I think it increases the damage from Longslash. I remember that a toxin does increase the damage(aside from sensitive) and I remember it being something that struck me as odd. I could be wrong, though, as I don't remember exactly.
I think it increases the damage from Longslash. I remember that a toxin does increase the damage(aside from sensitive) and I remember it being something that struck me as odd. I could be wrong, though, as I don't remember exactly.
The two afflictions that modify Longslash's damage are Dryblood and Haemophilia.
Could make the affliction cause your perceived health/mana levels to fluctuate randomly between, say, 85% and 100%. I don't know. While the idea of an affliction that actually targets the player rather than the character is pretty neat, it just seems silly to me that an affliction's success relies solely on the player being bad rather than having an actual hard effect.
I bet that latter bit would make an interesting affliction. Opposite of recklessness? You're forced to sip health whenever your elixir balance is back until the affliction's cured?
Recklessness serves it's purpose just fine as is. Any affliction by itself is weak. However, coupled with say stupidity, recklessness becomes very dangerous. Because even if you've caught it, stupidity can halt the curing of it long enough for recklessness to do it's designed job. Which is to stop you from sipping/eating toadstool period. Even one missed mana sip from recklessness significantly improves the chances a cleric/whatever demonic profession it is has of absolving/whatever their equivalent is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the affliction as it stands.
I bet that latter bit would make an interesting affliction. Opposite of recklessness? You're forced to sip health whenever your elixir balance is back until the affliction's cured?
If I'm not mistaken, I think that's elixir addiction.
What does elixir addiction do exactly? I have been testing it but I haven't seen it do anything.
It makes you use extra sips on every elixir sip, actually.
<div>Message #2062 Sent By: (imperian) Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59</div><div>"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a right</div><div>ass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."</div>
While Kanna is on a crusade to get me my 25 disagrees badge, I think it'd be perfectly legit for the addiction affliction to get a classlead to have a more useful effect. Vialbelts nerfed a pretty useless affliction.
How about, addiction makes you the greater of two pools? Health is high, sip health! Mana is higher, sip mana!
I am unashamed in my support for the hood tattoo. Ranged strip wars get tiresome very quickly, and dont add much to the Imperian combat realm for the majority of classes. That said, the latter is also a problem for ranged combat in general - classes that lack a ranged component are left in the lurch if combat does devolve into ranged attacks or attempts at ranged combat. Theres no middle ground, and hood is too good at bridging the gap. If the fight decides to go the way of ranged combat, it should do so at a risk to those doing it - this will serve both to bring the fight back into the hectic battle that it can be, and to weaken the holding position of entrenched raiders (I also hate raids, and think a greater risk should be on the attackers, encouraging hit-and-run style raids)
Cause any ranged attack to strip your hood defense (including mind command, mind strip, root attacks, doppleganger attacks, kai attacks, bows, vortex .... anything you do at range)
Because I want you to be able to reliably pinchaura on the star tarot message.
I am unashamed in my support for the hood tattoo. Ranged strip wars get tiresome very quickly, and dont add much to the Imperian combat realm for the majority of classes. That said, the latter is also a problem for ranged combat in general - classes that lack a ranged component are left in the lurch if combat does devolve into ranged attacks or attempts at ranged combat. Theres no middle ground, and hood is too good at bridging the gap. If the fight decides to go the way of ranged combat, it should do so at a risk to those doing it - this will serve both to bring the fight back into the hectic battle that it can be, and to weaken the holding position of entrenched raiders (I also hate raids, and think a greater risk should be on the attackers, encouraging hit-and-run style raids)
Cause any ranged attack to strip your hood defense (including mind command, mind strip, root attacks, doppleganger attacks, kai attacks, bows, vortex .... anything you do at range)
Because I want you to be able to reliably pinchaura on the star tarot message.
The opposite of the intent. Star would remove hood from the summoner, not the target.
EDIT: Asked for the text to be changed slightly to clarify the intent, since "your" is ambiguous.
I am the righteous one... the claims are stated - it's the world I've created
It's an interesting thought, but a flawed one at the moment since anything that forces hood strip is an advantage to Noctu with their smaller strip pool.
Though I'm certain pinchaura won't survive the new Noctu in its current incarnation, so perhaps that's less of an issue than my current mindset wants to make it.
