I guess the consensus was that arials were op. I'd point out however that going between that 23-22 int threshold takes off something like 60 hitpoints at hero. That's a pretty significant percentage of an assassin's hp, but more significantly arial mage was already a dubious choice, and with 22 int and 300 exp pen it seems all the more dubious.

Personally I think that the solution is to remove train hp and apply racial hp bonuses to compensate.

Arials are most comparable to Dwarves, statwise.

They both gain hydrophobia and drown vulnerability so that racial cancels out.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that:

Lightning vuln + inherent flight + wingsweep > resist magic + forgecraft + detect secret passage

Which is a sentiment that I do not necessarily agree with.

>> Arials are most comparable to Dwarves, statwise.

That is the funniest thing I have read all day.

Dwarf: 25, 22, 19, 19, 18
Arial: 25, 22, 20, 19, 18

They are indeed quite similar.

I am not saying that Dwarf stats and Arial stats are most similar, simply that they are most comparable due to both having a similar attribute distribution (numerically), hydrophobia (which is a difficult mechanic to rate how penalizing it is in competitive play) and a similar experience penalty (250 vs 300)

Which is utterly and completely irrelevant to the comparison you tried to make below.

>> Lightning vuln + inherent flight + wingsweep > resist magic + forgecraft + detect secret passage

Because the way the stat points are allocated ensures that the two races are absolutely nothing alike.

No races have comparable stats! They cannot be balanced relative to each other! They exist entirely in vacuum!

If you have a better comparison, I'd like to hear it.

Edited to add:

Although I do appreciate you drawing to my attention to this paragraph. I neglected to take into consideration dwarven resist poison/disease.

Pretty much every good player would pick 25 dex/18 con before 25 con/18 dex for a melee class. Especially if 23 int makes it possible to train hp more and that reduces the hp gap even more.

But Thera is not solely populated by melee classes. Arial mages were something of a minority to begin with, and this change would serve to broaden the gap.

For melee classes, dwarves have 22 strength vs the arial 19. This equates to a better parry, and a higher success rate on the many melee-ish skills that require strength. Combined with 20% resistance to fire, acid, cold, lightning, and energy, dwarves become a solid pick (in my humble opinion).

I suspect we'll need to watch how these changes play out before forming any solid conclusions.

>For melee classes, dwarves have 22 strength vs the arial 19.
>This equates to a better parry, and a higher success rate on

Dex has less impact than parry than str, but stat impact is semi-exponential. Does 22 str/18 dex parry better than 19str/25 dex? I'm not so sure it does.

> Does 22 str/18 dex parry better than 19str/25 dex?

Yes, assuming flourintine isn't relevant.

Also, spin/dodge is a whole other issue obviously.

Flour is dexterity based?

I imagine riposte is?

>Flour is dexterity based?
>
> I imagine riposte is?

Yes and yes.

Granted, parry itself has strength as a factor, so for a sword warrior, STR and DEX are roughly of equal value in parrying.

>Pretty much every good player would pick 25 dex/18 con before 25 con/18 dex for a melee class. Especially if 23 int makes it possible to train hp more and that reduces the hp gap even more.

I think Marcus is mostly referring to how the classic dwarf and giant builds are entirely the opposite build form to arials and elves, so its absurd to try and compare dwarves and arials as if their builds were even remotely related.

There are a lot of builds and a lot of matchups where I'd pick a dwarf spec/legacy setup over an arial. Thing is, they're pretty much the exact opposite warrior archetype~

Squishy dexy hit and run maledict spec versus brick wall tanky offensive spec.

I would not mind if train hp went the way of the dodo.

Gnomes in particular would take the shaft.

Up their hp gains a little to compensate.

And do what with all the practices they now can't use?

At the very least, any character that has made use of "train hp" should be disqualified from receiving a CON quest.

The main reasons I don't like it:

1. It advantages throwaway characters. If you know you're not going to live to be old and/or die enough times to need to train up your con then why not convert all your spare trains and practices into hp? If, however, you think you're going to play a character to age/con death then maybe you conserve them for when they're needed in the future.

2. It rewards characters who are uber-cautious and/or skilled enough to avoid dying much and/or uninterested in PK whatsoever. The newbie needs all his trains to keep his CON high while ranking since he's getting killed left and right. The vet doesn't. Vet gets an automatic hp bonus at hero when he converts all his unused stuff into hp.

Ok, again, what would you do with all the practices you now can't use to train hp or mana?

Namely con and strength when you get to old age and the like.

Use them to keep CON maxed throughout a character's lifespan.

Use them to re-max strength and dex when they go down from age.

Or adjust hp gains so that high-wis races get more hp (and low-wis races get less) and make it so everybody gets 3 pracs/rank.

Why do you need to stock con to get 75 additional deaths? Most of the people who die that much have leader con.

>1. It advantages throwaway characters. If you know you're not
>going to live to be old and/or die enough times to need to
>train up your con then why not convert all your spare
>trains and practices into hp? If, however, you think you're
>going to play a character to age/con death then maybe you
>conserve them for when they're needed in the future.

I'm not big on throwaway characters, but I always convert all my spare trains and pracs. But maybe you think a character that lasts for a paltry 250 hours is a throwaway. As for con, I completely suck at PK, but I'm still not going to run out of con before I delete unless I'm being completely reckless. Anyhow, I'd generally rather be stronger for a shorter period of time.

And actually I disagree about it rewarding character who are cautious or avoid PK. Half the reason training hp a lot makes sense for me is because I'm going to have garbage eq anyway, because I don't play cautiously enough to keep any worthwhile gear. So the hp from trains represents a much higher percent of my total than someone like you who is decked out all the time.

>Up their hp gains a little to compensate.

6 pracs = 6 hp/level. With trains it's something like 9. That's close to double a mage's base gains. Also this applies to other races similarly. A 23 int arial's are probably 10-15%.