Thesis: Abilities that do not guarantee you will be able to use your transcend are problematic.
Examples: Barrow's Edge's "Drink of my Foes", Noble Branch's "Strike, Breathe, Rend", "Reap the Field". These are conditional on if something else occurs during your turn. In each of these cases, that trigger is a successful strike, though you could imagine the designers' could add other abilities with other triggers, such as you successfully demoralize, etc.
I think you miss judge noble branch. It seems like a solid option to me. If you compare noble branch to the power attack option, you’re getting a similar effect (extra damage on an attack by spending an extra action), but you get to decide AFTER the attack already hit if you want to spend the action. The damage succeds the power attack transcendence at some levels falls behind at others, and the noble branch damage cant crit, the possibility to use that action on a trip or demoralize if the attack misses anyways is clutch. Did i mention it also doesn’t have the attack trait. Barrows edge has similar viability but it heals instead of damages. And if you really wanted the ikon to shift you could also just one action shift.
.Reap the field is a real problem imo though because it’s not guaranteed to work, you have to hit a strike to get a chance to activate it, which is not guaranteed to work. And if you need up at any point you wasted 2 actions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reposting my thoughts on Noble Branch here for discussions sake after having ran through the Slithering module and roughly ~11 difficult encounters with it (Due to aiming to complete the scenario in one day, we cut out a lot of the chaff fights and had both Archive of the Sun delves turned into run-on encounters due to scouts alerting adjacent rooms.)
- Noble Branch is kinda bad compared to the other weapon ikons. The raw damage with no save/no attack roll is neat, but the Transcend ability relying on your first strike having hit is bad. As-is, I'd much rather just have the Power Attack analog from the Hammer Ikon, since it does a functionally similar effect for the same functional action economy and still changes your ikon on a miss. There were a lot of rounds where I was forced with Branch to either waste my last action to swap Ikons, or attack with Map and be forced to stay in Weapon Ikon. Just feels like a weaker choice than Hammer and I'm not a fan.
I guess the one current benefit of Branch over Axe is that if you miss the initial strike, you can 1a swap spark to a different Ikon and still have the action to Transcend it, whereas with Axe your miss was your transcendence so you wasted the 1/round already. Pointing this out since I did at least have reliably good fallback options in regards to Mournful Scar and TLSandals, although I generally found these turns still felt like the lowest points of Mt experience given how often they were coming up due in part to awful rolling (and three rounds spent unsuccessfully trying to roll a 14 while pinned to the ground by an Aurumvorax). Personally I'd prefer the option to transcend out of the weapon even if the previous strike hadn't hit (maybe something like reducing the damage output but make it push the target back 5ft automatically with no hit requirement or 5/10ft any direction if the previous strike was a hit, leaning into the flavor of the Polearm Crit Spec default option?)
EDIT: I think part of the reason the effect feels bad that goes unsaid in my initial posts is that you only have the option to Transcend if the previous strike succeeds, and usually you plan your turn around hoping for at least a strike 1 hit. If you miss, the option is gone, and suddenly you're having to re-plan your last two actions on the fly, which leads to a lot of player stress and frustration in the moment and makes the initial miss feel even worse. I think, reflecting on it, that the Noble Branch is good from a versatility standpoint due to the reasons I mentioned in the second quote, but the issue is that it doesn't feel good or fun in the moment when you're suddenly having to replan everything or rely on Plan B to cover, if you even have time to do so (since Stride>Miss>Swap just wastes your Transcend completely for that turn and is not an uncommon turn; that said, there isn't really a functional differencebetween a missed Axe Transcendence and a missed Branch Attack in that example.)
Reposting my thoughts on Noble Branch here for discussions sake after having ran through the Slithering module and roughly ~11 difficult encounters with it:...
Edit: well i wish i would have seen your edit first because now what i said is totally irrelevant lol. But I can see why it feels bad even though missing with noble branch is objectively better. I prepose that they give a slight innate benefit to doing a regular swap either as a base class feature or low level feat, so you never feel that your wasting actions. It would also help with actions with really expensive transcendences like the beautiful spot.