To be fair, the ones who won most on the ranged combat being limited is AM. That said, currently AM have the highest population (which is fine) and probably one of the best synergy when it comes to high damage abilities. You'd WANT to fight in the same room. Khizan and I discussed it briefly earlier and I kinda agree with him that old range combat was kinda boring, however, there SHOULD be an option when facing a bigger group that doesn't involve so much luck it's useless to try.
AM kinda dominated the shardfalls for quite some time and this is one of the reasons in my opinion. We don't need insane range abilities, but the option makes it more interesting if you ask me.
AM has the best ranged offense (monks, rangers), almost unparalleled burst damage (wardancers, templars, outriders) and the highest population. This is why they end up with pretty much all the obelisks and shards.
You can always nerf offensive capability, but how do you deal with one side just having more combatants than you?
You can't base stuff around the fact that one side has more combatants, nor should you. The way you handle it is the same as you always handled it, - ranged warfare. People can talk all day about smart tactics and whatnot, in the end if you can't kill the other group in the same room you can as well go home unless you'd want to charge in and go suicide squad, which in some cases are kinda fun (Sup mena, you single brave soul doing a major shardfall on your own).
Excuse me, did you say that Rangers are better ranged offense than Summoners and, if they are targeting people currently in fights, Mages? I'll give you the burst damage claim, though Druid and Brainmelt REALLY do rival both of those (EDIT: Not to mention that Runeguards who want to do damage will do a respectable amount of it at no expense to their tankiness), but I will say that Ranger 'ranged capability' is actually not all that fantastic. For having an entire skillset based on it, it isn't really that strong or versatile. Longshot is nice, but a Mage gets the two things you would be longshotting - meteor arrows and net (cataclysm transfix).. not to mention Naturebinding roots can be commanded at range and their abilities have an incredible amount of depth as compared to Bowmanship.
Also, ranged combat and entrenched warfare was boring and always will be boring. It is impossible to balance and really just revolves around stripping and braziering one blue dude in to a bunch of red dudes so that one blue dude can die and maybe, just maybe, the red group can do something (likely not, because death is laughably short and they still have to deal with a bunch more dudes). It takes no skill (just a bunch of rudimentary scripting) and provides no meaningful combat interaction. Strip/brazier makes combat less about application of your skills and more about turtling endlessly, which creates stalemates where nothing happens unless one side has a crushing advantage in terms of bodies (which lets them continue to do XYZ because you can only strip so many people at a time).
We should get the hint from Garryn and co that ranged combat is supposed to die a very silent and swift death - Hood tattoo existed as a brute force way to enforce this notion.
<div>Message #2062 Sent By: (imperian) Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59</div><div>"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a right</div><div>ass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."</div>
The only worthwhile things that mages can do at range are staffcast, meteor arrow and transfix. Both are blocked by shield and transfix has a cooldown that prevents it from being used efficiently (read: at all.) Also, cataclysm only functions against outdoors opponents to begin with, like meteor arrows (which themselves are useless in most cases.)
To imply that a mage's ranged offense is superior to a ranger's is to imply that dropping rocks out of a hot air balloon is better than firing a guided missile.
Runeguards also need to give up wielding a shield in favour of a tablet, which takes a decent chunk out of their total physical resist. They also can't flare with a claymore, while Templars, AFAIK, can.
As a runeguard with a 35/35 tower shield, 85/65 fieldplate, Algiz rune mastery and Virtuoso evasion, I only mitigate about 50% of physical damage. The only reason they're really considered tanky is because they get +3 total con and level 3 racial regen from profession abilities.
We should get the hint from Garryn and co that ranged combat is supposed to die a very silent and swift death - Hood tattoo existed as a brute force way to enforce this notion.
I am all for this if mind command tumble <dir> strips hood first.
To imply that a mage's ranged offense is superior to a ranger's is to imply that dropping rocks out of a hot air balloon is better than firing a guided missile.
As a runeguard with a 35/35 tower shield, 85/65 fieldplate, Algiz rune mastery and Virtuoso evasion, I only mitigate about 50% of physical damage. The only reason they're really considered tanky is because they get +3 total con and level 3 racial regen from profession abilities.
