PDA

View Full Version : Please remove 50% SP penalty from Combat Expertise



sephiroth1084
01-27-2012, 07:18 PM
[EDIT] Mistyped title: the penalty is +100% (double SP).

I've had a thread up about this on the regular forums since that change was introduced.

The proposed 50% casting penalty on Madstone Boots reminded me of this.

The thread is here: http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=310529

TL;DR : The penalty severely penalizes paladins in general, and rangers who forget to turn off CE before buffing, while having almost zero effect on anyone else, because AC is largely irrelevant for wizards, sorcerers, bards, favored souls, clerics and artificers--they are all powering their way through the game without using AC. The feat already carried penalties with it in the form of requiring build points put into Intelligence and spending one of a character's few feats on +5 AC. I don't see any wizards, sorcerers, artificers, bards, or favored souls running around the game now, and +5 AC isn't going to suddenly revolutionize building casters. There's no penalty tied to the monk's Wis to AC, which grants a much bigger bonus and is the reason for AC-based clerics.

Please stop unnecessarily penalizing paladins and rangers that want to use their SP and have AC.

NaturalHazard
01-27-2012, 07:23 PM
/signed


anyway I think its official the devs *hate* paladins and rangers now.

BruceTheHoon
01-27-2012, 07:31 PM
I agree.

AylinIsAwesome
01-27-2012, 07:31 PM
I'll sign this too.

/signed

FooWonk
01-27-2012, 07:52 PM
/signed


But because casting should cause the caster to lose defensive or combat expertise stance.


If folks want to cast while in a combat stance,
consider adding that ability to the combat casting feat.

AylinIsAwesome
01-27-2012, 08:28 PM
/signed


But because casting should cause the caster to lose defensive or combat expertise stance.


If folks want to cast while in a combat stance,
consider adding that ability to the combat casting feat.

Right, because everyone knows that Paladins and Rangers definitely have the feats to spare...

Enoach
01-27-2012, 08:41 PM
CE originally had a "Leave Stance On Cast"

This lose of stance occurred for Clickie/Scroll/Spell. And honestly became annoying to use spells like Prayer, just to have to enter stance again.

As a Long time paladin I welcomed the change from Auto Leave Stance to +50% to casting cost.

/not signed

Aaxeyu
01-27-2012, 08:47 PM
CE originally had a "Leave Stance On Cast"

This lose of stance occurred for Clickie/Scroll/Spell. And honestly became annoying to use spells like Prayer, just to have to enter stance again.

As a Long time paladin I welcomed the change from Auto Leave Stance to +50% to casting cost.

/not signed

No one is asking for it to change back...
Do you have any arguments for keeping the +50% sp cost except "it used to be worse"?

Enoach
01-27-2012, 08:53 PM
My point was, a trade-off makes sense. A choice so to speak. The extra 50% does not cause an undo burden.

FooWonk mentioned that casting in stance should cause one to lose stance.

Maybe we should stop looking for how to make things easy and how to make something better. Changing CE does not make that kind of contribution in my mind.

Aaxeyu
01-27-2012, 08:57 PM
My point was, a trade-off makes sense. A choice so to speak. The extra 50% does not cause an undo burden.

FooWonk mentioned that casting in stance should cause one to lose stance.

Maybe we should stop looking for how to make things easy and how to make something better. Changing CE does not make that kind of contribution in my mind.

There is a huge trade off already, you can't use power attack, you need 13 int and it costs a feat.
Did you even read the thread linked in the OP?

Changing CE does make the game better. Read the thread the OP linked so you can atleast understand the problems.

Alexandryte
01-28-2012, 12:12 AM
There is a huge trade off already, you can't use power attack, you need 13 int and it costs a feat.
Did you even read the thread linked in the OP?

Changing CE does make the game better. Read the thread the OP linked so you can atleast understand the problems.

So your reasoning why the 50% penalty is bad is because it blocks using an offensive stance? A stance that also requires 13 of a stat and also costs a feat?

The OP rehashed exactly what he said here in this thread.

There might be a penalty on PA for casters if the actual bonus from the stance meant anything to them. +to melee damage however, does not mean squat to casters [typically].

+AC does when the only penalty is that of -to hit....which doesn't affect casters in the least since they dont require any level of +to hit from BAB or other bonuses to hit with their spells. Casters, by and large, rely on enhancements, stats, and special buffs that only increase DC of spells.

If save-less spells didn't exist -5 to all DC's might be appropriate. Sadly, that is not the case.

50% extra cost is an appropriate catch all penalty to casters, just as -5 to hit is for melees. Don't like the penalty? Disable the feat like it did before. Don't care too much about the penalty? Cast to your hearts content.

AylinIsAwesome
01-28-2012, 01:29 AM
So your reasoning why the 50% penalty is bad is because it blocks using an offensive stance? A stance that also requires 13 of a stat and also costs a feat?

The OP rehashed exactly what he said here in this thread.

There might be a penalty on PA for casters if the actual bonus from the stance meant anything to them. +to melee damage however, does not mean squat to casters [typically].

+AC does when the only penalty is that of -to hit....which doesn't affect casters in the least since they dont require any level of +to hit from BAB or other bonuses to hit with their spells. Casters, by and large, rely on enhancements, stats, and special buffs that only increase DC of spells.

If save-less spells didn't exist -5 to all DC's might be appropriate. Sadly, that is not the case.

50% extra cost is an appropriate catch all penalty to casters, just as -5 to hit is for melees. Don't like the penalty? Disable the feat like it did before. Don't care too much about the penalty? Cast to your hearts content.

So you're arguing that AC Paladins and Rangers should suffer because if not some wizard could take CE and just stay in stance all day?

Never mind the fact that getting the required AC on a Wizard is next to impossible (and if they did, where would all their caster items go?), and that it costs them a feat to stand in that stance.

budalic
01-28-2012, 02:03 AM
50% extra cost is an appropriate catch all penalty to casters, just as -5 to hit is for melees. Don't like the penalty? Disable the feat like it did before. Don't care too much about the penalty? Cast to your hearts content.

Thing is -5 penalty isn't big for melees. It's more like like 5-10% extra sp cost for casters, not 50%.

Alexandryte
01-28-2012, 05:08 AM
So you're arguing that AC Paladins and Rangers should suffer because if not some wizard could take CE and just stay in stance all day?

Never mind the fact that getting the required AC on a Wizard is next to impossible (and if they did, where would all their caster items go?), and that it costs them a feat to stand in that stance.

Keep in mind Druids are on their way, who have access to both divine and arcane style spells. If AC gets rebalanced to be useful to everyone on some level, better to leave a penalty to the stance than to change it and then be forced to renerf it and deal with the public outcry.

What spells are you casting so much while in direct physical combat that the 50% bothers you so? Is it a healing spell?



Thing is -5 penalty isn't big for melees. It's more like like 5-10% extra sp cost for casters, not 50%.

-5 may not be that big for str based melees or in the presence of buffs, however, it can certainly sting for dex based characters. If they truly wanted parity across both dex and strength they could make it so any roll between 1-5 automatically misses, but then no one would take the feat then, as the cost wouldn't justify it.