If i may ask why were you so fixed on switching your icon every turn? You’ve shown in your analysis that the effects are similar in terms of the damage,. And if you think about whenever you would have missed using the strike before you wanted to transcend noble branch, if you would have power attacked, you would have missed anyways. But now you don’t have to swap if you don’t want to, and if you don’t swap you can do something meaningful with the third action, like stride/assurance trip/ demoralize etc. In your initial post it seems as though your main complaint is that you don’t transcend on a miss, but if you miss your strike and want to switch the action economy is the exact same.
I just can’t wrap head around how noble branch makes missing worse when you get similar effect on a hit, for LESS initial action investment.
From what i understand the real downside of noble branxh is that the damage will never crit, but that only matters if the attack hit anyways.
|
|
Reposting my thoughts on Noble Branch here for discussions sake after having ran through the Slithering module and roughly ~11 difficult encounters with it:...If i may ask why were you so fixed on switching your icon every turn? You’ve shown in your analysis that the effects are similar in terms of the damage,. And if you think about whenever you would have missed using the strike before you wanted to transcend noble branch, if you would have power attacked, you would have missed anyways. But now you don’t have to swap if you don’t want to, and if you don’t swap you can do something meaningful with the third action, like stride/assurance trip/ demoralize etc. In your initial post it seems as though your main complaint is that you don’t transcend on a miss, but if you miss your strike and want to switch the action economy is the exact same.
I just can’t wrap head around how noble branch makes missing worse when you get similar effect on a hit, for LESS initial action investment.
From what i understand the real downside of noble branxh is that the damage will never crit, but that only matters if the attack hit anyways.
Honestly, I've been trying to wrap my head around it for the past half hour, and the more I think about it the more I think that the reason it feels awful as a player is largely psychological. While on a hit you have a choice, on a miss it feels like a rugpull due to the choice being removed from the options by a power outside the player's control. Being forced onto a plan B doesn't *feel* good even if it is functionally and logically better than a hypothetical power attack miss in this case.
Sometimes things feel bad because of psychology rather than math; that's unfortunately a part of game design sometimes.
However, my point is that I find it hard to come up with scenarios where it would actually change my decision making in a good way, rather than having to salvage a bad turn.
I think that’s the point. The point is too salvage a bad turn or be able to pivot in a worse case scenario. A player who takes the power attack action will be rewarded when they land that big crit, and the noble branch player will be rewarded when they miss and their put in a less bad situation. (Note there’s also a scenario where hitting with noble branch is better)
Your saying if you washed to hit and do something else, you could have picked a different ikon, but thats not the argument here. We’re talking about when you MISS. When you hit power attack is better when you miss noble branch is situationally better.
Also since you waited to know if you hit, you get the option of using your bigboy damage transcendence next turn. Which is convenient if damage output is your main concern. Also it pairs well with reactive strike since you can hinge tire bets and if doesn’t turn out well you can hold off transcendence get a stronger reaction attack.
Also note that even on a hit it can have benefits over power attack because it doesn’t have the attack trait, so you can still build around attending to hit with your attack pop noble branch, then attack again with say victors wreath or something for a plus 1 to hit.
Remember that the main benefit of the power attack option is the crit damage, but if you want a decent chance of critting, you would need to power attack on your first turn, so even still there’s a benefit for noble branch not having the attack trait.
Maybe it’s just cause i’m a grinch, but i’m glad there’s an option that makes me less pissy on a miss lol.
I sympathize with you that missing still sucks though. I think it’d be cool if the final playtest had some slight benefit for manually swapping your ikon, or maybe feats that give alternate transcendence options for weapons on a miss. That would make noble branch even better fit me. I think the base design of noble branch is sound though.
I'd also argue that on top of not being able to guarantee that you can transcend-combo into one of your other ikons, the payoff from Noble Branch's Strike, Breathe, Rend is also objectively terrible. It is basically two actions that give you a regular Strike plus either 1-4 or 1d10 or 1-4d10 damage (depending on how it gets clarified). In contrast, Fracture Mountains gets you a regular Strike plus 1d12+4 to 3d12+32 damage. Gleaming Blade is a lot more complicated, but a regular Strike plus a second one at -2 (for a reasonable chance at 4d12+19 plus up to 3d6 from runes), who even get combined for resistances (and sadly weaknesses) is still very impressive.
