Apart from the average damage in a long duration of time, the kensai does more damage than the riskbreaker even if we calculate it for one single round. Let's compare a 21st level Riskbreaker with a 21st level Kensai (both with the same weapons and same strength bonuses). Assume that both are using GWW to do 10 attacks per round:

1- The Kensai: He has +7 damage bonus per attack more than the Riskbreaker and consequently, he strikes for +70 damage more than the riskbreaker.

2- The riskbreaker: Even though it's not certain that he will roll a "Hard HiT" in that round, I assume that he will roll one. One Hard Hit inflicts 53 points of damage average.

Thus, the kensai still inflicts 17 point more damage in the round. The difference will be more and more in Kensai's favor if we do the comparison at higher levels. The Riskbreaker stands a bit better only when we do the comparison for levels between 15 and 18.

So, if by "burst" damage, you refer to damage caused in one round, the Kensai is still a more dangerous attacker. Unless by "burst" damage, you refer to the damage caused by one single shot, but cases in which 50 points of damage in one single shot can be more effective than 70 points of damage in one single round are extremely rare.

All this said, I am ready to decrease the Hard Hit damage to 10D6 +5 (average = 40) if the majority vote for reducing the damage.

I'm looking forward to receiving more feedback and comments before making a decision.

Burst damage is damage in a single hit.

I did not know that you wanted the riskbreaker to compete against the kensai. People generally dual-class a kensai to a mage anyway.

I just envisioned the riskbreaker as a novelty kit that has a few rare and additional bonuses. In the current IA version it's slightly disadvantaged because of its numerous downsides. They don't hold me back for playing him quite effectively (potions and spell buffs are used generously), yet I would say that if you want people to play with a riskbreaker, that you will probably need to buff him slightly. With the new bonuses he looks very sturdy, but they should not be 'over the top'. The bonuses in your abovementioned suggestion already outweigh the downsides.

Ok, the hard hit damage is decreased to 10D6 +5.

Having a look at this class (and considering taking it for a spin in V5) the +20 HP effect I feel is un-needed and unrealistic (yeah I know...it's D&D ).

Here is a proposed change/alteration to it:

Casts a low level stone skin on him, only lasting a short time (1-2 rounds maybe).

This will still make him a bit tough but not make him heal himself in some unknown fashion. It would be useful and boost his survivability without the need for others to buff him up. The way it can be explained is an adrenaline rush making him move faster, be more agile an generally unable to feel pain as much. Maybe just have it set his AC to 0 then add the bonuses he may have from items/spells or -4 AC (taking it lower = better yes? )

That way he wouldn't be at major risk of getting slapped around, which IMHO would be better than a rapid heal. Hell what happens if he triggers that effect 2-3 times with a GWW? bang 40-60 HP healed just for attacking. No other class can get that in the game that I have seen thus far (pallies have lay on hands and clerics have healing spells but they cannot attack whilst casting them).

The damage effect I am curious about. Would it be hitting as non-magic damage (IE: no enchantment) and thus unable to touch most enemies by the stage you get to use it (IE: Liches certain golems etc)? Or will it use the primary weapons enchantment bonus to determine if it can 'hit' the target?

Just some musings, sorry if I dragged this from the grave.

Finally forced myself to take a riskbreaker on am IA adventure.. along with him, a guy I tought is useless - Keldorn. I honestly do not believe that a riskbreaker needs to be enhanced any further. These guys are killers from the word go. Improved critical does wonders, especially early in the game (noisome rats, where is thy sting?), blur is extremly effective way of buffing ac and saves (to a lesser amount, but still useful early on). imp.haste good (not very useful in late game, but mid-game it's great) and risk decrement can do wonders. I actually think this class outguns both barbarians and berserkers regarding usefulness. My riskbreaker is currently 29th level. Sure, early in game berserkers/barbarians are good for their raging immunities, but later on it's the riskbreaker who has an advantage.
I wouldn't give him any "hard hit ability", my riskbreaker killed Suna Seni (at lvl9) with 3 succesive critical rolls (18,19,18). I never saw my screen shake that much. Perhaps some items with dmg reduction made just for riskbreakers (like that monk amulet) would be nice. I wouldn't touch the kit any.
Just one more note for Keldorn - he's well worth taking. Previously I believed that he's just too annoying and weak to have around, becouse running around scared from clerics isn't all that good (and the fact he doesn't dispel anything but your own haste), but later on...well, enough to say that he and Imoen wiped the whole rune assasins hideout by themselves.

I totally agree. Keldorn's innate kit abilities are very useful and in the 1 run-through where i took him, I found him invaluable as a dispeller against high-level mages. He is really weak against evil clerics though!

Hmm... I have not taken a Riskbreaker before, but I'll just add my 2 cents' worth. "Risk"-breaker seems to imply some form of luck to me, and the fact that Riskbreakers Crit at 17 or better further heightens this perception. I would replace the 20-hit point heal with perhaps, a 5% chance to increase Luck by 2 (non-cumulative) for 5 rounds. I am not familiar with the game mechanics, but I believe that this would add 2 to all the Riskbreaker's rolls, so his saves, damage, and to hit rolls (perhaps this means the RB would crit at 15 or better?) would all be increased.

Alternatively, this Luck boost could be put into the Risk Decrement ability instead.

Yes, I will probably replace the 5% chance to heal ability with something else.