Overall, its a difficult thing to balance as new items with new effects and new buffs from new PrEs come into play. Turbine seems to be playing it safe by having the minor inconvenience for those who accidentally decide to cast with the stance active and punish those who try and ignore the penalty.





That and I haven't heard a decent proposal that takes care of all the edge cases within the means that Turbine has available. Dev time is precious and to try and fix something like CE for some minor inconvenience, where the time [put in] doesn't justify the end, doesn't strike me as effective.

I'm not against the idea of change, however I am against the idea of just dropping a penalty which exists for a purpose (and replaces a similar effect from the past) for the sole reason that you don't like it.


Come up with good alternatives so we can pit them against the minds of all forumites and devs.

lppmor
01-28-2012, 05:13 AM
I don't play paladins nor rangers, only play wizards, and like the OP said I will not use Combat Expertise on my wiz even if the sp penalty is removed because I don't care with ac. So I think my opinion is unbiased here.

I understand CE has to penalize both melee and spell casting, but some classes really suffer much more than others, as the OP stated. A fighter would suffer only the melee penalty, a wizard would suffer only the sp penalty, but I agree paladins and rangers suffer from both penalties, and that's not nice.

One idea would be making the 50% sp penalty only apply to offensive spells, so that melee spell casters would don't suffer both parts of the penalty as they do now.

Aaxeyu
01-28-2012, 05:21 AM
So your reasoning why the 50% penalty is bad is because it blocks using an offensive stance? A stance that also requires 13 of a stat and also costs a feat?

The OP rehashed exactly what he said here in this thread.

There might be a penalty on PA for casters if the actual bonus from the stance meant anything to them. +to melee damage however, does not mean squat to casters [typically].

+AC does when the only penalty is that of -to hit....which doesn't affect casters in the least since they dont require any level of +to hit from BAB or other bonuses to hit with their spells. Casters, by and large, rely on enhancements, stats, and special buffs that only increase DC of spells.

If save-less spells didn't exist -5 to all DC's might be appropriate. Sadly, that is not the case.

50% extra cost is an appropriate catch all penalty to casters, just as -5 to hit is for melees. Don't like the penalty? Disable the feat like it did before. Don't care too much about the penalty? Cast to your hearts content.

+5 Ac is irrelevant to casters.
+50% cost is huge for paladins and rangers. Why should they suffer both -5 tohit and +50% cost?

Anyways, the solution I proposed handles all your worries that casters will get some free AC (which makes me wonder what game you are playing):
From the other thread:
"Another solution is to exempt ranger and paladin spells from the SP cost penalty."

Absolute-Omniscience
01-28-2012, 05:22 AM
So your reasoning why the 50% penalty is bad is because it blocks using an offensive stance? A stance that also requires 13 of a stat and also costs a feat?


To put it this way. Even if it didn't give -5 to hit, and even if it didn't cost a feat, and even if it didn't have a 50% penalty on SP costs, it'd still be a very poor feat to take.
Is that argument good enough?

Unless they buff AC, CE will always be a subpar feat for anyone besides those who are *really* dedicated to AC, (think those who don't cast spells anyways).

Oh, noes. A wizard can waste a feat on it and get 40 ac instead of 35! The imbalance!

sephiroth1084
01-28-2012, 06:02 AM
Keep in mind Druids are on their way, who have access to both divine and arcane style spells. If AC gets rebalanced to be useful to everyone on some level, better to leave a penalty to the stance than to change it and then be forced to renerf it and deal with the public outcry.

What spells are you casting so much while in direct physical combat that the 50% bothers you so? Is it a healing spell?


Paladins have to recast their buffs frequently and most carry either Extend or Quicken.
Zeal costs 35 SP with a metamagic up. With CE on, it costs 70. That's typically fewer than 10 castings of Zeal, without even considering all the other buffing a paladin is probably doing.

Many choose to take some combination of Empower Healing, Maximize and Quicken for reasonable self-healing.
CSW costs 60 SP when Maximized and Quickened, or 120 when CE is active.
CE is more expensive than MAXIMIZE. Casters aren't OP being able to double the damage of their spells, at least not in the sense that it needs nerfing, and yet costs much less than CE does, which adds 5 AC that cannot be utilized by anyone that doesn't HEAVILY invest in AC. Sorry, but that's not balance.

If it's a huge concern (it shouldn't be) make it cost an extra 10 SP.
Even that, though, is excessive.

If you look at AC builds, you need a lot more than just CE to be effective. All of that is an additional cost on top of the feat cost for Combat Expertise. It doesn't need balancing. We aren't going to see a wash of AC-based casters if CE didn't have a penalty, because meaningful AC for non-elite/epic content is achievable without CE, and we don't see casters being built in that fashion. There are a relatively small number of cleric/monk 2 builds, and an even smaller number that bother with AC at all. Simply giving them CE isn't going to change them from having trash-capable AC and having boss-capable AC.

KillEveryone
01-28-2012, 07:34 AM
I'd like to see AC fixed first.

Once that is done, we'll be able to see what kind of builds and gear set ups come along and if CE is used more or less.

If AC gets fixed and CE becomes desireable even on a wiz, it may need changed then.

Beethoven
01-28-2012, 07:40 AM
/signed

Why? Because it is not balanced; in addition to what was already said it also makes UMD healing so much a better choice on an AC build (Pally/Ranger) than using their own spells.

The last couple ranger levels add significantly little to the class. It used to be a big deal loose the Paladin capstone but with the gear we have these days they too start get in a position where this holds no longer true. Paladins particularly often invest in Charisma which helps UMD and they get it high enough they could easily circumvent the lack of capstone by using Artificer scrolls.

Also, between GH, Good Luck, Abishai Sets (which includes +7 Charisma if you use the Helm, Spyglass) reaching the benchmark for heal scrolls has become easier with the more gear we are getting. The innate class ability of Paladins and Rangers to heal themselves with spells pales in comparison to just substitute UMD.

* Cure spells costs a finite resource (SP) and a lot (~50 a cast).
* To effectively use cure spells requires a solid amount of AP (Healing Amplification respectively Positive Energy Spell Amplification).
* To effectively use cure spells requires the expenditure of at least one feat (Empower Healing or Maximize)
* Most investments made towards cure spells benefit only those spells
* Cure spells are heavily penalized when used in stance to the extreme you cannot effectively use them with CE on.

- Scrolls use a near infinite resources (cheap and easy to stock up)
- Scrolls may require sacrifice of a gear slot or two (Charisma, Charisma Skills, UMD bonus). However, for many builds this is a non-issue as they will fit that gear anyway (ie: Greensteel for SP, Cha Skills and Wiz VI, Helm of Frost for Abishai Bonus)
- any investments made towards UMD benefits more than just healing (Raise Dead, Buffs, Artificer Scrolls, GH, True Seeing, etc)
- There is no penalty for using Scrolls while in CE stance.

