TOPIC: Wednesday (2/21) Update - The Schedule Moving Forward

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Oof - not sure opening the door on the class based legendaries again is going to be nice (other than for Druid if polymorph is undergoing massive changes).

But I would welcome the opportunity to reign in the power level of most of them back towards the historic area for a legendary (which may not be in the cards!).

It will be challenging changing anything involving text, on the token, unless there is a turn-in for the new version. Which has happened before, so maybe it's in the cards again.

I honestly hope not, IMO erratas/reissues like that really undermine confidence.

I agree in general, although in this case Jeff did say they would be rebalanced during the design process.

4) Lastly, and hopefully very soon after the classes are re-aligned, we will hammer out any changes we want to make to the various class-specific Legendary tokens. We need to re-balance them so all class have equal amounts of fun.

If the above quote stopped there, I would be in 100% agreement. However...

It is hoped we can work it out so all classes have about equal power in combat.

I know this may be an unpopular opinion but the classes aren't supposed to have about equal power in combat. Each class has its strengths and its weaknesses, and power (and fun) aren't supposed to require that each class do about the same damage in combat. Barbarians, Fighters, Dwarf Fighters don't have spells. What they (should) have is the ability to deal the most combat damage round after round (other classes may be able to deal more damage with one or two attacks, but not sustained throughout the adventure). They give up the ability to heal others, inspire with song, sneak attack, etc. Exactly why should other classes have the ability to deliver about the same amount of damage in combat when they get other abilities? If the be all, end all, for a player is sustained combat power, play one of those classes. If you like healing, trade some combat power for a class such as the Cleric. Like to have the ability to polymorph to cause more damage in certain situations, or find a different way around a combat by communicating with animals, then play Druid. Like to inspire the party with song and help everyone simultaneously, play Bard. And so on and so forth. Giving every class approximately the same combat power diminishes the fighting classes because it allows the classes that have other powers to have those powers plus the combat power.

Many of the concepts in the game are inspired by D&D but cause imbalance when adapted to True Dungeon. For example, in D&D the Paladin guard ability required the Paladin to be near the character being guarded. So, for example, if you are guarding a Wizard, and the Wizard is staying at range casting a Fireball (and to avoid the quick death of melee combat), then the Paladin would need to be at range as well. But in True Dungeon, the Paladin can guard one (and sometimes more) players with no resulting penalty. As a result, the Wizard gets to use spells (and reuse them) to cause massive damage, is guarded from targeted attacks (but of course sometimes damages themselves), and the Paladin can attack in melee. This negates the weakness of the Wizard (its defensive weakness) while allowing the Wizard to keep the advantages of doing massive amounts of damage nearly every round. And it allows the Paladin to attack without restriction while guarding. Allowing the Paladin to have this ability AND do as much damage (and have some spells to boot).

I'm not trying to single out Wizards or Paladins, but pointing out that the classes aren't supposed to be equal in combat. I think it's great that Paladins can guard, and that Wizards can (on occasion) deliver massive damage. So it's ok for classes to be situationally better in combat, for example Monk stunning a monster or Rogue sneak attack damage. But if other classes can do, on average, as much damage in combat over the course of an entire adventure as the martial classes (Barbarian, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter) and to a (slightly) lesser extent (Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Rogue), the martial classes are getting no goodies (spells, etc.) in exchange for being no more helpful on average in combat than any other class.

The argument that every class should be just as effective in combat is like a Barbarian arguing that it should have just as much healing power as a Cleric, or just as much ability to inspire the party as a Bard. Different classes should have different strengths and weaknesses. The answer isn't giving every class equal combat ability, but giving each class useful non-combat (or situation-specific combat) skills that are as important as combat. And this is a function of: (1) adventure design making sure that those skills come in handy on a regular basis; and (2) class-specific skills/abilities that help in certain situations that aren't pure damage dealing.

Mike Steele wrote:

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Oof - not sure opening the door on the class based legendaries again is going to be nice (other than for Druid if polymorph is undergoing massive changes).

But I would welcome the opportunity to reign in the power level of most of them back towards the historic area for a legendary (which may not be in the cards!).

It will be challenging changing anything involving text, on the token, unless there is a turn-in for the new version. Which has happened before, so maybe it's in the cards again.

I honestly hope not, IMO erratas/reissues like that really undermine confidence.

I agree in general, although in this case Jeff did say they would be rebalanced during the design process.

True and I am 100% in favor of everyone having an opertunity to shine. I just hope we can find a path that minimizes the need to re-issue tokens. i.e. if 2/10 are out of line with the other 8, I hope we can just change the 2 rather then the 8, ideally by updating the token db, even if the 2 are closer to the level some may think that should have been the target.

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Oof - not sure opening the door on the class based legendaries again is going to be nice (other than for Druid if polymorph is undergoing massive changes).

But I would welcome the opportunity to reign in the power level of most of them back towards the historic area for a legendary (which may not be in the cards!).

It will be challenging changing anything involving text, on the token, unless there is a turn-in for the new version. Which has happened before, so maybe it's in the cards again.

