Guild Wars 2

With mesmer GM being baseline, I don’t see why Sleight of Hand cannot be baseline for thief. We are constantly force to go into trickery to get this trait and arguably Bountiful Thief. If they made SoH and BT baseline, it would open so many more builds.

I say yes! Do it!

It would have been a better topic if the premise of the topic has backing of a very reasonable and applicable suggestion. Unfortunately, using “me too” to support your suggestion doesn’t really opens up a really good discussion.

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

It would have been a better topic if the premise of the topic has backing of a very reasonable and applicable suggestion. Unfortunately, using “me too” to support your suggestion doesn’t really opens up a really good discussion.

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

I think the premise behind his suggestion is very clear: several traits (including a grandmaster) that were used in a popular mesmer build have become baseline. Considering that this will allow mesmers to run what is essentially half a build in addition to whatever they will run after these changes, should thief be granted similar baseline changes?

I think this a reasonable question. But you go and say that you think this would be better if it had the backing of a reasonable and applicable suggestion, yet you don’t justify yourself when you say this idea is obviously had.

I would agree that something akin to the treatment mesmers are getting should be tossed our way, sleight of hand though IMO should not be base line. However something like hidden killer (100% crit chance while stealthed) would be snazy since pretty much every power build for thieves needs it, this would leave some options open. where as SoH i feel would no open up new builds but just make current ones more powerful versus how is is as a GM trait which is a “sacrificial” decision through loosing some raw offensive power you get some CC to balance it out.

Runewolf.8456:

I would agree that something akin to the treatment mesmers are getting should be tossed our way, sleight of hand though IMO should not be base line. However something like hidden killer (100% crit chance while stealthed) would be snazy since pretty much every power build for thieves needs it, this would leave some options open. where as SoH i feel would no open up new builds but just make current ones more powerful versus how is is as a GM trait which is a “sacrificial” decision through loosing some raw offensive power you get some CC to balance it out.

Ehhh, I think hidden killer as baseline would be too OP. I only run critical strikes for hidden killer and the crit damage, so I could basically run an additional trait line for free. It would also make Valkyrie and cavalier armor way too strong for thieves

not sure about sleight of hand but some traits like Kleptomanic could be baked in i think

Cynz.9437:

not sure about sleight of hand but some traits like Kleptomanic could be baked in i think

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

I think the only way to improve the class is to ask for stuff and in this case it is reasonable because they are giving it to another class to improve build diversity. Can’t wait for dev to figure it out. Remember…the dev nerfed S/D’s #3 because they said it was too OP to IF, IR, then steal/IS to secure a stomp….(facepalm). You have to take their hand and walk with them….

LOL sleight of hand and confusion?
please, mesmer actually deserve the treatment, go play one, you will see.

Gabriell.4856:

Cynz.9437:

not sure about sleight of hand but some traits like Kleptomanic could be baked in i think

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

I think the only way to improve the class is to ask for stuff and in this case it is reasonable because they are giving it to another class to improve build diversity. Can’t wait for dev to figure it out. Remember…the dev nerfed S/D’s #3 because they said it was too OP to IF, IR, then steal/IS to secure a stomp….(facepalm). You have to take their hand and walk with them….

sleight of hand baseline would be too much….

Cynz.9437:

Gabriell.4856:

Cynz.9437:

not sure about sleight of hand but some traits like Kleptomanic could be baked in i think

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

I think the only way to improve the class is to ask for stuff and in this case it is reasonable because they are giving it to another class to improve build diversity. Can’t wait for dev to figure it out. Remember…the dev nerfed S/D’s #3 because they said it was too OP to IF, IR, then steal/IS to secure a stomp….(facepalm). You have to take their hand and walk with them….

sleight of hand baseline would be too much….

My opinion is different. I’m willing to bet 2 cents that the new elite spec will not have any condi clear. With what we know about the new condi buff, ticking for 2K+, condi clear will be mandatory. This will force us to spec into trickery, deadly arts, and shadow arts or acro. Basically, the same crap as now.

Archon.6481:

…should thief be granted similar baseline changes?

The answer is an obvious “No!”. This is what I’m saying, the “reason” behind the suggestion is not well thought off.

I think this a reasonable question.

Question = reasonable.
Suggestion = not reasonable.

But you go and say that you think this would be better if it had the backing of a reasonable and applicable suggestion, yet you don’t justify yourself when you say this idea is obviously had.

There is nothing to justify. The topic is lacking information to why the OP is making this suggestion without thinking about the repercussion.

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

Maybe not SoH, but some stuff really should be rolled into baseline steal. The devs mentioned that there were certain skills that when you didn’t trait for them were crap, and when you did they became OP. I don’t think even fully traited steal is OP considering how many points you invest in it, but untraited steal is very bland. A 35 second CD shadowstep replaced by one skill is pretty “meh.” Bountiful theft would be a much better skill to roll into baseline since we’re thieves. You’d still have to trait to interrupt with SoH. Also, since the steal recharge rate is being reduced to 15% from 30%, I hope the other 15% is being rolled into baseline making the baseline steal 30 seconds.

Ugh, u already are getting to have both Panic Stike, Shadow Rejuvinating and Sleight of hand, and now u want Sleight of hand baseline? What for, chose another GM trait and have 4 of them?!?

Srsly guys, just try to think for a moment when u write something, u may end up realizing that u were about to write some idiocy

P.s. Just saw Panic strike isn’t even GM trait anymore, meaning u actualy can get Excecutioner along with it, and thus making it 5 GM traits.

P.p.s. And IP isn’t even that powerful to be justified as GM trait, ofc it’s mandatory for shatter but not powerful.

Giving a trait line advantage by reducing Steal’s CD is dumb IMO, because just like now, every build spec Trickery for this reason alone.