I also never understood why it is harder for a Ranger/Paladin to use something that is part of their class than something that isn't. So, I can stop to dig out a piece of parchment, read and recite the ancient text to invoke words of power and use my superior combat expertise to defend myself. However, using the same expertise to defend myself while making a couple hand-gestures and call upon the aid of my deity to mend my wound is nearly out of question?

So, the way I see it as far as melee / semi-melee classes (since bards technically are the same boat) are concerned it does not make sense game balance-wise or theme-wise. That leaves the actual caster classes.



+AC does when the only penalty is that of -to hit....which doesn't affect casters in the least since they dont require any level of +to hit from BAB or other bonuses to hit with their spells.

It does affect them by using up a feat for something that does virtually nothing for them (a feat that they could have used for Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus in any of their schools or Spell Penetration / Greater Spell Penetration. All of which does affect their spell casting). It's extremely difficult to get a working AC on a Wizard, sorcer, cleric or favored soul (with the exception of low and early mid-level content). What the rule does is it changes using CE on any of those classes from useless (mobs hit them on a 2 whether or no their AC is 30 or 35) to silly (mobs still hit them on a 2 but now all their spells cost twice as much).

Most wizard and sorcerer rely on movement to avoid take damage. There is no penalty for that. Clerics and Favored Souls either rely on movement, Damage Reduction (ie: healing Aura/Word and Shield Block) or any combination of the both. There is no penalty for using (or even hiding behind) a shield while casting. The only (caster) class-combination I could see get a benefit out of it are Clonks (and Monk Favored Souls) as they actually can achieve a working AC for a lot of content. Then again it'd be hardly game changing since going DR instead still would be the superior choice (by purchasing Shield Mastery, investing into Healing Amp and simply standing there using Evasion vs AoE damage and DR vs melee damage with the aura taking care of the rest).

Finally, the developers words on it - back when they made the change they did not state it was for game-balance reasons because casters get too high an AC. From what I recall they justified the rule by saying they want to stick with the theme that spellcasting while using Combat Expertise is more difficult. PnP (DnD core rules) prohibits the casting of spells while using Combat Expertise. They did not want to go that far so they went with the SP penalty instead.

Personally, I still think it made it too prohibitive (mostly for the reasons stated above and the fact you simply can forget to turn off CE before buffing whereas our toons aren't likely to accidentally defend themselves while invoking words of power while standing in an empty room). I am not sure how feasible it'd be from a code perspective but would find a solution like making spell casting slower while using CE (ie: doubling the casting /time/ of spells or adding an additional cool-down timer) much more elegant.

budalic
01-28-2012, 07:49 AM
I think that -5 to-hit would translate to reducing DC by 2 and CL of offensive spells by 4*. Not sure can it be coded not to affect healing spells, though. IMO, healing spells should be affected too, though - leave just buffs unpenalized.

*or more than 4 if it's impossible to code reducing spell level from maximum capped for given spell. Otherwise, there is qute a lot of +to evo CL gear out there that would mitigate it.

AylinIsAwesome
01-28-2012, 08:19 AM
Keep in mind Druids are on their way, who have access to both divine and arcane style spells.

Red Herring.


If AC gets rebalanced to be useful to everyone on some level, better to leave a penalty to the stance than to change it and then be forced to renerf it and deal with the public outcry.

When AC is changed, it's probably going to be so that you don't need 100+ AC to be useful in the endgame; upper 80s or lower 90s will probably be the new benchmark, either that or fullplate AC will be increased a bit to be more on par with pajama AC.

But last I checked arcanes aren't splashing Monk and wearing armoured bracers and Icy Raiments to increase their AC, or wearing fullplate. CE would still be useless to arcanes if they removed the 50% casting penalty.


What spells are you casting so much while in direct physical combat that the 50% bothers you so? Is it a healing spell

Have you ever played a Paladin?

Zeal and Divine Favour need to be constantly rebuffed (~every 2 minutes on a pure 20 Paladin), and that's just the baseline. If the Paladin in question has taken Maximize and Quicken for self-healing (to play into the strengths of the class, instead of just being a lower-AC fighter that needs to constantly rebuff) then CSW and CMW (possible CLW if things go badly) are going to also be cast as well.

So if the tank is an AC tank, then that tank has to decide between getting hit more often (turning off CE), and running out of SP extremely quickly.

That +50% SP cost on top of the INT cost, feat cost, not being able to use PA cost, and -5 BAB cost seem a little excessive yet?

bloodnose13
01-28-2012, 08:29 AM
/signed

turning CE on/off in middle of fight is hard, remembereing to do so even harder.

Viisari
01-28-2012, 08:57 AM
So your reasoning why the 50% penalty is bad is because it blocks using an offensive stance? A stance that also requires 13 of a stat and also costs a feat?

The OP rehashed exactly what he said here in this thread.

There might be a penalty on PA for casters if the actual bonus from the stance meant anything to them. +to melee damage however, does not mean squat to casters [typically].

+AC does when the only penalty is that of -to hit....which doesn't affect casters in the least since they dont require any level of +to hit from BAB or other bonuses to hit with their spells. Casters, by and large, rely on enhancements, stats, and special buffs that only increase DC of spells.

If save-less spells didn't exist -5 to all DC's might be appropriate. Sadly, that is not the case.

50% extra cost is an appropriate catch all penalty to casters, just as -5 to hit is for melees. Don't like the penalty? Disable the feat like it did before. Don't care too much about the penalty? Cast to your hearts content.

This post is an excellent example of someone who has zero knowledge of how well built casters and AC in general function in this game.

Standal
01-28-2012, 09:28 AM
Why does a thread discussing AC tanks mention casters and not fighters? The CE penalty is designed to address the fact that self-healing tanks are significantly better than tanks that don't self-heal.

If you think that clickies and UMD make the casting penalty excessive versus what a fighter can do, please make that argument.

Beethoven
01-28-2012, 10:10 AM
Why does a thread discussing AC tanks mention casters and not fighters? The CE penalty is designed to address the fact that self-healing tanks are significantly better than tanks that don't self-heal.

If you think that clickies and UMD make the casting penalty excessive versus what a fighter can do, please make that argument.

The argument has been made. You'll also find further evidence that most (if not all) end-game tanks invest heavily into healing amplification and UMD instead. The same holds true for rangers builds; most popular builds (ie: exploiter) rely on UMD for self healing.

However, since you mentioned what a fighter can do - the most common build for self-healing fighter tanks are along the line of 18 fighter / 2 rogue. You trade in the capstone for evasion (which in and off itself is not a bad trade). UMD becomes a class skill and from there it really does not need a lot to get no-fail on heal scrolls.

Say:
Charisma 12 +3 (tome) +7 (Helm of Frost) +2 (Yugo Pot) +2 (Ship buff / House D pot when you run out of ship buffs) = 26 (+8)
23 (Ranks) +8 (Cha bonus) +4 (GH) +2 (Good Luck) = 37. UMD on heal scroll is 39. All it'd take is either a Spyglass (+3 UMD), Exceptional Charisma Bonus (+1) and/or fitting a +1 or +2 on a Shroud item (or you could go for the max. Charisma skill bonus on Greensteel which would be +5).