Luck adds to saving throws and damage. However, the damage done is always capped regarding of the weapon you use. For example, say that a Riskbreaker wields a non enchanted long sword - 1d8 dmg vs. a vanilla oponnent. He adds himself +2 to luck. He would still be dealing 1d8 dmg (+all of the dmg modifiers) but would :
- on a roll of 1 do 3 damage
- on a roll of 2 do 4 dmg etc.
On a roll of 6,7,8 he would do the same damage (8 + damage modifiers). No "extra" dmg can be done with raising your luck.
It does not affect critical hit chance I believe.

This post has been edited by Kerkes: Oct 2 2008, 10:14 AM

Kerkes, is that based on what you have seen in-game?

Breakdown on how Luck works can be found here:

http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s...ic=14723&hl http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s...ic=12484&hl

courtesy of aVENGER.

This post has been edited by Daulmakan: Oct 2 2008, 02:19 PM

@ Raven

Try playing on "easy". It adds + 6 to luck, so you'll notice what it does. Therefore, you'll see mages throwing saves vs.3x FoD (which is practically impossible), and your characters always doing max damage possible. Kensai "kai" ability is practically useless, since they practically always score max dmg possible. For example, a staff weapon (1d6) will always do max dmg. 2-h swrd does 1d10. But on easy, in inflicts 7 min (1 minimum + 6 wich are added by luck) and 10 max dmg + modifiers.

Why is it practically impossible to save three times against FoD on hard difficulties? It gives a -2 saving throw modification but my mage has a minus saving throws (and she has only +2 prot rings) and she has therefore 5% chance to fail to save per spell. It gives appr. 86% chance for her to resist all three. Or did I miss something?

FoD is a save vs.Death in IA, not save vs. spell. This may be what you missed. Mages have poor save vs.death. (9 or something at max - high level mage, don't know exactly since I like Death Ward). the chance to resist 3 in a row is pathetic. Add malison, and you'll see what I mean by "impossible". Note, this is for a high lvl mage. Below 18+lvls, he's dead. Try for example Shadow dragon or Planar Prison Warden, Pirate Coordinator etc. Even Elite Bounty Hunter, who sends only 1 FoD at your mage. In my experience, he's dead if not under Death Ward.

Hmm, that I missed. But let's make a count!

Base death saving throw is 9 but we should add 2 (because of the spell). The mage has prot from evil (-2), amulet +1 (-1), robe (-2), ring of prot +3 (-3). I think this is really the minimum protection for a high level mage. There could be others (from cloaks, bracers, ...) but even if we count these protection it means a saving throw of 3. The chance to resist the 3 FoD is appr. 73%. I can't call it pathetic.

This post has been edited by Vuki: Oct 3 2008, 09:10 AM

Kerkes seems to talk about the beginning of the game and relative "low" levels while you appear to talk about a point rather in the middle of the game where better gear is avaible. So, given that the mage is relatively high level (hence he has acceptable saving throws) and has some equipment which improves his saves your thesis appears to be true. If no decent gear to boost his already low saving throw(s) (due to a rather low level) is avaible it's more likely that the mage in question will fail his saving throw.

Arkain's post is true. This discussion actually started about "luck" attribute. I wanted to point out how luck increases saving throws by an insane amount on "easy" difficulty setting (+6), so you'll see mages throwing 3 consecutive saves even at lvl11, with 2 +1rings and a +1 cloak, and their base saving vsDeath is 12 or 13...
Hope now you see what I mean by "impossible" : 13-3(from rings etc) =10. +2 penalty from spell=12. They must roll 3 times a number from 12-20 to survive. Try fighting Pirate Coordinator and see for yourself just how many times a mage rolls 3 consecutive saves. (6,4% of the time, I believe)

This post has been edited by Kerkes: Oct 3 2008, 09:18 PM

Well, the mechanism for "luck" is certainly news to me (both Daulmakan's link and Kerkes' report that the difficulty levels have a luck modifier to them).

Just one thing: I think Greater Malison lowers saves by 4, not 2.

Ok, with a low level mage you are right.

News to me too, thanks for the information.

I am currently playing a Riskbreaker in a custom party and although one has to babysit him in the early going he really is a stud later on. His lack of defensive resources can be tough but I equipped him with the Shield amulet and it gives him an effective AC of 4. Add in a good dexterity (18 of course) , an Ioun stone , the best upgradeable cloaks and rings (I am shooting for the +3 cloak and two +4 rings) with the Girdle of Lordly Might and he becomes a defensive powerhouse. The Shield amulet is obtainable very early , has 20+ charges and is cheap to recharge while offering an instant Ghost Armor effect. Although I am at an advanced stage in the game now and can forge the powerful IA amulet (forget its name) I still think the Shield amulet makes the most sense for my Riskbreaker although the immunity to poison is missed.
I was skeptical of this kits durability initially but with the right allocation of resources IMO only the Vagrant is stronger. The only drawback to this approach is that other party members may have to go without some upgrades due to the weighting of resources to the Riskbreaker. The advantage that Berserkers and Barbarians have over Riskbreakers is of course their berserk immunities vs Demi liches.
Slightly off topic , Has anyone else noticed that a Vagrant can use Valygar's armor and sword? If so the becoming proficient in katanas is worth consideration.

This post has been edited by Frazurblu: Feb 15 2009, 05:32 PM