Uncapping STR and DEX

[Tynian]

I want to uncap STR and DEX so that anyone can wear +str and/or +dex up to the 25 limit. I don't see any particular problems by doing this, but since both stats are so intimately tied with combat, I wanted to give you the opportunity to chime in.

Is there a major problem with capping both stats at 25 for all classes that you can see?

Unless someone brings up a show stopper, I'll probably give it a try, but it will help to know what your major concerns are, so I can take it into account.

[Gyro]

The uncapping of str and dex is quite interesting, I imagine the impact will be quickly felt. However, I do have some reservations as to the success of the plan.


The biggest being that as long as I have played TFC, or just about any other mud, the maximum cap on a stat is part of what defined and separated the classes. I fear that by allowing people to have 25 str or 25 dex with equipment, regardless of their class, this is a sleight to some classes and more over, it blends the distinction between classes somewhat, especially the fighter classes.

The warrior max str of 25 made them unique in the sense that yes, they did more damage just naturally, but also their ability to lift the heaviest of corpses, I imagine an important aspect of PK, especially a pack rat. Yes, warriors can still wear metal and still have enhanced damage, so those defining traits are protected. Yet, part of them is being lost, something unique and a significant advantage to having the warrior class as opposed to ranger.

The ranger max str of 22 and dex of 25 is also part of their unique nature. Yes they have dual wield, and track, again this will not be touched so I can see the validity of the arguement that their specific abilities will not be affected, but they still lose part of their advantage to other classes, namely having a higher strength than others but also the highest dex. So choosing a warrior over ranger is now more of a debate between dual wield/some nifty abilities and enhanced damage/metal. Some may say, and I'm sure to some this is what they based their overall class decisions on, but to me, I chose to be a ranger because I valued the dex over the str, as well as dual wield over enhanced damage.

To me, this seems to be a step towards a class system that is more affected and blurred by equipment. It is similar although not tantamount to having an easily popable or renewable source of sanc, cloak, absorb, silence other than being that class or having a level/pk partner of that class with you. It uses eq in the place of distinct class roles and ability. If str and dex were uncapped, then a mage or cleric who is exping their prime levels can have as high a str and dex as a warrior and ranger, making it far easier and making leveling ranger especially less rewarding than leveling the magic class. As it stands now, a great level for me is 19hp at ranger prime, but I have heard and seen a cleric gain the same with a nice 12-14mana bonus. I leveled ranger prime in order to exp easier by having 2 more str and 3 dex than my mage class.

I think that having the class caps, and this includes int/wis/con, is an important factor to making each class unique and distinct. This is especially true with the wonderful work Tynian has done to make these stats much more valuable, not just to levelers but to everyone. If all caps are removed, and anyone can have 25 across the board, this does take away from some of the lines between the classes, I think that having a more defined purpose or role of a specific class, with specific strengths and weaknesses, adds a greater depth to the game. I do believe the classes should be so rightfully distinguished, that each class has a strength and a weakness, warriors have the highest str and solid dex but the lowest int/wis. Rangers have the highest dex and solid str etc..etc..etc. Even in terms of the magic classes, mages have the highest int while cleric the highest wis, and shaman a balance of both (although i know this isnt necessarily the case).

This is the problem I see with uncapping the str and dex, but it also doubles for uncapping of int/wis/con for all classes. I do not think we should be moving in the direction of blurring class distinctions, but rather working within the wonderful design we have and utilizing the inherent strengths and weakness of each class.

Thank you.

[Anonymous Mammal]

I really don't understand the need to uncap all the stats. The limits on those stats are the basic pros and cons of each class and what sometimes gives them an advantage over other classes. May as well set a standard level gain at 25hp 25ma 25mv 10prac 1train. Then everyone can be equal in all things. (Sarcasm alert!) Yay! The only thing to do after that would allow any class to have access to any skill at level 1.

[Pol]

One big concern: it imbalances spell-casting and non-spell-casting classes tremendously.

One of the draws for having a warrior, thief, ranger or thug - either single or multi classed - is the expanded STR and DEX available to those classes that's not otherwise available to spell-casting classes.

A change like this would greatly diminish the role of non-spell classes - especially warriors. Further, it would give single-classed spell casters (especially Mages and Shaman) far too much melee ability.

Pol O'Song

[Thor]

I have to say I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far. All while I was leveling, and even now, the "ranger dex" or "warrior str" was/is almost famous. I think removing those distictions will take away from the classes. There would just be something odd with a single class mage that hits just as much and as hard as a single class ranger. (Yes, I know there's the dual weapons, etc.. on a ranger, but you get the idea.) I'd have to say I wouldn't be in favor of this change.