So, your 18/2 tank does not sacrifice anything (as you want Charisma skill bonuses anyway for Intimidate) and for that can self heal using scrolls, raise dead and use scrolls for buffing. Alternatively you could just swap to a UMD item (Titan Gloves, Spyglass, Cartouche) whenever you rely on self healing and switch it out for something else when there is no need to heal yourself).

The only saving grace for the self-healing paladin is Lay on Hands (which is not subject to the CE rule). He'd want to use spells to be as effective as the fighter he'd need to sacrifice AP (Positive Spell Amp), a Feat (Maximize) and an item slot (as he needs SP) and sacrifice 5 AC by turning CE off. That only allows him to heal though where the fighter in this example also can raise dead and buff (including using a selection of Artificer scrolls)

That enough argument for you why scroll healing > spell healing on melee classes? So, yes, I do feel the current rule is overkill and only slants things even further to UMD (which already is extremely powerful).

Aesop
01-28-2012, 03:23 PM
/signed Seph is right the cost is not necessary for balance in any way shape or form. Even if CE was improved in some way that casters would have actual use for it it would not be unbalanced without the SP cost increase.


on the note of improving CE though ...


THF gains a double bonus from PA maybe S&B fighting could gain double bonus from CE

or something like that

Aesop

AylinIsAwesome
01-29-2012, 12:14 AM
/signed Seph is right the cost is not necessary for balance in any way shape or form. Even if CE was improved in some way that casters would have actual use for it it would not be unbalanced without the SP cost increase.


on the note of improving CE though ...


THF gains a double bonus from PA maybe S&B fighting could gain double bonus from CE

or something like that

Aesop

"When using Combat Expertise, you trade up to five of your base attack bonus for up to 5 AC. If you have a shield equipped, you gain twice this bonus."

I like that a lot!

rimble
01-31-2012, 01:01 PM
Paladins, in particular with their bevy of important short duration spells, I would not be opposed to getting a free 'Defensive Casting' Feat at some sufficiently high level...say somewhere between level 8 and 12...that removes the CE casting penalty for Divine spells (if it's possible to be that specific). Perhaps have it require having a shield equipped.

Rangers...eh, I could go either way...their buffs are of a SIGNIFICANTLY longer duration that makes the burden much less painful on them.

Viisari
01-31-2012, 02:02 PM
Just a random thought I had if there's some reason to not to change the feat itself:

Give paladins and rangers an enhancement that's basically Combat Expertice stance but without the penalty to spell costs. It would cost 0 AP and have Combat Expertice as feat requirement.

elraido
01-31-2012, 02:10 PM
I was constantly bringing this up in the madstone thread. Not to many people listened there. Now that they can see how this actually effects a paladin and a ranger, they see how stupid it is. People were saying, oh just give make the item archmagi and it would be good....no it isn't. Most paladins already have a wiz item on the greensteels. Remove the penalty please. It is an antiquated relic of the game looooong ago, get rid of it. If someone can build a caster to hit 80 ac with combat ex....don't penalize them for making it....give them a hug! :p

Viisari
01-31-2012, 02:14 PM
If someone can build a caster to hit 80 ac with combat ex....don't penalize them for making it....give them a hug! :p

Just achieving that already carries a huge penalty to their casting ability because they have to sacrifice most of their gearslots for AC gear and likely some build points in dexterity too.

Habreno
01-31-2012, 02:24 PM
Just achieving that already carries a huge penalty to their casting ability because they have to sacrifice most of their gearslots for AC gear and likely some build points in dexterity too.

Give me an 8th feat on my Elf Cleric and I'd probably take it with a 36-point build. He hits about 60 self buffed alone as he lies now, and is missing 8 AC from gear and that's not including 3 points of AC from ship buffs, 3 extra CE would give him, and that's now 74 AC self buffed. With a decent group, mid-80's is not out of the question.

cforce
01-31-2012, 03:07 PM
Just achieving that already carries a huge penalty to their casting ability because they have to sacrifice most of their gearslots for AC gear and likely some build points in dexterity too.

While I agree casters would have to sacrifice build resources for AC under this proposal, I'll disagree on slots being much of a big deal.

On my Wiz 20, the following makes up my primary casting-ability-related stuff:

Neck: Torc
Weapon: Epic Ornamented Dagger
Goggles: Magewright's Spectacles
Body: Epic Docent of Shadow
No slot taken: Clickies, Clickies, Clickies

Sure, I might occasionally mix some other thing in situationally (Enchantment Focus item, more specific/better lore item), but these are the things I consider "must haves". Sacrificing for AC means very little these days:

Bracers: Dodge bonus +3, +1 (also comes with nice casting states)
Offhand Weapon: Con Opp weapon with Dex+6, Wis+6, Insight+4
Cloak or Trinket: Dodge +2

With the list above, I've still got my helm, either Trinket or Cloak, Belt, Gloves, and Boots, and 2 rings slots still available for "everything else". There's just not much of a squeeze on equipment.

If the spell point restriction *was* lifted on CE, I'd absolutely try out these builds:

FvS 18/Monk 2 (probably with 34- or 36-points) "tank"
Warforged Acid Savant 18/Monk 2 "caster tank" leveraging the AC bonus from AS II.
Pale Monkster PM 18/Monk 2

While the sacrifice for AC would be meaningless in Epics, and hence "gimp" for someone running them a lot, I have a feeling one or more of these builds might really steamroll over the 1-20 content.

grodon9999
01-31-2012, 03:12 PM
For the love of god please get rid of this silly penalty. Just keeping up Divine Favor and Zeal will pillage your SP to almost none throughout the course of a raid.

talyor
01-31-2012, 03:30 PM
Personally as i see CE it is a stance that takes effort and cocentration to maintain so in relationship to spells they shouldnt cost more because a 60 sp spell is a 60sp spell what should happen is that the cool down on spells while CE is active should at the minimum triple that way things like buffs with long durations 2 min or more are unaffected where things like spammable damage spell would loose much of there appeal this unfortunately would have a negative effect on healing spells but over all makes sense to me you cant be in a focused stance and also expect to concentrate on the complex castings of a spell. I would even be ok if healing/repair spells were excempt. still anything is better than burning SP neadlessly.

Aaxeyu
01-31-2012, 03:40 PM
While the sacrifice for AC would be meaningless in Epics, and hence "gimp" for someone running them a lot, I have a feeling one or more of these builds might really steamroll over the 1-20 content.

As if a caster need AC to do that...
A non-AC pure fire savant would steamroll the 1-20 content more than a monk splashed acid savant no matter how much AC it has.

sweez
01-31-2012, 03:53 PM
The only thing you'd 'get' by splashing a caster for AC is the annoyance of getting important spells later than you would on a pure build. What's the point of sacrificing anything for AC when you're unkillable anyway?

elraido
01-31-2012, 04:12 PM
Personally as i see CE it is a stance that takes effort and cocentration to maintain so in relationship to spells they shouldnt cost more because a 60 sp spell is a 60sp spell what should happen is that the cool down on spells while CE is active should at the minimum triple that way things like buffs with long durations 2 min or more are unaffected where things like spammable damage spell would loose much of there appeal this unfortunately would have a negative effect on healing spells but over all makes sense to me you cant be in a focused stance and also expect to concentrate on the complex castings of a spell. I would even be ok if healing/repair spells were excempt. still anything is better than burning SP neadlessly.

