Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Id also like to say in the defense of people who will play the same character and try to justify adding 10 levels of Asoc to save them from being dispelled by fairies in cloakwood..

Or even Bob from above who was an arcane trickster and turned into a FS

Players are attached to their characters, and thats a very good thing. It means they take consequences more seriously and really get into RP story lines. They also build the foundation of RP around here, because those well grounded characters are who we depend on to play different roles in the persistent world.

If people are picking classes because of their power instead of how it fits their character, then that's a bigger problem. I'm not saying that underpowered classes should stay underpowered, but the idea that someone would stop playing, reroll, or otherwise just because their class is not quite as effective as other classes just makes me roll my eyes. Why'd they pick the class at all if it wasn't fitting for their character? Why would you pick, for example, Weapon Master, if your character is not focusing themselves on mastering that single weapon?

As for things dying, wasn't there just a post the other day about BGTSCC being full? The game itself might be dying, judging by the lack of populated server options, but the server doesn't seem to be.

I've had no issue leveling as a supposedly underpowered spirit shaman (if the countless posts on this forum bemoaning how bad the class is are to be believed). If anything, I've felt rather uniquely useful due to providing things that others don't (since many of this server's casters seem to have an aversion to sharing their buffs with anyone other than themselves. They're either gishes or they're stuffing their spell slots with missile storms of every metamagic variation they have). You don't need to be some uber solo monstrosity to have fun, and that sort of mindset is what causes the actual issue, in my opinion. This isn't World of WarCraft indeed, this is Dungeons and Dragons, where your ability to have impact on the story, often through non-combat methods or especially with groups of people, is more important than how well you can solo grind, or pvp.

A fighter toon shouldn't be worrying about how well they can do solo because they should be expecting to be getting buffs from a caster. Likewise the caster should be preparing buffs to put on any fighters in their group. A fighter gish's CL shouldn't be relevant because he should be getting buffed by the person who DOES have high CL. If a caster is taking Archmage or Hierophant and getting 30+ CL, and dispels are expected? That person has nominated themselves as the primary party buffer and should be acting as such.

And God, that's a thing I can't for the life of me understand: PvP in DnD, a game that is designed around everyone working together, tackling the threats created for them by the DMs.

Calodan wrote:What about making a couple of custom feats for pure melee PCs? One that grants Spell resistance 12 +1 per level and another one that would grant on hit mords? Make the on hit mords a epic feat. Both could require that you have no spell or spell like abilities to take? Then give melee classes a few bonus feats to up build potential?

I think you missed the point. It is not about meleers vs casters. It is about the content implemented for casters which is far more than for meleers.

The feats you describe are never (if one can use the word never ) going to be implemented.

CommanderKrieg wrote:I'm not trying to be completely pessimistic, but the NWN2 community is dying and I fear this will put off a lot of people when they figure out how much it affects RP diversity. Some classes will just be not worth taking. It just makes the draw to going to another server more alluring, and its not like NWN2 is coming back up on steam sale anytime soon.

In a way, you are very pessimistic. The changes that were made, will be monitored and changes will be made if needed. As far as NWN2 and BG in specific, the updates are more frequent than ever, new areas are being worked on others are updates. For me, BG is in its best state since I joined on February 2012.

Calodan wrote:However we already see a general swing in favor of PBs already that only lose variety with this fix.

You mean FS/WM/rogue is not a PB? Also where do you see this "general swing"? Are there any examples or is it a theoritical colcusion?

The dispel fix is a big change. It will fix some things that were unfair, but it will also cause some trouble for others. We will see if it is for better or worse. BTW, what is wrong from limiting multiclassing for casters? It should be normal that when a caster chooses a PRC with no spell progression, he should be a weaker caster. Currently that is not happening.

Rhifox wrote: And God, that's a thing I can't for the life of me understand: PvP in DnD, a game that is designed around everyone working together, tackling the threats created for them by the DMs.

