Race Stat Changes

[anthriel]

The only 2nd thought I had re +1 dodge Agi on "little people" is that with gnomes you could technically +1 endurance and effectivly get a better than best elf sorcerer for the most part (ie 22 dodge Agi, 18 End and better int/wis... Only niche left for elf sorcerer to be better is if they choose to +1 End themselves ).

Therefore to address this, it possible to restrict the "little people dodge bonus" to only applying if Lings/gnomes keep 17end (ie don't bulk up)... Perhaps instead of a racial bonus for Lings/gnomes it could therefore apply to any race who decided to keep 17 end or under (i can't really see it being abused cos what user of other races in their right mind would want to choose 17 end / less HP willingly lol)... I know it does potentially complicate the hidden stats somewhat (which NH doesn't like) but it is a possible imbalance issue between gnome/elf mages that occurred to me so I wanted to point it out in case others had any ideas.

That seems like a weird idea to do and would be confusing. We got to keep it simple I think. Your right though it does shadow and that's not good cause obviously dodge is only needed for magic user, they don't care about the attack agi unless they are druid or something similar.

The proposal is probably to take off -3 alloc points off gnome as they already have the highest at 109. This means that gnomes would also have to sacrifice something to +1 like elves currently do, though they'd have to sacrifice 2 which makes sense when you look at the stats. So you're looking at a 10 21 18 23 20 10 gnome or a 10 22 19 21 20 10 elf. This means that the allocation points max is 106 for all the MR based races and brings them more in line. It kind of makes sense then and keeps elves as a OK other solution if you aim to +1, without the odd mechanic of 17 end = agi bonus, 18 end = not.

Sure u could reduce 3 allocation points on gnome but this might make it very annoying for most with gnomes who are not mages and don't benefit from +1 INT.... Eg I'd definitely argue that gnome elders or guards etc deserve a race respec then etc. (ie. -3 alloc points is a big deal for the classes in which the +1 INT is irrelevant)

[NiteHawk]

when did prop 15 get deleted...

when you compare the typical chanters

gnome sacrifices agi and end for int and wis when compared to an elf for extra damage, boost to mr, and a larger mana pool

10 21 17 23 22 12 vs 10 22 18 22 20 10

sitting with 10 21 18 23 20 10 gnome or a 10 22 19 21 20 10 elf
the gnome loses most of its bonus mr, still takes the hit to dodge and hps and gains 8 damage. those builds look very similar and elf is better. just looks like gnome loses all its old benefits for 8 more damage.

in rough translation you have gnome blank, get hit more, die faster, do more damage, get hit more, blank. that option damages even my optimism.

i also have a few gnome melee builds that would just be ripped apart even further with -3 allocation. thats a serious ouch.
Lisa stop him...

You are looking at 10 21 17 24 22 11 without the allocation change. However, with the RACIAL bonus you are looking at 10 22 17 24 22 11 because of the small modifier of +1 agi to dodging which doesnt matter for melee obviously.

So your looking at 10 22 17 24 22 11 VS 10 22 18 22 20 10 . Why would you pick elf for magic as you claim it. for the 50HP? Ain't such a problem for that sort of boost.

The MR loss was a mistake though, they still get their 5% MR or whatever it was.

[NiteHawk]

The only 2nd thought I had re +1 dodge Agi on "little people" is that with gnomes you could technically +1 endurance and effectivly get a better than best elf sorcerer for the most part (ie 22 dodge Agi, 18 End and better int/wis... Only niche left for elf sorcerer to be better is if they choose to +1 End themselves ).

Therefore to address this, it possible to restrict the "little people dodge bonus" to only applying if Lings/gnomes keep 17end (ie don't bulk up)... Perhaps instead of a racial bonus for Lings/gnomes it could therefore apply to any race who decided to keep 17 end or under (i can't really see it being abused cos what user of other races in their right mind would want to choose 17 end / less HP willingly lol)... I know it does potentially complicate the hidden stats somewhat (which NH doesn't like) but it is a possible imbalance issue between gnome/elf mages that occurred to me so I wanted to point it out in case others had any ideas.

That seems like a weird idea to do and would be confusing. We got to keep it simple I think. Your right though it does shadow and that's not good cause obviously dodge is only needed for magic user, they don't care about the attack agi unless they are druid or something similar.

The proposal is probably to take off -3 alloc points off gnome as they already have the highest at 109. This means that gnomes would also have to sacrifice something to +1 like elves currently do, though they'd have to sacrifice 2 which makes sense when you look at the stats. So you're looking at a 10 21 18 23 20 10 gnome or a 10 22 19 21 20 10 elf. This means that the allocation points max is 106 for all the MR based races and brings them more in line. It kind of makes sense then and keeps elves as a OK other solution if you aim to +1, without the odd mechanic of 17 end = agi bonus, 18 end = not.