Then if that is your logic, Power Attack should cause the same penalty to attacks. You are swinging that sword so hard, you can't swing as fast so you will have -20% melee attack speed. It is stupid to even think like that.

Power Attack and Combat Ex should be considered two sides of the same coin. One is for melee oriented and the other is of AC oriented. They should also include another +5 to AC when using a shield with Combat Ex.....basically the same thing as 1.5 to damage with Power attack.

cforce
01-31-2012, 04:26 PM
As if a caster need AC to do that...
A non-AC pure fire savant would steamroll the 1-20 content more than a monk splashed acid savant no matter how much AC it has.

Challenge accepted!

Heh, OK, not really. I don't have the time to level a character just to prove a point.

But I should point out that my definition of "steamroll" is not "run stuff fast at-level for max XP", but stuff like, "level 9 non-TR, non-twink characters trying to run Lordsmarch on Elite".

I will say that one of my side projects recently has been trying to "abuse" the 1-20 content with a dedicated all-caster group, trying to see how far underlevel we can still "do everything on Elite" without any melee types or clerics/FvS. Evasion and reflex save are turning out to be much more important when trying to "stretch" like this than when power-leveling stuff at level. The second biggest problem is running out of SP when underlevel like this, and Acid is pretty efficient in this regard.

But, point taken. It's not like anyone but me seems to play the 1-20 game for challenge anymore, anyway -- so the impact would be limited to 1 person ;)

FooWonk
01-31-2012, 04:28 PM
Personally as i see CE it is a stance that takes effort and cocentration to maintain so in relationship to spells they shouldnt cost more because a 60 sp spell is a 60sp spell what should happen is that the cool down on spells while CE is active should at the minimum triple that way things like buffs with long durations 2 min or more are unaffected where things like spammable damage spell would loose much of there appeal this unfortunately would have a negative effect on healing spells but over all makes sense to me you cant be in a focused stance and also expect to concentrate on the complex castings of a spell. I would even be ok if healing/repair spells were excempt. still anything is better than burning SP neadlessly.

^ This.

Combat expertise assumes you are fully concentrating on defense.

When you cast a spell, you're either:
1.) no longer fully focused on defense, or
2.) have to take some penalty to casting.


I don't like the 50% SP penalty. I'd prefer it be a -30 or higher penalty to your concentration check when casting spells with somatic component. Quicken would then counteract the penalty...at the cost of additional SP.

Combat casting may be a way to counteract the penalty without the cost of additional SP.

Ryiah
01-31-2012, 04:31 PM
The only thing you'd 'get' by splashing a caster for AC is the annoyance of getting important spells later than you would on a pure build. What's the point of sacrificing anything for AC when you're unkillable anyway?

You really don't have to sacrifice much of anything. You could still stay pure if you wanted to. I was going to try the route of an Elf using Arcane Fluidity and then use light armor and a shield. Granted I was planning on a couple rogue levels since Evasion is still functional under those circumstances.

You really don't need a tremendous AC while leveling up anyways. Just enough to get missed at least half the time since you will be running around with a Displacement up anyways. Anything that gets through those two will then have to get through a Stoneskin.

Viisari
01-31-2012, 04:57 PM
You really don't have to sacrifice much of anything.

Care to show me the gear, stat and class layout for viable caster AC in lvl >16 content while also not sacrificing things like greater necro/enh focus, shroud hp item, shroud sp item, lotd, wizardy VI/archmagi, resistance +5 item, GFL, toughness, int +6, con +6 and str +6 (ray of enfeeblement says hello)? Probably forgot something important from this list too...


You really don't need a tremendous AC while leveling up anyways.

At early levels AC works easily for pretty much any class (my own pure wizard is running around with 32 AC at level 6 now, works well), but after level ~8-12 it just starts not being worth unless you built for AC or you're a monk.

That combined with the fact that casters don't *need* AC for anything at all makes this whole discussion rather pointless.


Give me an 8th feat on my Elf Cleric and I'd probably take it with a 36-point build. He hits about 60 self buffed alone as he lies now, and is missing 8 AC from gear and that's not including 3 points of AC from ship buffs, 3 extra CE would give him, and that's now 74 AC self buffed. With a decent group, mid-80's is not out of the question.

That's nice for some content, but makes me a little curious about what gear and buffs you'd use to get over 70.

Habreno
01-31-2012, 05:36 PM
Care to show me the gear, stat and class layout for viable caster AC in lvl >16 content while also not sacrificing things like greater necro/enh focus, shroud hp item, shroud sp item, lotd, wizardy VI/archmagi, resistance +5 item, GFL, toughness, int +6, con +6 and str +6 (ray of enfeeblement says hello)? Probably forgot something important from this list too...



At early levels AC works easily for pretty much any class (my own pure wizard is running around with 32 AC at level 6 now, works well), but after level ~8-12 it just starts not being worth unless you built for AC or you're a monk.

That combined with the fact that casters don't *need* AC for anything at all makes this whole discussion rather pointless.



That's nice for some content, but makes me a little curious about what gear and buffs you'd use to get over 70.

Body is ECavalry with greater nimble slot(current is toughness). Protect 5 is EBuccaneer ring. Natural is pirate hat or ranger buff. Shield is ESwashbuckler with +7. Add dodge rituals to armor and shield.

AC.

10 base
16 armor
9 shield
4 insight
5 protect
5 natural
2 dodge rituals
3 guild ship
5 dexterity max
3 dodge item (chatter)
2 dodge item (cannith bracers crafted)
1 dodge item (greater nimble trinket)

4 dodge bard spell
1 haste
2 recitation

65 ship buffed
68 normal buffs
72 bard
78 max pally aura
Add defensive for 80 or combat for 83

FastTaco
01-31-2012, 06:27 PM
Care to show me the gear, stat and class layout for viable caster AC in lvl >16 content while also not sacrificing things like greater necro/enh focus, shroud hp item, shroud sp item, lotd, wizardy VI/archmagi, resistance +5 item, GFL, toughness, int +6, con +6 and str +6 (ray of enfeeblement says hello)? Probably forgot something important from this list too...



Body is ECavalry with greater nimble slot(current is toughness). Protect 5 is EBuccaneer ring. Natural is pirate hat or ranger buff. Shield is ESwashbuckler with +7. Add dodge rituals to armor and shield.

AC.

