Race Stat Changes

[NiteHawk]

Actually there is a problem with #6 Lat.

Saurians have 19 end. they will benefit from it too and they are already benefiting from the dodge rate increase.. now I think I realized why I didn't wanna do that. I made a proposal 7 too just to see.

[Dan]

Saurians already have low MR though and I don't think it really matters. HOs will get beat by saurians more often than the other way around but I think HOs in a bigger group would do better too due to more HP and easier chances to double tap everyone by far. You can't really just compare it to the 1vs1 argument too cause some races make more sense with solo and others make sense in larger groups type deal. HOs could get a couple more small bonuses or increased current bonuses though.


.

If you take that point out wont that ruin alternative mixtures like saurian priests and ho guardians?

[Folder]

If you take that point out wont that ruin alternative mixtures like saurian priests and ho guardians?

Those are going to be pretty garbage regardless.


#7 is looking solid. Been going through it in my head and no big complaints about it. The difference between 1/2 allocation points on elf/half-elf is small, but I think 1 is fine.

Dwarves do bug me a bit though. I wonder if their STR should not be buffed. In #7 we've got:
24 19 22 14 12 14 (orc)
vs
22 19 22 17 20 16 (dwarf)

Losing 2 str (12 damage, multipliers aside) nets you ~7 wisdom (the difference between being able to stand against a caster and not), and also opens up other classes (pallys, clerics). To me it still feels dwarves are possibly too good. Comparing Saurian/Dwarf:
22 22 19 14 14 14 (saurian)
vs
22 19 22 17 20 16 (dwarf)

Here we swap end and agi, which is good, but dwarf still is able to have far more wis on top of having spell damage negation. Dwarves are far more versatile and you don't really give up much for it either.

Overall I think #7 looks good. Dwarves may still be too good. 2.5% agi may be too much, we did try this already. 2.25% may be the sweet spot but you have the math for this already iirc.

[Inverno]

#7 seens balanced to me. Dunno if changing MR bonus to 0% is good. For melee classes, propably going for HO over Dwarves if the magic resistance isnt good enough to pay the STR loss.

If you take that point out wont that ruin alternative mixtures like saurian priests and ho guardians?

Those are going to be pretty garbage regardless.

No one should be crazy enough to lvl a saurian priest

[NiteHawk]

I made a proposal #8 as well as the claim (at least lat) to me said it probably elves don't need such a bonus.

How would people feel about that? Would elves still be useful or would people bypass them now? Elves are probably okay like that maybe and then I don't have to adjust other INT too if it's OK.

Folder brought up a point about Dwarves too, maybe they need something else instead of +1 str. More AC maybe or something like that. Little tanks. They have tons more MR so yeah, +2 str probably isn't enough and unfort I think I agree with that.

[Lateralus]

I think 7 seems fine although I think you could achieve the same thing by just removing 1 end from saurian and drake (they would only lose like 20hp). Then you wouldnt have to give half of the classes an extra hp and there would be a bit more contrast between the races.

Again I still dont understand why you are buffing gnome and elf the same. Elf is the direct competitor to gnome and much better at all fighting healing and blended races. With pen gone they are also best casters buffing them the same as gnomes accomplishes nothing imo. I honestly cant think of a class besides maybe druid that gnome would be better at and even that is a toss up. Unless you are going to make int matter more on all fronts there is no point to pick gnome over elf (or any other race)

What Elf has going for it:

Knight (better str agi end) NO contest Elf Wins
Barb (better str agi end) NO contest Elf Wins
Assassin (better str agi end) NO contest Elf Wins unless you really value hide and its only 1 int diff
Thief (better str agi end) NO contest Elf Wins unless you really value hide and its only 1 int diff
bard (better str agi end CHR) NO contest Elf Wins way more chr on top of other stats
Ranger (better str agi end CHR) NO contest Elf Wins way more chr on top of other stats
cleric (better agi and end) Elf wins here 1 int does not matter much in healing. you would much rather have the defense
Paladin (better agi and end) Elf wins here 1 int does not matter much in healing. you would much rather have the defense
sorc (better agi and end) Elf wins imo again 1 int does not matter much compared to the defense
necro (better agi and end) Elf wins imo again 1 int does not matter much compared to the defense
druid (better str agi and end) This might be the only toss up because of the extra 1 wis but seeing gnomes start out with less str agi and end so i still think elf has the advantage here stat wise.


