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

Louvaine wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:26 am Want wards, play caster. UMD is already way too strong.

Wards are mandatory for the server content.

being required to play a caster, or one of the few really strong builds that can get away without using wards, is not a very inclusive environment

Having tried to look into the source behind where all of these things are getting pulled, I have referenced a variety of wands to the iprp_spells.2da, and seen a pattern:

If a spell has one entry, a wand uses that line for calculating CL.
If a spell has two or more lines, it uses either the second or third line for calculating CL.

[the following information is no longer valid, see Edit 2]
But GMW has only two entries: CL 10, and CL 15, but according to the OP and ingame queries, it is CL 5. As basic math suggests, this is neither 10 nor 15.

This suggests that there is a scripted override for GMW and possibly other spells; similar to the caps on Elixirs.
As is clearly evident, these overrides have not been maintained for consistancy with the rest of the server like obvious sources like the 2da (which is where it should be implemented anyway).

I would like to posit that the crux of this suggestion/discussion should be "Remove scripted CL overrides from crafting wands and other consumables".

Doing so should push the CL on GMW wands to 15, and possibly fix other wands that are otherwise only knowable by looking in the correct NSS.


[Edit]: I then took a simple solution and checked the NWN2 wikia, which claims GMW is CL 5. So it's still using the vanilla CL and no-one modified it ever, but it isn't using a 2da entry. Please say rude things at Obsidian regarding their internal consistancy for me. Thank you. Internal consistency is fine, just highly disorganized.

[Edit 2]: adding here instead of a second post to prevent spam. Having traced wand crafting through 2 NSS files, and locating the entry in des_crft_spells, there is a third GMW entry on line 125 of iprp_spells.2da, that matches the listed wand entry. Which definitely confirms that yea, every wand crafted is on the 2das. However, it also indicates that when Valefort normalized the iprp_spells.2da, not all entries in des_crft_spells.2da were aligned to match up with their proper counterparts. (IE IMA/MI and other scrolls/wands crafted at higher than minimum CL)

Also, two entries for Greater_Magic_Weapon exist in des_crft_spells: one on line 68 and one on line 545, both referencing separate CL5 versions. One is arcane and one is divine, so if any adjustments are made both would need to be updated. Could just make them both reference the same line and then we have consistancy.

Hoihe wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:38 am

Louvaine wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:26 am Want wards, play caster. UMD is already way too strong.

Wards are mandatory for the server content.

Which promotes parties rather than solo. Sounds good to me.

party and solo play should both be viable for numerous reasons that have been previously posted

the current mechanics dont promote party play, they promote caster play

Louvaine wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:51 am

Hoihe wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:38 am

Louvaine wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:26 am Want wards, play caster. UMD is already way too strong.

Wards are mandatory for the server content.

Which promotes parties rather than solo. Sounds good to me.

Not all of us play during times where the requirements to form a party are met:

- Alignment compatibility
- Faith compatibility
- Playstyle compatibility (run & loot vs slow & RP)
- Level compatibility (at level 30, I need level 25+ characters otherwise it's worse than soloing as gotta protect someone else)
- RP compatibility (sometimes even if alignment and faith match, characters don't trust each other at all due to other factors)
- A positive synergy (If you take 2 builds that can't solo, chances are you're getting 2 builds that can't do an area together either)

Furthermore, personally if someone provides alignment, faith and RP compatibility - I much rather RP with them rather than loot monsters.

For looting monsters, I usually do that when I'm taking a 20-40 minute break from whatever I'm doing, and during that time scry has 8-10 people.


And even when partying, when I played a primary caster - I sure as hell didn't want to use all my spellslots to transform into an afkbot. I wanted spell slots for curses, for debuffs, for control spells.

Based on intuition and simple reasoning I've reached two reasons why GMW+4 from wands are a bad idea.

1. All weapons essentially become +4 with bonus mods
GMW also cannot be dispelled, since it's applied to an item, and not the character. Even Mordenkainen's Disjunction won't remove it.

This is a big issue in terms of power-creep. All special material weapons (adamantine, cold iron, silver) become +4 for everyone. Some of these weapons even have additional mods, such as elemental damage, vampiric, or on-hit properties. And since it cannot be dispelled, it's essentially permanent.


2. Only one base point is required in UMD to use all wands
Once a wand has been activated the buff granted by it will stay on. Regardless of changes to the character's UMD skill.
This means it's possible to invest a single point into UMD, equip several items to boost UMD to 10, ward up with wands, and then change to better items after.

Essentially this makes a GMW+4 wand a near-zero investment. All builds can spare the 2 skill points to invest 1 base rank into UMD.





The only reasonable way I can see to justify GMW+4 wands is to change the requirement from a total of 10 UMD ranks to 10 base ranks. Even that, however, would likely still make a GMW+4 wand too powerful; for the reasons outlined above.

indeed, but before the nerf, wand wards were treated at CL = character level for the terms of dispeling. at CL 15 they are nothing more than dispel fodder for dispel spamming mobs with metaknowledge of every CL of every ward you have on. the ward upon item bug was fixed, or so i was told. GMW applied to a weapon will get dispeled with all the rest. as for gear swapping to buff UMD, i've never been in that camp, i invest in UMD honestly. that said, when you get level drained, you will not be able to re-equip said items and re-apply said wards

I'm pretty sure that is the intended drawback of using UMD and common consumables VS a true caster or elixir, though.

