Question: Why was Elaborate Parry changed?

[mrm3ntalist]

Completely ignoring the difference between AB and damage on these three builds is an interesting decision. The builds themselves are ones nobody would likely play (a dex/int duelist without swash for instance), so that's another interesting decision.

Other than the fact that these "stats" are tailored made to support a point and fictional, one does not have to go very deep into this. Everyone knows that Elaborate Parry is OP and try to incorporate it into their builds, disregarding anything else that the duelist PRC has to offer. For Example a barbarian20/duelist10 is a big thing now just because of the elaborate parry. Finally most 10level prcs give about +3AC. Anything more than and will be too powerful. For the duelist PRC especially that can get a ton of AC Already with canny defense.

Instead of creating a powerbuilding monster, see if the duelist builds lack of something. And they do lack a bit on the AB department especially if they dont multiclass with fighter. Instead of doing silly things like giving them +10AC, the duelist can reduce the AB penalty of fighting defensively by 1 every 3 levels.

[artemitavik]

Honestly we could go around on this (and have) for days on end. However, simple truth remains:

If the nerf is set to reduce the amount of heavy armor/towershield dips into Duelist to take advantage of THAT specific feat, then the nerf is taking the wrong side. It would be better suited to bring it in line with the light/no armor theme of the duelist rather than reduce its effectiveness. That would 100% eliminate the heavy armor wearers dipping in just to get some free AC, much like the change of Evasion some years ago from "whatever people were wearing" to "light and no armor", it quickly had the desired results of people in platemail not being able to dodge fireballs. Those who wanted it (like myself) adapted their builds from plate to something else. Life continued, fun was had.

If the nerf is to reduce the effectiveness of the feat overall for everyone because it's just OP so meh, then that should be the stated reason, not the discussed "we don't want dips just for this feat with heavy armor" reasoning. in that case, I still think it should be themed to light/no armor with the line of other Duelist feats.

How it is being reduced now does not hurt the heavy "dippers" as much as actual thematic duelists, and it does not solve the issue of dipping because while it's a reduced AC bonus, it's still a free AC bonus for those heavy fighters that it's been stated are taking advantage of the situation.

So, what is it that is trying to be accomplished?
1) an overall Nerf because OP, and we don't care who takes advantage of the Duelist feats?
2) a discouragement of heavy fighters taking Duelist for basically free AC while just ignoring the rest of the class because of heavy armor and weapons?
3) a combination of nerfing because OP and wanting heavy fighter dips to be discouraged?
4) something else?

[Ewe]

Basically, the game would be better off this way. Theoretical yardstick builds looking at AC in a vacuum isn’t convincing that a prc package isn’t over budget.

I think the question was asked and answered and we should move on now. Thank you.

[zhazz]

Basically, the game would be better off this way. Theoretical yardstick builds looking at AC in a vacuum isn’t convincing that a prc package isn’t over budget.

I think the question was asked and answered and we should move on now. Thank you.

What's the reasoning behind the game being better off this way?

What we've been told so far is that it's to lessen the cheesing of "free" AC on armored builds. Yet even when building purely for as high AC as possible with Duelist, it is still below the other high AC builds.

I'm happy, well not happy, but I'll provide actual builds that detail damage, attack bonuses, saves, skills, etc, if that's what's needed to showcase what I hoped others would extrapolate from the showcased builds.

Because I'm of the opinion that, warranted nerf to Duelist AC or not, the current solution hurts unarmored Duelists more than it does the armored Duelists, which can already have higher AC for less/equal investment.

[Ewe]

If you're so keen on designing then join the design team. Quite frankly, having to write up entire dissertations to defend every game design choice is a waste of resources and time. Rhifox already gave plenty of insight into the decision earlier in this thread.

[mrm3ntalist]

If you're so keen on designing then join the design team. Quite frankly, having to write up entire dissertations to defend every game design choice is a waste of resources and time. Rhifox already gave plenty of insight into the decision earlier in this thread.

To be fair, this is a designer changing a designers change. If you want to talk about resources and time, you might as well rethink the players' resources and time, when a feat that was changed on July is being changed again on November. Rethink it and find a balance.