What Gnome has going for it:
Thief (better int for hide? int doesnt even add to steal so not a big deal at at all)
Cleric (better int but int is not that important in healing example dwarf is prob the best cleric)
Paladin (better int but int is not that important in healing example dwarf is prob the best paladin)
Sorc/Necro (better int/wis - int is only minor damage/buff and there is no multiplier like backstab so its not a huge deal. 1 more wis is only a small amount of mr)
Druid - 1 more wis (int wont get maxed anyways but it will be higher because you are not putting stats into the extra str agi and end that elf has)




EDIT: looks like a few posts went in before mine. Yes I think proposal 8 looks the best so far and elves still seem useful and by far the best bards and balance rangers. They are still good casters imo but gnome might have a very slight edge in that depending on how the fizzle rate shakes out. With that extra less fizzle i think elf also seems to be a standout cleric. missing a aid in the middle of battle is a big deal.

[Folder]

#8 is tweaked a little better. I think both 7 and 8 could work but Lat's points are fair.

About dwarves, shit. The problem here is they are already the tankiest race, they just don't need buffs to that. I do think a -1 end hit is fair (and I play a dwarf cav before any of you say I'm not being fair here). My opinion here is that they are already strong enough and even with the -1 end they will still be the tankiest, well, anything. Nothing competes with natural AC, high WIS, and high HP. Their only downside is 19 AGI, but to be honest I don't think that offsets everything else too badly.

Definitely think we're close to a workable solution here.

[Eld]

I dislike adding +1 end to lots of races, if we can get away with some sorta formula tweak that would be better than changing stats.

any stat changes will lead to grief, any formula changes would be a lot smoother potentially.

I can see what you're saying that changing it to the proposed amount would benefit saurians, but is there not some clever trickery we could do with the formula to make sure 19+ end races dont get a boost, but 17-18 end races do?


I'm also finding it interesting that Folder noted 2.5% per agi point was tried before and it didnt work, is 2.25% not a better fit?


I'm not sure how the extra allocation points would work out but this would need closely looking at before implementing to make sure it doesnt throw off the balance

I can redo my spreadsheet from one of the early pages if it helps

[Lateralus]

I dislike adding +1 end to lots of races, if we can get away with some sorta formula tweak that would be better than changing stats.

any stat changes will lead to grief, any formula changes would be a lot smoother potentially.

I can see what you're saying that changing it to the proposed amount would benefit saurians, but is there not some clever trickery we could do with the formula to make sure 19+ end races dont get a boost, but 17-18 end races do?


I'm also finding it interesting that Folder noted 2.5% per agi point was tried before and it didnt work, is 2.25% not a better fit?


I'm not sure how the extra allocation points would work out but this would need closely looking at before implementing to make sure it doesnt throw off the balance

I can redo my spreadsheet from one of the early pages if it helps

I had suggested before but maybe taking away 1 end point from saurian and drakeblood instead of adding end to half the classes.

Saurian before was 1020 with 1 less end point they would be at 1000
Drake before was at 1080 with 1 less end point they would be at 1050

So not a huge change however with the agi gain they are getting I would argue they are still better than before with slightly less end.

If we went with that I still think the 2.5% would be fine since they are losing a bit of hp.

The HP landscape would look like this with suggested changes:
17: 950 - Gnome
18: 1000 - Elf, Halfling (+1 added), Saurian (-1)
19: 1050 - HElf, DElf (+1), Drake (-1)
20: 1100 - Human, Goblin, Elemental
21
22: 1200 - hOrc, Dwarf (-1)


Highlights
The range would be about 160 more narrow with changes above
Gnome +50
Elf +40
Halfling +100
Saurian -20
Helf + 30
Delf +90
Drake -30
Human+20
Goblin +20
Elemental +20
Orc - Same
Dwarf -60

Again these are just the hp changes but as you can see it narrows the range and gives some of the balance classes a bit more durability and only slightly changes the power classes (dwarf seeing the biggest drop but they gain a str so its really not to bad).


Note: Most of my characters are Saurian and Drakeblood so im not trying to hurt others. Losing 20ish hp isnt a big deal since hit rate is going up. I would however keep their stat pool the same (they are losing an end so should be able to max out wis).

[Dan]

Proposal 7 is good.

I would change:

- remove the 2 allocation from all races but human, just 1 is enough.

- Take away +1 end from humans and give them 2 alloc points. That would make them interesting.

- 10% mr for gobs should be enough.

- Dont take all mr bonus from dwarves.