10 base
16 armor
9 shield
4 insight
5 protect
5 natural
2 dodge rituals
3 guild ship
5 dexterity max
3 dodge item (chatter)
2 dodge item (cannith bracers crafted)
1 dodge item (greater nimble trinket)

4 dodge bard spell
1 haste
2 recitation

65 ship buffed
68 normal buffs
72 bard
78 max pally aura
Add defensive for 80 or combat for 83


I'm sure your argument can be placed into one of these (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) fallacious arguments, I'm too lazy to look through and specify one though.

You start out with eCavalry slotted with greater nimbleness, thats 25% spell failure... I'm not going any further. :rolleyes:

noinfo
01-31-2012, 06:58 PM
/signed Seph is right the cost is not necessary for balance in any way shape or form. Even if CE was improved in some way that casters would have actual use for it it would not be unbalanced without the SP cost increase.


on the note of improving CE though ...


THF gains a double bonus from PA maybe S&B fighting could gain double bonus from CE

or something like that

Aesop

While I used to agree with this current changes to Shield Mastery etc already make S/B more vialble for AC tanks over 2WF.

Habreno
01-31-2012, 07:24 PM
I'm sure your argument can be placed into one of these (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) fallacious arguments, I'm too lazy to look through and specify one though.

You start out with eCavalry slotted with greater nimbleness, thats 25% spell failure... I'm not going any further. :rolleyes:
Last I checked divines don't gave ASF.

FastTaco
01-31-2012, 08:00 PM
Last I checked divines don't gave ASF.

He mentioned wizard in his post, along with greater enchant/necro focus. I think generally people refer to arcanes as casters but not the same for divines.

So your not even talking about the same thing, not a great way to start an argument but alas I'd like to see your full gear layout for a divine including his requirements and maintaining this AC. (maybe exclude just LOTD:))



Care to show me the gear, stat and class layout for viable caster AC in lvl >16 content while also not sacrificing things like greater necro/enh focus, shroud hp item, shroud sp item, lotd, wizardy VI/archmagi, resistance +5 item, GFL, toughness, int +6, con +6 and str +6 (ray of enfeeblement says hello)? Probably forgot something important from this list too...

noinfo
01-31-2012, 08:51 PM
Body is ECavalry with greater nimble slot(current is toughness). Protect 5 is EBuccaneer ring. Natural is pirate hat or ranger buff. Shield is ESwashbuckler with +7. Add dodge rituals to armor and shield.

AC.

10 base
16 armor
9 shield
4 insight
5 protect
5 natural
2 dodge rituals
3 guild ship
5 dexterity max
3 dodge item (chatter)
2 dodge item (cannith bracers crafted)
1 dodge item (greater nimble trinket)

4 dodge bard spell
1 haste
2 recitation

65 ship buffed
68 normal buffs
72 bard
78 max pally aura
Add defensive for 80 or combat for 83

Ok so lets have a look at this as an example:
You have spent 5 or likely 3 +2 int tome for your pre req
You have an epic shield unless you spend a feat on tower shield
You have epic chimera crown or pocket ranger (yugi wis pot would be +4)
The armour is a good choice anyway
You are wearing a +5 prot item somewhere (or being divine put shield of faith in)
You have invested in an insight weapon or given up another valuable slot for it
You have invested 12 dex (+6 item +2 tome)
You have used up bracers for +2 dodge over a spell focus
You have given up trinket to +1 dodge over a litany etc.

Normal quest running AC at level 20 for you is:
68 which is extremely good in vale but not so much past that
73 gunna get orthon misses in amarath on normal or more, devils not as much.

Lot of investment for an average ac and loss of a feat and stat points but makes for an interesting idea build

Is it game breaking? not so much, is it giving the already OP divines something more? Probably.

I would like to see something a bit different:
Spell levels 1-4 regardless of arcane or divine - no added cost or change just normal sp.
Spell levels 5-9 have their level -3 used as a multiplier to the casting time of the spell (quicken not being able to be used on these spell levels with CE on)
Dot? level 5 takes x2 as long and can't be quickened
Heal? level 6 x3 as long and can't be quickened (not so good if you are in a fight)
Buff and forget to turn off? You will notice after the first cast but longer buff time won't matter.

Pallies and Rangers get substantial benefits from this
Opens up some options for Divines and Arcanes (viable or not I can't say)

For something simpler
Dos pre tier 1 prevents the 50% additional cost
Tempest pre tier 1 prevents the addional cost

or

Level 5+ Spells only get 50%

While any of these options are prefered I certainly do not see a cleric/FS with a mid 70s to stars aligned low 80's being any further concern than we currently have where they can just heal that damage with a low cost aura/free heal anyway and would not care if they just dropped the penalty altogether.

Habreno
01-31-2012, 08:58 PM
He mentioned wizard in his post, along with greater enchant/necro focus. I think generally people refer to arcanes as casters but not the same for divines.

So your not even talking about the same thing, not a great way to start an argument but alas I'd like to see your full gear layout for a divine including his requirements and maintaining this AC. (maybe exclude just LOTD:))

Actually costs more stat-wise on a Cleric (or Favored Soul for that matter, or even a Sorcerer) since none of those use INT in any reasonable way. Dex is a very marginal investment; 5 MDB is the best you'll see unless you REALLY start to gimp your feats with Dodge and Mobility or end up with a racial PrE when the enhancement update comes out by going Dwarf or Human/HElf. 5 MDB is a 20 dexterity. You can throw in a 6 item, 2 Exceptional (T3 Swashbuckler has Exceptional DEX +2), and now you're down to 12 dex needed, with tomes. On my Cleric I start with a 12 DEX, so I can grab TWF with a +3 tome. I could get an extra 2-3 points OVER a 5 MDB and still require no significant stat investment. INT is more of a stat investment than DEX is.


Already have done an entire gear breakdown. Let's go Cleric since that's what I have right now, but it can be adapted to Favored Soul quite easily.

Helm: Pirate Cove: +5 Natural Armor/+15 Balance. Swap with Seeker +6/Concentration +15 hat when Ranger is in group.
Necklace: Shintao Cord. Mainly for set bonus, also keeps Concentration +15 slotted in the event of no Ranger for Barkskin.
Goggles: Mineral II HP/SP/SP. CON skills +1/WIS skills +5 total. This slots Heavy Fort, Protection +5, plus other benefits.
Trinket: Greater Nimble. +1 dodge, +1 to-hit, Blurry.
Armor: Epic Cavarly Plate. Greater Nimbleness. AB: 10 base + 6 enhancement, MDB 5. 40 HP (SFL), +5 saves (Resistance), DR 5/Chaotic, Alchemical Armor Defense Ritual, Demonic Shield.
Cloak: Concordant Opposition Immunity/HP/HP. Blindness/Disease Immunity/CON skills +5 total (stacks with Goggles skills), grants WIS +6, Haggle/Diplo +10, Concordant Opposition.
Bracers: L16 Bracers of Wind: Superior Magnetism VIII, Major Lightning Lore, Blurry, Dodge +3, Dodge +2 (Cannith Crafted), Air Guard.
Belt: Crafted Belt: CON +6, Large Guild Augment Slot (+20 HP)
Ring: Epic Buccaneer Ring: Protection +5, DEX +7, Luck +2, Swim +15, Underwater Action, Slotted Toughness.
Ring: Kyosho's Ring: WIS +6/Exceptional STR +1/+2. Fills the Shintao Monk set bonus; +2 exceptional to-hit and +2 exceptional damage.
Gloves: Epic Brawling Gloves: STR +7, Sneak Attack +4 (+6 SA damage when applicable), Glass Jaw Strike, Spike Studded (last two effects meaningless as they require the wielder to be unarmed or armed with handwraps), Slotted CHA +6.
Boots: Lootgen: Striding 30%, Balance +7. Eventually, when Striding 30% is craftable, will be Crafted Striding 30%, Balance +11/13/15 (as high as possible), LGAS with unknown effect (this may be +20 HP with the LGAS on the belt being +4 balance, or this may be 80 SP leaving HP on the belt).
Quiver: Denith Wide, for storage purposes only.
Main Hand: Variety of weaponry. Min II Rapier for boss beating if needed, Epic Timeblade for just general trash plus a side of minor CC, etc.
Offhand: Epic Swashbuckler: Shield Bonus: +9: +7 (Augmented, Extreme Power), Exceptional DEX +2, Superior Parrying (+4 insight AC, +4 insight to saves), Doublestrike 6%, Guardbreaking, Riposte, Alchemical Shield Defense Ritual.