Why not just reduce the Steal CD to 20sec and be done with it instead of adding it to the base line. This way every build can benefit from this, not just Trickery.

Then they can make SoH to only add daze on Steal so the choice is either add daze or confusion — instead of obviously picking SoH because of the CDR.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

…should thief be granted similar baseline changes?

The answer is an obvious “No!”. This is what I’m saying, the “reason” behind the suggestion is not well thought off.

I think this a reasonable question.

Question = reasonable.
Suggestion = not reasonable.

But you go and say that you think this would be better if it had the backing of a reasonable and applicable suggestion, yet you don’t justify yourself when you say this idea is obviously had.

There is nothing to justify. The topic is lacking information to why the OP is making this suggestion without thinking about the repercussion.

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

Read my prior post. That is my reason for making SoH baseline.

Gabriell.4856:

Read my prior post. That is my reason for making SoH baseline.

You mean this one?

Gabriell.4856:

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

That is not within the scope of reasonable only because this change will break the Thief profession. And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Gabriell.4856:

Read my prior post. That is my reason for making SoH baseline.

You mean this one?

Gabriell.4856:

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

That is not within the scope of reasonable only because this change will break the Thief profession. And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

Not that I agree with SoH behind made baseline, but your ad hominem is getting annoying. You keep saying that what he’s suggesting is obviously bad and you’re using that as “evidence” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. If you’re not going to contribute to the discussion and just insult people then just please stop.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Gabriell.4856:

Read my prior post. That is my reason for making SoH baseline.

You mean this one?

Gabriell.4856:

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

That is not within the scope of reasonable only because this change will break the Thief profession. And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

I mean this one:

“My opinion is different. I’m willing to bet 2 cents that the new elite spec will not have any condi clear. With what we know about the new condi buff, ticking for 2K+, condi clear will be mandatory. This will force us to spec into trickery, deadly arts, and shadow arts or acro. Basically, the same crap as now.”

By the way, what do you mean by “break the thief profession?” You basically did what I did in my OP. Made a statement without any reason or why… lol.

Well, we go into trickery to get those skills and not take others. Its one way to balance.

You make the whole trickery line baseline like that now well have DA,SA,Acro thieves. Which, IMO, would be amazing but only for us thieves.

nightblood.7910:

Well, we go into trickery to get those skills and not take others. Its one way to balance.

You make the whole trickery line baseline like that now well have DA,SA,Acro thieves. Which, IMO, would be amazing but only for us thieves.

actually it wouldn’t be for thieves either if you consider that your main priority is to keep enemy thief down the whole match… eating own poison so to say is anything but fun

I could easily agree to the idea of making sleight of hand baseline. There are two parts to this skill:
- Reduced cool down on steal
- Daze for 1s.

The idea of reducing the base cool down of steal - our only profession skill and the longest cool down profession skill both alone (if you exclude tool belt skills as they are more "utilities accessible via profession mechanic") and collectively, in the game - is not unreasonable at all. In fact that reduced cool down is extremely important when traiting for effects on steal, most of which are essential to be viable. Thrill of the crime: need our fury and swiftness; bountiful theft: need our vigor and boon ripping allows us to deal with lich form, interrupt safe stomps and safe resses, and utilize the interrupt of steal vs targets with stability. A longer cool down means survival is cut: less vigor up-time, less fury and swiftness, longer cool down on a shadow step for pursuit or escape.
And yes, the "case-and-point" at mesmers getting illusionary persona as a baseline is a valid thing to raise. It’s precedent.

The daze, while often invaluable, is not absolutely necessary for thief to be viable. Steal as a shadow step already is quite strong, adding the reduced cool down and daze as baseline when you can also add a lot more to it might be overpowering it. It needs to be balanced with the fact that it can be buffed up a lot from traits. However, thieves would still have to go into trickery for thrill of the crime and bountiful theft anyway, both of which absolutely should not be made baseline, because then you’re essentially giving thieves a whole trait line as baseline. So when you think of it this way - that thieves will still go into trickery - it is arguable not overpowered to make sleight of hand - both the reduced cool down and the daze - baseline.

Still, if it were up to me, I would see the reduced cool down made baseline and an idea off the top of my head, merge improvisation with sleight of hand (keeping it "Sleight of Hand" and in the trickery line) creating a trait like:
- Daze your target for 1s when you steal (as sleight of hand is)
- You can use stolen items twice (as improvisation is)
- One random skill category is recharged when you steal (as improvisation is)
- No damage buff (remove the 10% modifier from improvisation to balance with the fact that it would become possible to take executioner as well as this trait)

Archon.6481:

Not that I agree with SoH behind made baseline, but your ad hominem is getting annoying. You keep saying that what he’s suggesting is obviously bad and you’re using that as “evidence” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. If you’re not going to contribute to the discussion and just insult people then just please stop.

Can you kindly point where I made an ad hom?

The whole time I was talking about how this discussion would have been better if the OP gave use more information on why he think SoH as base line is a good idea instead of using a “me too” reason just because Mesmer had their GM in baseline.

Gabriell.4856:

I mean this one:

“My opinion is different. I’m willing to bet 2 cents that the new elite spec will not have any condi clear. With what we know about the new condi buff, ticking for 2K+, condi clear will be mandatory. This will force us to spec into trickery, deadly arts, and shadow arts or acro. Basically, the same crap as now.”

That doesn’t support your suggestion though. What does this response has to do with making SoH baseline?

By the way, what do you mean by “break the thief profession?” You basically did what I did in my OP. Made a statement without any reason or why… lol.

Every Thief can see what’s wrong with this and a couple of them already posted it..no point on repeating it.

