Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

[Hullack]

But... who cares? Oh no players are killing mobs?

It seems you do and everyone else posting here.

I was referring to "casters can have a field day with damaging spells and APR becomes so much important."

I don't get why that's a concern. Would anyone be upset that a caster can kill mobs with damaging spells? If so, why?

[Flasmix]

After 12+ years of the server having pretty much the same formula albeit with some tweaks along the way... What's the reasoning for wanting to completely change how the server is when the easier answer is to make a new server with the changes in power you want to see?

I'd even be in favor of another server split of sorts where one can be the hardcore RP with the mechanical changes and the other is BG as we know it

[Rhifox]

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to (#2) like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

This is pretty much what has been happening all these years. My advice would be, whichever way you decide to go with, to set guidelines on
- what features/immunities/abilities should exist
- what should be available only through leveling ( classes) and not items
- what stats, number of skill points, max extra damage etc weapons and items in general should have

This is the plan, yeah, once we have the fundamental direction set.

[CommanderKrieg]

I'm happy with 4. I feel that we've been moving on a good path and should work with what we have. The recent updates have been fun, and I think it could be even better with some refinements and new additions. I'm happy with the server content, but I do wish we had more mundane things to do. I'd really like to see crafting, and other activities added to the game. More things that can build off what we have now.

[DM Soulcatcher]

I'm intrigued by 2, but 3 and 4 seem like better choices, imo.

Hard pass on 1. Even harder on any vault wipes. That's just saying we don't care about any player's time.

[Kaden Asen]

I'm happy with 4. I feel that we've been moving on a good path and should work with what we have. The recent updates have been fun, and I think it could be even better with some refinements and new additions.

+1

Reworking the entire server is a bit drastic at this point.

[artemitavik]

On 3, it's important to note that this should be considered under the future system, not the current one. It does not hurt martials to cap APR... in fact, it's the other way around. If we move into a PvE environment where you're facing packs of mobs, each of those mobs with 8+ APR, what you end up facing is a vastly higher chance of autohitting level 20s that ignore your AC values. That hurts the player. Also, if you're able to do stupid huge amounts of damage in a single turn because of higher APR, that requires mobs to have higher HP, which then hurts less optimized low damage builds.

Plus, the amount of people using attack-lowering abilities (like NH, Athkatla, Sembian, etc) implies that people don't really value those remaining attacks anyway.

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to (#2) like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

Thus, if we go with 4, we need to consider how much damage players (and mobs) can put out in a single round, and adjust other systems to compensate (such as increasing how much HP everyone has. Which in turn requires increasing the amount of damage spells and traps do, and so on and so forth). Everything is connected. 3 is much easier to develop for because that's the way DnD was actually designed for. The more you move away from DnD's actual design, the harder it gets to balance things, and the worse the gameplay is.

I'm not saying we can't do 4 at all. But understand that the reason APR concerns me is because when designing for 4, my noticing how most epic mobs have 8+ APR was very, very concerning for me in terms how it would play in actual combat, with groups of mobs all hitting that many times per round. And let's not get started on Miss Marilith and her 14+ attacks per round at 45 AB. I'm scared about us moving into an environment of 'get surrounded by pack, take 20-25 attacks in one round, die before knowing what's going on'. This just continues to incentivize our 'AC is king' build meta.

"AC is King" Meta will always be the meta when it comes to physical combat in DND. It is meta in the PNP. It is meta in turn based DND video games. It is meta in real time games. It is meta in every DND game short of games you can actively dodge with a dodge button. But this is not that. Reducing to 4 APR and keeping level 30 yes, will reduce the number of attacks coming in at you, but will completely gut all the really cool custom fighter stance feats that alter your attacks/round for various bonuses, making them absolutely pointless and waste of feats, and that is saddening. If that route is taken, there needs to be a HEAVY redo of those feats so that they aren't suddenly +1 at best bonuses instead of the 2-4 they are now. Please see my previous post about again what that does to pure martials vs magically enhanced gish.

Yes, the situation regarding the future PVE system would be a bit different than current system, but it would still be a massive net loss for the pure martials and encourage even more magical use to regain what was lost.

It will not, in my opinion however, remove the AC is King meta. All it will do is shift the game even more towards self-buffers and wand/ward use.

As for DND's actual design, you cannot have balance in epic levels, it even (or used to) mention that in the epic handbooks, that it was unbalanced, it was going to be unbalanced. I understand that reverting to a level cap 20 is unlikely, but you can't add epic levels, pretend you're not epic level RP-wise, and have the balance of not-epic levels. It isn't going to happen, it can't.

So, again, my thought would be: If you're going to change much more, go whole hog, or save yourself a headache and make the tweaks minor and more aesthetic.

Removing APR for the benefits of combat modes is one thing. Removing APR just because is another. I am fine with losing them on on my character because the return is much better with NH or AT. Losing them for nothing in return is another matter entirely. The reduction in nat 20 hits will not be significant enough for the remittance of the abilities, unless the abilities are altered significantly.

[Bobthehero]

Removing APR for the benefits of combat modes is one thing. Removing APR just because is another. I am fine with losing them on on my character because the return is much better with NH or AT. Losing them for nothing in return is another matter entirely. The reduction in nat 20 hits will not be significant enough for the remittance of the abilities, unless the abilities are altered significantly.