[Maeron]

Is the general idea, to make it attractive to wear more dex/str and less damage? I'd personally rather see natural racial dex and str lowered.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the general idea here though. As everyone before me stated, I just think it's all part of the pros and cons of selecting one race/class versus another.

[Tynian]

Seeing as though I have no support, I give up. I'll leave STR and DEX alone. I'll make do with the other stats.

Thank you for your feedback.

[orpik]

I think uncapping stats would be a bad idea for many of the reasons stated. Ie rangers would be useless compared to warriors if warriors had the same dex and got enhanced dmg etc...

That being said, It might be interesting to increase the caps on dex and str for certain classes. For example, let thieves and rangers run dex up much higher, but not str. Let warriors run STR up much higher, but not dex.

You could do the same with all the classes. Mages could run int up uncapped but not dex str wis etc... Clerics wis, shaman wis?

Perhaps rather than having no cap, just increase the caps depending on the class.

This way the integrity of class distinctions would be maintained and it would allow for more diverse sets. However you would need to seriously tweak what the effect of everything did. For example if dex was as powerful as it is now, it might be too extreme and the same with str. Ie you might have to drop out the hitroll bonus of dex or the dmg and hitroll bonus of str as it goes higher but keep the disarm, dodge, overpower parry etc aspects.

[Tiunara]

I think uncapping stats would be a bad idea for many of the reasons stated. Ie rangers would be useless compared to warriors if warriors had the same dex and got enhanced dmg etc...

You're an idiot Orpik.

Rangers are even sicker than warriors with 25str and 25dex and you should know that being a ranger. Guess you haven't grown any brains in the past 5 years.

I have 25str and 25dex and only 1 weapon while my opponent has 25str and 25dex and TWO weapons.

Guess who wins.

Right.

Think again, Orpik.

[Hiro]

Always nice to see a civil discussion of ideas.

[jaeden]

puts a warm fuzzy deep down in your heart, doesn't it, Hiro?

[Pol]

Orpik's trying to help improve the game just like the rest of us and is contributing his ideas. If you don't like the idea, argue the point, but don't insult the person. That wasn't too cool, Tiu.

To the point of altering STR/DEX maximums, I think this would be something worth doing for non-casting classes. As it stands, Ranger and Thug both have 23 STR and 25 DEX so the only decision to make there is two weapon or metal armor (or both!). Warrior still has a strength advantage as well as Enhanced Damage. Thief, however, no longer has any particular advantage at all.

Perhaps something like the following maxes would help make things more equal and not blur the classes so much:


STR DEX
Warrior 25 20 (or 21)
Thug 23 22
Ranger 22 23
Thief 20(or 21) 25

[Dundrave]

I agree - this is a bad idea. I think it is more important to differentiate the different races and classes MORE. Then to blend them together.

[Solaron]

I agree - this is a bad idea. I think it is more important to differentiate the different races and classes MORE. Then to blend them together.

This has nothing to do with blending races and classes, it's an attempt to balance the issue of stats. It's an effort to see sets where people are wearing things aside from tons of damage and a some svs.

It may not be perfect as it was first proposed, but I believe a form of it is needed. I like Pol's solution, or perhaps just give rangers MORE benefit from 25 dex than a warrior would, and warriors MORE benefti from 25 str than a ranger would, and they're good to go.

Also, I'm not big on the "This is a bad idea" or "This won't benefit the game" replies. That's kind of a blanket statement. At least say 'I don't like this idea' or 'I don't see how it does XXXX'. After all, its just your opinion vs. my opinion. Then again, it's just semantics and I'm probably as guilty as anyone.

[Tynian]

Also, I'm not big on the "This is a bad idea" or "This won't benefit the game" replies. That's kind of a blanket statement. At least say 'I don't like this idea' or 'I don't see how it does XXXX'. After all, its just your opinion vs. my opinion. Then again, it's just semantics and I'm probably as guilty as anyone.

I like the idea of people trying to quantify why they don't like an idea, or why they think it will cause problems. Often, that does happen.

There are times when I see an idea I don't like. Sometimes, it's a struggle to figure out why I don't like it. And sometimes, I can't tell you why I don't like an idea. I just don't like it. I'm sure some of you have experienced that, as well.

As for messing with STR and DEX, someone made a smart-aleck/sarcastic comment about why not just make all the classes the same. As hopefully most of you know, that is not my goal with the stat changes. Even if the STR/DEX cap was moved for everyone, warriors would still have enhanced damage and metal armor vs. ranger two-weapon fighting. Yet I do also understand the sentiment that what makes a warrior is exceptional strength, and a ranger's defining characteristic is quickness (although other classes share DEX as the primary stat).

Nonetheless, I'll stay away from STR and DEX for now. I can revisit it after I've made some other changes.

