/cue Gilbert and Sullivan.

I like... though I liked high elfen too! Not as fond of the name; I'm brainstorming with some people for alternatives to propose. (When you look at the species of elves traditionally named, "high elf" should be the artistic ones, and "wood elf" the druidy/wiccany ones, but high elf has been used for Moondancers and Hartstone forever, so it's hard to find one that really works and isn't too obscure.)

Just some suggestions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.14.18 The Viscanti Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 13 Dexterity : 10 Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 12 Charisma : 10 Size : 13

4.14.18 The Brood Viscanti Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 16 Dexterity : 12 Constitution: 16
Intelligence: 9 Charisma : 9 Size : 15


4.14.18 The Master Viscanti Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 11 Dexterity : 8 Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 15 Charisma : 12 Size : 13

4.14.18 The Crimson Viscanti Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 11 Dexterity : 10 Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 14 Charisma : 12 Size : 11

4.14.18 The Ninja Viscanti Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 13 Dexterity : 14 (+4) Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 9 (-3) Charisma : 10 Size : 14 (+1)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.14.5 The Faeling Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 7 Dexterity : 18 Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 15 Charisma : 16 Size : 4

4.14.5 The Shadowcaster Faeling Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 7 Dexterity : 15 Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 16 Charisma : 16 Size : 5


4.14.5 The Shadowlord Faeling Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 10 Dexterity : 18 Constitution: 11
Intelligence: 12 Charisma : 13 Size : 6


4.14.5 The Shadowsinger Faeling Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 6 Dexterity : 18 Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 16 Charisma : 17 Size : 3


4.14.5 The Shadowscorpion Faeling Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 7 Dexterity : 20 (+2) Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 14 (-1) Charisma : 16 Size : 5 (+1)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Help:

4.14.4 The Elfen Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 11 Dexterity : 14 Constitution: 11
Intelligence: 15 Charisma : 15 Size : 11

4.14.4 The High Elfen Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 10 Dexterity : 12 Constitution: 11
Intelligence: 17 Charisma : 16 Size : 11


4.14.4 The Elfen Lord Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 15 Dexterity : 16 Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 13 Charisma : 12 Size : 13


4.14.4 The Wild Elfen Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 10 Dexterity : 14 Constitution: 11
Intelligence: 16 Charisma : 16 Size : 10


4.14.4 The Bullrush Elfen Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 11 Dexterity : 17 (+3) Constitution: 11
Intelligence: 11 (-4) Charisma : 15 Size : 12 (+1)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Help:

4.14.12 The Merian Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 11 Dexterity : 11 Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 16 Charisma : 13 Size : 12

4.14.12 The Imperial Merian Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 9 Dexterity : 10 Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 18 Charisma : 15 Size : 12


4.14.12 The Merian Lord Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 16 Dexterity : 14 Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 13 Charisma : 11 Size : 14



4.14.12 The Seasinger Merian Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 9 Dexterity : 11 Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 17 Charisma : 15 Size : 11


4.14.12 The Harmonious Merian Race

STATISTICS:
Strength : 11 Dexterity : 15 (+4) Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 14 (-2) Charisma : 13 Size : 14 (+2)



P.S. While working on this, it became glaringly obvious to me again that Merians and Elfens get more bonuses when they specialize than Viscanti and Faelings. But regardless of that, I tried to keep the Monk specializations basically equal, though I imagine they are still subpar races to Kephera and Illithoid.

I won't lie. That Viscanti ninja spec...is awful.

And the faeling...20 dex?! Oh the horror.

Then suggest something better

They've already said they are absolutely not doing monk racial specs, period, why are you still suggesting them?

The way illithoid and kephera are built (not to mention loboshigaru, faeling, aslaran, krokani...you get the idea) Monk specs aren't needed.

But look how untanky they are. If you notice the more con a race has the less dex/int/cha they get from that chart there. Like viscanti, has the least dex/int/cha then the other races but the most con.

9->10 isn't a huge difference, and there's a level 3 sip bonus there as well which should more than make up for it. It's not an issue for Elfen (+2 con, also have a sipbonus, and have comparable other stats except a lower dex), but maybe Merians could use another 2 points of dex as well.

This, I agree with since it's much harder to gain INT as opposed to CHA which could easily be boosted up with a throne, High magic, karma Beauty and Bardic Presence, whereas INT can only be boosted up by...a karma Knowledge blessing. And though we don't have a sip bonus, I'd gladly sacrifice a point of CON as an Elfen for the +2 INT, and how about calling an Elfen Spiritsinger male an Elfen Song Lord and an Elfen Spiritsinger female an Elfen Songstress?

Can anyone confirm that these are the correct Human stats at 95 (got them from here)?

Warrior
16/14/14/13/12/13

Monk
14/15/14/14/12/13

Bard/Guardian/Wiccan/Mage/Druid?
13/14/14/16/13/13

I just wanted to have these confirmed as a baseline. It seems odd that there are only 3 sets for 5 classes but I assume just like with the race specs there is a desire to not have one per class for whatever reason?

I'm loving the proposed bard specs. It only hurts that I'm a faeling in the Spiritsingers .

I think of all the race names, the "wild elfen" makes the most sense! (Forget "traditional" elf species.) It fits nicely with the skillset "wildarrane".