Even in the best case scenario (1-4d10), the fact that the damage is automatic doesn't even matter, as using it is still conditional on the initial Strike hitting. Under the exact same conditions (your Strike hits), Fracture Mountains is unquestionably a pure upgrade. Gleaming Blade has a much higher pay-off potential as well, even if it is hidden behind some chance, and on top of that it makes getting any damage far more likely. I'd argue that both of those are just plain better abilities.
That you don't have to spend your transcend when the initial Strike fails is more often than not a punishment, as you have already laid out.
So, the benefit arises if I miss with the Noble Branch. If I decide to attack again, then I would have been better off (on average) of using one of the stronger damage Ikons. I have no new information here, so I should have just spent 2 actions to do a better thing. The key assumption that Transcending is more damage than passive Immanence means that there is not really value in keeping the spark in your weapon longer than just spending it as soon as you can. Damage later is worse than damage now.
Edit: i should clarify that when i say “noble branch” an attack i mean. Wait to see if it hits, then spend an action using your transcend ability. Perhaps my wording is confusing.
This is doesn’t make sense to me. If you planned to noble branch your second attack of the turn, and you miss you’re second attack, you are better off because (assuming your okay with not shifting your divine spark) you wasted one less action. You can then do something else, since you never used your noble branches transcendence. -10 strike, or a demoralize or something.
If you planned to noble branch your second attack and you hit, the effect will be similar to if you just used the power attack ikon, yes the power attack one can do more damage on a crit, but you are unlikely to crit the second attack of the turn, unless the enemy is a couple levels lower than you. So your approximatley net nuetral.
If you planned on noble branching your first attack. And you hit, you still have a benefit over power attackers because both of you spent two actions, but you only increased your map once not twice, allowing you to get a second strike at -5 with your third action vs a minus 10 if you power attacked. This is balanced by the chance to crit with power attack. So here it’s unclear who’s on top.
If you planned on noble branching your first attack and you miss. You are better off then if you tried to power attack your first attack. Because then, you can instead just try to noble branch the second attack.
Edit: added further context.
Your saying if you washed to hit and do something else, you could have picked a different ikon, but thats not the argument here. We’re talking about when you MISS. When you hit power attack is better when you miss noble branch is situationally better.I think you are missing my point here, and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
Let's say one wants to Strike and then Transcend their Noble Branch, this is their top choice of what you want to happen during their turn. However, one misses. Now, instead of Striking again, one chooses to stride. You are basically saying there are situations where one might think:
Strike -> Transcend is better than Strike -> Stride (action X)
AND
Strike -> Stride (action X) is better than Strike -> Strike
Substitute Stride (action X) with anything, and I find it hard to believe you will encounter many situations unless Transcend is wayyy stronger than a second Strike. It's not, or else it would imbalanced. Noble Branch is probably similar to Power Attacking since it adds more dice, but can't crit - and Power Attacking is similar in damage (though in many cases worse) than Striking twice.
If Strike -> Transcend is not their top choice for action, then any other Weapon Ikon could do that just as effectively.
So, my point is that while Noble Branch let's you decide what to do after a miss, I find it hard to believe it will actually realistically change your decisions.
I will give you that there is the scenario where you want to maximize damage with 3 actions, or use Grapple/Trip etc, where Noble Branch might have a niche.
To start off, sorry if i’m missing your point, and it might seem like i’m ignoring you because i keep typing while you’re typing.
Second. I don’t think i understand your argument at all. Your talking about whether transcending is better than a strike, but i think that’s irrelevant.
My argument is assuming that you’re replacing the 2 action activity of power attacking with the 2 actions of striking, and then following that up with transcending your noble branch. There’s no reason why noble branch should ever stop from attacking twice. Please elaborate further because i’m confused.
I'd also argue that on top of not being able to guarantee that you can transcend-combo into one of your other ikons, the payoff from Noble Branch's Strike, Breathe, Rend is also objectively terrible. It is basically two actions that give you a regular Strike plus either 1-4 or 1d10 or 1-4d10 damage (depending on how it gets clarified). In contrast, Fracture Mountains gets you a regular Strike plus 1d12+4 to 3d12+32 damage. Gleaming Blade is a lot more complicated, but a regular Strike plus a second one at -2 (for a reasonable chance at 4d12+19 plus up to 3d6 from runes), who even get combined for resistances (and sadly weaknesses) is still very impressive.