I honestly hope not, IMO erratas/reissues like that really undermine confidence.

I agree in general, although in this case Jeff did say they would be rebalanced during the design process.

True and I am 100% in favor of everyone having an opertunity to shine. I just hope we can find a path that minimizes the need to re-issue tokens. i.e. if 2/10 are out of line with the other 8, I hope we can just change the 2 rather then the 8, ideally by updating the token db, even if the 2 are closer to the level some may think they should have been the target.

I agree completely, I hope that changes in TDB can accommodate most of the changes, minimizing the need to re-issue tokens.

Iktomi's is easy to change as little is on the token. It would be funny to increase the DR so that exceed the new cap (patch) even more easily.

Ralson's Animal Friend is easy to change as it's not defined on token.

I don't see why any other changes would be made to the legendaries. If looking to nerf +2AC/RSN synergy, can do that more easily through the crossbow. Raphiel's, in and of itself, isn't actually that great as what it mostly does is negate a bunch of restrictions on making Sneak Attacks. If you put aside all of the "you can now Sneak Attack most of the time" effects, it's just crit on 17-20. Bog's is +10 damage all of the time and plus more damage some of the time and choose to crit twice, which is just absurdly better.

Meanwhile, I don't see why anything would be made worse. If going to start nerfing stuff in the game, far better to ban Luna's and Muk's.

Ian Lee wrote: Iktomi's is easy to change as little is on the token. It would be funny to increase the DR so that exceed the new cap (patch) even more easily.

Ralson's Animal Friend is easy to change as it's not defined on token.

I don't see why any other changes would be made to the legendaries. If looking to nerf +2AC/RSN synergy, can do that more easily through the crossbow. Raphiel's, in and of itself, isn't actually that great as what it mostly does is negate a bunch of restrictions on making Sneak Attacks. If you put aside all of the "you can now Sneak Attack most of the time" effects, it's just crit on 17-20. Bog's is +10 damage all of the time and plus more damage some of the time and choose to crit twice, which is just absurdly better.

Meanwhile, I don't see why anything would be made worse. If going to start nerfing stuff in the game, far better to ban Luna's and Muk's.

Based on the gloves in this set I expect that the crit range on Raphiel's is going to move to 18-20 or 19-20, but that is speculation on my part.

It all depends on what you baseline the game against. If it is Ava's you probably change 9 out of 10. If it is Benrow’s you probably change 9 out of 10. Maybe Bog's, Ralson's and Druegar's are close enough that you could leave those and change 7 out of 10. If the goal is to at some point to not get double damage bonus on two weapon attacks then things like Double Strike need to go away, if not maybe Viv's is one that could stay the way it is. In which case you only need to change 6 out of 10.

If the stat changes are going though, I expect to do this right probably requires reprinting almost the entire set. For example does Ralson's need +9 to range damage if dex adds damage?

Manimal wrote: I know this may be an unpopular opinion but the classes aren't supposed to have about equal power in combat. Each class has its strengths and its weaknesses, and power (and fun) aren't supposed to require that each class do about the same damage in combat.

Trying to ensure "about equal power in combat" is not the same as trying to ensure roughly equal damage in combat.

I don't believe anyone would honestly think that a Bard sliding for the same damage as a Fighter while also providing ~40-60 damage from Bardsong (depending on how much you value that +4 to-hit) is balanced; or that a Cleric sliding like a Barbarian while healing like a Druid is balanced; or that a Paladin hitting like a Wizard while being nigh-invulnerable against AC attacks is balanced; or that Monks being able to ignore Melee restrictions is balanced.

But each should bring roughly equal contribution (i.e., "power") to the table, or else the question becomes: why should we bring you along, when we could instead bring a more effective class with us?

Why focus on combat power? There aren't many contributions classes uniquely have outside of combat; healing (mainly Cleric and Druid; Bard for AoE; Paladin and Ranger as a joke) and Rogue hint are the only ones that pop into mind. So sure, maybe Cleric, Druid, and Bard should deal somewhat less in combat to make up for this extra contribution, but the rest should still strive to be roughly equal.

(Communicate with Animals also exists, yes, but it's clear that modules are not designed with it in mind and DMs are making things up on the fly. Even the recent fight against an enraged monkey didn't have it provide any utility, when it would have been the perfect opportunity for it to avoid the combat!)

I also saw the comment about “equal power” and got a bit nervous.

Of course, it’s easy to say equal power is not the same as equal damage, but we’ve got 20 years of evidence that damage is the thing players generally want the most, and it’s also amenable to numeric analysis.

One thing I am hopeful for, is that VTD can provide us some actual numbers in terms of:

chance to hit by class
Chance to crit by class
Damage dealt by class

From actual VTD data so we don’t go around in circles arguing about stuff to which there are matters of fact.

There won’t be consensus on how much damage should a class give up for the ability to have more AC, or more saves, or higher burst damage, or more reliable damage.

I’m curious to see what the design period brings - but I’m not getting my hopes up.

I just hope it’s not a contentious riot.