In tabletop that might work, if everyone agrees that they are goodies and best buds, otherwise people will stab them in the back. By the way, D&D is about telling a story IMO. Hell, as a DM I like it very much when the players "make" their own folks, and I just have to deliver them that. And sometimes they do things against eachother becuse it fits the RP. And everyone is cool with it. Sometimes two toons -want- to kill eachother. Or one of them wants to do that.

PvP is one way to solve conflicts, which are well, player versus player. You can always try to ran away.

Some are stronger then others "mechanics" wise. If something is broken, a fix is needed. That is ok.

On topic: I'm not good enough with builds and such, but in a high magic setting, people without any was of using or acessing magical equipment (UMD), will be naturally hindered, as all magic users will have "aces" they can not counter. This is DnD afterall.

mrm3ntalist wrote:In a way, you are very pessimistic. The changes that were made, will be monitored and changes will be made if needed. As far as NWN2 and BG in specific, the updates are more frequent than ever, new areas are being worked on others are updates. For me, BG is in its best state since I joined on February 2012.

I agree BG is great, and you make a fair point. I am just unclear about if this update is a good move. Honestly I think there should be a simple PRO CON thread with a vote to it. If more people want it than not, I dont see a problem. Everytime I hear about it, it keeps sounding worse. I could be wrong.

TheLier wrote:In tabletop that might work, if everyone agrees that they are goodies and best buds, otherwise people will stab them in the back. By the way, D&D is about telling a story IMO. Hell, as a DM I like it very much when the players "make" their own folks, and I just have to deliver them that. And sometimes they do things against eachother becuse it fits the RP. And everyone is cool with it. Sometimes two toons -want- to kill eachother. Or one of them wants to do that.

I didn't say everyone has to all be goodies. Just that in PnP groups they are all still typically working on the same side. It's a big reason why I personally like Enclave-era Red Wizards, because they are able to function as PCs alongside the goodies without typically coming into direct conflict.

Most DM sourcebooks that I have read tend to strongly discourage allowing open conflict between characters, because long term open conflict often creates drama and friction in the players that can quickly ruin the PnP group. Evil characters can be part of a group of goodies, or the entire party can be baddies, but direct open conflict is usually discouraged. When it is allowed it is usually kept very limited, and quickly wrapped up with a definitive conclusion one way or the other.

Rhifox wrote: And God, that's a thing I can't for the life of me understand: PvP in DnD, a game that is designed around everyone working together, tackling the threats created for them by the DMs.

I understand perfectly well where you are coming from, a D&D session would have a group of characters working together, overcoming their differences to beat anything a DM throws at them. Which is also why one of the most popular houserules is "no vastly differing alignments"

This is not a game of D&D though, not even close for the majority of time. Even the large majority of DM events fail to emulate a D&D session. This is a persistent world with a LOT of PC's of various backgrounds, world views, alignments, gods, affiliations... Conflict happens, and from time to time it results in pvp. Maybe one day when the staff issues a rule which forbids anyone from playing conflicting characters we can be rid of pvp. Until then, it will remain a near useless RP tool, since majority of people treat pvp deaths as if their character got hit by a paintball anyway. Don't get me wrong, playing on a server where everything is decided by pvp would be a horror show. However, BG goes to the other side of the extreme way too far. Up to the point where most people don't even consider pvp as a solution to their problems, me included. Why would anyone even bother with the entire labyrinth of pvp rules at this point is beyond me. When conflict happens it's better to exchange snide remarks and pretend it was "COOL RP", when in reality it deformed the faces of everyone involved beyond recognition from all the cringing. In the meantime people continue strolling up and down the tradeway in their nightgowns, treating it as an evening walk on the beach, dispelling any notion of danger and adventure. Funny how those things are directly related.





On to the topic, with the current pvp ruleset there is absolutely no need to balance anything in regards to pvp. It's a waste of time. And majority of arguments I read over the last 2 pages regarded pvp almost exclusively.

