cman training

[Donaven]

What the common consensus for a halfling ranger who uses archery, primarily open but capable of sniping, training combat maneuvers? How much is enough? How much is too much?

[Whirlin]

I'd put CMAN training relatively low in the priority listing. Being 2x Perception, 1x Dodge, and 1x PF along with innate halfling bonuses will offer very competitive CMAN defenses without explicit training in CMANs.

I'm not sure what your training currently is, but I'd aim for 2x Perception, 2x Hiding, and 2x Ambushing before worrying about dumping additional points into CMAN. Maybe even some magic lore or mana share training before Cman!

It's been a while since I've crunched the numbers for rangers, but you'll likely reach that point in your 60s or so, depending on how you placed your stats. This will allow you to do the supplemental CMAN training for defensive abilities prior to reaching the capped hunting grounds.

For ranged rangers, I would recommend the vanish and shadow mastery CMANs, and then defensive CMANs, whether it be passive DS/TD bonuses, or maneuver specific defenses such as Disarm.

[Buckwheet]

Disarm is the only CMAN I would train for as a post cap archer.

[Jeril]

Saying that is kind of silly, there are only so many combat relevant skills that you can place before combat maneuvers. After that you'd not be training in them just to be contrary not because they won't be providing you with benefits to your ability to survive. Now if you said precap, I could understand that.

[Buckwheet]

I don't understand what you mean? I am saying that the only CMAN I have found useful as a post cap ranger archer is disarm, and currently I am not even trained for that because of the minimal benefit. There is nothing else I use on a regular basis from the CMAN line because with the rest of the training is simply is not needed.

Training that is close enough to current to not matter:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?65760-Where-to-train-next&p=1524072#post1524072

[Whirlin]

I think we're in violent agreement that CMAN training in relatively low priority for archer rangers, and that there are better training alternatives.

But I would offer a bit of subjectivity depending on the perceived value of shadow mastery dependent on playstyle. For sniping builds, I could see those two CMANs as being worthwhile, and subjectively prioritized above something such as Post 100% mana sharing or additional lores.

[Buckwheet]

I understand the hidden vs open argument. I believe you get more benefit out of the lore training and using spike as a disabling mechanism versus the round time of hiding and then shooting. I don't know how to test that theory but it would seem like you have a better chance of death using three seconds to spike and then shoot the eye than three seconds to hide and then shoot the eye.

I am probably wrong.

[Whirlin]

Definitely a subjective argument at this point. Every one of your arguments are absolutely valid, and spike thorn is an awesome disabler.

However, it's also very mana intensive to use consistently as an opener pre-cap, and getting a target proned actually lowers accuracy when aiming with ranged weapons. Additionally, if the purpose of opening with spike thorn is to act as a disabler, the additional lore training appears to only yield additional damage cycles. I'll need to do some spike thorn research, but I'm not sure you're really getting the substantial returns out of an additional hit at drastically increasing the changes at proning/ stunning a target.

This is also an open archer tactic, rather than a sniper tactic, and comes down to a playstyle decision, and the whole RP of how you view your character.

Alternatively, for the same RT, you can use 608, receive the AS bonus, have the critter search for you, putting it in offensive, and then go for the eyes. The shadow mastery would help you remain hidden, with no additional RT compared to the spike opener, half the mana cost, and I believe there are additional aiming bonuses with hiding and 608... but of course, that's very difficult to test, and may be anecdotal and inaccurate.

[Buckwheet]

If you decide to go down this path you should also compare just pure AS(which may not be needed) gained from Ambush versus the requirement of Ambush being taken into account for use from hiding. I am really quite interested in it. I know I didn't train ambush because of the high cost for minimal AS when enhancives could be used to counter the lower AS for minimal costs. It would be interesting to compare the TP costs really versus the effectiveness.

You are right about the additional damage cycle, I was mistaking that for just more ranger ranks. The combination is pretty powerful however with extra damage on extra damage cycles.

[Whirlin]

Well, the numbers in some parts are easy:
.25 AS per ambush rank (subject to truncation)
.075 DS in offensive per ambush rank (subject to truncation)
.225 DS in defensive per ambushing rank (subject to truncation)

Identical to Perception in terms of AS/DS, but instead of CMAN Defense additional effect, receiving hidden aiming additional accuracy. Which yes, in terms of TP cost, Perception clearly wins on utility, but of course, not mutually exclusive.

