent - I'm interested in general, but specifically am interested in understanding the interplay between the 410 / 435 EL:R reductions and this spell's benefits. I took my empath for a quick spin, with and without the spell, but want to have the context in which to consider my findings.

Thanks!

Doug
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 04:34 PM CDT
The "standard maneuver roll" formula is not known (at least not far as I can tell from searching), nor is the relationship between hidden endrolls and visible results, so it seems to me that even a very simple and transparent statement like "the bonus is +12" is not something that players are able to process.
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 04:41 PM CDT
>>The "standard maneuver roll" formula is not known (at least not far as I can tell from searching), nor is the relationship between hidden endrolls and visible results, so it seems to me that even a very simple and transparent statement like "the bonus is +12" is not something that players are able to process.

Agreed, with two provisos:

1) We've been fortunate that in the last months' timeframe, the GMs have shown a willingness to share far more information about these things than in the past, and;
2) We know explicitly (because this great information sharing is occurring) that the changes to 410 / 435 at 20 ranks of lore 'are sufficient to offset the maneuver bonus supplied by' 1109. Slight paraphrasing, but I think that's pretty accurate.

So while we may not be fortunate enough to get a complete amplification on the SMR, I remain hopeful that we can rather specifically correlate the 20 ranks commentary to a rather precise bonus for this spell - and perhaps we will be able happily to infer other things which will further research into the black box that is SMR.

This just seemed a good place to start.

Doug
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 05:16 PM CDT
ZHOUY1 is correct. Even if I gave you exact bonus, it's meaningless. The Standard Maneuver Roll has a huge number of factors and without breaking it down, which we're not going to do at this time, it's just not helpful.

GameMaster Estild
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 05:18 PM CDT
>>ZHOUY1 is correct. Even if I gave you exact bonus, it's meaningless.

Ok, thanks for the consideration, Estild!

Doug
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 06:27 PM CDT
>> Even if I gave you exact bonus, it's meaningless. The Standard Maneuver Roll has a huge number of factors and without breaking it down, which we're not going to do at this time, it's just not helpful.<<

To elaborate: "Just take our word for it, it does something useful ... we think. The formula is so complex, even we aren't sure exactly what it does, but we're pretty sure it helps. Maybe."
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 07:12 PM CDT
> To elaborate: "Just take our word for it, it does something useful ... we think. The formula is so complex, even we aren't sure exactly what it does, but we're pretty sure it helps. Maybe."

Not sure if serious...

~ Konacon
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/28/2015 09:00 PM CDT

Well it wouldn't be the first time, right? Didn't we recently find out that dodge has no effect on these things, despite the fact that it explicitly says that it does on the skill description?
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/29/2015 11:00 PM CDT
'Recently'? No, not really; folks were up in arms about it six and ten years ago already.
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/29/2015 11:28 PM CDT
Oh well then, it must have been fixed by now ;)
Reply
Re: Request for data - 1109 Empathic Focus 09/30/2015 04:39 PM CDT
Well, hell, I didn't say that, either. :)

I'm totally willing to believe that it remains a non-contributor.
Reply