This, thinking martials are fine with a general lowering of APR because they use combat modes that do lower them is flawed. We get a benefit from those modes, and they're not always on, though at times, they often are, there are considerations to be made for the lost attacks. Simply taking away the APR with nothing in return is absolutely a different matter, and I oppose it. Plus, it would indeed make a balance mess, given those feats were made with certain APR in mind, and we'd be cutting into that.

[artemitavik]

A thought I have would be, if you're going to lower the general APR, you'll need to enhance the effectiveness of those modes.

Example:
Athkatlan Triparte, currently sacrifices up to 3 attacks/rnd for 1 ac and 1 damage per sacrificed attack, leaving the martial with three attacks/rnd and +3 ac/damage.

But, if you start with only 4 APR, now you're down to 1, and you just aren't going to do anything at all. It has become a useless mode.

Instead, sacrifice 1 attack/rnd, leaving the martial with 3 attacks/rnd, but gets +2 AC/Damage for that 1 attack sacrificed. The mode stays useful and the martial doesn't end up sacrificing all of his offense, can still use knockdown and disarm and other shenanigans while still attacking a reasonable number of times.

Could do similar with the one that gives AB per sacrificed attack (Sembian Fencing I think?) and the like.

I guess my point remains if you're going to remove APR you have GOT to do a major overhaul of those modes. They're amazing, don't take them away.

[Destinysdesire]

After 12+ years of the server having pretty much the same formula albeit with some tweaks along the way... What's the reasoning for wanting to completely change how the server is when the easier answer is to make a new server with the changes in power you want to see?

I'd even be in favor of another server split of sorts where one can be the hardcore RP with the mechanical changes and the other is BG as we know it

Ravenloft and Arelith both did this....both servers are a fantastic flop, which should show how much such heavy changes are desired, to say the least, they are not.

[Young Werther]

Hmm yeah my characters ARE too strong better do #1

[Lambert]

I'd say just give unique defensive and offensive feats to monsters and also for spawns give a leader with auras. Give random weapons with on hit abilities to make the spawns unpredictable. Code spawns to prefer certain factions for attack.

[blacksoft]

1:

(devil's advocate for a sec)

I actually like 15 levels, but only if PRCs have their levels squished as well as prereqs lessened.

So really, I don't see too much of a difference in just progressing to 20 and preventing more classes after 20. No 3b30 rule. Enabling universal epic feat progression/saves/AB/spell progression with caveat that certain classes open up certain options.

Advantage would be more server to explore at level 20.

Anyway, sounds like main issue is number of attacks available. Disrupting this puts OOTBI and crossbow builds straight into OP territory while (non -SA) ptwf builds lose out as their more reliant on number of attacks to do enough damage since DR hurts them the most.

5:

I like last number best tbh. It will impact player base least. Just make mobs more interesting (active feats AI) and have more of them at a time.

However, I've never really gotten into epics simply because of the time sink needed to level. Just wasn't worth it. If I can get the important epic feats in heroic levels (cap feats or something) most of need for epics are gone.

However it destroys many unique builds. For example: Fighter 12+ builds always take their feats in epic levels because they are multiclassing. For example, my shield bashing build is 12 Fighter/10 X / 5X/ 3X. I can't fit in all the required feats in 20 levels. And lose out on multiclassing. Capping classes at 20 completely ruins so many unique builds.

Proposal:

Thinking out loud.

If 95% classes are squished by 2/3 levels (20/30) i.e. benefits of 20 Swashbuckler is 13 levels (Benefits of 30 Swashbuckler is at level 20).

8 levels of fighter = 12 levels of fighter etc etc (3 levels PRc into 2, 10 PrC into 7, 5 PRc into 3)

Obviously not referring to BAB, HP, saves, skills; only bonus feats and abilities.

Second, 7ability scores rather than 5 by 20.

Third, feats are available as per Pathfinder feat progression.

Fourth, SA and spell progression would be OP under proposal. Will need a different progression

[Tekill]

I had to definitely use my 'readers' to get through this thread. Even still, my eyes are a bit irritated from all the durned readin'. Eight pages and counting- and in record time no less!

It shows there is a lot of interest in the subject, and the server itself. That's cool.

There is a large base that does not want change, so it is 4 for them.
We should keep in mind that these changes are not just for the players they are for the DMs. 4 is very hard on the DM's- very hard. They have to learn and master a twisted mess of a DM client that handicaps creativity. It makes DMing too difficult for a someone who volunteers their time as part time hobby.

But I think others have said it. Its that player base that makes the game. Other servers have gone against the grain and are no longer around. I think the mob wants 4.

4 wont bring me back to the game. I have played 4 to death then still kept playing after being raised as undead!
I am over 4, at least for now. Maybe that is a good reason to stick with 4....it will keep all them 'Tekill's' away. 4 is Tekill repellent.

The reason I'm posting is that I think Flasmix's suggestion of further server splits is great idea. Why not run 1,2,3 as a test server to see how it goes?
Maybe have option 1 and option 4 available at the same time. The DM's can run events fairly easily on the option one server. The mob gets to keep its status quo.

We all get the added flavour of having two options. I still need my BGTSCC fix every now and again but I also want something new.

Offer both!
win-win-win

[wangxiuming]

4 for me! None of the other options make me any more excited to play on BG.

I've made my peace with the mechanical 30 cap and the narrative 15 cap. The cap is out of the bag already, pardon the pun, and I'm personally not in favor of trying to stuff it back in.