RDM thoughts and tuning needed

[Leidiriv]

So I suppose it should be pointed out:

It seems likely to me the reason Enchanted Reprise was nerfed was because, for the interval between getting Reprise and Scorch, you could potentially get more raw damage out of 80/80 Mana's worth of 300p Reprises than the melee combo.

Now obviously this isn't accounting for things like number of GCDs spent, but on its face it's 2400p vs 1570p + Verfinisher returns (around 1800 total?), where the nerf puts it at 1760p which is a very close but small loss compared to the pre-Scorch combo.

Just felt it was worth mentioning, since the calculations for the value of Mana do take into account the existence of Scorch.

To combat this I would perhaps propose swapping Reprise and Enhanced Contre Sixte in the leveling order (so this is only a concern for 2 levels instead of four, and a singular dungeon I think), or maybe adding a trait at level 80 to buff Reprise.

The melee combo isn't meant to be competing around 8 Reprises, since it refunds 35 of the 160 mana spent on it, leaving it at an effective cost of 125 mana. The melee combo is competing with 6.25 Reprises, which means that even at 300 potency Reprise is still a pretty big loss over the melee combo.

[Archwizard]

The melee combo isn't meant to be competing around 8 Reprises, since it refunds 35 of the 160 mana spent on it, leaving it at an effective cost of 125 mana. The melee combo is competing with 6.25 Reprises, which means that even at 300 potency Reprise is still a pretty big loss over the melee combo.

Murky waters there. Yes, it is a lower effective cost, but you still need that 160 mana to cast it in the first place, which is why I would argue the 7/28 Mana returned is part of the combo's damage output rather than its cost input.

And hey, I'm not saying "Oh well they can't buff it because it would be stronger than the combo", just that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the grounds for their logic given the very specific number chosen. I simply pointed out that even by that logic, if I'm right about the motivation which I very much could be wrong, there could still be allowances made for a worthwhile form of Reprise.

[Leidiriv]

Murky waters there. Yes, it is a lower effective cost, but you still need that 160 mana to cast it in the first place, which is why I would argue the 7/28 Mana returned is part of the combo's damage output rather than its cost input.

And hey, I'm not saying "Oh well they can't buff it because it would be stronger than the combo", just that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the grounds for their logic given the very specific number chosen. I simply pointed out that even by that logic, if I'm right about the motivation which I very much could be wrong, there could still be allowances made for a worthwhile form of Reprise.

The problem with saying that it still costs 160 is that in every instance, the 35 is generated for you. There's no scenario, barring the start of a fight (which is solved by Manafication anyway) where you actually have to generate the 80/80 the combo costs. The 35 may not be part of the cost input for the current combo, but it absolutely is for the NEXT combo.

And yeah, I am willing to bet that Reprise was originally designed by someone who works on RDM extensively, then someone who doesn't work on RDM as much saw the raw potency and was basically like "hey, 8 of that is stronger than the melee combo, fix it". I'm just hoping it gets brought back to where it's supposed to be, because as it stands it's a very fun button to use and WOULD fit perfectly in the 120s rotation, but it feels terrible having Moulinet be more efficient than it.