>Remember when they nerfed MAF because it was blocking too much damage? Ha.

To the best of my knowledge, they nerfed MAF PvE; PvP MAF is the same. (I think this was the wrong move, but I can't see the numbers behind the curtain, so I'll trust that the GMs are doing the right thing.)

> A list of a bad test and incorrect conclusions...

I'll just say that, in my opinion, the test you did was flawed. The conclusions you are drawing from said test and the resolution you are requesting, are suspect at best.

~Hunter Hanryu
>I would like to avoid the collection of broken dreams and sorrow that is the Ranger guild.~Agalea

Feels like an issue related to IC is that there's a very minimal value in doing a bunch of fast/low damage attacks versus a slower/high damage attack, because the difference between fast and slow is so negligible.

As someone said, there's no such thing as quick/fast TM attacks, or thrown attacks, etc etc etc, and stuff like feint doesn't really do what it should do in those circumstances.

Granted, I have my own biases on this, because I want to play a character who uses light weapons quickly, versus swinging the tree trucks that are spotlighted during every auction/raffle/MT event shop/etc, but I also totally acknowledge that things are set up the way they're set up because the only difference between a low-weight weapon and a high-weight weapon is just how high your stats have to be before they all reach the same base level of RTs. There's zero incentive to want to use something lighter than whatever you can use with the lowest RTs possible.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>And your right, compounding its problem is the issue with stacking multiple barriers, but IC alone is enough to mitigate any damage without a way to break through it.

This isn't how IC functions. IC reduces high-damage hits to a lower damage threshold, it's not a blanket damage reduction like Tenacity Meditation/MPP or a physical damage shield like MAF. Even at max mana, where the damage threshold it reduces is generous, it needs a certain damage threshold in order to even trigger, so by definition it cannot mitigate all damage alone, since you need to take some damage for it to even proc.

Something about your test is off. My guess is it was used in combination with MAF.

Dunno what to say then. Your conclusion simply isn't in line with how IC works.

>>PvP is a secondary concern for me (and typically for the GMs also), so your statement does not reflect my experience with IC in a PvE situation.

I wonder if this is because, in many of the PvP situations that I believe we've seen in this thread, it's a 1 v 1 match where someone is trying to hit someone with their strongest (although slowest) attacks. In a vacuum, the DPS of those slower/harder attacks are better than the faster/weaker attacks (if they are even faster/weaker options!), but with IC throw into the mix the DPS gets notably limited due to the nature of IC.

Meanwhile, when it comes to higher-end-of-at-level PvE (and barring critters with special attacks), you typically have a higher chance of multiple critters plinking away at you with numerous lighter hits, which is something that I think is better addressed with a barrier like CH than IC.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

IC doesn't make you invulnerable, but it makes you a lot less vulnerable.

If there are (suppose) 10 possible points of damage, then at max cast it caps the points of damage that get through at (say) 3. With enough of the 3 point hits getting through, the person will eventually die, but it takes the game from one of a few hits while the person is, hopefully, disabled, to one where you need to wear them down with a bunch of smaller blows. If the person has full vit that 3 point blow will also probably barely scuff them.

For a guild like Thieves, who are banking on just a few early shots to do a lot of damage, it would definitely throw a wrench into the works. You are used to opening with massive shots that tear through your opponents, but instead they get capped at low damage and it feels like you aren't accomplishing anything. If you combine IC with another barrier, it starts to get silly.

I agree that IC should never, ever, ever ever ever (and so on forever) have been given out as a tattoo. At most it should have been a scroll. It should probably be signature, given that it was balanced for a guild that super sucks at outputting damage. It gives that guild time to try to win that war of attrition with their puny damage output, but it's (I think) unbalanced if used by other guilds, and I'm sure would get some attention in a barrier rewrite.

I hope the IC tattoo never returns, but I do think IC has its place in the Empath arsenal.

