My bad, influence damage.

... and I just went away and tested it, too!

And no, it does not increase debate damage (although debate damage has a fairly wide range, even just testing repeated first-attacks).

That seems oddly worded, to be perfectly honest. I read it as saying that raise staff will now boost damage against denizens as opposed to boosting influence damage.

That's what it says. "influence" in that phrase is the verb, not an adjective modifying "damage." It just means that the staff increases magical damage done to denizens in addition to magical damage done to players.

That's what I thought, but Furien seems to have taken the other interpretation.

Mission of dumb accomplished I guess. :X

Nah...it's easier to blame Sior on this one. Shame on you for using words that share a name with game mechanics! Shame!

Damage, not influence damage.

People didnt like +charisma, so I offered +debate damage so they can try to be burst debaters. In light of the fact geomancers dont get a debate damage buff, thoughts?

Who else doesn't get a debate damage buff?

100% of the game?

Debate damage boost is to help offset the fact that their charisma already hurts, and +village influence is useless if you are shattered too easily to be able to try to influence the denizen. Adding +debate damage is an attempt to allow a Viscanti to win a short term debate because they will lose long term ones statistically.

If +charisma is a fine solution again, no problem with just changing it to that, it wouldnt put them on the same level for debating but at least its a step in the right direction. Still, feedback from Esano, Furien, and maybe even Nariah?

Question: if the issue is that an org-spec race doesn't have the cha to influence villages, wouldn't this concern apply to lucidians and (to a lesser extent) dracnari too? Is this stipulation being offered to them as well?

I am not exactly a lucidian/dracnari spokesman but..... If I had to guess... maybe dracnari (very similar to viscanti) but not lucidian (no sip penalty?). That is pure hunch though, I have no idea.

Btw, where are the ideas for dracnari?

P.S. 2 spec races, Trill is the influencer!

Which is precisely why I brought it up. Either way, if folk are saying that CHA is important for the org-spec races to contend in revolts, then best to keep in mind the others who would fall into the category as well.

P.S. Also, best not to suggest people to switch races if they want to influence in revolts, cause the same could be likewise said for Viscanti who want to influence.

Lucidian don't need the CHA buff. It doesn't make sense, and in the present meta, if a Hallifaxian is wanting to influence they're going to be a trill. Having two spec races is nice like that.

Dracnari will only manage a 13CHA if specced, and I suggested an improvement upon that for the Illuminat-spec Dracnari. Combine that with netzach/populus and the inherent influence buffs present in Transmology, Dracnari would be a set race.

A +CHA buff is the simplest solution for Viscanti. A debate buff would scale too well when you consider how strong debate attacks get at certain points.

How is that different from saying to almost anyone "If you want to influence you should be a faeling"? I don't really care one way or the other, but it raises an interesting point. If people should all meet a set baseline for village influence, then they shouldn't have to change races for it. If changing races counts, I don't see why anyone needs a buff when we have influencing races available. Why does it make a difference if they're spec races or not? If the goal is just make spec races better, what is the point of having the others?

(I'm honestly curious here, not trying to troll.)

Yes to more CHA for any org-specific race for the purpose of village revolt debates. Like I said before, I'm no pro here but this seems like a very good reason to do that without bringing in 'but they have resists!' or 'but they have quicker equilibrium!' etc into it. It's simply needed for that sole reason, so either change the mechanics of debating, or give everyone a more equal chance. The only problem with this is archetypes that rely on CHA for combat, then yes this sort of throws it off course in favour of some 'debate buff'. And yes, I imagine Lucidians don't need it due to Trills being their weapon of choice for influencing.

I wondered this too. Why not just be a faeling?

The other races can't achieve faeling's crazy influencing strength/speed, but they also don't have to deal with the CON/str/etc penalties.

But they also don't have to deal with the weaknesses, or the sip buff... choices choices.

This is what I want to know from the folk who're trying to make an org-spec race a veritable all-around. Arguments might come up saying they'd like to make them at least viable influencers, but then that would beg the question of why not making the other 'influencer' org-spec races viable tankers as well.

In short: looks to me like org-spec races will have highs and lows, and unless people want to address all aspects of what would make a 'balanced' race for each org-spec, then I don't think it's either needed or fair to address just one race for this issue.

Mind, I have no problems with the rest of the Viscanti and Merian changes that people want, but I'm not biting the 'lets give them more CHA' argument.