I'm not taking into account the rank -40 on calculations, as I assume the discussion is 1x versus 2x, therefore the second rank would be post the 40 floor.

One importance of Ambush training is to keep AS competitive with melee builds. Since 606 provides +10 AS, and CMAN training provides +.5 AS per level, you're looking at 2x perception alone being equal to the CMAN training. With the 40 floor on Ambush, and then 1/4th potency, you're looking at 80 ranks until you've caught up to a melee build's increased AS due to 606.

I wish there was any sort of known equation for aiming accuracy, even if it was just regarding the melee relationship between CMAN, ambush, and melee accuracy. However, without a known equation, it's difficult to tell the intangible accuracy aspect of sniping.

I'll need to do some research on next-best-alternatives to Ambushing training, however, I feel like with the exception of lores, most have the intangible measurement similarly to the ambushing accuracy. And even then, things like mana sharing are completely subjective to how many friends (or accounts) you have, and how likely you are to share mana... which could drastically influence training on a much more fundamental basis well before the debate for 1x to 2x ambushing.

[Buckwheet]

I only have my build to go on, but I am only 30 ranks of SMC because it created the opportunity for "free" imbeds I can provide to my pocket wizard. I don't know what kind of price you can put on those utility spells(507, 508) in terms of the minor TP cost I put into it.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, in that you are showing that since CM adds no value to attack for ranged and that 606 adds nothing to your ranged attack therefore being ranged greatly diminishes the advantage of training CM compared to a melee build?

Personally, I can drop(disarmed) my 5x bow and just have a second 4x one in my backpack if disarmed with minimal issue. It would not be so minor however without specific magical training to have the ability to wear 215 and 211 without the proper magical training. I can also see the added suck of being disarmed and standing there empty handed with no defense.

It should be a interesting opportunity for a number cruncher.

[Whirlin]

So... regarding the first point, that's a question of maximizing multiple characters and multi-accounting ability. A parallel I can draw is that if you have a pocket mana battery for a new wizard, you don't need that new wizard to be overtrained in harness energy at low levels to help compensate, but instead perhaps overtrain in mana sharing. It's all about maximizing the resources that you have available to you. What would the value of making max potency imbeds be if you didn't have anyone available to you that could imbed for you? What if you had a high level ranger friend already?

Lets be graphical for my representation of the 606 comment. 606 has y-intercept of 10, with a slope of .5, whereas ranged has a y-intercept of 0, and s slope of .750... They intersect at x=80, where X=Level and Y= AS. My goal is to maximize the slope of Ranged so they intersect earlier, minimizes the difference, and maximizes the endpoint.

Taking into account outside spells like 211 and 215 adds all sorts of complexity that really obscure the main discussion points. I mean, unlocking up to 15 in all spell circles allows for about (15*10 (other spell circles... from memory))! combinations that would need to be evaluated. (ps: 150! is 5.71 x10^262).

I would equate the availability of outside resources to be akin to the availability of other characters, accounts, friend, etc... They need to be evaluated subjectively in line with availability. Wayyy too many factors to number crunch efficiently.

[Buckwheet]

I really don't know, but I don't see a huge mechanical advantage of having CMANs versus any outside spells, especially if you are in a burst area. Most outside spells are readily available through Twilight Hall.

[Buckwheet]

Since we started posting I went on some XP overload here is my updated info:



Skill Name | Current Current
| Bonus Ranks
Armor Use..........................| 210 110
Combat Maneuvers...................| 145 45
Ranged Weapons.....................| 312 212
Ambush.............................| 302 202
Physical Fitness...................| 302 202
Dodging............................| 302 202
Magic Item Use.....................| 163 63
Harness Power......................| 200 100
Spirit Mana Control................| 150 50
Spiritual Lore - Summoning.........| 201 101
Perception.........................| 312 212
Climbing...........................| 90 20
Swimming...........................| 140 40

Spell Lists
Minor Spiritual....................| 40

Spell Lists
Ranger.............................| 162