And if you haven’t read it, I posted this also.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Giving a trait line advantage by reducing Steal’s CD is dumb IMO, because just like now, every build spec Trickery for this reason alone.

Why not just reduce the Steal CD to 20sec and be done with it instead of adding it to the base line. This way every build can benefit from this, not just Trickery.

Then they can make SoH to only add daze on Steal so the choice is either add daze or confusion — instead of obviously picking SoH because of the CDR.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

Not that I agree with SoH behind made baseline, but your ad hominem is getting annoying. You keep saying that what he’s suggesting is obviously bad and you’re using that as “evidence” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. If you’re not going to contribute to the discussion and just insult people then just please stop.

Can you kindly point where I made an ad hom?

The whole time I was talking about how this discussion would have been better if the OP gave use more information on why he think SoH as base line is a good idea instead of using a “me too” reason just because Mesmer had their GM in baseline.

Gabriell.4856:

I mean this one:

“My opinion is different. I’m willing to bet 2 cents that the new elite spec will not have any condi clear. With what we know about the new condi buff, ticking for 2K+, condi clear will be mandatory. This will force us to spec into trickery, deadly arts, and shadow arts or acro. Basically, the same crap as now.”

That doesn’t support your suggestion though. What does this response has to do with making SoH baseline?

By the way, what do you mean by “break the thief profession?” You basically did what I did in my OP. Made a statement without any reason or why… lol.

Every Thief can see what’s wrong with this and a couple of them already posted it..no point on repeating it.

And if you haven’t read it, I posted this also.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Giving a trait line advantage by reducing Steal’s CD is dumb IMO, because just like now, every build spec Trickery for this reason alone.

Why not just reduce the Steal CD to 20sec and be done with it instead of adding it to the base line. This way every build can benefit from this, not just Trickery.

Then they can make SoH to only add daze on Steal so the choice is either add daze or confusion — instead of obviously picking SoH because of the CDR.

Then you agree with me…at least partially. Seems like a win to me.

But then again, "it would have been a better if the premise of your counter suggestion has backing of a very reasonable and applicable suggestion. Unfortunately, using “everyone does it” to support your suggestion doesn’t really opens up a really good discussion.

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

You’re both reasonably unreasonable. There.

Back to the topic which could actually go somewhere and might - dare I say it - get heard by the devs. There’s still time to hope.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Can you kindly point where I made an ad hom?

Sure.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

You said that a seasoned thief would understand why this is a bad idea, and because the OP does not, he is therefore not a seasoned thief. If he is not seasoned then he must be a new player who does not know what he is talking about. This is an appeal to experience, which means you are saying his argument is not valid because he does not have your desired experience threshold.

To use an analogy: I am a “seasoned thief”. I have ~1.7k hours as thief. If I were to say that I think the OP’s idea is a good idea, what would your argument be? You are excluding the OP’s opinion because you think he is new.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

This is another appeal to experience.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

Here you completely ignored the OP’s opinion and dismissed it bad without giving an argument as to why. That is an appeal to ridicule.

Let’s consider the benefits of SoH being baseline and the problems.

Pros:
Opens the ability for thieves to play 6066 which have extremely strong surviavbility + damage and cc ( is this really a pro ???)
Cons:
Will make thieves stronger as a class which will affect balance as they are already very strong.
Makes 10 stacks of confusion on steal possible ( destroying balance because no other class can do that on a under 30s CD. )
Ruins gm choice in trickery line.

Sadrien.3470:

Let’s consider the benefits of SoH being baseline and the problems.

Pros:
Opens the ability for thieves to play 6066 which have extremely strong surviavbility + damage and cc ( is this really a pro ???)
Cons:
Will make thieves stronger as a class which will affect balance as they are already very strong.
Makes 10 stacks of confusion on steal possible ( destroying balance because no other class can do that on a under 30s CD. )
Ruins gm choice in trickery line.

If you currently think “thieves are very strong”, we’re playing different games. Go watch terrorsquads video where he explains how a thiefs only role is to cap unguarded points, contribute to uneven fights, and avoid 1v1’s entirely (unless of course you’re fighting a mesmer or another thief). Your analysis also completely ignored the current issue with SoH.

When I first saw this thread, I agreed that SoH didn’t need to become baseline. The more I thought about it however, I began to see the problem. So many of thiefs strong traits are tied to steal that it’s almost impossible not to take SoH just for the 20% CD reduction. It’s not even as if you can take a spec that doesn’t use steal traits – in the new system, you’re taking at least 1 of the following lines – DA, SA, or Trickery (ignoring the new specialization at the moment), and in each of those trees the traits tied to steal are better than their counterparts (though it be different when the changes go live, of course). With Acro being a little UP and CS being pure crap (again, that may change), you’re probably taking all 3.

That being said, the answer isn’t just to make SoH baseline. Instead, I’d like to propose a compromise. Add the following to the new baseline steal
- Steal 1 boon and grant it to the thief themself.
- Steal CD reduced by 10%
- Steal dazes for .25s

Redesign the following traits
Bountiful theft – steal now rips a second boon, grants vigor, and shares everything with up to 5 allies in the radius (So a traited BT in this proposed system works exactly like it does now)
SoH – Lots of possibilities here, but it needs to be redesigned, and does not include any further reduction to steals CD.

Now thieves are not forced into Trickery just for the CD reduction of SoH, and thieves can still interrupt stability stomps, but without trickery you can use Aegis to counterplay it.

Gabriell.4856:

With mesmer GM being baseline, I don’t see why Sleight of Hand cannot be baseline for thief. We are constantly force to go into trickery to get this trait and arguably Bountiful Thief. If they made SoH and BT baseline, it would open so many more builds.

I say yes! Do it!