I agree, Thids, that on a server like this where open conflict does happen, it shouldn't be allowed to 'fester', as I said in my previous post. Actual direct conflict should be rare, but when it happens its consequences should be final, or at least as severe as the lore of the universe permits.

Rhifox wrote:I agree, Thids, that on a server like this where open conflict does happen, it shouldn't be allowed to 'fester', as I said in my previous post. Actual direct conflict should be rare, but when it happens its consequences should be final, or at least as severe as the lore of the universe permits.

It's a slippery slope, I see pvp happen from time to time over silly IC arguments and almost never over meaningful conflict. Then again, solving a proper meaningful conflict with simple pvp is not satisfying and and enjoyable (okay, I know SOME people who find it enjoyable ). PvP would be best used for situations which fit somewhere in between silly arguments and meaningful conflict IMO.


However, we are moving off topic now. From my experience over the last few years, the server is almost never balanced in regards to pvp. Which sort of makes sense considering the situation with pvp.

I may have come off as arrogant earlier, Its been quite the day. So you have my apologies if I did so.

Rhifox wrote:If people are picking classes because of their power instead of how it fits their character, then that's a bigger problem. I'm not saying that underpowered classes should stay underpowered, but the idea that someone would stop playing, reroll, or otherwise just because their class is not quite as effective as other classes just makes me roll my eyes. Why'd they pick the class at all if it wasn't fitting for their character? Why would you pick, for example, Weapon Master, if your character is not focusing themselves on mastering that single weapon?

When talking about people it would nerf, its not so much about someone who dips in rogue to get UMD on a sorcerer that wants to have spot. I am talking about classes that have significant RP to the class itself. Arcane trickster is an example of a class that can get the business. I do not think they should be as great of a caster as a full out archmage, but on the convex I dont entirely agree that they should be dispelled by a fairy.

I dont have an arcane trickster, or an assassin, but I just dont feel right sticking it to them for RPing a class they wanted to be. When they are 30 they will struggle to face off with the soothsayer. Its not about powerbuilding, its about functioning in the world that we RP in. I'm sure the spawns will be fixed so there isnt so much dispell when the fixes come in.

This is the same for several classes that require dips to gain a prestige class. I'm not talking about powerbuilds, I am talking about necessities to take a class.

The example I gave was poor at best. Not everyone will reroll to a divine, but I was exaggerating to express a point.
As for things dying, wasn't there just a post the other day about BGTSCC being full? The game itself might be dying, judging by the lack of populated server options, but the server doesn't seem to be.

I have actually taken the server population everyday for six months three times a day, and took the average. The reasoning behind the experiment is to prove the point, we have several spikes however the sever population is generally lower, and getting lower. It was averaging in the 30s, which isnt bad for a server in recent times. If you would like I could do another excell sheet and see within three months if the server has higher numbers as of recently. There have been a lot of new innovations, areas, and updates. However that doesnt directly correlate to new players. For example the car company Saab had huge amounts of innovation and updated technologies that offered customers so much. Saab still failed to exist. (In fears of getting the thread locked thats the last I will say on that)

I've had no issue leveling as a supposedly underpowered spirit shaman (if the countless posts on this forum bemoaning how bad the class is are to be believed). If anything, I've felt rather uniquely useful due to providing things that others don't (since many of this server's casters seem to have an aversion to sharing their buffs with anyone other than themselves. They're either gishes or they're stuffing their spell slots with missile storms of every metamagic variation they have). You don't need to be some uber solo monstrosity to have fun, and that sort of mindset is what causes the actual issue, in my opinion. This isn't World of WarCraft indeed, this is Dungeons and Dragons, where your ability to have impact on the story, often through non-combat methods or especially with groups of people, is more important than how well you can solo grind, or pvp.

