I would actually like to see 70% of other skills buffed to be as efficent and doing its job well as battlestomp is instead.
This is how power creep starts.
Battlestomp is good because there are so few conditions on its use and so few opportunity costs.
Movement, offensive actions and defensive actions cost AP. You can therefore think of spending AP to CC an enemy as costing you AP to damage them because the cost is paid from the same shared resource.
With Battlestomp, you don't have to sacrifice damage for hard CC, you get both. You don't have to think about party positioning and lines of sight because it doesn't do friendly fire.
This messes up the risk/reward part of tactical combat. Setting off a shock/stun combo has much stricter requirements in terms of AP investment and the positioning of allies. You might think the more elaborate setup would have the bigger payoff but it doesn't.
This is where you have to be careful when buffing and nerfing numbers. Battlestomp being strong isn't about the damage numbers or the hard CC. You won't make it less of an outlier by making it do less damage or soft CC instead of hard CC because that was never the problem to begin with.
Its ok to have skills that do multiple things really well like damage + CC. However, if you want a tactical combat system with a reward mechanism that promotes tactical play, you have to make your biggest payoffs require the most elaborate and technical setups. There must be opportunity costs and conditions on use and the player must be aware of what those conditions are and be required to create those conditions on the battlefield before they can benefit.
I like Battlestomp. Its powerful and it has a satisfying crunch when you smash your weapon into the ground. It looks good, it sounds good, it has a tide turning effect in combat.
But when I first used it, I thought it was going to hurt/KD my party members because the cone highlights allies as well as hostiles. For the first couple of hours I played with Battlestomp thinking I had to plan around friendly fire.
Then I decided the cost of KDing 1 of my guys was worth the tradeoff of KDing 2 of theirs. That was when I realized there was no price to pay because there was no friendly fire. I could stomp right through my entire team to KD any number of hostiles on the other side. I was a bit disappointed. A tactical aspect of the game vanished when I realized this.