-- Qihhth's Person (who mains a combat Empath)

Honestly, I think the spell works really well for Empaths, and don't want to see it changed for them, but it's absolutely bonkers for non-Empaths in PvP. I would propose that we make the spell "half-signature". Non-Empaths could still cast the spell via tattoo or scroll, but they would get a significantly reduced spell effect. Empaths casting the spell would be unchanged. People who paid money for IC scroll/tattoos can still have a benefit that gives them an advantage, but we at least mitigate the current problems we're having. There's even precedence for this - Last Gift of Vithwok IV only gives 50% of its benefit to non-Traders.

If that's not an option on the table, then I think it needs to seriously be considered to have a non-MT item or ability that Barbarians and Thieves can use that works like the Dispel spell. Perhaps an item can be released (at Guildfest?) where Inner Magic can be adapted to project outward and overwhelm and unravel existing spell patterns on a cooldown. Put a steep Arcana cost on it - 1000 ranks? Right now PvP is all about if IC can be removed, and while you could make the case that Thieves should just be attacking before their targets are buffed (though I don't agree with this), there's no reason to require Barbarians to do the same.

- Saragos

If we're gonna rewrite Mage's Lash Raesh, (which should eventually happen), I see no problem in being greedier. Dispel is an analogous pattern available to all mages via scroll, and Rend is a lunar spell that dispels two effects.

Mage's Lash should dispel two effects at max success (one at mid success), with order of priority spells being prepared or targeted > barriers > all other spells. Seems right in the Barbarian wheelhouse.

@Rhadyn
>from:
>Primary Magic debuff and chance to interrupt a spell being prepared. (-Primary Magic)

>to:
>Chance to dispel one magic buff and chance to interrupt a spell being prepared.

Certainly, a primary magic debuff is going to be pointless against higher-level casters. Saragos could easily cast every spell he has at cap even with a 20% debuff to PM. This sounds like a reasonable chance to me.

@DIMINISHEDANGEL
> If we're gonna rewrite Mage's Lash Raesh, (which should eventually happen), I see no problem in being greedier. Dispel is an analogous pattern available to all mages via scroll, and Rend is a lunar spell that dispels two effects.

> Mage's Lash should dispel two effects at max success (one at mid success), with order of priority spells being prepared or targeted > barriers > all other spells. Seems right in the Barbarian wheelhouse.

Honestly, I'd probably want to put the brakes on there. Personally, I think despite Barbarians being "anti-magic", the more advanced dispels should remain a Magic Prime specialty. Rend is a MM spell, Ward Break is the WM specialty, and Clerics have IT and SL which don't dispel, but are great anti-magic spells. There's nothing else similar that other Secondaries or Terts have. I'd be hesitant to give Magic Tert Barbs something that strips 2 spells and can make a spell be forgotten all at the same time. While Barbs are suffering a bit now, I most of that stems from buggy and/or idiosyncratic abilities, and I'd want to see those looked after before giving them a better dispel than the Magic Prime alternative.

Also, let's not forget Thieves. For them, the comparable ability to Mage's Lash is Ambush Clout. As-is, Ambush isn't really that great against higher level mages due to them being able to cope just fine with tanked concentration. Perhaps either Clout could be reworked or a new, different Ambush or Khri could be used for a single use dispel. The important thing for Thieves is that it would need to be single use, not pulsing like their other debil Khri are (other than Eliminate) in order to avoid going overboard.

- Saragos

> Saragos, with respect, your magic primary bias is showing through here. Skillset consideration is taken into account with "spheres of influence" (like a Barbarian equivalent to Muse doesn't make much sense), but two counter-points.

I don't actually think it is.

> 1) It's tricky to use the magic skillset placement to determine this, because magic is actually the supernatural skillset, and it currently powers all ranked "magic-ish" abilities, both magical and non-magical. Skillsets also clearly take a back seat to guild identity as a whole, as Warrior Mages have a stealth booster, an evasion booster, and an armor booster, all ter but which I think fit perfectly in line with their identity as battle mages. Using this line of logic.