When a class receives a buff this strong, it doesn’t really mean that every other class should get something similar “just because”. The reasoning behind buffing and nerfing is to achieve a balance between classes, if you buff and nerf all classes simultaniously all the time, the balance won’t change. Right after the Mesmer changes/traits were announced, tons of threads popped up (I’ve seen quite a few in the Warrior subforums) with demands to make this and that baseline. If they’d do that for every class and continue doing that, the power creep would be ridiculous (even more than it will be with HoT).

Once you get your “best traits” baseline, the next best will be taken and considered mandatory, and the demands for them to become baseline will continue. This new trend of stuffing everything into “baseline” is horrible and I hope it stops soon. A much better approach to face these “mandatory” traits is to make alternatives actually worth taking, just my humble opinion. Forcing players to make decisions is a good thing.

I’d argue that some of the Mesmer traits weren’t necessary to become baseline (Elasticity, for example), but that’s another story I don’t have influence on. Sleight of Hand (in its current form) baseline would be ridicously strong in combination with some other trait options opening up. Making Illusionary Persona baseline fixed the design flaw of a class mechanic being able to literally do nothing at all. That fact alone made Deceptive Evasion even more mandatory – a trait that is still highly mandatory for any shatter build. And nobody with the lightest sense of balance would want that one to become baseline, too.

I kinda like evilapprentices suggested compromise, but I still don’t see SoH as mandatory for the class as IP is for Mesmers (see above).
Just wait for the elite spec, I’m sure there’ll be lots of stuff to make interesting new builds for thieves. I am aware these are the thieves forums and I will probably get jumped for saying that (especially as a Mesmer main #nohate =0). Don’t kill me mah stealthy friends!

Archon.6481:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Can you kindly point where I made an ad hom?

Sure.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

You said that a seasoned thief would understand why this is a bad idea, and because the OP does not, he is therefore not a seasoned thief. If he is not seasoned then he must be a new player who does not know what he is talking about. This is an appeal to experience, which means you are saying his argument is not valid because he does not have your desired experience threshold.

My statement is about the OP’s suggestion, not about his inexperience. The statement simply means is that, this is not how you make suggestions. You can’t just says, “I want this because they have it”, that’s not how you start a discussion.

To use an analogy: I am a “seasoned thief”. I have ~1.7k hours as thief. If I were to say that I think the OP’s idea is a good idea, what would your argument be? You are excluding the OP’s opinion because you think he is new.

I am excluding the OP’s opinion? You got that all wrong. In fact, I am demanding more of his opinion to support his suggestion. He needs to provide the thought process on why he thinks his suggestion is a good idea.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

This is another appeal to experience.

Yours is jumping to conclusion.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

Here you completely ignored the OP’s opinion and dismissed it bad without giving an argument as to why. That is an appeal to ridicule.

Again, you’re jumping to conclusion. My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support. If you look at other’s post, they provide a PRO and CON, meaning they have thought their post thoroughly.

So…where’s the ad hom?

evilapprentice.6379:

Sadrien.3470:

Let’s consider the benefits of SoH being baseline and the problems.

Pros:
Opens the ability for thieves to play 6066 which have extremely strong surviavbility + damage and cc ( is this really a pro ???)
Cons:
Will make thieves stronger as a class which will affect balance as they are already very strong.
Makes 10 stacks of confusion on steal possible ( destroying balance because no other class can do that on a under 30s CD. )
Ruins gm choice in trickery line.

If you currently think “thieves are very strong”, we’re playing different games. Go watch terrorsquads video where he explains how a thiefs only role is to cap unguarded points, contribute to uneven fights, and avoid 1v1’s entirely (unless of course you’re fighting a mesmer or another thief). Your analysis also completely ignored the current issue with SoH.

When I first saw this thread, I agreed that SoH didn’t need to become baseline. The more I thought about it however, I began to see the problem. So many of thiefs strong traits are tied to steal that it’s almost impossible not to take SoH just for the 20% CD reduction. It’s not even as if you can take a spec that doesn’t use steal traits – in the new system, you’re taking at least 1 of the following lines – DA, SA, or Trickery (ignoring the new specialization at the moment), and in each of those trees the traits tied to steal are better than their counterparts (though it be different when the changes go live, of course). With Acro being a little UP and CS being pure crap (again, that may change), you’re probably taking all 3.

That being said, the answer isn’t just to make SoH baseline. Instead, I’d like to propose a compromise. Add the following to the new baseline steal
- Steal 1 boon and grant it to the thief themself.
- Steal CD reduced by 10%
- Steal dazes for .25s

Redesign the following traits
Bountiful theft – steal now rips a second boon, grants vigor, and shares everything with up to 5 allies in the radius (So a traited BT in this proposed system works exactly like it does now)
SoH – Lots of possibilities here, but it needs to be redesigned, and does not include any further reduction to steals CD.

Now thieves are not forced into Trickery just for the CD reduction of SoH, and thieves can still interrupt stability stomps, but without trickery you can use Aegis to counterplay it.

Not sure we need the 0.25 daze baseline, but I like the idea of the CD reduction being rolled into baseline while the trickery line still includes a reduction (like how they’re doing to attunment swapping). A single boon would also be nice, but I think the CD reduction is the most important part of balancing out the GM traits in that line.

Maugetarr.6823:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sadrien.3470:

Let’s consider the benefits of SoH being baseline and the problems.

Pros:
Opens the ability for thieves to play 6066 which have extremely strong surviavbility + damage and cc ( is this really a pro ???)
Cons:
Will make thieves stronger as a class which will affect balance as they are already very strong.
Makes 10 stacks of confusion on steal possible ( destroying balance because no other class can do that on a under 30s CD. )
Ruins gm choice in trickery line.