Perhaps I play mmos too much but when I read equal power I read every feels effective in combat in their roles ways.

As in damage classes do the most damage and all the damage classes are close to each other in DPS

Healers do some amount of less damage but their role has it's own unique thing to play into combat

Same with tanks and supports. I think we may all be getting too nervous here, it sounded like Jeff wanted to spend a year on this and do play testing since this won't go into effect until 2025 and we have a phase of redesign and then balance

Perhaps I'm on the optimistic side but I'm gonna choose to be there since he's trying to address community concerns with this effort

Manimal wrote:

4) Lastly, and hopefully very soon after the classes are re-aligned, we will hammer out any changes we want to make to the various class-specific Legendary tokens. We need to re-balance them so all class have equal amounts of fun.

If the above quote stopped there, I would be in 100% agreement. However...

It is hoped we can work it out so all classes have about equal power in combat.

I know this may be an unpopular opinion but the classes aren't supposed to have about equal power in combat. Each class has its strengths and its weaknesses, and power (and fun) aren't supposed to require that each class do about the same damage in combat. Barbarians, Fighters, Dwarf Fighters don't have spells. What they (should) have is the ability to deal the most combat damage round after round (other classes may be able to deal more damage with one or two attacks, but not sustained throughout the adventure). They give up the ability to heal others, inspire with song, sneak attack, etc. Exactly why should other classes have the ability to deliver about the same amount of damage in combat when they get other abilities? If the be all, end all, for a player is sustained combat power, play one of those classes. If you like healing, trade some combat power for a class such as the Cleric. Like to have the ability to polymorph to cause more damage in certain situations, or find a different way around a combat by communicating with animals, then play Druid. Like to inspire the party with song and help everyone simultaneously, play Bard. And so on and so forth. Giving every class approximately the same combat power diminishes the fighting classes because it allows the classes that have other powers to have those powers plus the combat power.

Many of the concepts in the game are inspired by D&D but cause imbalance when adapted to True Dungeon. For example, in D&D the Paladin guard ability required the Paladin to be near the character being guarded. So, for example, if you are guarding a Wizard, and the Wizard is staying at range casting a Fireball (and to avoid the quick death of melee combat), then the Paladin would need to be at range as well. But in True Dungeon, the Paladin can guard one (and sometimes more) players with no resulting penalty. As a result, the Wizard gets to use spells (and reuse them) to cause massive damage, is guarded from targeted attacks (but of course sometimes damages themselves), and the Paladin can attack in melee. This negates the weakness of the Wizard (its defensive weakness) while allowing the Wizard to keep the advantages of doing massive amounts of damage nearly every round. And it allows the Paladin to attack without restriction while guarding. Allowing the Paladin to have this ability AND do as much damage (and have some spells to boot).

I'm not trying to single out Wizards or Paladins, but pointing out that the classes aren't supposed to be equal in combat. I think it's great that Paladins can guard, and that Wizards can (on occasion) deliver massive damage. So it's ok for classes to be situationally better in combat, for example Monk stunning a monster or Rogue sneak attack damage. But if other classes can do, on average, as much damage in combat over the course of an entire adventure as the martial classes (Barbarian, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter) and to a (slightly) lesser extent (Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Rogue), the martial classes are getting no goodies (spells, etc.) in exchange for being no more helpful on average in combat than any other class.

The argument that every class should be just as effective in combat is like a Barbarian arguing that it should have just as much healing power as a Cleric, or just as much ability to inspire the party as a Bard. Different classes should have different strengths and weaknesses. The answer isn't giving every class equal combat ability, but giving each class useful non-combat (or situation-specific combat) skills that are as important as combat. And this is a function of: (1) adventure design making sure that those skills come in handy on a regular basis; and (2) class-specific skills/abilities that help in certain situations that aren't pure damage dealing.

+1.

And it isn’t “effective power”, people argue for true parity. (I.e. the discussion on the 80% Druid comment.)

Matthew Hayward wrote: One thing I am hopeful for, is that VTD can provide us some actual numbers in terms of:

chance to hit by class
Chance to crit by class
Damage dealt by class

From actual VTD data so we don’t go around in circles arguing about stuff to which there are matters of fact.

I've posted damage tracking from my VTD runs a number of times on Discord. I could also consolidate, though that isn't a high priority to me. Does that reflect biases? Of course. But, most of my runs are with people with like collections, so at least filter out some of the "these 5 people should be playing Epic, these 5 people should be playing Hardcore" runs.

Everyone else is just as capable of tracking their runs' damage stats.

Ian Lee wrote: Meanwhile, I don't see why anything would be made worse. If going to start nerfing stuff in the game, far better to ban Luna's and Muk's.

Why would we start with banning these 2 ? One is the main charm expander which is getting Bibwicks in the same slot forcing to make the player choose 1 or the other, and the other gives + 6 to either melee or ranged in a highly competitive slot. There are many great rings and with Ring con for the future, there adds another amazing ring in a slot that has many great choices. I’m trying to figure out the reasoning that this is where we would start.