Mage gets the two things you would be longshotting - meteor arrows and net (cataclysm transfix)
Ranger's longshot balance is crap. Meteor arrows and transfix + staffcast put Mage far ahead of Ranger in terms of ranged capability. I'm not getting into the tankiness of Runeguard.(It's the tankiest knight class. Aka. really tanky).
Staffcast is about 110 damage every 3.8 seconds unartifacted and transfix has a cooldown that prevents it from being spammed over cataclysm, meaning your target has to be unblind already in order for it to work in the first place. If your target is shielded, your staffcast/transfix will rebound and hit you instead. Meteor arrows are effectively a gimped version of the Star tarot; broad longshot outperforms it by a long shot.
Rangers can also use their ranged abilities like strafe and doubleshot indoors as long as they have LOS where mages are SOL in that regard.
I am all for this if mind command tumble <dir> strips hood first.
I would, for one, much rather tumble not strip hood instead of cloak. It would make tumble a way to automatically escape professions who rely on room-based setup.
To actually add to the discussion, the arguments that ranged combat should be an option against a superior group doesn't hold a huge amount of water at this point. The advent of balanceless wall destruction, the changes to close quarters ghands/piety only, the upcoming totem changes and potential traps nerf Khizan suggested pretty much ensures if a group wants to melee you, you're not going to stop them. This seems intended, and a good thing (imo). Nothing is quite as terrible as two groups staring at each other across twenty rooms trying to get someones cloak down.
Compounding that the simple fact is ranged combat is almost always more resource-efficient. The superior side will lose less people than they would in a large melee, don't need to put themselves at that much risk, and have no reason not to use ranged regardless of whether they vastly outnumber the other side or not. Just gets tedious.
d transfix has a cooldown that prevents it from being spammed over cataclysm, meaning your target has to be unblind already in order for it to work in the first place.
If druids in your circle reported when they randomly stripped blindness, this wouldn't be a problem.
Comments
an elixir of mana 50 118
an elixir of mana 45 118
EDIT: Asked for the text to be changed slightly to clarify the intent, since "your" is ambiguous.
the claims are stated - it's the world I've created
Though I'm certain pinchaura won't survive the new Noctu in its current incarnation, so perhaps that's less of an issue than my current mindset wants to make it.
Also, ranged combat and entrenched warfare was boring and always will be boring. It is impossible to balance and really just revolves around stripping and braziering one blue dude in to a bunch of red dudes so that one blue dude can die and maybe, just maybe, the red group can do something (likely not, because death is laughably short and they still have to deal with a bunch more dudes). It takes no skill (just a bunch of rudimentary scripting) and provides no meaningful combat interaction. Strip/brazier makes combat less about application of your skills and more about turtling endlessly, which creates stalemates where nothing happens unless one side has a crushing advantage in terms of bodies (which lets them continue to do XYZ because you can only strip so many people at a time).
We should get the hint from Garryn and co that ranged combat is supposed to die a very silent and swift death - Hood tattoo existed as a brute force way to enforce this notion.
Edit: Or something similar to 105.
No to all of that.
Ranger's longshot balance is crap. Meteor arrows and transfix + staffcast put Mage far ahead of Ranger in terms of ranged capability. I'm not getting into the tankiness of Runeguard.(It's the tankiest knight class. Aka. really tanky).
I would, for one, much rather tumble not strip hood instead of cloak. It would make tumble a way to automatically escape professions who rely on room-based setup.
Do you know how much you just upset me by saying you only mitigate 50% of physical damage.
To actually add to the discussion, the arguments that ranged combat should be an option against a superior group doesn't hold a huge amount of water at this point. The advent of balanceless wall destruction, the changes to close quarters ghands/piety only, the upcoming totem changes and potential traps nerf Khizan suggested pretty much ensures if a group wants to melee you, you're not going to stop them. This seems intended, and a good thing (imo). Nothing is quite as terrible as two groups staring at each other across twenty rooms trying to get someones cloak down.
Compounding that the simple fact is ranged combat is almost always more resource-efficient. The superior side will lose less people than they would in a large melee, don't need to put themselves at that much risk, and have no reason not to use ranged regardless of whether they vastly outnumber the other side or not. Just gets tedious.