If you currently think “thieves are very strong”, we’re playing different games. Go watch terrorsquads video where he explains how a thiefs only role is to cap unguarded points, contribute to uneven fights, and avoid 1v1’s entirely (unless of course you’re fighting a mesmer or another thief). Your analysis also completely ignored the current issue with SoH.

When I first saw this thread, I agreed that SoH didn’t need to become baseline. The more I thought about it however, I began to see the problem. So many of thiefs strong traits are tied to steal that it’s almost impossible not to take SoH just for the 20% CD reduction. It’s not even as if you can take a spec that doesn’t use steal traits – in the new system, you’re taking at least 1 of the following lines – DA, SA, or Trickery (ignoring the new specialization at the moment), and in each of those trees the traits tied to steal are better than their counterparts (though it be different when the changes go live, of course). With Acro being a little UP and CS being pure crap (again, that may change), you’re probably taking all 3.

That being said, the answer isn’t just to make SoH baseline. Instead, I’d like to propose a compromise. Add the following to the new baseline steal
- Steal 1 boon and grant it to the thief themself.
- Steal CD reduced by 10%
- Steal dazes for .25s

Redesign the following traits
Bountiful theft – steal now rips a second boon, grants vigor, and shares everything with up to 5 allies in the radius (So a traited BT in this proposed system works exactly like it does now)
SoH – Lots of possibilities here, but it needs to be redesigned, and does not include any further reduction to steals CD.

Now thieves are not forced into Trickery just for the CD reduction of SoH, and thieves can still interrupt stability stomps, but without trickery you can use Aegis to counterplay it.

Not sure we need the 0.25 daze baseline, but I like the idea of the CD reduction being rolled into baseline while the trickery line still includes a reduction (like how they’re doing to attunment swapping). A single boon would also be nice, but I think the CD reduction is the most important part of balancing out the GM traits in that line.

You are correct.

Removing the CD reduction from SoH and making it baseline makes it so that Trickery is no longer psuedo-required.

The other changes I suggested were to give other trait lines (CS, Acro, SA) a fighting chance – even with the CD reduction baseline, trickery is a no-brainer for any viable thief build after DA. Adding the other effects to baseline makes it so that you can ignore trickery and still retain a small portion of its usefulness.

evilapprentice.6379:

Maugetarr.6823:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sadrien.3470:

Let’s consider the benefits of SoH being baseline and the problems.

Pros:
Opens the ability for thieves to play 6066 which have extremely strong surviavbility + damage and cc ( is this really a pro ???)
Cons:
Will make thieves stronger as a class which will affect balance as they are already very strong.
Makes 10 stacks of confusion on steal possible ( destroying balance because no other class can do that on a under 30s CD. )
Ruins gm choice in trickery line.

If you currently think “thieves are very strong”, we’re playing different games. Go watch terrorsquads video where he explains how a thiefs only role is to cap unguarded points, contribute to uneven fights, and avoid 1v1’s entirely (unless of course you’re fighting a mesmer or another thief). Your analysis also completely ignored the current issue with SoH.

When I first saw this thread, I agreed that SoH didn’t need to become baseline. The more I thought about it however, I began to see the problem. So many of thiefs strong traits are tied to steal that it’s almost impossible not to take SoH just for the 20% CD reduction. It’s not even as if you can take a spec that doesn’t use steal traits – in the new system, you’re taking at least 1 of the following lines – DA, SA, or Trickery (ignoring the new specialization at the moment), and in each of those trees the traits tied to steal are better than their counterparts (though it be different when the changes go live, of course). With Acro being a little UP and CS being pure crap (again, that may change), you’re probably taking all 3.

That being said, the answer isn’t just to make SoH baseline. Instead, I’d like to propose a compromise. Add the following to the new baseline steal
- Steal 1 boon and grant it to the thief themself.
- Steal CD reduced by 10%
- Steal dazes for .25s

Redesign the following traits
Bountiful theft – steal now rips a second boon, grants vigor, and shares everything with up to 5 allies in the radius (So a traited BT in this proposed system works exactly like it does now)
SoH – Lots of possibilities here, but it needs to be redesigned, and does not include any further reduction to steals CD.

Now thieves are not forced into Trickery just for the CD reduction of SoH, and thieves can still interrupt stability stomps, but without trickery you can use Aegis to counterplay it.

Not sure we need the 0.25 daze baseline, but I like the idea of the CD reduction being rolled into baseline while the trickery line still includes a reduction (like how they’re doing to attunment swapping). A single boon would also be nice, but I think the CD reduction is the most important part of balancing out the GM traits in that line.

You are correct.

Removing the CD reduction from SoH and making it baseline makes it so that Trickery is no longer psuedo-required.

The other changes I suggested were to give other trait lines (CS, Acro, SA) a fighting chance – even with the CD reduction baseline, trickery is a no-brainer for any viable thief build after DA. Adding the other effects to baseline makes it so that you can ignore trickery and still retain a small portion of its usefulness.

If steal baseline were 25 seconds and they implemented the new lead attacks, the disparity between traited and non-traited steal would certainly be reduced.

25/1.15=~21.75

Gabriell.4856:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

Not that I agree with SoH behind made baseline, but your ad hominem is getting annoying. You keep saying that what he’s suggesting is obviously bad and you’re using that as “evidence” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. If you’re not going to contribute to the discussion and just insult people then just please stop.

Can you kindly point where I made an ad hom?

The whole time I was talking about how this discussion would have been better if the OP gave use more information on why he think SoH as base line is a good idea instead of using a “me too” reason just because Mesmer had their GM in baseline.