Gear Swaps:
Bracers: Glacier, Archmagi.
Ring2: Cleric, WIS+6/Exceptional CHA +1/+2.


AC:
10 Base
16 Armor
5 MDB
9 Shiled
4 Insight
5 Protection Item
5 Natural
3 Dodge
2 Dodge
1 Dodge
2 Dodge Alchemical Rituals

62 Gear AC

3 Ship Buff
2 Recitation
1 Haste

68 Normal Buffed AC

2/5 Defensive Stance/Combat Expertise

70/73 normal AC

1 Artificer Armor Buff
1 Artificer Weapon Buff (+1 to shield)
4 Bard Song (Dodge +4)

76/79 Realistic Buffed AC

6 Paladin Aura

82/85 Max buffed AC. While maintaining full casting capabilities.

Alternatively, one can go with the Seal of the Earth for an extra +1 Natural Armor Bonus (+6 Natural Armor vs +5; this would replace Kyosho's)

Pure 20 Cleric, assuming no AC feats at all, allowing for spellcasting feats and melee feats. Combat Expertise calculated in should one want to know what it would take, if one does take it.

You can start adding in Dodge feat, Mobility for more MDB, Fighter PL active for more MDB. That's 4 more AC possible, if you truly wanted, for 87/90 buffed (with Epic Seal of the Earth). And this is while maintaining the pure 20 Cleric.


I don't have Dodge +3,+2, or +1, and have to craft my Min II goggles to move Heavy Fort off my EBuccaneer Ring so I can move Toughness off my Cavarly Plate to get that AC. And I can still run Amrath and get misses solo. I've run Hard Weapons Shipment, with 20-30 mobs on me, and still able to heal through aura alone.

AC is very possible and a real fact. Even though you will never be tanking any bosses, unless you are soloing, you will be facing trash mobs. Having these miss you is very good for your SP bar; less self-healing means more spell DPS you can put out.


I am not touching the Clonks for AC purposes, as those are very different for AC considerations.


The main thing is *only* mid-1800's while using this gear setup for SP. But there is absolutely nothing preventing you from having Archmagi items and Greater Cunning Trinket and even a LGAS SP gem before you do switch gear. This puts him WELL over 2100 SP; 2201 max buffed, in fact.

Note that I didn't even use Litany, nor do I need to. I have all my stats evening out.

Just in case you're curious. Going to use a 36-point build here, my current Elf 32-point version starts with a 12 CON and 8 INT, as he's a first life build that I won't be TRing.

STR: 15 + 3 tome + 7 item + 3 exceptional + 2 guild ship + 2 yugo potion = 32.
DEX: 12 + 3 tome + 7 item + 2 exceptional + 2 guild ship = 26.
CON: 14 + 3 tome + 6 item + 3 exceptional + 2 guild ship = 28. Add 2 yugo if HP are needed for 30.
INT: 10 + 3 tome = 13. Add items and exceptionals and guild ship as needed, 24 when you need INT for some reason.
WIS: 18 + 3 tome + 5 level + 6 item + 3 exceptional + 3 enhancement + 2 guild ship + 2 yugo potion = 42.
CHA: 8 + 3 tome + 6 item + 3 exceptional + 2 guild ship = 22.

Very reasonable stats. Let's assume Human for this, adjust racial modifiers as needed.

EDIT: Exceptional CON/WIS are on Min II GS rapiers. The CON rapier is in when going Sword and Board.

Vazok1
01-31-2012, 10:31 PM
Instead of getting rid of the penalty all together (which i doubt they would do) how about just having it double any meta's that are on.

That way it will still hit the 80-90ac-hugehealingamp-quicken-maximise-glancingblowtorcprocs-selfhealingbuilds, such as a very well geared exploiter. Which I assume this was what it was aimed at, hey with glancing blow damage and a 5Dr item they can probably still sp profit even with the double sp cost now but this way it wont hurt buffers who forget to turn it off :)

(but I don't think many people care about it from a buffs perspective I think its the self healing AC builds that care about it :))

Viisari
02-01-2012, 02:35 AM
He mentioned wizard in his post, along with greater enchant/necro focus. I think generally people refer to arcanes as casters but not the same for divines.

So your not even talking about the same thing, not a great way to start an argument but alas I'd like to see your full gear layout for a divine including his requirements and maintaining this AC. (maybe exclude just LOTD:))

I actually do refer to divines as casters too. Necro focus is very good for divines, though evocation is probably more useful than enchantment focus. Rest of the effects are just as useful for both types.

And after looking at that gear list for the cleric and the AC he'd get, I don't really see an issue with him having access to CE without SP penalties. If the penalty is simply removed from the feat there wouldn't be need for any complicated solutions to help rangers and pallies.

<edit> Just to put some context to why I don't really think of it as an issue, a fvs with ~600-700 hp, huge healing amp, conc op + torc and free cap stone heals will probably make for a better tank and is harder to kill. The FvS will also probably use less gear slots for this than the cleric is using slots for AC.

FastTaco
02-01-2012, 02:45 AM
I actually do refer to divines as casters too. Necro focus is very good for divines, though evocation is probably more useful than enchantment focus. Rest of the effects are just as useful for both types.

And after looking at that gear list for the cleric and the AC he'd get, I don't really see an issue with him having access to CE without SP penalties. If the penalty is simply removed from the feat there wouldn't be need for any complicated solutions to help rangers and pallies.

<edit> Just to put some context to why I don't really think of it as an issue, a fvs with ~600-700 hp, huge healing amp, conc op + torc and free cap stone heals will probably make for a better tank and is harder to kill. The FvS will also probably use less gear slots for this than the cleric is using slots for AC.

I don't see anything wrong with it either, if they are built for it they still get less AC than a fighter/pally. They burn through SP quicker using dots and aren't as focused on keeping everyone else alive.