Even in the best case scenario (1-4d10), the fact that the damage is automatic doesn't even matter, as using it is still conditional on the initial Strike hitting. Under the exact same conditions (your Strike hits), Fracture Mountains is unquestionably a pure upgrade. Gleaming Blade has a much higher pay-off potential as well, even if it is hidden behind some chance, and on top of that it makes getting any damage far more likely. I'd argue that both of those are just plain better abilities.
That you don't have to spend your transcend when the initial Strike fails is more often than not a punishment, as you have already laid out.
I think we’re interpretting the text of these abilities completely differently. Noble branch says that it deals damage equal to your weapons damage dice (plural) which is the same wording on feats like brutal critical. So at level 4 breath, strike, tend is doing 2d10 not 1d10.
Additionally, the mountain strike thing says (the damage increases to 4 plus an extra die if damage), not( increases to 4 per damage die, plus an extra die of damage). The feat says increase too, not increase by, so RAW this new extra damage replaces the old one (2 per damage die). Perhaps it’s not intended to work that way idk, but that’s what it says if im not mistaken.
By this interpretation the damage of mountain strike vs strike + breathe rend is comparable. Some levels mountain strike is slightly above. Some levels Breathe rend is better. (Not accounting for criticals which you can only get with mountain strike.
If your interpretation of mountain strike is correct. Then yes mountain strike would just be way better.
I think we’re interpretting the text of these abilities completely differently. Noble branch says that it deals damage equal to your weapons damage dice (plural) which is the same wording on feats like brutal critical. So at level 4 breath, strike, tend is doing 2d10 not 1d10.
That is what I presented this as the best-case scenario, as that is what it currently says. But this is a highly unusual way of doing things, hence it might get clarified. Not that the other possibilities are likely, given that they are just completely useless.
Additionally, the mountain strike thing says (the damage increases to 4 plus an extra die if damage), not( increases to 4 per damage die, plus an extra die of damage). The feat says increase too, not increase by, so RAW this new extra damage replaces the old one (2 per damage die). Perhaps it’s not intended to work that way idk, but that’s what it says if im not mistaken.
By this interpretation the damage of mountain strike vs strike + breathe rend is comparable. Some levels mountain strike is slightly above. Some levels Breathe rend is better. (Not accounting for criticals which you can only get with mountain strike.
Yup, I phrased that poorly. What you described is how it currently works and I wouldn't expect that to change. But the math is quite a bit more lopsided than you seem to think, especially later on.
At level 1 the extra damage is effectively 1d10 vs 1d12+2, so Fracture Mountains is a bit better. From level 4-9, SBR is doing 2d10 (avg. 11) vs FM's 1d12+4 (avg. 10.5), so SBR is marginally ahead. At level 10 is the point where the balance swings decisively in FM's favor, as it jumps to 2d12+8 (avg. 21.5). Starting at level 12, it's 3d10 (avg. 16.5) vs 2d12+12 (avg. 25).
So in conclusion, the only time SBR is ahead is 4-9 and even then only marginally, including a lower minimum. That said, reach from polearms is a pretty neat thing to have.
Other than that, Fracture Mountains is the same but better. Its bonus damage also ignores construct hardness on top of everything.
Okay, so what I am trying to say is not about Noble Branch vs some other Weapon Ikon, my thesis is this:
1) Gambling to move your spark sucks. Spending 1 action to just move your spark sucks. This is my main point.
With that said, I think Noble Branch is a trap. It might convince its user that it opens up new opportunities if you miss with your Strike. I just don't think that is true. That logic has nothing to do with other Weapon Ikons (Titan Breaker's ability is a bit ambiguous, but Gleaming Blade is clearly stronger than Noble Branch's damage, but this is not my point).
You have the Noble Branch and are planning your turn. You think you want to spend two actions on the offense, maybe you need to stride, aid, or do something else with your third action. So, you think you want to Strike -> Transcend. That's what you think would be a good use of your 2 actions.
You hit, so you use the Transcend ability. You are happy.