Honestly, if Rend were a WM spell I'd be a little more sympathetic to the idea of Barbarians getting it, but Rend is a MM spell. Even though I consider weapon summons to be a trap (because crafted, or even MT incidentals are just better in every case) MM skillset placement was the reason given why Moonblade can't even reach the heights of mediocrity that WM weapon summons can. WM Ward Break only removes 1 ward (and not any other buffs). I'd be ok with giving Barbs an equivalent of Ward Break.

> 2) Does a Rend roar make sense for Barbarians? Yes, yes it does. They have by far the largest number of wards (nine) and abilities specifically designed to target/penalize magic (eleven) in the game. Clerics come in next at five, less than half. Moon Mages are at four. MU characters don't whine about implementation of Barb anti-magic abilities and wards because implementation is sub-standard, but I don't think you can reasonably argue any magic primary guild has a greater "sphere of influence" of being anti-magic than Barbarians are.

I think that "you can't affect me" abilities are perfectly on-brand for Barbarians. However, stripping things off of others seems a bigger leap to me.

The deeper reason I think a single spell is sufficient is because of opportunity cost and the different nature of spellcasting from abilities. I never had Mage's Lash on my Barb, but I recall most roars having nominal RT - around 2 seconds. However, Rend and Dispel are battle spells with a base 10 second casting time, which can be reduced to 8 seconds with a feat. Now, of the magic-using guilds, probably only Paladins and Bards are likely to be using weapons, as TM foci are usually just the right answer. This means that during that 8 second prep time (which you're probably going to want to full prep, since you'll be taking a penalty on the stat contest if you don't) will have the mage unable to use virtually all of their offensive capabilities. No debilitation, no TM, and if they switch to weapons they'll have a long RT to soak up activating the TM focus again.

In the meantime, the Barbarian is free to be using weapons, and other Barb abilities to debilitate and do damage. Choosing to strip spells is a real opportunity cost choice for a mage. Furthermore, just 1 spell on Mage's Lash would already be faster than any mage could remove spells, since you can effectively do so every 2 seconds. Making it remove 2 spells would so grossly outstrip the abilities any mage by so much it would be ridiculous - roughly 4x the speed of any mage. Honestly, even with one spell being removed Mage's Lash would probably needs a bigger RT or a cooldown on it to not be straight-up overpowered.

Believe me, I'm 100% on board with getting Barbarians a way to pierce wards, but we need to not go crazy with it.

- Saragos

> I tend to agree, hence I think a "chance" to remove a buff for Mage's Lash is sufficient, especially because debils have a long cooldown in effectiveness. You'd have to wait 5-10 minute in PVP combat to gain back any bonus to removing a buff as each time you do a debil roar it's effectiveness diminishes (duration and power) and resets the timer. As you stated -Primary Magic is so 1998 thinking based on how far MUs have come ;-)

Not to get too sidetracked (as I think it's very important that NMU's get a dispel) but do debilitation effects that aren't stun, immobilization, sleep, or calm even suffer from the diminishing returns effect in PvP? My belief was that they did not, and thus you could Rend or Ward Break to your heart's content without worrying about it. Or are you talking about a Barbarian-specific mechanic related to diminishing effectiveness?

- Saragos

>In the meantime, the Barbarian is free to be using weapons, and other Barb abilities to debilitate and do damage. Choosing to strip spells is a real opportunity cost choice for a mage.

Barbarians have only one damage stream, mages can have several going at once. Roars also have roundtime like any other disabler. Less of a lost opportunity cost than mages, but that's more a function of mages having more choices than it is something to do with Barbarians.

Paradoxically I think your argument is a good example of why a Barbarian rend is just fine. I don't think you want to get into a discussion about how ability X or Y would be unfair with the Barbarian setup vs. MUs, as NMUs in general are pretty downtrodden right now versus the wealth of choices and variety spellcasters enjoy.