Who ever told you spirit shamans are awful needs to play one
I played one for a year, and never had a problem leveling. Even solo! They are incredibly powerful. I agree with you that groups are fun, and its way way better than pvp and soloing. Both of those are boring and doing flex your RP muscles (which is the best part of this place). However it is again about functionality. Realistically there arent always groups. Depending on what time you play there are sometimes NO groups. They have to depend on themselves to level up, or there is the alternative staying a lowbie and being sacrificed by a Banite in the woods. (My poor poor Ilmatari) You dont need to be a solo champion, but even with a group, you need to be able to survive to have fun. Unless you like cripple RP.


The update wont affect my toons too much. Tyressen will be Canned for the most part, but most of my characters are solid classes. Many of them will be come exceptionally powerful after this. The ones that have something to lose in the exchange I am not too worried about, because removing my dips will make me a better caster. I'm more concerned with the specialized characters and UMD using classes that may get the bad side of business out of this. UMD is broken, I agree that a rogue shouldnt be able to cast a scroll to equal a wizards. Perhaps we should incorporate scribing to wizard levels properly?

We have a great QC team in BG. I dont want to discredit their hard work, because they are great. If there is any problems, I'm sure they'll figure something out to balance it out. Who knows! It could be fun.

Rhifox wrote:

TheLier wrote:In tabletop that might work, if everyone agrees that they are goodies and best buds, otherwise people will stab them in the back. By the way, D&D is about telling a story IMO. Hell, as a DM I like it very much when the players "make" their own folks, and I just have to deliver them that. And sometimes they do things against eachother becuse it fits the RP. And everyone is cool with it. Sometimes two toons -want- to kill eachother. Or one of them wants to do that.

I didn't say everyone has to all be goodies. Just that in PnP groups they are all still typically working on the same side. It's a big reason why I personally like Enclave-era Red Wizards, because they are able to function as PCs alongside the goodies without typically coming into direct conflict.

Most DM sourcebooks that I have read tend to strongly discourage allowing open conflict between characters, because long term open conflict often creates drama and friction in the players that can quickly ruin the PnP group. Evil characters can be part of a group of goodies, or the entire party can be baddies, but direct open conflict is usually discouraged. When it is allowed it is usually kept very limited, and quickly wrapped up with a definitive conclusion one way or the other.

Well, I had WoD experiences before DnD and it shaped how I see roleplay quite much, so our outlook seems to be vastly different.

Personally, I just don't care if the chars kill eachother if they have a good reason for it (relative to their toon).

Everyone can bring anything I can attach to the others in some way. Maybe it takes a session or two, but then you will have a party which works for a time. Then they might kill the others for their own benefit. Which is fine with me if they can pull it off. This is usually followed (if happens), by everyone rolling new ones.

And I even put RP before the story. Hell, I guess our last two adventures finished half way in. The first, becuse the toons decided that it is too dangerous for them, the second becuse they thought they are already gained enough. This is why (and all others from the party for DM) have backup plans (somtimes entire adventures), becuse this is our playstyle.

No need to fix something which is not broken I guess.

On topic: This is a PW with toons 1-30. PvP will rarely be fair due to level diff. ambushes (mages could die in one turn without able to react, which I have no problem with, an assassin should not fight face-to-face), buffed vs unbuffed etc.

So, IMO PvP is very far from "two heros fight in the open field"

CommanderKrieg wrote:I may have come off as arrogant earlier, Its been quite the day. So you have my apologies if I did so.

Don't worry about it. I'm sorry if I came across poorly as well. I just don't have a very mechanics-focused mindset on these things. I tend to pick classes for flavor, and just try to make a semi-competent build from those choices. So I find it hard to understand dropping/avoiding a class for its mechanics alone.

I dont have an arcane trickster, or an assassin, but I just dont feel right sticking it to them for RPing a class they wanted to be. When they are 30 they will struggle to face off with the soothsayer. Its not about powerbuilding, its about functioning in the world that we RP in. I'm sure the spawns will be fixed so there isnt so much dispell when the fixes come in.