Sure u could reduce 3 allocation points on gnome but this might make it very annoying for most with gnomes who are not mages and don't benefit from +1 INT.... Eg I'd definitely argue that gnome elders or guards etc deserve a race respec then etc. (ie. -3 alloc points is a big deal for the classes in which the +1 INT is irrelevant)

You would be left with a 16 21 17 20 22 10 druid which isnt terrible IMO but the most of them do +1 wis so yeah that could warrant a racial change on those. About 6 gnome elders..

There is not any gnome guardians though, literally 0

The only real thing if not doing this though is not to give the small bonus too them as it overshadows too much and going back to #14.

[daedroth]

NH ole bean, could you sticky the google race proposal sheet please.

[NiteHawk]

NH ole bean, could you sticky the google race proposal sheet please.

On the first post now.

[daedroth]

Cheers
Now if it will only open... At work so it is always a hit or a miss when it comes to the link actually opening -,-

[Terron]

i just went off what you posted. the 2 side by side i would definitely select +1 agi and +1 end for -2 int, hard to do damage sitting in a temple.

the problem with gnomes is survivability. any change that detracts from that is harmful. druids and guards take a hit, any chr using class selecting gnome takes a heavy mr nerfbat. lastly a few pages ago it was mentioned that heal changes would hopefully get people using gnome clerics, thats a rough time when u cant even manage xppppx on the race. especially when the current top clerics imo have xppppx with 3 or 4 points left over.

[NiteHawk]

i just went off what you posted. the 2 side by side i would definitely select +1 agi and +1 end for -2 int, hard to do damage sitting in a temple.

the problem with gnomes is survivability. any change that detracts from that is harmful. druids and guards take a hit, any chr using class selecting gnome takes a heavy mr nerfbat. lastly a few pages ago it was mentioned that heal changes would hopefully get people using gnome clerics, thats a rough time when u cant even manage xppppx on the race. especially when the current top clerics imo have xppppx with 3 or 4 points left over.

Yeah it was based off the stats but didn't include the racial bonus (though talked about) which gives gnomes a +1 while dodging, so 22 agi. so its only 1 END for 2 int. That is HOWEVER with the actual nerf to stats.

10 22 18 23 20 10 gnome (with 1agi to dodge it will be 21 otherwise)
vs 10 22 19 21 20 10 elf

Without the allocation negation and the
10 22 18 23 22 11 gnome
vs 10 22 19 21 20 10 elf

And then for magic users Elves get left behind.

With prop 14 there is no need to change allocation points as gnomes don't get an AGI bonus too. This was only for the current proposal where they get a AGI boost to dodging which obviously benfits all classes that dont rely on agi to attack. Clerics, sorcs, necros, etc. I don't see elves being used here without the allocation hit.

Further more they don't really struggle in general to pick stats though even with the nerf. But if that doesn't suffice then we simply don't give the small bonus to gnomes and that's how it goes.

[Terron]

buff elves 1 int and a stat point or 2, barely affects elf builds at all except adding a lil bit of mr to bards guards and clerics and elder might get a +1 if they dont mind 13/14 int. elves are also not unique in the int department so 22 fits them.

i dont really think ive seen a single gnome user drooling over +1 int yet, they all seem to want gnomes to survive longer. survival is agi or end. end doesnt fit role playing and agi does. int isnt changing anything.

gnome: forget the int, buff agi to a flat 22 period
elf add 1 int and 1 alloc pnts

elf took the biggest hit when helf got a 2 point +1, almost every build can be covered by helf to look the same as elf with +3 alloc points, buffing elf fits this mage thing alot better

[NiteHawk]

gnome: forget the int, buff agi to a flat 22 period
elf add 1 int and 1 alloc pnts

elf took the biggest hit when helf got a 2 point +1, almost every build can be covered by helf to look the same as elf with +3 alloc points, buffing elf fits this mage thing alot better

We pretty much come full circle here.

You would have a 10 22 19 22 21 10 elf.

Lings suffer then. 10 23 18 20 20 11 is pretty kind of not worth it now. So you'd have to buff them.

and with your removal of INT, you have a 10 22 18 22 22 12 gnome.

Just for reference you have a 10 21 20 20 20 14 HE. Not sure if this ones better or worse but that would probably be OK, though the rest are being shadowed or not really worth it IMO.

I am plus +1 end here but you can do whatever, just throwing examples.

As people have proven here so far the issue comes to be that if you buff lings after they are shadowed by elves, then you make other races suffer, etc. We gave lings 18 END but then it shadowed others. It's a bit of a mess imo and why it was proposed instead of massive +1 END changes or AGI changes we gave END to the lowbies and decreased it on races that didn't need it, then made AGI points matter more.. But yeah, one point often cascades.