What happens if you miss with your first strike? This is where Noble Branch tries to convince you it has some value. Let's say for your second action you decide to demoralize instead of take the MAP 1x-5 Strike. You may not realize it, but what you have essentially decided is that:
Strike -> Transcend Noble Branch is more valuable than Strike -> Demoralize, and Strike -> Demoralize is more valuable than Strike -> Strike.The Noble Branch Transcend ability is similar in value to the MAP 1x-5 strike. So, I posit that there are not many cases where demoralize can be better than the MAP 1x-5 Strike, but weaker than Noble Branch's Transcend.
You might think the Noble Branch has opened up new possibilities for your turn, but I imagine in most instances your second action would either be a MAP 1x-5 Strike or you would have just originally chosen to only do a single Strike and use your 2nd and third actions to do something else. I don't think the miss will actually impact your decision making.
With all that being said, Noble Branch might have a niche where you want to spend...
I think i understand you know. You’re thinking about this as if you were only planning to use two actions on your offensive. Then you’d be better off not using noble branch. This is true. My thought process is that I am INTENDING to use 3 actions on my offensive. Which noble branch can do nicely by just striking twice and popping transcend the first chance you get. And if you miss both strikes you can pivot to something else.
And i understand that you aren’t talking about mountain strike or whatever it’s called, but for clarification I kept bringing up the mountain strike thing, is because i was trying to power scale it against another ikon to show it’s not that weak. As the noble branch eould give you similar damage with strictly more versatility. If you set out intending to use all 3 actions to deal damage, if you intend to use only 2 actions on damage, then they’re both bad and you shouldn’t be using them anyways. This is under the assumption that mountain strike isn’t dealing like 8 damage per weapon damage die.
I think we’re on the same page now? :)
I think we’re interpretting the text of these abilities completely differently. Noble branch says that it deals damage equal to your weapons damage dice (plural) which is the same wording on feats like brutal critical. So at level 4 breath, strike, tend is doing 2d10 not 1d10.That is what I presented this as the best-case scenario, as that is what it currently says. But this is a highly unusual way of doing things, hence it might get clarified. Not that the other possibilities are likely, given that they are just completely useless.
Additionally, the mountain strike thing says (the damage increases to 4 plus an extra die if damage), not( increases to 4 per damage die, plus an extra die of damage). The feat says increase too, not increase by, so RAW this new extra damage replaces the old one (2 per damage die). Perhaps it’s not intended to work that way idk, but that’s what it says if im not mistaken.
By this interpretation the damage of mountain strike vs strike + breathe rend is comparable. Some levels mountain strike is slightly above. Some levels Breathe rend is better. (Not accounting for criticals which you can only get with mountain strike.
Yup, I phrased that poorly. What you described is how it currently works and I wouldn't expect that to change. But the math is quite a bit more lopsided than you seem to think, especially later on.
At level 1 the extra damage is effectively 1d10 vs 1d12+2, so Fracture Mountains is a bit better. From level 4-9, SBR is doing 2d10 (avg. 11) vs FM's 1d12+4 (avg. 10.5), so SBR is marginally ahead. At level 10 is the point where the balance swings decisively in FM's favor, as it jumps to 2d12+8 (avg. 21.5). Starting at level 12, it's 3d10 (avg. 16.5) vs 2d12+12 (avg. 25).
So in conclusion, the only time SBR is ahead is 4-9 and even then only marginally, including a lower minimum. That said, reach from polearms is a pretty neat thing to have.Other than that, Fracture Mountains is the same but...
I’m glad we’re more on the same page now, but there’s two flaws with how you’re calculating this damage differential imo.
1. You’re using a d12, weapon for one and a d10 weapon for the other. That’s not a fair comparison. I do know that there are no d12 spears/staves, but there are d10 axes and clubs. We want to compare the ikon transcend abilities not their base weapons.2. You’re comparing the damage of the mountain ability, compared to just breath, strike rend, by itself. Which is causing you to include the bonus damage (the +4-8) for FM, but not the +2 damage per die that the strike that proc’d bsr would have. This doesn’t make sense imo. You should be comparing the damage of fractire mountain vs. the damage of (strike + bsr). Since both would take two actions. (Strike + bsr has the benefit of increasing map only once, but i’ll ignore that for now ).
If you compare their damage that way you will see that the difference is much closer.