Hmm, maybe "wilde elfen" looks better?

Sorry, I mentioned an idea about it several times earlier and should've requoted it. It's not a racial change per se, but it's a change that should be added as a result from the racial equilibrium and balance changes.

The idea is to give equilibrium users a new attack purely for bashing. Before these racial changes, the only way for an equilibrium user to keep up with the bashing of a monk or warrior was to be a mugwump because mugwump attack speed was pretty much a 280 speed weapon with no balance bonus. Slower if they had any.

The speed change, while necessary, completely destroys equilibrium user's PvE. Equilibrium users already tend to be some of the least popular classes such as druids and mages and worsening their bashing makes it even less popular. People do take into account bashing capabilities when choosing a class.

Also, this now takes all equilibrium users out of the running for any future Death competitions, including all future Death competetions for the Seal of Death.

So, that's the overall problem with the reduction in speed. It's definately necessary for combat purpose, but I don't see why PvE has to be killed for equilibrium users. The idea is to create a new attack that can only be used on denizens. This attack would have the base attack speed equal to a 280 speed weapon (or whatever speed appropriate) or a maestro level bard instrument speed. This would compensate the bashing accordingly to the racial changes.

Of course, I'm under the assumption that the racial changes were primarily supposed to balance combat and so I believe the PvE aspect was completely overlooked. If it's not possible to make the attack impossible to target players, I'd imagine there's a way to code it so that the damage it does to players is essentially reduced to zero or a worthless amount like a newbie kick, or even 100 damage and no one would use it.

Geb commented on this, but didn't really say whether it was okay or not. Lack of his disapproval leads me to believe that he's okay with this. I also think that Xenthos would be okay with allowing equilibrium users to get a fast bashing attack that's less than 280 speed to compensate for the difference between balance attackers missing and equilibrium one's not.

Anyways, this was my biggest concern to all the racial changes. A standardized bashing attack that allows, essentially equal PvE attack speed. Monks and warriors will still have the advantages of multiple attacks, tankiness and each guild still guess their own unique abilities to support their own bashing, but at least everyone is on the same page or near it when it comes down to base attack speed.

How likely do you think eq classses are to get a bashing boost to cope?

Estarra, -really- not hot on bard specs but no monk specs. Trying to get the new guilds to be "equals" with the old ones has been a problem for a while now. Amongst other things like lack of guards (making bard/monk security of less worth compared to others, at least before bard song-guard things), the fact that unspecced elfen, merian etc. make pretty sad bards is another thing contributing to the disconnect.

Along withwhoever posted it I also don't see why a monk spec is any more forced than a bard spec, or, for that matter, a warrior spec. We can trade dex and str for cha and int or something, and just not gain as much con as warrior specs in exchange for having a higher input into both dex and str (since both are important for us.)

EDIT: While we're on the subject, though I don't think it's going to happen, any bashing fixes to bring eq classes up to the level of warriors should include monks too. Warriors bash both faster and tankier than us, and a large swathe of the eq guilds are tankier than us too (if not faster except as mugwump.)

How likely do you think the bashing speed neutralization was figured with anything other than balance and eq neutral races? Yes, sure, the crit formula favors monks and warriors, but not so much that it's worth coding a whole new skill.

I'm not totally behind his solution, but Krellan is correct about the problem he identifies.

Mages and druids used to do the absolute most amount of PvE damage with wiccans close behind and guardians gaining symbol, which is supposedly the PvE equivalent of staff. Warriors weren't far behind once they reached the upper levels and obtained exceptional weapons, and they made up for it anyway with superior tankiness and, to a lesser degree, a lack of mana cost on their attack.

Somewhere between monks, dmp, and stat curving all magic classes except bards (who were given an unusually strong and fast bashing attack) found themselves having smaller resistances and being inexplicably gimped in bashing damage (I used to think it was because str gain peaked at 14 and int at 12, but Estarra herself has contradicted that not too long ago). At the same time, the physical classes began to outright dominate in bashing. The reasons for monks doing so well are pretty obvious, but one possible explanation for the warriors' success is the rumored bug that makes strength have no effect on PvE damage. Either that, or they just seem so much better now because everyone else has been left so far behind.

Anyway, I don't think Krellan's idea of a new attack is necessary since the PvE damage of the existing attacks can simply be buffed. I realize that would undermine hit-and-run tactics that allow magic classes to win domoths, but I think that's something that should be addressed in terms of the relative tankiness of warriors to all other classes.

We aren't looking at new attacks at this time--certainly not new attacks for races! If there's an issue with attacks, it can be brought up in envoys or in a separate topic.

We are not considering monk specialized races at this time. We are considering bard specialized races so input is welcome there.

Regarding the issue on dexterity for warriors, as I had presumed, 2 points of dexterity really does next to nothing for chance to wound so the arguments there don't hold water. I've asked Roark to look into the issue and this is his finding:

"Yes, maneuvers do help with wounding. By selecting fewer wounds in your maneuver, you increase the odds of doing one of those wounds. That's one of its perks."

That's exactly what we were saying-- that doesn't sound like it actually gives a higher percent chance of getting the highest wound, it just cuts out the afflictions you don't want (which means a higher chance of doing the rest).