What was the Racial Revamp supposed to do again?

Doesnt that work the same way with buffs too?

Irontongue viscanti get more charisma buffs than any other bard spec.....


In regards to races, I think it has to be looked at as

1. What archtype does this race fit into?
2. Can it do well in this archtype?
3. If not, why not?
4. What can be improved so its not a carbon copy of x race

Viscanti is clearly the Worst Race Ever.

The sky is falling.

The game is going to end.

Or we can just give Faelings l2 balance bonus to drop them from 15% to 14%, give Viscanti dex so that they can actually do things, reduce the dex penalty for viscanti casters slightly too, and give Viscanti bards +cha.

Sledgehammers are always better though.

Revan might have forgotten the fact that while resistance buffs are additive (and in fact have diminishing returns after a point), health buffs aren't!

I'm just going to ignore the sensationalizing and say my proposals (and the later adaptations on them) were all pretty solid for Viscanti.

Is this a typo? If that's supposed to be a nerf, well... :|

What? It's supposed to counter the change to make Faelings faster, and in fact it does do so admirably. Faelings do not need to be faster.

I don't buy into the whole "omg nerf nerf nerf" aspect. I do think that balancing Forcefield will also help tremendously, as that's the main skill that completely bypasses Faeling weaknesses while leaving all strengths intact.

I think Faeling is part of a problem, but not the problem itself. Ensure that they don't get any faster, but I don't see an issue with anything else here. I believe Forcefield needs a looking at, and other things that play with Charisma (a stat that, as others have pointed out, is quite easy to jack high).

In before blatant downplay of forcefield.

I'm not going to downplay it, but I'm going to ask:

Why does it need nerfing, especially being brought up in the scope of racial review?

Tbh I think it's a bit of a tangent, but the analogy probably has to do with high str / warrior attacks, high int / magic attacks, and so on.

What forcefield does is basically give a mage a second health pool and makes historically untanky races (who have other great bonuses to make up for this) super tanks with little/no weaknesses.

@Malarious, that's why I said shadow faelings... the Knight changes I'm suggesting don't need to effect your monk class in any way, since shadowlord faelings can't be monks.

I have this idea to counteract forcefield. I think we could put it in bookbinding or something.

I have this plan to counteract high damage attacks too, maybe we should put it in guild skills.

(still doesn't address pve either anyway)

Saw this:


First thought:

Hi, my name is Revan. For only 100 gold a day you can keep a Viscanti child from becoming an experiment. You can help make sure little Marifra has good, clothes, and a chance to get an eduction. Please, call today, and support a child today.

That aside cause I thought it was kinda funny....

My Viscanti stuff still shows:

Buffs:
o Sip malus: 2 -> 1
o Viscanti +2 base dex
o Irontongue Viscanti: +1 int, +1 cha, +1 dex (for a total of +3, +3, +1).

Nerfs:
o Magic resistance: 2 -> 1
o Blunt resistance: 2 -> 1
o Cutting resistance: 2 -> 1

With debating on the +cha or +debate damage or whatever last I knew. I could be outdated on it, thats just last I written down.

I will leave the faeling thing for others to worry about, what I am wondering is what someone else said.

Where is Viscanti meant to fit? Is it meant to suffer the penalty but be resilient? Can it be anything people want out of it? Where does it fit?

Nonsense, why would you want to keep Viscanti children from becoming experiments? It's all the little urchins are good for!

I think your comparison is slightly off. Statwise, sure, but you're ignoring the penalties again. Revan brings up an excellent point when he said that penalties/buffs need to be compared in addition to the stats. You're also comparing a specced versus a non-specced (not sure if that should matter, but I think I remember other people bringing that up).



versus


Same bal speed, if you want strength, go with aslaran, but pay for it with the fire weakness. If you want higher dexterity and the sip bonus, pay for it with less strength.

I do agree that popularity isn't a good argument, but it can be a symptom.

It should matter, as this is the warrior spec. There is no comparison to make with an unspecced faeling warrior.

You're also off with the SL spec; they have 11 STR base at current as opposed to 10 STR base.

SL spec is always going to be problematic due to being a class that can full capitalise on the balance bonus, while shadowcasters and shadowsingers have virtually no reason to care. It's probably better all-around if the faeling balance bonus is lessened, if only because there's very few SLs to feel the hit anyways. Sip and total DEX can be debated from there, on the base race itself.

Now, if you want, you might take Sojiro's aslaran suggestion a few steps further:

- 1 STR for aslaran
- 1 CON for aslaran
+1 balance (for a total of 3)

Which may or may not need more tweaking, depending on how mugwump is handled in kind. Then you can have a real statistical counterpart between 3 level balance/eq without having to muddy things up with specs or org affiliation, which is probably for the best (god help us if Jojobo is ever released).

Well let's just say a weakness to fire and slower herb balance isn't exactly level 2/3 slower sipping, as far as maluses are concerned. Herb stack offense isn't really possible in Lusternia and fire is one of the most easily mitigated elemental weakness.

And I'm only comparing specced faelings vs. aslaran because if I didn't, people would suddenly see that as me trying to purposefully hide my blatant pro-glom agenda. Also, no one actually plays as an unspecced faeling knight do they, so I was approaching it from a warrior's POV. Monks are monks.

Krin.