CH4OT1C!
Member
|
@Dardiel:
quote:
I personally disagree with the use of things like status cleanses as justification since they're notoriously unrelated to standards
I think my use of status cleansers (which I fully recognise are dubiously balanced) and the subsequent focus on it may be detracting from the discussion. My point was that it's perfectly possible for items to pay for increased versatility with a penalty. If you're not fond of this example, then there are plenty of others, such as in situations where the 'always useful' and 'omni-elemental' penalties are applied. To be clear, this isn't to defend the idea itself; as I said, paying a penalty to retain the ability to affect statuses is another heavy compromise on my position after I've already made several, so I can't say I'm fond of it. With that said, I don't believe a plausible solution should be removed from the table on the basis of a single example when plenty of other less dubious alternatives exist.
@Grace Xisthrith:
quote:
I think that arguing that direct output of statuses is the only thing that matters, rather than how much is paid for them, is a poor argument. A hypothetical that pushes that argument to its extreme is: if STR gave 50% melee worth of damage, and CHA gave 15% melee worth in flat output and ferocious strikes as it does now, CHA would still be the only stat to affect direct status output, but obviously STR significantly empowers status builds, completely removing the cost they'd have to pay on some of their strong status weapons
To be blunt, I don't think this is a very good argument, so until now I haven't really addressed it. With that said:
At surface level, this question can easily flipped: If there is no discernible difference as stated here, then why are people so opposed to changing it for Guests? Doing so would make CHA consistent with the other stats, and the ideas raised on this thread mean they won't be losing any deserved value. We've even given consideration to Guests that pay all of their damage for status, which is more than can be said for items from other stats (e.g., Ancestral Forbiddance).
Of course, I see the real point you're trying to make and why you feel it's important: If there's no difference between potency increase and cost decrease, then why change anything? There'd be no need for a GBI. The obvious answer is: because they aren't the same thing. As I've already mentioned, status effects are far more diverse than simple damage and can be used for various effects that include Stunning (e.g., Fear), Healing, and Defence (e.g., MRM boost). At this point, I could bring it a suite of differences between how statuses and damage work (save rolls, potency etc.) but I'll avoid doing so since we would rapidly drift in a somewhat redundant direction. I think others recognise this clear difference too, hence the opposition. Logically, one could argue that other items could simply start paying a greater proportion of their damage for statuses. That's a bandaid though; the staff would be changing future items of those builds to account for a discrepancy taking place at the stat level (neither is it retroactive).
Also, you misinterpreted that excerpt from my post-that was in reference to parts of style bonuses explicitly dedicated to effects that aren't related to output boosting. Like how END can break the player out of stuns.
< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 12/29/2024 4:56:01 >
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