(Not including str)
At level 12 it’s (bsr + strike) = srike (3d10 + 6) + bsr (3d10) = 6d10 + 6 = 39
And fm = strike (3d10) + fm ( 2d10 + 6) = 5 d10 + 6 = 33.5
At level 10 (bsr + strike) = strike (2d10 + 4) + bsr (2 d10) = 4d10 + 4 = 26
And fm = strike (2d10) + fm ( 2d10 + 6) = 4d10 + 6 = 28
So actually less damage RAW . Even if you did use a d12 weapon fm is still behind at level 12. (Granted there are levels where fm is ahead because it scales quicker than bsr, but even then it’s not by much. Also the extra damage (2d10 + 6 at level 12) has a chance of critting which is not possible with bsr).
I'm pretty sure mountain breaker is 5d10+18, as it increases the damage from the immanence, which is per dice.
RAW it says that your damage increases to “4 + an extra die of damage” from what ever it was, so that would replace what ever the initial damage was ( 2 damage per weapon damage die). In order for what you said to be true it should say the damage increases to “4 per weapon damage die plus an extra die of damage”.
Otherwise if the damage replacement was supposed to be per damage die, then fm would actually deal an extra 4 + an extra die of damage for every weapon damage die which can’t be right.
I think it possible, that how are you interpreting it is how the authors intended it, but i dont believe that’s supported raw.
I’m glad we’re more on the same page now, but there’s two flaws with how you’re calculating this damage differential imo.
1. You’re using a d12, weapon for one and a d10 weapon for the other. That’s not a fair comparison. I do know that there are no d12 spears/staves, but there are d10 axes and clubs. We want to compare the ikon transcend abilities not their base weapons.
That is going to be by far the most common choice, hence why I chose it. D10 axes and clubs have that damage die because of traits like sweep, backswing or forceful. In most cases, you'll not attack more than once per turn using these Ikons, so these traits are useless to you. Ergo, maul and greataxe are going to be the default two-handed weapons. If we go one-handed, the higher flat damage of FM will be even more influential, so that doesn't help.
2. You’re comparing the damage of the mountain ability, compared to just breath, strike rend, by itself. Which is causing you to include the bonus damage (the +4-8) for FM, but not the +2 damage per die that the strike that proc’d bsr would have. This doesn’t make sense imo. You should be comparing the damage of fractire mountain vs. the damage of (strike + bsr). Since both would take two actions. (Strike + bsr has the benefit of increasing map only once, but i’ll ignore that for now ).
If you compare their damage that way you will see that the difference is much closer.
(Not including str)
At level 12 it’s (bsr + strike) = srike (3d10 + 6) + bsr (3d10) = 6d10 + 6 = 39
And fm = strike (3d10) + fm ( 2d10 + 6) = 5 d10 + 6 = 33.5At level 10 (bsr + strike) = strike (2d10 + 4) + bsr (2 d10) = 4d10 + 4 = 26
And fm = strike (2d10) + fm ( 2d10 + 6) = 4d10 + 6 = 28So actually less damage RAW . Even if you did use a d12 weapon fm is still behind at level 12. (Granted there are levels where fm is ahead because it scales quicker than bsr, but even then it’s not by much. Also the extra damage (2d10 + 6 at level 12) has a chance of critting which is not possible with bsr).
The Strike damage of FM vs the Strike as condition of BSR are already in favor of FM, so I didn't include it. I reduced the bonus damage for FM instead to account for that.
But I just noticed that I did indeed misread both your previous comment and the ability, sorry ^^. That said, the ability makes little sense as written when you don't read it as "x per damage die". At the respective levels, the transcendence bonus will already give you that exact number, so why mention it twice? The only reason is that this way the entire thing gets counted as "additional spirit damage", but that seems like an overly complicated way to achieve it.
And mathematically, it would be god awful. No reach and less damage against anything that doesn't have resistance vs all, including a massively delayed progression? Because that part about ignoring hardness is functionally irrelevant, as the rest of your Strike will eat the full hardness regardless. So it's borderline useless to everyone but like three people who will choose this ikon with DEX. And maybe when smashing the occasional stone door in.
If that is actually the correct way to read it, boy howdy does it need a buff and a half. Might as well call it "bad Power Attack". Man, I'm glad Gleaming Blade is my favourite ^^
There's a separate thread about this. Please go there =)
Whoops, sorry ^^