Gabriell.4856:

I mean this one:

“My opinion is different. I’m willing to bet 2 cents that the new elite spec will not have any condi clear. With what we know about the new condi buff, ticking for 2K+, condi clear will be mandatory. This will force us to spec into trickery, deadly arts, and shadow arts or acro. Basically, the same crap as now.”

That doesn’t support your suggestion though. What does this response has to do with making SoH baseline?

By the way, what do you mean by “break the thief profession?” You basically did what I did in my OP. Made a statement without any reason or why… lol.

Every Thief can see what’s wrong with this and a couple of them already posted it..no point on repeating it.

And if you haven’t read it, I posted this also.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Giving a trait line advantage by reducing Steal’s CD is dumb IMO, because just like now, every build spec Trickery for this reason alone.

Why not just reduce the Steal CD to 20sec and be done with it instead of adding it to the base line. This way every build can benefit from this, not just Trickery.

Then they can make SoH to only add daze on Steal so the choice is either add daze or confusion — instead of obviously picking SoH because of the CDR.

Then you agree with me…at least partially. Seems like a win to me.

But then again, "it would have been a better if the premise of your counter suggestion has backing of a very reasonable and applicable suggestion. Unfortunately, using “everyone does it” to support your suggestion doesn’t really opens up a really good discussion.

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

Exactly, how does this response stengthen your argument? This is yet another “me too” response because I’ve already used it.

Maugetarr.6823:

evilapprentice.6379:

Maugetarr.6823:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sadrien.3470:

Let’s consider the benefits of SoH being baseline and the problems.

Pros:
Opens the ability for thieves to play 6066 which have extremely strong surviavbility + damage and cc ( is this really a pro ???)
Cons:
Will make thieves stronger as a class which will affect balance as they are already very strong.
Makes 10 stacks of confusion on steal possible ( destroying balance because no other class can do that on a under 30s CD. )
Ruins gm choice in trickery line.

If you currently think “thieves are very strong”, we’re playing different games. Go watch terrorsquads video where he explains how a thiefs only role is to cap unguarded points, contribute to uneven fights, and avoid 1v1’s entirely (unless of course you’re fighting a mesmer or another thief). Your analysis also completely ignored the current issue with SoH.

When I first saw this thread, I agreed that SoH didn’t need to become baseline. The more I thought about it however, I began to see the problem. So many of thiefs strong traits are tied to steal that it’s almost impossible not to take SoH just for the 20% CD reduction. It’s not even as if you can take a spec that doesn’t use steal traits – in the new system, you’re taking at least 1 of the following lines – DA, SA, or Trickery (ignoring the new specialization at the moment), and in each of those trees the traits tied to steal are better than their counterparts (though it be different when the changes go live, of course). With Acro being a little UP and CS being pure crap (again, that may change), you’re probably taking all 3.

That being said, the answer isn’t just to make SoH baseline. Instead, I’d like to propose a compromise. Add the following to the new baseline steal
- Steal 1 boon and grant it to the thief themself.
- Steal CD reduced by 10%
- Steal dazes for .25s

Redesign the following traits
Bountiful theft – steal now rips a second boon, grants vigor, and shares everything with up to 5 allies in the radius (So a traited BT in this proposed system works exactly like it does now)
SoH – Lots of possibilities here, but it needs to be redesigned, and does not include any further reduction to steals CD.

Now thieves are not forced into Trickery just for the CD reduction of SoH, and thieves can still interrupt stability stomps, but without trickery you can use Aegis to counterplay it.

Not sure we need the 0.25 daze baseline, but I like the idea of the CD reduction being rolled into baseline while the trickery line still includes a reduction (like how they’re doing to attunment swapping). A single boon would also be nice, but I think the CD reduction is the most important part of balancing out the GM traits in that line.

You are correct.

Removing the CD reduction from SoH and making it baseline makes it so that Trickery is no longer psuedo-required.

The other changes I suggested were to give other trait lines (CS, Acro, SA) a fighting chance – even with the CD reduction baseline, trickery is a no-brainer for any viable thief build after DA. Adding the other effects to baseline makes it so that you can ignore trickery and still retain a small portion of its usefulness.

If steal baseline were 25 seconds and they implemented the new lead attacks, the disparity between traited and non-traited steal would certainly be reduced.

25/1.15=~21.75

Even if the disparity is only .5 sec, it is enough to favor taking Trickery because it is still better in the long run.

The best course of action is to completely eliminate the disparity and give the lower cool down to all spec. 30sec CD is outdated and was based on a system that never made it out of beta. 20sec CD, with no other ways for CDR is, IMO, the right number since most of the time Steal aren’t used as soon as it became available anyway, so having a longer cooldown only unnecessarily limits our capability. We’re Thief, we should be able to steal as often as we can.

The only thing that might pose a problem with a lower CD is the new Descend into Shadows, where BP triggers on steal causing AoE blind and stealth. Albeit this is already a problem if the Thief spec’d for both SA and Trickery. IMO, I think BP on Steal is a bad idea and I hope they change that.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

The statement simply means is that, this is not how you make suggestions.

What?

So, “Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.” = “this is not how you make suggestions.”?

Umm, no. Those two sentences have no relation to each other. The first sentence is clearly an appeal to experience: that only experienced players would understand why this is bad.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

In fact, I am demanding more of his opinion to support his suggestion.

You can do so without being so hostile to the OP.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

This is another appeal to experience.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Yours is jumping to conclusion.

Well I reread the above and realized that it wasn’t an appeal to experience, but more of an unsubstantiated assertion. My apologies. However, you seem very sure that this idea is bad for thief, yet you still have not supported this other than claiming that it “will break the thief”, which is actually a reworded version of the original claim that it’s a bad idea.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.

“you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion”: this statement implies that the suggestion is definitely bad

“My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.”: This statement implies that the suggestion can be good, but lacks substantiation.