Also, I think CL 15 would put it in line with CL cap for most other scrolls, wands, and potions. It was my understanding that BGTSSC has a CL 15 cap on feat-based crafting, at least.

Blame The Rogue wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 12:35 pm indeed, but before the nerf, wand wards were treated at CL = character level for the terms of dispeling. at CL 15 they are nothing more than dispel fodder for dispel spamming mobs with metaknowledge of every CL of every ward you have on. the ward upon item bug was fixed, or so i was told. GMW applied to a weapon will get dispeled with all the rest. as for gear swapping to buff UMD, i've never been in that camp, i invest in UMD honestly. that said, when you get level drained, you will not be able to re-equip said items and re-apply said wards

I did have my Keen Edge dispelled before, annoyingly enough.

Hoihe wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:58 am

Louvaine wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:51 am

Hoihe wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:38 am

Wards are mandatory for the server content.

Which promotes parties rather than solo. Sounds good to me.

Not all of us play during times where the requirements to form a party are met:

- Alignment compatibility
- Faith compatibility
- Playstyle compatibility (run & loot vs slow & RP)
- Level compatibility (at level 30, I need level 25+ characters otherwise it's worse than soloing as gotta protect someone else)
- RP compatibility (sometimes even if alignment and faith match, characters don't trust each other at all due to other factors)
- A positive synergy (If you take 2 builds that can't solo, chances are you're getting 2 builds that can't do an area together either)

Furthermore, personally if someone provides alignment, faith and RP compatibility - I much rather RP with them rather than loot monsters.

For looting monsters, I usually do that when I'm taking a 20-40 minute break from whatever I'm doing, and during that time scry has 8-10 people.


And even when partying, when I played a primary caster - I sure as hell didn't want to use all my spellslots to transform into an afkbot. I wanted spell slots for curses, for debuffs, for control spells.

If you want to make it work, you make it work. I agree that the biggest obstacle here would be timezone difference.

that is what i disagree with, "the intended drawback of using UMD and common consumables VS a true caster or elixir, though"

why is using UMD to have a drawback, but it's okay for anyone, with no skill or class investment, to quaff two CL 30 elixirs? using UMD should be better than using any consumable, even elixirs

i offer a comparison. when you train in healing, IE invest points in the heal skill, it raises the amount of healing done by healing kits to a higher level of healing, than a healing potion. that, and using healing kits in battle, do not invoke attacks of opportunity, where using heal potions during battle do invoke attacks of opportunity

Minimal UMD investment.

On BG, wands are meant to be easy to make and easy to use. Because they're easy to make and easy to use, they have correspondingly weaker stats. Same thing with normal potions, which are the easiest of all.

Elixirs are very expensive, so can't be chugged regularly. They also take the most investment of any of these in order to create. That they can "just be chugged by anyone without any skill investment" is irrelevant considering the amount of effort that goes into making them. And that's a misnomer, anyway. It's much easier to get the 11 UMD needed to use every wand in the game (which is why everyone does it) than it is to be rich enough to quaff elixirs in any significant amounts, which is why elixirs are used sparingly.

Rhifox wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 4:51 pm Minimal UMD investment. If you want a better example of a UMD investment that equates to elixirs, there already is one: Scrolls. Scrolls go up to 30. You just have to invest a lot more.

On BG, wands are meant to be easy to make and easy to use. Because they're easy to make and easy to use, they have correspondingly weaker stats. Same thing with normal potions, which are the easiest of all.

Elixirs are very expensive, so can'tt be chugged regularly. They also take the most investment of any of these in order to create. That they can "just be chugged by anyone without any skill investment" is irrelevant considering the amount of effort that goes into making them. And that's a misnomer, anyway. It's much easier to get the 11 UMD needed to use every wand in the game (which is why everyone does it) than it is to be rich enough to quaff elixirs in any significant amounts, which is why elixirs are used sparingly.

arent scrolls also capped at 15 or was that changed?

Hoihe wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 10:16 pm

Rhifox wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 4:51 pm Minimal UMD investment. If you want a better example of a UMD investment that equates to elixirs, there already is one: Scrolls. Scrolls go up to 30. You just have to invest a lot more.

On BG, wands are meant to be easy to make and easy to use. Because they're easy to make and easy to use, they have correspondingly weaker stats. Same thing with normal potions, which are the easiest of all.

Elixirs are very expensive, so can'tt be chugged regularly. They also take the most investment of any of these in order to create. That they can "just be chugged by anyone without any skill investment" is irrelevant considering the amount of effort that goes into making them. And that's a misnomer, anyway. It's much easier to get the 11 UMD needed to use every wand in the game (which is why everyone does it) than it is to be rich enough to quaff elixirs in any significant amounts, which is why elixirs are used sparingly.

arent scrolls also capped at 15 or was that changed?

That's true. I had a brain fart, woops.