Ideas on how to fix melee damage:

[Selveem]

This is so as not to derail another legitimate thread: http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtop ... c&start=20

It has been found that while spell damage has been increased 2.5x normal damage to match FK's standard HP (which is 2.5x the amount in D&D), melee damage remains unchanged.

There are numerous justifications for this that I can see. The primary being that mobs would probably own lower level characters.

I would, however, like to hear some suggestions as to how to fix this.

The are only a few things I can come up with to correct this issue:

One would be to add other classes: "Commoner," "Adept," and the like from the DM Handbook for use on mobs. These classes would not get the automatic +2.5x damage to physical melee attacks where all the other classes would.

Another would be through the use of weapons, but that makes me shudder. There would have to be special weapons for mobs that make them all do 2.5x less damage. It's too much a pain for the builders IMO and it makes the weapons gained through defeating a mob worthless for PC use.

The last idea I can come up with is to scale back HP to D&D 3.5/3.0 edition standards and remove the 2.5x modifier on spell damage. This, actually is the cleanest method, but it would also require a good portion of work: lowering innate regen rates in the MUD, possibly changing items that give "fast healing," and would probably require every spell to be touched. Not to mention, this will probably make playing a new character very hard. You gain 2.5 hp less and think about a poor level 1 wizard? LOL, 2 HP/level? A dagger would indeed murder them with a 1d4 attack damage.

Surely I'm overlooking some more simple/easier to implement ideas that I know you all have?

[Velius]

I liked the idea you came up with on the other thread with bringing enhanced damage back.

As Kregor brought up, melee attacks don't scale like spells do. You get better and better with the spells you use, and how good you are with the spells scales with how good the mobs you face are. With warriors(thieves?) You get one weapon, and your damage stays the same all the way from level 1 to level 50 (If you didn't invest in your STR stat).

If we were to find out a way to make melee attacks scale like spells do, problem fixed. That is why I think that enhanced damage would be a good idea. Also, in my opinion, the skill should be given to you once you join your guild, and cannot be trained. It should be like trades, you get the skill, its up to you to train it.

Sorry if this derails the thread, but would changing how melee damage works 'fix' the fighters (AKA should it be Fighter only?), or should the bonuses be for all melee fighters?

[Selveem]

Would changing how melee damage works 'fix' the fighters (AKA should it be Fighter only?), or should the bonuses be for all melee fighters?

All melee is afflicted by this. I think rogues may not be, as much, because daggers only do 1d4 anyhow and sneak attack most likely already has a special multiplier.

I really can't answer this, though. If you truly wanted to be fair about it, the 'enhanced damage' should be for all melee classes.

I had actually forgotten about that idea. Thanks for reminding me.

[Solaghar]

Spells have not been increased in their damage by 2.5 times. That is just incorrect. While some spells have had their damage adjusted somewhat, there is no across the board multiplier which has been added to spells, and the majority of spells do something very much close to what their D20 spells do. Because of the single-round nature of the spells which we use, some spells like fog-based attacks and others do all of their damage at once rather than spread out over several rounds in D20 so it makes them seem more powerful. But the majority of spells do damage within 10% of their D20 standard, and a few do more along the lines of 33% more damage, but none do anywhere near 250% of their damage.

Another thing to be clear on is that even when a spell could conceivably do 33% more damage than its D20 counterpart, here we have skill levels for spells, which means that the damage you do is based on your effective caster level (1-25 on the scale of inept to GM for a spell) and hence, most people aren't getting the maximum possible damage on these spells by any means. As Elenthis said in another thread he has 1500 hours and only one spell GMed, I have a few spellcasters myself with a few hours between them, and none of them have spells beyond adept.

[Kregor]

Yes, mathematically speaking:

Since most damage dice are rolled as a series of multiple dice, you have to figure the *average* roll of a set of dice, not the maximum result of the dice. Anytime you roll 5d6, 7d6, or any number multiple of a die, you get an average result, this average result is far less disparate than comparing the maximum potential results of any given dice roll.

And furthermore....

I did NOT state in the other thread the fact that melee damage does not scale, as a FLAW in the system! My point was that it is the DESIGN of the system for it to be that way. It is the design that you rely more heavily on the melee fighters of the party in the earlier levels of your career, and rely on the damage dealing spells of the casters in the end. It is the design that fighters are considered, perhaps more "mortal" at the height of their career, than a caster is.