These two statements have incompatible conclusions: if the idea is definitely bad then it cannot be good, thus substantiation would be irrelevant as it cannot be proven to be good. Idk what it is you’re trying to say, nor do I think that this is an indicator that you’re wrong, but please carefully articulate your position so that it does not create ambiguities for you to prevaricate with and create confusion.

Archon.6481:

What?

So, “Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.” = “this is not how you make suggestions.”?

Umm, no. Those two sentences have no relation to each other. The first sentence is clearly an appeal to experience: that only experienced players would understand why this is bad.

No, that’s you jumping to conclusion. The statement means what exactly as it is written.

Just look through this thread and you’ll read the responses coming from seasoned Thieves — then compare that to the OP’s. It’s really that simple.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

In fact, I am demanding more of his opinion to support his suggestion.

You can do so without being so hostile to the OP.

There is no hostily on what I’ve posted. That is you jumping to conclusion, that some how have clouded your understanding. I know it’s blunt, but there is no hostility in it I assure you.

Well I reread the above and realized that it wasn’t an appeal to experience, but more of an unsubstantiated assertion. My apologies. However, you seem very sure that this idea is bad for thief, yet you still have not supported this other than claiming that it “will break the thief”, which is actually a reworded version of the original claim that it’s a bad idea.

I’m sure that the OP knows that it is bad that’s why he used the mesmer’s GM as his reasoning — and that reason isn’t good enough.

Let’s put it this way. Will the OP make this same suggestion if the changes didn’t happen for the mesmers? If so, what would be his reasoning then?

The fact remains that the only reason he made this suggestion is because of what changes the mesmers will have — which is a bad idea.

“you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion”: this statement implies that the suggestion is definitely bad

Any suggestion without supports is bad. Unless you can justify why it is good — it’s bad.

“My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.”: This statement implies that the suggestion can be good, but lacks substantiation.

Exactly! That’s why my first post begins with this;

Sir Vincent III.1286:

It would have been a better topic if the premise of the topic has backing of a very reasonable and applicable suggestion.

These two statements have incompatible conclusions: if the idea is definitely bad then it cannot be good, thus substantiation would be irrelevant as it cannot be proven to be good.

No, you jumped to the wrong conclusion. It is bad by default.

This is not like “good idea unless proven bad” — this is more like “good idea and this is why”.

It is bad because of lack of support or thought process on why he believes it to be a good idea. In other words, we don’t know where he is coming from or what’s his angle on this —- until now, nothing to substantiate his belief that this is a good idea.

So far others have provided thoughts on what can be done as compromise because they know that SoH as a baseline as-is is bad.

If history had taught us anything, when ArenaNet buff something, they severely nerf something else — just look at what happen to iniatives and opportunist.

So having SoH as-is as baseline will mean that ArenaNet will nerf something else we might not want to be nerfed.

Idk what it is you’re trying to say, nor do I think that this is an indicator that you’re wrong, but please carefully articulate your position so that it does not create ambiguities for you to prevaricate with and create confusion.

I don’t find anything I have posted confusing. The problem here is that you already went on defensive mode that anything I say you perceive to be hostile.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

What?

So, “Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.” = “this is not how you make suggestions.”?

Umm, no. Those two sentences have no relation to each other. The first sentence is clearly an appeal to experience: that only experienced players would understand why this is bad.

No, that’s you jumping to conclusion. The statement means what exactly as it is written.

Just look through this thread and you’ll read the responses coming from seasoned Thieves — then compare that to the OP’s. It’s really that simple.

Please explain how I jumping to conclusions. I have explained myself and justified it and you provide me with nothing but the claim that I jumped to conclusions? No, prove me wrong. As far as I can see those sentences have no logical connection and you must do more than just say “you’re jumping to conclusions”: you must explain how I am jumping with conclusions.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Just look through this thread and you’ll read the responses coming from seasoned Thieves — then compare that to the OP’s. It’s really that simple.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

I’m sure that the OP knows that it is bad that’s why he used the mesmer’s GM as his reasoning — and that reason isn’t good enough.

And I agree. But the OP’s logic being bad doesn’t mean his suggestion is bad. Note: I am not saying that I agree with the OP’s opinion, I’m neutral on the subject, I am only saying that your dismissal of the OP is unfair.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any suggestion without supports is bad. Unless you can justify why it is good — it’s bad.

No, any suggestion without support is neutral unless it can be proven good or bad, or there is reason to believe it to be good or bad. Many things work like this in real life as well: people are generally considered to morally neutral unless there is reason to believe they have good or bad morals. Not the best example but I think it works.

Let’s say that OP makes suggestion X and suggestion X is a good idea, but the OP does not justify it. By your own logic, the suggestion is bad because the OP did not justify it. Do you see the problem with this logic? The suggestion is good, it only looks bad (to you). Even though you may be right to be suspect of the OP’s idea because he didn’t justify it, the suggestion is actually good, and your claims that it is bad on the basis of lack of OP justification is not valid; it should be neutrally viewed unless a reason is given to see it one way or the other.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

“My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.”: This statement implies that the suggestion can be good, but lacks substantiation.

Exactly!

“Any suggestion without supports is bad.” But you agree that the OP’s statement can be good, but lacks substantiation. This is not possible.

Using the above analogy of suggestion X: The suggestion is bad by your standards, but can be proven to be good? Does this mean that the suggestion will always be bad or that it is bad until proven to be good? If the former then you are being illogical: the suggestion is good so it cannot forever be bad, it is only your own perception that it’s bad. If the latter then your logic is unfair, as it treats all good ideas as bad for the sole reason as lacking an immediate justification. It makes far more sense to treat all ideas as neutral unless given a reason to believe otherwise.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If history had taught us anything, when ArenaNet buff something, they severely nerf something else — just look at what happen to iniatives and opportunist.

