Okay, but what exactly do you mean by "synergy" here and what implementation of that "synergy" would be a net improvement?
If you mean one ability buffing another, the vast majority of the time that "synergy" is just a euphemism for either...
- "bundling" or "codependence" if there is only a singular buffer, such that A only sees use through buffing B or B can only be buffed by A, or
- "ramp-up" if the buffers apply broadly, such as having to open combat with a damage buff.
Those involve trade-offs, even though their negatives may be reducible. In the first case, for instance, you may have a flexible spender if the singular buffer or its shared resource costs can nonetheless affect multiple skills in different ways (as per Dark Arts), but that then means your base skills are weaker. That leaves you with a further issue to hammer out -- responsiveness.That said, there are other ways of looking at synergies beyond what is obvious simply from tooltips. Much like in a card game where you need to manage certain functions, fill certain needs at/by certain times, etc., skills can be complementary or supplementary to each other without needing to specifically include among their "Additional Effects" some reference to another skill or apply broad buffs to all.(Luckily, that's easily done by flipping the DA-like effect from a buff to a dynamic follow-up skill, especially if it's done without a player-animation and therefore "animation-lock" [the period after each player action for which not further player actions can be executed, equal to 0.5s + roundtrip ping].)While that contextual synergy is, of course, not going to feature as obviously in a game where "burst" is largely no different from "sustain" except in how much they depend on multiplicative returns via stacked raid buffs (ultimately, from composition), but it's worth considering.Heck, whether a broad buff even applies a synergy or not is contextual; if a Haste buff doesn't actually provide enough value to make a rotational difference (or especially, one with disproportionate impact), it's harder to call that a real "synergy".
Touch of Death and Fracture weren't useful to Monk just because they were DoTs, nor was Yaten-Enpi useful to Samurai just because it was a ranged attack. The first pair were useful because they were non-positional and in part because their tuning wasn't that high, allowing them to be held at little cost in order to sync rotations or even guarantee a full-powered hit against a boss that would turn wildly during that GCD. Yaten-Enpi, in turn, could compensate for a single GCD of overclock where one would otherwise only be able to move a minimum of two GCDs.
A DRK set up in such a way as to appreciate the difference between, or appreciate both among, synergies that are on-paper (one skill's "Additional Effect" referencing another) and in-practice (context allowing a skill to have varied uses that draw a disproportionately improved effect from other parts of the kit even despite zero mention of those synergies in tooltips) would be, I'd imagine, a far more involved job than simply one with an extra mechanic added atop everything and embedded into each tooltip.
That's not an either-or, mind you. I'm a fan of bringing back a revised Dark Arts, not replacing that direction with this, and the one would likely help the other. But I feel we should be looking at more ambitious ends than just on-paper synergies.



Reply With Quote