For those who read Forgotten Realms, imagine placing Bruenor, or Drizzt, or Artemis, any of them master warriors at the peak of their careers, up against Elminster, or Blackstaff, and ask yourself who you think would win hands down. Also ask yourself: does it really MATTER to the hero quality of Drizzt, or the anti-hero quality of Artemis, that Elmister could lift a finger at either one of them and pretty much reduce them to nuked knockwurst? NO! Because it's not your ability to kick arse that makes you a hero in a real fantasy setting... no matter what other games like World of Warcrap might be trying to push into the mindset of gamers now. It's a group game, if you're a lone wolf, you're meant to be weaker in this type of setting.

We don't need to go sticking non-D20 skills like enhanced damage, that was already axed once, back onto a brand new combat system that is, for the most part, working quite much as it's designed, coming from the testing of the coding team.

Wait for new feats, wait for the area revisions and updates to old equipment, and the introduction of new equipment that is designed to *work* with the d20 combat system. Please PLEASE let's not start thinking up re-kitted patchwork "skills" to cobble onto a combat mechanic that's proved itself workable for the last 8 years, instead of just waiting for the whole roll out to be complete!

[Selveem]

I'm sorry. I was making this post based on your response to the thread I linked above:

Spells ultimately can reach 2.5x the damage potential of their D20 book counterparts

Melee damage, however, does not scale. Your longsword does 1d8 damage, whether you're first level, 10th level, or 50th level. That's the design of the game, weapons can't just "get better".

This would do about the same percentage damage to a like level opponent, as a 20th level D&D caster would do against a like leveled D&D opponent.

So, basically perhaps I'm not being specific enough. The dice are multiplied by 2.5. This could just as well be applied to melee, right? What you're talking about is range. If you take a spell that is 6d6 and multiply the results by 2.5 is no different than 15d6.

15d6 Range:
15 (15 rolls of ones) to 90 (15 rolls of sixes)

6d6 then multiplied by 2.5 Range:
15 (6 rolls of ones, then multiplied by 2.5) to 90 (6 rolls of sixes, then multiplied by 2.5)

I'm probably wrong here (I'm not exceptional at math), but those are the results I get. I don't expect you to have to teach me math, but could you please explain (if I am wrong) why I am?



As to Solaghar, I did my own test with magic missile. The result I got was 4% damage on a level 50 fighter. That's about the same amount as one would get as a level 20 wizard casting on a level 20 fighter in D&D.

If the spell only did +33% of what it would do in D&D versus a fighter, it would have done less, right? Unless the fighter I tested it on just has bad hp..

Here's the math that I get on my original test:

Let's say a fighter gets 25 hp/level + 10 for con bonus (4 con bonusx2.5) multiplied by 50 levels: 1750 hp maximum.

Magic missile does 1d4+1 hp damage per missile. Should only get a maximum of five. Modify that to FK standards: Maximum damage is 10+2.5. Let's say 13 to keep it in perspective. 13 damage times five is 65 damage. You cast that on a warrior once and his hp shouldn't lose more than 3.71 percent.

If you modify that and keep the same conditions, here's what I think you would get based on your maximum (+33%) bonus:

4 (maximum damage on a magic missile)+1 = 5
5 missiles of maximum damage = 25
25*.33=8.25, let's say 9 to round.
25+9 = 34 (significantly less than 65)

34 damage would be the maximum. The maximum HP of that fighter would still be 1750. 34 damage is 1.94% (rounded) of 1750.

So, if a spell can't critical on FK, it should be impossible to do 4% on a fighter with a GM magic missile. Right? :/

[Selveem]

Hm, another way to change this would be to be "given" a feat upon entering a guild. But that would leave warriors, rogues, and wizards (pre-guild) out. I don't know how that would work with priests.. Or, even if it would. As far as I know, Priests are just priests. They don't get a guild. Maybe after they join a faith is what grants the feat to them?

That feat wouldn't automatically grant +2.5x damage to melee, but could enable a slow scale based on level.. Like each level gives 0.05x more damage? Level 1 would start with +0.05x more damage if they managed to somehow be guilded. I dunno. Just thinking aloud.

[Kregor]

As to Solaghar, I did my own test with magic missile. The result I got was 4% damage on a level 50 fighter. That's about the same amount as one would get as a level 20 wizard casting on a level 20 fighter in D&D.

If the spell only did +33% of what it would do in D&D versus a fighter, it would have done less, right? Unless the fighter I tested it on just has bad hp..

Here's the math that I get on my original test:
<snip>

There is a maxim in code testing: It has to be controlled, consistent, systematic, and you have to have all the data produced to properly analyze the results (hitpoints of the target, dice rolls, actual caster level of the spell based on both skill level and character level, etc). Casting from PC to PC on the game port, is none of the above.