[Pol]

My primary concern is Thieves (go figure :) ). Rangers, Thugs and Warriors have superior strength, and that's fine from a Sneak's point of view. It's a bother, though, when the defining characteristic of a Thief, DEX, is no longer their sole purview. Sure, backstab is nice, but it's capped at 200hp (if that...never hit for more than around 180 usually myself) and not really competitive with enhanced damage or two weapon attacks, especially in light of a Thieves lower THAC0.

Granted, Thieves aren't supposed to be big melee fighters, but the defensive capabilities of the class because of their agility is no longer unique.

Perhaps something can be done to rectify this, besides changing STR/DEX caps?

Cheers,

Pol O'Song.

[Tynian]

DEX hasn't solely belonged to thief since, well... I don't know when. Certainly, it's been years. I can't imagine ranger ever _not_ being DEX primary.

And frankly, I don't understand why you feel this is an issue. Historically, I had wanted each class to stand well on its own. With the current multiclass system, though, that effort seems pointless. I don't want to glorify single classers over multiclassers, and thus expect that you are going to combine thief with some other class. So, what's the problem? Pick up a warrior class to bolster your fighting skills. The stats weren't set up with the thought that each class should have their own stat. And I don't feel they should be.

[Anonymous Mammal]

<Personal opinion>
I don't think a character should have to be forced into another class in order to compete. This does not bolster roleplaying of any class if you're more or less forced to pick up another class. Think of Nyx. He played the thief class very well. Why should he be forced to pick up a warrior class to bolster his fighting skills. He's not a warrior, he's a thief.
</Personal opinion>

[Thor]

<Personal opinion>
I don't think a character should have to be forced into another class in order to compete. This does not bolster roleplaying of any class if you're more or less forced to pick up another class. Think of Nyx. He played the thief class very well. Why should he be forced to pick up a warrior class to bolster his fighting skills. He's not a warrior, he's a thief.
</Personal opinion>

I'll add my personal opinion response. :)

I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but don't confuse power with roleplaying. If you want to roleplay a thief, then roleplay a thief. Granted, there are exceptions to every rule...you wouldn't see a thief with this huge weapon or lots of armor. Rarely, when someone thinks of a thief they don't think of someone that's big and muscular. (at least I don't) I think more of someone who's smaller and quicker. They are good for lurking in the shadows, escaping things, stealing, etc... They aren't going to parade around the streets boasting about their glory and pks, etc..

Warriors, on the other hand, are typically stronger. Being warriors, they have trained to fight in ways that a thief has not. They are usually bigger so they don't move as fast and can't hide in the shadows like thieves.

Basically...
If you want to hit like a warrior, play a warrior. If you want to play like a thief, play a thief. You can't (so-to-speak) play a thief and then complain because you can't roleplay like a warrior. I'm all in favor of the differences in the classes.

[Pol]

Well, the issue isn't so much that Warriors are better fighters - that's a given. Rangers and Thugs have ursurped, however, Thieves normal, and I believe rightful, place as the stealthy, agile, information-based class.

Given the frequency with which class bleedover and duplication of skills of even a similar nature is decried, I find it odd that this has slipped by. Consider that Ranger has: hide, sneak and tracking. Thug has: info2, scan (and one could add mug and rushing attack to the list as a sort of bastardized versions of steal and backstab). Both classes sport a 25 DEX max (odd, when one considers Thugs can wear metal armor - Rangers at least have some precedent for high DEX and must wear non-metal unless classed with Thug).

The delta set of skills for Thief becomes pick lock, info3, peek, cant and inscribe - and to a lesser extent backstab and steal (which are somewhat mitigated by rushing and mug respectively). Stats wise, there's nothing distinctive about Thief any longer as well, nor do they possess additional melee abilities such as dual wield or the ability to wear metal armor.

I'm not seeking glorification of the single classer over the multi. Rather, I'm interested in viability and flavor of the individual classes such that each brings a unique set of potentials yet are relatively equal to each other individually.

I would think it desirous to have each class have its discinct flavor and tactics. As it stands right now, Thief has lost much of what made it unique, in my opinion. Whether that's regained via a stat cap change, or the addition or modification of skills is really a matter of ease of implementation and priority. I've posted ideas in the past and would be happy to post more if inspiration is needed. :)

At any rate, any consideration of this idea would be greatly appreciated. :)

Thanks!

Pol O'Song

[Grale]

I think the stat distinctions for the classes are important, but they aren't the only thing that makes a class unique. A ranger is a different kind of combatant than a warrior, and a thug is a different kind of goon than a thief... the spellcasting classes have been discussed elsewhere in enormous detail.

