Coming Soon: Discussion Thread (2022)

[Rhifox]

What is not really being expressed here is what can then o Lu be assumed is the desire to make those builds that gain defensively ALSO suffer offensively. Which seemed to all stem from the fact of a bugged CE/ICE with Warlock RTAs.

Trust me, if I was doing what I actually wanted to do, it'd be to make CE disable spellcasting completely. This is not some warlock-inspired change, as CE is a problem on all spellcasters. The CE changes fixing touch attacks is a bonus, not the motivation.

But also: where in PnP does it state that CE does disable spell casting?

"When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action."

You must be:

1. In melee.
2. Using the attack or full attack action.

And you lose it as soon as you do something else.

FD and CE in pnp were never meant for being used by ranged characters, as a passive AC buff, or by spellcasters. They were meant to be melee-exclusive options. And offensive-only options -- using a potion or wand is a non-attack action, and therefore would disable it.

[Bobthehero]

It's still pulling the rug out of casters. Where is their Flight abilities, or the ton of other PnP spells. Why is there still a cap to AB or Dodge AC if it's not there in PnP? Is it one rule for one thing, and one for the other? Is it following PnP when someone feels like it? Imo following PnP is a flawed idea to begin with, Nwn2 isn't PnP and operates differently.

[Snarfy]

Snarfy

All builds with ICE, is getting 1 more feat.

This is irrelevant for 99% of rogue heavy builds.

I going to reiterate the point that the worst hit builds will be those that have Tumble 30, and do not use CE/ICE or Parry, currently.

These builds are also unlikely to use Fighting Defensively nor the new CE (up to -5/+5), for numerous reasons, and we can just say because they weren’t designed too.

^ This.

[Rhifox]

It's still pulling the rug out of casters. Where is their Flight abilities, or the ton of other PnP spells. Why is there still a cap to AB or Dodge AC if it's not there in PnP? Is it one rule for one thing, and one for the other? Is it following PnP when someone feels like it?

Because every time I try to make changes I have to argue with people about them them. That, and everything takes time.

Also, if I spent all my time just doing spellcasting stuff (which, trust me, I'd love to do), I'd be accused of having favoritism towards casters. I did caster changes the last two patches. I add new spells practically every patch.

And I'm absolutely open to removing the AB and Dodge caps. I don't think they should be there. It's an arbitrary limitation. The less arbitrary exceptions we have (looking at you, master alchemist, breach list), the better.

[Steve]

Isn’t an RTA or MTA spell casting considered an attack action?

Isn’t that what Eldritch Blast is?

[Rhifox]

Isn’t an RTA or MTA spell casting considered an attack action?

Isn’t that what Eldritch Blast is?

Yes, but RTAs aren't melee. MTAs meanwhile should (if going by pnp rules) turn it off to cast the spell, but then you can turn it back on while actually delivering the touch. We don't have separate spell actions and touch actions like pnp does, though (where the touch spell acts like a buff spell that you can expend whenever you're ready to).

[Rhifox]

PVE would have to be reworked, wich would mean other characters might get destroyed by PVE's AB.

PvE is getting reworked regardless. Completely reworking BGTSCC's pve experience is one of my major projects for this year. Adding new combat actions (for both players and mobs) is part of that.

[Flatted Fifth]

Snarfy

All builds with ICE, is getting 1 more feat.

This is irrelevant for 99% of rogue heavy builds.

I going to reiterate the point that the worst hit builds will be those that have Tumble 30, and do not use CE/ICE or Parry, currently.

These builds are also unlikely to use Fighting Defensively nor the new CE (up to -5/+5), for numerous reasons, and we can just say because they weren’t designed too.

^ This.

Causing light armor builds to lose 3 to 5 ac (depending upon optimization or not) is going to especially hurt medium and low AB builds if they can only get that ac back again via modes that introduce an attack penalty.

I'm still not clear on why, exactly, the tumble ac is even being messed with. What imbalance does that create? Personally I think either tumble should be a class skill for everyone or give people an ac bonus based on their attack bonus. That way, the more combat oriented the build, the better the ac. And that would be a good thing for clerics and paladins who get few skill points. Rogues and swash who take spring attack could then put the skill points into more fun stuff like bluff and sense motive.

