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

I'm still a bit confused as to why go after Divine Power that will hurt caster clerics and cause certain spells to lose value with this change due to the ab cap instead of changing Divine Might

Because the recognised issue isn't the damage output, but the base combat capability of clerics and Favoured souls which is defined with BAB.

It's simply believed that clerics having a spell that turns them into fighters, but better, is silly.

Wildsheep wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 8:42 am I'm still a bit confused as to why go after Divine Power that will hurt caster clerics and cause certain spells to lose value with this change due to the ab cap instead of changing Divine Might

If you’re building for caster cleric, why worry about melee AB? If youre a caster cleric, and with one spell can be a melee monster on par with high BAB melee classes, then this should be nerfed. You shouldn’t be able to be good at both.

But this is in line with pnp version and how clerics are in 3.5.

Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level.

They are indeed supposed to have high bab but less damage output when compared to fighters.
How are they "but better" when I see people crit for 160 damage.
Nerfing the bab is nerfing their average damage which would be better done by targeting divine might instead.

Nerfing divine might would already be nerfing their effectiveness in combat without all the headaches that come from this ab cap limit.

On the other hand raising the ab cap to 25 while keeping this version would probably solve the issue of spells becoming useless

A welcomed change. Keep’em coming!

Why not make fighters better instead of making clerics worse? Or even better: who cares?

In the past, the staff of BGTSCC has repeatedly enforced their decisions through D&D lore. Players have made suggestions that were outside the realm of sourcebooks, and thus their suggestions were rejected and declined. Their argument being that the suggested change was not in accord with the lore of the realm. Obviously, the staff of this server thinks it is important to keep in line with D&D lore, a point they have demonstrated time and again.

Now, the staff has decided to make their own suggestion. One which is not supported by D&D lore. How are we as players supposed to interpret this? That players cannot make suggested changes that conflict with D&D, but that staff members can? I dont want to be rude, but that is something very close to the definition of hipocricy. If your actions dont reflect your words then how can we trust you?

I understand that you wish to implement this change due to balance. But I ask you, is the prospect of balance enough to sway your convictions?

Valefort wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 3:04 amPvP is extremely low in terms of priority

Kaeldre wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 9:35 am Their argument being that the suggested change was not in accord with the lore of the realm. Obviously, the staff of this server thinks it is important to keep in line with D&D lore, a point they have demonstrated time and again.

Well, if we want to be picky, they also introduced Custom elven deities for elven paladins, that doesn't actually exist in D&D... and no one complained, I think?

But that's another story.

I don't quite know where you got "all suggestions were rejected, because they weren't according to the lore of D&D", considering that many things from even before I came around (over 4 years ago) were already being implemented from outside of the lore of the setting and implemented as server lore.

Mechanics of abilities/spells aren't always the same as the lore of the spell. Divine Power still gives increased martial capability and strength- just in a different form. Instead look at things like Darkfire Disciple or current Dragon Disciple--both of which have great mechanics but actually deviate from lore of the classes.

As for the elven deities--they actually do exist in D&D, however two of them are from Dragon Magazines. Vandria Gilmadrith is from Races of the Wild.

Ravial wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 10:42 am As for the elven deities--they actually do exist in D&D, however two of them are from Dragon Magazines. Vandria Gilmadrith is from Races of the Wild.

Not in Faiths & Pantheons, they don't!


P.S.: I was wondering when you'd show up.

Faiths & Pantheon is FR setting, not D&D as a whole!

Check Mate *smirkus maximus*

a long overdue change

Ravial wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 10:51 am Faiths & Pantheon is FR setting, not D&D as a whole!

Check Mate *smirkus maximus*

Doesn't actually matter, it doesn't change the fact that a paladin elf is and always will be an abomination as much as having an elf blackguard!

But, as I said since the start, that's another story and totally off topic.

The real big issue is this: removing or changing a spell because "it makes clerics too powerful" is exactly BS.
I don't recall the last time a cleric did at least 200 damage in melee (and if there are cases, screens need to be shown).
Also, fighters have a lot of feats that allow them to be 100 times better than clerics/FS in melee.

In any event, I have a caster Favoured Soul so it doesn't really matter to me personally. It's the principle.

If the issue instead stands with the "Divine Favor" potion, then perhaps something should be done in that direction instead of looking at the spell itself.
Make it CL sensitive even for clerics/whatever.
Meaning, if you're level 30 you should have... 19? If i'm correct?... then you should gain +1 BAB / 3 Class Levels (Max +10).

Still, the spell has been setted like this in D&D / FR to give a proper balance for clerics. Also, I would want to remind that Clerics are the one that represent the Gods. That means if they're weak, why would the Gods use their favoured servants as weak? So they can be killed easily by a normal Knight?

I seriously doubt that.

Otherwise, we can do something totally different: no spellcasting class, we shall all be knights / warriors / rogue / paladins / melee or stealth that is and then we rename the server The Lord Of the Rings Online.

Ah, no, wait...

Deragnost wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 12:45 pm The real big issue is this: removing or changing a spell because "it makes clerics too powerful" is exactly BS.
Also, fighters have a lot of feats that allow them to be 100 times better than clerics/FS in melee.

Clerics/FS can easily solo most bosses without any issue, try this with a lonesome fighter.......

Bards do it better and aren't getting nerfed so hard
So can wizards focused in conjuration.
It's not a good comparison as fighter builds can vary a lot. You can do 200 damage a round easily with certain builds, there's no way you can do that with cleric build.


-There are better ways to nerf the problematic aspects of melee focused clerics/fvs without hurting builds that are not op to begin with such as caster clerics.