Looks fairly balanced to me without the -50% penalty, just drop it. :)

Cyr
02-01-2012, 08:48 AM
Of course AC casters are mediocre at best. This penalty is there because players were not forceful enough in stating to the developer making this change that their fears of AC casters being OP had no basis in game play and instead bargained them down to the current penalty seeing it as better then the past situation.

I for one am done picking lesser of two evils based upon little to no analysis being done by the developers.

My stand on this. Eliminate the penalty altogether for spell casting. AC casters sacrifice alot and are worse then the alternative already. Big deal if they can take CE. There are real balance issues with casters, but this is most certainly not one of them.

sephiroth1084
02-01-2012, 09:09 AM
The facts are that CE is not more powerful Maximize, or Quicken, so there is no need for it to be so much more expensive; that casters are mutilating content now with essentially 0 AC, and making this feat less cumbersome isn't going to be the impetus for a bunch of casters to dump half of their gear in order to fit in AC when they were already kicking ass.

But fine, we want to avoid the possibility of having casters that are only hittable around 0.006% of the time (95% effective AC, Displacement and Wraith's 25% incorporeality), but really shouldn't be hammering paladins and rangers so hard, since they have a much more limited SP pool and spell selection, and doing anything useful with those things besides buffing requires a fairly heavy investment.

Options:


Exempt rangers and paladins from any SP penalty.
Have the penalty only apply to spells of level 5 and higher (sorry bards and artificers).
Cost it like a metamagic and have it add 10 SP to your spell costs.
Have it double the cooldown of your spells (self-healing gets hurt a little, but not too much; while other sorts of casting probably gets hurt badly).
Have casting a spell disable the AC bonus for 3 seconds.
Change the way the feat functions to grant a bonus to AC for 3 seconds after making an attack roll (attack vs. AC; you can't just swing at the air). [Consider adding "or when shield blocking"]
Have the penalty only apply to non-buffs, and non-Cure spells (Heal is a non-Cure spell).
Realize that investing in Int, a feat, and all the gear and other feat associated with AC is already a steep enough cost to not bar people from being able to do so if they choose by tacking on some ridiculous penalty to a feat that merely adds +5 AC.

Right now, Combat Expertise costs more than Extended Displacement does. You know what? At best Combat Expertise is giving you a +25% miss chance, but that is only coming in after you've invested heavily in AC gear, picked up a few other AC feats, and tooled around with your starting stats and enhancements to further pump your AC. Displacement just comes with gaining class levels or being able to use UMD. Or clickies.

Habreno
02-01-2012, 06:18 PM
Being honest, if CE did not have a SP cost, then it would not be OP. Even with the build I have, you're talking, effectively, 1800 SP to DPS with, or slightly more on a Favored Soul. If you wanted to DoT tank you'd have to have significant spell threat, since a single dot costing 65 sp/cast (without reductions) is going to go nowhere fast. You can get 27, perhaps 28 casts. After that, it's down to either memonics, SP-restoration devices, or Torq/Conc Op (highly unlikely given AC), since you won't be holding anything over melee with your melee.


There is no reason for the penalty, remove it. And if someone wants to down 25 memonics to AC tank Summolades on a full caster, then more power to them.

licho
02-02-2012, 04:28 AM
Signed,
Not sure about this rangers using CE but ok, maybe i dont see enought, but in case paladins i see the point.
If smbd want to harm himself playing tank, and melee, and paladin and keep high ac then he should be care off.
So remove this 50% casting cost.
If devs want make CE hard for shieldbockers, then change penalty to like -5to DC of all spells. And add DC to dots.

Kilarthia
02-02-2012, 06:40 AM
If folks want to cast while in a combat stance,
consider adding that ability to the combat casting feat.

I like this interesting suggestion. It would make a feat that's currently not worth its slot something worth thinking about.

sephiroth1084
02-02-2012, 07:48 AM
I like this interesting suggestion. It would make a feat that's currently not worth its slot something worth thinking about.
No, it would add another tax to the feat-starved rangers and paladins who should be able to cast while this feat is active, at least without getting totally reamed for doing so.

So long as anybody can use scrolls, wands, clickies, SLAs and spell-like finishers while CE is active, I see no reason to penalize the few character builds that want to cast spells while CE is active.

elraido
02-02-2012, 09:14 AM
No, it would add another tax to the feat-starved rangers and paladins who should be able to cast while this feat is active, at least without getting totally reamed for doing so.

So long as anybody can use scrolls, wands, clickies, SLAs and spell-like finishers while CE is active, I see no reason to penalize the few character builds that want to cast spells while CE is active.

Yeah, I am thinking most people who are making suggestions haven't ever played a paladin before. :P

grodon9999
02-02-2012, 09:22 AM
Yeah, I am thinking most people who are making suggestions haven't ever played a paladin before. :P

I never realized how bad this was until I did.

The biggest problem with this forum is ill-informed people making silly suggestions on topics for which they have no clue.

FooWonk
02-02-2012, 10:48 AM
No, it would add another tax to the feat-starved rangers and paladins who should be able to cast while this feat is active, at least without getting totally reamed for doing so.

So long as anybody can use scrolls, wands, clickies, SLAs and spell-like finishers while CE is active, I see no reason to penalize the few character builds that want to cast spells while CE is active.

My suggestion was to make it a concentration penalty rather than an SP penalty. And there should be several ways around the penalty: quicken, combat casting and damage mitigation via AC or DR.

sephiroth1084
02-02-2012, 10:58 AM
My suggestion was to make it a concentration penalty rather than an SP penalty. And there should be several ways around the penalty: quicken, combat casting and damage mitigation via AC or DR.
That would then really only be a penalty...on paladins and rangers, since most any caster is going to have Quicken anyway., while some paladins and rangers may have CE without bothering with Quicken. AC and DR work a bit, but I can tell you that having 95% AC vs. someone like Horoth is irrelevant when it comes to Concentration checks. Before I had Quicken, I'd fail several attempts to rebuff with Zeal and Divine Favor due to damage from badges and spells or lucky hits, and AC tanks don't have room to be sticking in a +15 Concentration item.

Habreno
02-03-2012, 11:47 PM
Removing the spellpoint penalty is best. There's no feasable way a pure caster is going to get any form of meaningful AC for boss fights even with Combat Expertise without gimping themselves in any way, shape, or form.

Aaxeyu
02-04-2012, 12:09 AM
The biggest problem with this forum is ill-informed people making silly suggestions on topics for which they have no clue.

Yeah. So many people form an opinion based on absolutely nothing and go in to any topic they are completely clueless about and believe (or pretend) that their opinion is equally valid and carry the same weight as anyone elses.

Riggs
02-04-2012, 03:34 AM
+1 to removing the sp cost.

Aesop
02-04-2012, 08:44 AM
+1 to removing the sp cost.

/Seconded

Penalty is unnecessary given the nature of the game. If it becomes necessary at some point it should be no more than a +10SP cost to spells above 5th level.

Aesop