Neither of those classes strike me as ones that are supposed to be frontline combatants, though. I don't know, I just don't expect all classes to be good at all things. I played an arcane trickster on my last server (largely for RP, rather than mechanics, since it's a pretty terrible class in NWN2), and my alt here is going to be going assassin. I don't expect that character to avoid dispels, since they're not supposed to be a full caster, but I don't consider the class to be not worth taking, there's still RP and functional elements that make it desirable in other ways.

I have actually taken the server population everyday for six months three times a day, and took the average. The reasoning behind the experiment is to prove the point, we have several spikes however the sever population is generally lower, and getting lower. It was averaging in the 30s, which isnt bad for a server in recent times. If you would like I could do another excell sheet and see within three months if the server has higher numbers as of recently. There have been a lot of new innovations, areas, and updates. However that doesnt directly correlate to new players. For example the car company Saab had huge amounts of innovation and updated technologies that offered customers so much. Saab still failed to exist. (In fears of getting the thread locked thats the last I will say on that)

It's probably just that I have a different perspective, since I came from Sundren where over the several years I played there, we were lucky to hit 30. It averaged around mid to upper 20's before the wipe a few years ago, and rarely above the teens after the wipe. So when I look at BGTSCC, I see an amazingly thriving server. It's why I joined it when I came back to NWN2 a few weeks ago.

Who ever told you spirit shamans are awful needs to play one
I played one for a year, and never had a problem leveling. Even solo! They are incredibly powerful.

That's what I've thought, but if you do a search for spirit shamans on this server, or even on google, you see a lot of people saying it's bad. I don't understand it. Without Telthor it might be a bit weak solo, but it's still a great support class. I'm typically buffing basically everyone in my parties when I go out, since none of the other casters in my groups tend to do any of it. <.<

I agree with you that groups are fun, and its way way better than pvp and soloing. Both of those are boring and doing flex your RP muscles (which is the best part of this place). However it is again about functionality. Realistically there arent always groups. Depending on what time you play there are sometimes NO groups. They have to depend on themselves to level up, or there is the alternative staying a lowbie and being sacrificed by a Banite in the woods. (My poor poor Ilmatari) You dont need to be a solo champion, but even with a group, you need to be able to survive to have fun. Unless you like cripple RP.

It's hard for me to imagine a build that can't solo here though, at least for the first 15 levels. At worst you might have to pick an area where the exp isn't as high, but it should still be doable. Higher than 20 though, grinding whether solo or in a group starts to feel superfluous and not worth it in general.

TheLier wrote:Well, I had WoD experiences before DnD and it shaped how I see roleplay quite much, so our outlook seems to be vastly different.

I also have WoD experience, this character is actually based off an ithaeur werewolf concept I had. Albeit most of my RP experience is from MMO communities rather than PnP. But I do seem to recall Storyteller tips there also discouraging open conflict between characters? Most rulebooks encouraged keeping the PCs together, in the same coterie or pack or such.

It may be more that you just had some good groups, where conflict could be handled maturely. I mean, I'm not saying all conflict is bad, just that it often causes a lot of OOC drama between people.

Rhifox wrote:

TheLier wrote:Well, I had WoD experiences before DnD and it shaped how I see roleplay quite much, so our outlook seems to be vastly different.

It may be more that you just had some good groups, where conflict could be handled maturely. I mean, I'm not saying all conflict is bad, just that it often causes a lot of OOC drama between people.

Given the nature of WoD, your group is essential for your survival. However, there are a lot of undercurrents in more social-intrigue parts of WoD (Vampires, Mages, Fairies) and characters can and will likely have conflicting goals and loyalties. It's all up to the group, you can have all-action Vamps and social Werwolves if you want. Btw, can you PM me with good WoD games on the net?