Posts: 249
Threads: 44
Likes Received: 181 in 79 posts
Likes Given: 170
Joined: Aug 2022
Exgalfa right now is actually pretty good! It does pretty good damage! But is still somewhat inconsistent even with high luck values.
My proposal: Base Exgalfa chance is 50% to increase or decrease, and increases by scaled luck. So 50 scaled luck always increases the damage instead of it still not being consistent. If we gonna invest in values, we may as well get use out of them!
Posts: 2,016
Threads: 254
Likes Received: 198 in 113 posts
Likes Given: 70
Joined: Nov 2014
or.....we just remove this gimmick as exgalfa is the -only- fire invocation available to players and it demands we invest in a completely divergent stat
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 145
Likes Received: 579 in 303 posts
Likes Given: 613
Joined: Aug 2015
Yeah I think asking fire mages to invest in luc is not worth the middling damage of exgalpha. If it was an aoe it wouldnt be as bad but like damn. The fact it's single target and does absolutely nothing except raw damage makes it already one of the worst invokes. The addition of a luc requirement to make it good is kind of like, trading a strength for a weakness so it loops around to being bad again.
Maybe it could be a spell that does high damage in a small aoe and also consumes burn on enemies to deal more damage for each consumed burn lvl. Something like 4x the level of burn as extra damage. It could also have the gimmick of using 150% swa instead of 100%, because fire mages have access to certain swa gouging setups with str/wil, and making use of that sounds cool. Make it summon a fire tornado or a fire blade that spins in an area with a multihit. Or if you're in melee range it's a single hit but deals an extra 50% of swa as you swing the blade.
•
Posts: 552
Threads: 172
Likes Received: 235 in 101 posts
Likes Given: 179
Joined: Nov 2018
Or we can ask for it to be reworked.
•
Posts: 249
Threads: 44
Likes Received: 181 in 79 posts
Likes Given: 170
Joined: Aug 2022
I feel like that's more of a suggestion than a balance-fu post.
•