While that might be a trend that doesn’t mean that it will always happen.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Even if the disparity is only .5 sec, it is enough to favor taking Trickery because it is still better in the long run.

No, that just isn’t true. In the current system, if the difference between 6 trickery steal and 0 trickery steal was .5 sec, or even 5 full seconds, you’d see a lot more 6/6/2/0/0 variants running around. It’s unfortunate that the previewed CS and Acro lines are pretty bad, but assuming they’re brought in line with DA, SA and Trickery, a 3-5s difference between traited and untraited steal won’t be enough to make trickery a “must have” line.

The best course of action is to completely eliminate the disparity and give the lower cool down to all spec. 30sec CD is outdated and was based on a system that never made it out of beta. 20sec CD, with no other ways for CDR is, IMO, the right number since most of the time Steal aren’t used as soon as it became available anyway, so having a longer cooldown only unnecessarily limits our capability. We’re Thief, we should be able to steal as often as we can.

Every class gains some CD reduction on their class skills from their class line (unless I’m mistaken), so I can’t imagine eliminating it completely, even if Anets trait design heavily favors lowering the CD of steal as much as you can as a player.

The only thing that might pose a problem with a lower CD is the new Descend into Shadows, where BP triggers on steal causing AoE blind and stealth. Albeit this is already a problem if the Thief spec’d for both SA and Trickery. IMO, I think BP on Steal is a bad idea and I hope they change that.

While I agree this feels powerful on paper, I’m not willing to call anything OP until the expansion. It’s obvious that the landscape is changing pretty drastically for most classes, and we haven’t even seen most of the specializations yet. I’m excited for thieves potentially being able to drop SR as a required utility in team play, assuming DiS can perform a similar function (hell, it could even replace SoH for interrupting stomps, if trickery wasn’t a psuedo-mandatory traitline).

evilapprentice.6379:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Even if the disparity is only .5 sec, it is enough to favor taking Trickery because it is still better in the long run.

No, that just isn’t true. In the current system, if the difference between 6 trickery steal and 0 trickery steal was .5 sec, or even 5 full seconds, you’d see a lot more 6/6/2/0/0 variants running around.

I don’t know, but having an interrupt .5s sooner is very appealing.

It’s unfortunate that the previewed CS and Acro lines are pretty bad, but assuming they’re brought in line with DA, SA and Trickery, a 3-5s difference between traited and untraited steal won’t be enough to make trickery a “must have” line.

Trickery still have a trump card though — cleanse on Trick skills, so it might still be a “must have” in conjunction with SA.

Every class gains some CD reduction on their class skills from their class line (unless I’m mistaken), so I can’t imagine eliminating it completely, even if Anets trait design heavily favors lowering the CD of steal as much as you can as a player.

I don’t think they’ll be willing to reduce the base CD then have CDR from somewhere else. A flat -10s CD should be enough seeing that most build are running SoH anyway.

The only thing that might pose a problem with a lower CD is the new Descend into Shadows, where BP triggers on steal causing AoE blind and stealth. Albeit this is already a problem if the Thief spec’d for both SA and Trickery. IMO, I think BP on Steal is a bad idea and I hope they change that.

While I agree this feels powerful on paper, I’m not willing to call anything OP until the expansion. It’s obvious that the landscape is changing pretty drastically for most classes, and we haven’t even seen most of the specializations yet. I’m excited for thieves potentially being able to drop SR as a required utility in team play, assuming DiS can perform a similar function (hell, it could even replace SoH for interrupting stomps, if trickery wasn’t a psuedo-mandatory traitline).

I don’t know if it warrants to be called OP, but with DiS + 20s Steal — it might pose a problem. And yes I also think that DiS might replace SoH for anti-stomp only because in order for SoH to work, BT needs to also be spec-ed — it frees up a spec point. And if ArenaNet did what you suggests, making BT a baseline…I’d like it, but knowing ArenaNet, they might nerf us some place else, so it’s worrisome.

Didn’t read topic, but as I said about a half a year ago: “steal has to be trated to become at least useful class mechanic”
Look, now you have to put at least 4 traits into steal for it to become superior thief ability, but without traiting it is a shadowstep+1 ability on a 35 sec cd being close to useless.

In my opinion, at least mug and thrill of the crime should be Baseline, not sleight of hand, because it bring whole new level to steal,
Probably, we can merge bountiful and SoH, because these traits combine and synergize very well. Actually if you take SoH there is no reason to not take Bountiful.

In perfect world it would be all 4 traits: mug, bouuntiful, thirll of the crime, SoH merged in one trait to open thief some viable build diversity, because now you either go 4 steal traits with full trickery lane bound to particular ones + mug, or you can’t play the game succesfully and meta is not the reason.

dDuff.3860:

Didn’t read topic, but as I said about a half a year ago: “steal has to be trated to become at least useful class mechanic”
Look, now you have to put at least 4 traits into steal for it to become superior thief ability, but without traiting it is a shadowstep+1 ability on a 35 sec cd being close to useless.

In my opinion, at least mug and thrill of the crime should be Baseline, not sleight of hand, because it bring whole new level to steal,

Probably, we can merge bountiful and SoH, because these traits combine and synergize very well. Actually if you take SoH there is no reason to not take Bountiful.

In perfect world it would be all 4 traits: mug, bouuntiful, thirll of the crime, SoH merged in one trait to open thief some viable build diversity, because now you either go 4 steal traits with full trickery lane bound to particular ones + mug, or you can’t play the game succesfully and meta is not the reason.

You might be up to something here. We should explore this more.