That being said, I think most of the distinction between the classes comes in how they are played, rather than the stats they hold. I'm thinking specifically of a thief character who was around a couple of years ago (name currently escapes me, unfortunately) who had everyone else running in terror every time they saw him in the zone. He was a single-classed thief who levelled to 30, and he was daring, audacious, and stole everything from anyone. In short, he was played like a classic thief, and in that he was tremendously successful... and it was FUN to be scared of something other than being pounded by someone who hit harder than me.

Get yourself into the mindset of a class, and think like a thief... make the world a less honest place to live - and worry less about having things that other classes don't. Thief can be unique if you make it memorable!

Grale

[Anonymous Mammal]

I'm thinking specifically of a thief character who was around a couple of years ago (name currently escapes me, unfortunately) who had everyone else running in terror every time they saw him in the zone. He was a single-classed thief who levelled to 30, and he was daring, audacious, and stole everything from anyone.Palmer, perhaps?

[Solaron]

Probably Palmer or Silence. Palmer was older and better, but Silence took a lot more chances. He ended up with better stuff sometimes, but lost it a lot more too, heh.

[Anathema]

Well, the issue isn't so much that Warriors are better fighters - that's a given. Rangers and Thugs have ursurped, however, Thieves normal, and I believe rightful, place as the stealthy, agile, information-based class.

Given the frequency with which class bleedover and duplication of skills of even a similar nature is decried, I find it odd that this has slipped by. Consider that Ranger has: hide, sneak and tracking. Thug has: info2, scan (and one could add mug and rushing attack to the list as a sort of bastardized versions of steal and backstab). Both classes sport a 25 DEX max (odd, when one considers Thugs can wear metal armor - Rangers at least have some precedent for high DEX and must wear non-metal unless classed with Thug).

The delta set of skills for Thief becomes pick lock, info3, peek, cant and inscribe - and to a lesser extent backstab and steal (which are somewhat mitigated by rushing and mug respectively). Stats wise, there's nothing distinctive about Thief any longer as well, nor do they possess additional melee abilities such as dual wield or the ability to wear metal armor.

I'm not seeking glorification of the single classer over the multi. Rather, I'm interested in viability and flavor of the individual classes such that each brings a unique set of potentials yet are relatively equal to each other individually.

I would think it desirous to have each class have its discinct flavor and tactics. As it stands right now, Thief has lost much of what made it unique, in my opinion. Whether that's regained via a stat cap change, or the addition or modification of skills is really a matter of ease of implementation and priority. I've posted ideas in the past and would be happy to post more if inspiration is needed. :)

At any rate, any consideration of this idea would be greatly appreciated. :)

Thanks!

Pol O'Song

Sorry Pol, you know I love you but I just dont agree with your comment about rangers and thugs ursurping anything. First of all, from someone playing a thug, I truly believe that thief is the better class. Both thief and thug are intended as third classes (yes Im going to hear it from you mage thief boy) and I think thats the way they are set up. Ranger on the other hand has been historically a second class (warrior option to magic class), so again I think the statement of usurping thief is not accurate. In fact, I applaud the addition of thug to give everyone another option for tripling, but in reality theives are far more useful.

True there is a little overlap between thief and thug. However there is overlap between other similar type classes with skills like (dodge, parry, second-third attack, disarm, blynd, etc). Frankly, taking away a skill like info two would make thugs even more useless. Right the only reason to play thug is to get rushing attack and info2. Thugs do not get rushing until level 18 and it is not nearly as effective as backstab. The only other real thug skill that seems useful is scan, but that is not until like level 25!

Back to the point of this thread. I also disagree with one of the comments you made before about rangers and thugs. You commented about the strength of these classes. Honestly I havent played Thug prime so I cant remember, but I think both thug and ranger have a max str of 650. In my opinion rangers should have more strength as they are a warrior class. It seems to me that Ranger should have significantly more strength than all of the magic classes, if not 25 max. Someone made the suggestion (I cant recall who) that maybe we open up that caps but make the benefits of the higher attribute score of greater impact to certain classes. I think this is a great idea. It gives a cleric the ability to wear 25 dex, but that same 25 dex is going to have a greater impact on a ranger than a single class cleric. This to me seems the most fair alternative. Allow people to wear more types of eq, increase stats and fighting abilities, but still permit those classes more reliant on certain attributes to reap greater benefits.

Anyway this is long, rambling and not sure if it makes sense.

Shuger

[Tiunara]

Orpik's trying to help improve the game just like the rest of us and is contributing his ideas. If you don't like the idea, argue the point, but don't insult the person. That wasn't too cool, Tiu.

It was never meant to be cool, I was simply outlining the stupidiness of Orpik's post. To me it seems he's always whining, which he just did again. I did argue the point about str and dex, but I could have elaborated more.

Anyway, I think removing the cap of dex and str takes away the difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. This should not change. It's a challenge to level up your mage with a lousy 500 str. And after all, this mud is called the final challenge for a reason no?