[Ewe]

This is how all video gaming is. Patches come out and change things. It's not something new bgtscc invented. No game is perfect at conception. I think expectations are too high here. We're a small hobbyist group. Not even AAA companies would be expected to explain themselves on every game change in the level of detail you guys are asking.

[artemitavik]

Basically, the game would be better off this way. Theoretical yardstick builds looking at AC in a vacuum isn’t convincing that a prc package isn’t over budget.

I think the question was asked and answered and we should move on now. Thank you.

To my understanding the reasoning was to discourage non-thematic duelist PRC dips for free AC boost.

It has not done this. It has proportionately damaged thematic duelist builds more than the non-thematic dips and not really discouraged the non-thematic dips that much.

If that was not the goal, then please correct the misunderstanding, which was the purpose of my prior post. That is the position many are approaching from upon reviewing the change.

[mrm3ntalist]

This is how all video gaming is. Patches come out and change things. It's not something new bgtscc invented. No game is perfect at conception. I think expectations are too high here. We're a small hobbyist group. Not even AAA companies would be expected to explain themselves on every game change in the level of detail you guys are asking.

You make it sound as if BGTSCC was implemented yesterday. It has been going on for almost two decades. As for expectations, that depends on the type of game. Visit dota2, Star citizen, Elite dangerous and see the amount of explaining being done in order to maintain the players' interest and support.

[Ewe]

It was changed because it was too powerful for a PRC feature. I don't believe the intent is to guide players to build in any specific way, feel free to build as your heart desires.

[Ewe]

I'm tired of the accusatory tone and thinly veiled statements saying that volunteers that run the game don't know what they are doing. This doesn't foster a good community. The question was asked, Rhifox answered it multiple times over with very long posts and yet it's still not good enough and you guys keep hammering more and more. At a certain point, yes, it becomes a waste of time.

[mrm3ntalist]

I'm tired of the accusatory tone and thinly veiled statements saying that volunteers that run the game don't know what they are doing. This doesn't foster a good community. The question was asked, Rhifox answered it multiple times over with very long posts and yet it's still not good enough and you guys keep hammering more and more. At a certain point, yes, it becomes a waste of time.

There is a simple solution to this. You can ban accusatory people like me and tell them(me) that this behavior is not acceptable. So that both can do what they think is right - you keep making the decisions you are making, and I (for example) find another server that want people like me

[zhazz]

We've gone from getting an explanation as to why the change was warranted in the first place (thank you for that Rhifox by the way) to now providing feedback on the actual impact of the change — for both the intended target, and those caught in the crossfire.

I am not questioning the teams ability to make the change. Apologies if that's what you think, but I'm not. What I'm questioning is the actual outcome of the change, versus the intended outcome.

Staff on BG is quite a small group, and while staff does know a lot, they don't necessarily know everything. Nor have first-hand experience with the parts of the game impacted by changes. Even the big gaming companies with a hundred or more developers, and a dozen paid testers quite often miss the mark, and revert after feedback from the players.

So I'll amend the original question here:

Elaborate Parry was changed to avoid armored builds taking advantage of the big boost to AC. That much is understood, agreed with, and accepted. Unarmored Duelist builds, however, have now lost AC they needed.

Was this also the intent?
Is anything planned to mitigate the impact to unarmored Duelists?


We're asking for communication, and providing feedback. Please provide answers, and keep communication open.

[Young Werther]

Frankly, it is supposed to be that duelists are the best at 1v1 fighting - that's the point of the class, so everyone wanting duelist for their pvp builds, or being mad that their opponent has duelist in their pvp build (because we all know pvp is what this is really about).

They do pretty good not 1v1 too with uncanny dodge

Here you go:

Swashbuckler Dodge
A swashbuckler is trained at focusing her defense on a single opponent in melee. She gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks from her current target or last attacker. This bonus increases by +1 at every five levels after 5th (+2 at 10th level, +3 at 15th, +4 at 20th, +5 at 25th, and +6 at 30th). A swashbuckler loses this bonus when wearing medium or heavy armor or when encumbered.

[artemitavik]

I still think that it should be light armor/non-tower shield only to limit the heavy armor dips regardless, but... that's me.