Had you had access to the data, you would have seen that the one spell you use to illustrate how much more powerful FK spells are than their d20 counterpart, actually diverges NONE from the d20 book value of the spell, save that the level you get your additional missiles has been stretched out, so you have to reach a higher level to get them.

both spells have a maximum of 5 missiles, at 1d4+1 dice of damage apiece. So the difference in the amount of damage done on FK versus D&D is zero.

So, chances are, your fighter partner doesn't have near as many hit points as you might imagine. Without the numbers, you can't say.

That said, perhaps we need to quit trying to prove how much more powerful said spells are, and how much balance we need against them, when we don't really know the numbers behind it all, and quit trying to make something out of the one number those outside the code do have... this ominous, looming 2.5 shouldn't have ever made its way out of coding team discussion in the first place... and certainly doesn't mean as much as some want to make it mean, when all the numbers are laid out.

[Selveem]

I removed my post.

I need to think about it a little more.

I just want to see things made for the better, not exchange glancing blows.

Kregor, I apologize to you and to any of the staff I've been annoying lately. You know me and my crusades.

Please inform me if there's anything I can do to help move this process along. I'd rather help than take time away from the staff, demoralize the staff, or worse: the players as a whole.

[Hrosskell]

I hate to argue, but sometimes it just falls on me to do so.

The argument is, lately, that this is a group game and no
one class should stand alone and all classes should rely on
each other. Well, the fact of the matter is, that is increasingly
not the case. More and more, fighters are becoming less capable
of standing alone - but more importantly, they are becoming
less valuable to the very groups themselves. That's what the
whole brainstorm was about - how to make fighters unique
and more important to groups; also, there has been a lot of
argument about wizards being essential in groups, and yes,
they are in most cases - but it's not just that. They are preferred,
they are capable, and ultimately, the cards are stacked in their
favor. With ideas ranging from how to make them MORE powerful,
more consistent, and more efficient, no one stops and says:
They don't need a group anymore, and no one targets them
in saying that. They can do everything everyone says we shouldn't
think about when discussing making fighters better. They CAN stand
up in PvP, and do, and will, forever. They CAN solo everything.
They CAN make up groups, with or without fighters, and honestly,
they have more access to more enjoyable things than fighters do.

Why exactly isn't anyone saying this about wizards, when it is
said about fighters? Why, exactly, isn't this game about balance
between the classes, when everyone can just be a wizard and
not care? I mean, it DOES have a lot to do with EVERYTHING
if fighters CAN'T do things outside of PvP (which they can't do
well now) and one class can.

[Elenthis]

I once played a character named lukian who PWNED house. I know play a character named Elenthis who can sometimes PWN house too, but one thing will ALWAYS be the same in pvp, pve ect:

In a game this complex, with so many skills, spells, and combonations thereof, low HP means a huge risk.

To explain...

Bob the fighter goes in to a situation where he's outnumbered, and on the verge of outclassed. In the end, Bob wins with 20% HP. it was a tough fight, but his defencability and steady damage output saw him through.

However this situation changes weather fighting casting mobs, mele mobs ect, this will generally be the outcome. Now...for wizards:

Bob the wizard goes into the same situation. He's facing non-spell casters. He either manages to keep his defences up and comes out unharmed, OR he failes to keep some of those cruicial spells up and dies. Theres very rarely an inbetween.

Same situation, except he comes across casters. Now we could be in real trouble. Spells ignore MANY of a wizard's defences, and sometimes strip them entirely. Then its 20 hitpoints and we've got another corpse.

In short, All I'm saying is that the beefy fighter vs. the paper-thin wizard who happens to use nuclear weapons will never be a debate that comes out with a perfect balance. Apples and oranges.

[Selveem]

Elenthis and Hrosskell,

While this post may be about bringing a better balance between classes, the primary purpose is to bring us closer to d20 damage reflection in melee combat where it already seems to be apparent in spells.

Also, Elenthis, your example, (while I understand the purpose), is not in my mind a good one.

There is a flee option. Wizards also, unless restricted via a specific school, can almost completely (or completely) heal themselves with a single Vampiric Touch.

I would go as far as to say a fighter in the predicament that you described on this MUD would also die faster due to the lack of resistance gear/damage reduction on FK. They can't heal themselves in any sort of way. They can't deal damage fast enough to kill the mobs before they get off all those uber spells like a wizard can. Further, since mobs have GM concentration, they cannot even disrupt those spells.

A wizard who is fighting other wizards or warriors or whatever who allows their protective spells to fall off while they're out alone deserves to die. It's just damned irresponsible. But what's four (or even more) spells when you can cast 80+ at level 50?

All this thread is about is melee damage. Nothing more. The above posts indicate as to why I felt it should be discussed (the lack of reflection that melee has on the d20 system).

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to manage it, they're more than welcome.