[Steve]

Isn’t an RTA or MTA spell casting considered an attack action?

Isn’t that what Eldritch Blast is?

Yes, but RTAs aren't melee. MTAs meanwhile should (if going by pnp rules) turn it off to cast the spell, but then you can turn it back on while actually delivering the touch. We don't have separate spell actions and touch actions like pnp does, though (where the touch spell acts like a buff spell that you can expend whenever you're ready to).

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

I think you have a subjective read on it.

[Rhifox]

Isn’t an RTA or MTA spell casting considered an attack action?

Isn’t that what Eldritch Blast is?

Yes, but RTAs aren't melee. MTAs meanwhile should (if going by pnp rules) turn it off to cast the spell, but then you can turn it back on while actually delivering the touch. We don't have separate spell actions and touch actions like pnp does, though (where the touch spell acts like a buff spell that you can expend whenever you're ready to).

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

I think you have a subjective read on it.

"When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee,"

Ranged touch attacks would only count for FD/CE if done in melee range.


Whether a touch attack count as a 'Cast a spell' action or an 'Attack' action, or both, and if both, whether it counts for FD/CE or not, is more unclear, yes.


Either way, not really relevant, as outcry ensured that making FD/CE to only work in melee range on BGTSCC is off the table for now.

[DaloLorn]

Isn’t an RTA or MTA spell casting considered an attack action?

Isn’t that what Eldritch Blast is?

Yes, but RTAs aren't melee. MTAs meanwhile should (if going by pnp rules) turn it off to cast the spell, but then you can turn it back on while actually delivering the touch. We don't have separate spell actions and touch actions like pnp does, though (where the touch spell acts like a buff spell that you can expend whenever you're ready to).

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

I think you have a subjective read on it.

Actually, Rhi's logic still checks out. Delivering the spell is an attack, but casting it isn't.

The Pathfinder games showcase the difference pretty nicely, IMO.

[selhan]

There goes my days of doing this. And I dont use CE or ICE. QQ

[Steve]

Yes, but RTAs aren't melee. MTAs meanwhile should (if going by pnp rules) turn it off to cast the spell, but then you can turn it back on while actually delivering the touch. We don't have separate spell actions and touch actions like pnp does, though (where the touch spell acts like a buff spell that you can expend whenever you're ready to).

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

I think you have a subjective read on it.

Actually, Rhi's logic still checks out. Delivering the spell is an attack, but casting it isn't.

The Pathfinder games showcase the difference pretty nicely, IMO.

But by that logic, RTAs and MTAs spells should take 2 rounds then!

[DaloLorn]

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

I think you have a subjective read on it.

Actually, Rhi's logic still checks out. Delivering the spell is an attack, but casting it isn't.

The Pathfinder games showcase the difference pretty nicely, IMO.

But by that logic, RTAs and MTAs spells should take 2 rounds then!

Not really. In PF: Kingmaker, you cast the spell as a standard action, and deliver it as a... I wanna say free action. Quick action? It's the one-per-turn variety, either way.

Or if you're a magus, you get to cast the spell as part of your full attack action. Regongar could be pretty deadly, putting Shocking Grasp on his scimitar before hacking away at the enemy...

[Flatted Fifth]

It's still pulling the rug out of casters. Where is their Flight abilities, or the ton of other PnP spells. Why is there still a cap to AB or Dodge AC if it's not there in PnP? Is it one rule for one thing, and one for the other? Is it following PnP when someone feels like it?

Because every time I try to make changes I have to argue with people about them them. That, and everything takes time.

When you propose taking 3 to 5 ac off of light armor builds that they can only get back by either turning off attacking or taking a hit to their (usually) already mid AB, you should expect arguments.

If you plainly stated what imbalances you're trying to address and asked for community input, instead of making up your own mind and making the announcement in a thread called "coming soon" instead of "proposed changes", you might find that 30 or so heads are better than one.