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

I was under the impression the discussion was about whether or not wizards could own the entire server and somehow melee characters couldn't now after the patch. The first of those two has yet to be proven and the latter is should be met with the response: "Great! An incentive to RP adventuring together!"

And I can keep repeating the question until it gets answered. It's fine. What do you call characters who cast offensive spells?

Deathgrowl wrote: What do you call characters who cast offensive spells?

Casters.... Since they cast ... ahem... spells

mrm3ntalist wrote:

Deathgrowl wrote: What do you call characters who cast offensive spells?

Casters.... Since they cast ... ahem... spells

Right! So how do you tell the difference between talking about those casters casting offensive spells and talking about those casters who only really buff up and then go to melee things? Because we've agreed they're both "casters". But their methods are quite different. And the ones casting offensive spells are far inferior to the ones that only buff as far as PvE goes (damage per round, endurance...).

How do you make a distinction?

Deathgrowl wrote:

mrm3ntalist wrote:

Deathgrowl wrote: What do you call characters who cast offensive spells?

Casters.... Since they cast ... ahem... spells

Right! So how do you tell the difference between talking about those casters casting offensive spells and talking about those casters who only really buff up and then go to melee things? Because we've agreed they're both "casters". But their methods are quite different. And the ones casting offensive spells are far inferior to the ones that only buff as far as PvE goes (damage per round, endurance...).

How do you make a distinction?

They aer both Casters!!! They cast freakin spells... And those spells either give them bonuses that meleer dont get, or they use those spells to kill. Those who are not casters are barbarians, fighters, rogues, swashbucklers etc

I believe we were all on the same page until here - Subject: Incoming Update - till you jumped in to erroneously say that wizards cant solo bosses

mrm3ntalist wrote: They aer both Casters!!! They cast freakin spells... Those who are not casters are barbarians, fighters, rogues, swashbucklers etc

You're missing the point.

mrm3ntalist wrote:I believe we were all on the same page until here - Subject: Incoming Update - till you jumped in to erroneously say that wizards cant solo bosses

Erroneously? Apart from a few, it can't be done. Invoker and you asserted that it can be done. No proof. Show me that you solo the balor and the dracolich (and all the way to those two) with a wizard that isn't a gish. Preferably in a way that is viable to non-evil wizards and doesn't doesn't sacrifice ones RP soul by going all OOC powerbuild about it. But doing it with a wizard in the first place would be interesting to see.

Until you've given evidence for that, I will not accept I said anything "erroneously" in that regard.

Meleers can still solo the frost giant, the lizard chief and wormthrax. Reapply your wands after the disjunction. Wormthrax doesn't even cast one.

I wrote:It's not caster v. melee; it's caster v. mundane.

Deathgrowl wrote:No. You're correct. But being a caster doesn't mean you're not a meleer. Ranger is also a caster. Assassin is also a caster. Blackguard is a caster. Cleric is a caster, even if it has 16 wisdom and 30 strength because it wants to melee.

Yes. Wizard and sorcerer are casters. But if they are gishes, they are also meleers.

What do you call the clerics and mages who cast spells offensively, then?

I wrote:What is meant by "melee" is "mundane," and what is meant by "mundane" is "spell casting is not a core component of the class." No one looks at the Assassin spell book and says, "Yes, there's an example of a caster class."

There. Now we can dispense with the semantics and return to our circular comparison of PCs who have a ton of magic at their disposal and PCs who don't.

Deathgrowl wrote:No, if you ask me to make a melee build, I'm going to ask whether or not you want spells.

What do you call characters that use offensive spells? How do you make them distinct from characters who buff up and then melees?

Deathgrowl wrote:Right! So how do you tell the difference between talking about those casters casting offensive spells and talking about those casters who only really buff up and then go to melee things? Because we've agreed they're both "casters". But their methods are quite different. And the ones casting offensive spells are far inferior to the ones that only buff as far as PvE goes (damage per round, endurance...).

How do you make a distinction?

Deathgrowl wrote:You're missing the point.

A point is definitely being missed.

CptAmyrica wrote: A point is definitely being missed.

Clever. I get that you want to talk about magic vs non-magic. But that wasn't what I was talking about. This all came out of me reacting to this post. And then people decided they wanted to assert I am wrong without providing evidence.

I'm asking for a semantical distinction between the casters that cast offensive spells (blaster mages, DC mages, DC clerics, DC spirit shamans, other offensive spirit shamans and clerics, blaster or DC favoured souls [I don't think anyone plays such a thing, given how fantastic the melee favoured souls are]) and those who only buff up (melee clerics, melee spirit shamans, most druids [because you get like 40 AB and relatively decent damage for a melee tank. And a fantastic companion], melee favoured souls, melee bards, rangers, paladins, assassins, blackguards...).

If your definition of "caster" says "someone who casts spells", you can't get away from blackguards and assassins.

And all this time, all I was saying is that meleers and casters have different roles and you're comparing beer to crisps. Both great, but they serve different roles. And they're definitely best in combination.

Or comparing infantry to archers to cavalry. Different roles. Having a combination is better.

Or comparing cellos to pianos. You can make music with either one of them. Different roles, though. And the combination can most definitely be better.

Casters cast spells from their 'spell books' while Blackguards and Assassins have their 'spell-casting' feats. Hence, those are just class related magical abilities, and not much different from the class abilities of other PRCs. And while we are at this, would anyone call a single class fighter with the Fiendish or Fey Heritage feats a spell caster?

And what is the Blackguard/Assassin 'dispel caster level' currently? Is it still the HD as before, or is it simply based on the levels of the PRC? (The latter would make their spell-casting about as useful as it was before the addition of their 'spellbook.')

Invoker wrote:Barbarians and Swashbucklers are very problematic: both lacking feats, both extremely level intensive (Barbarian especially) and both with glaring weaknesses and little chance to cover them within 30 levels. You can play these successfully, but nobody can say they are "mechanically fine". Not by far.

On Barbarians:
I would have to say that people seem to build their Barbarians builds... wrong. It seems that inside their minds they have a template for a Fighter/Weapon Master/Frenzied Berserker that they try to emulate with a 'feat starved' Barbarian. In short these few feats get wasted on either PRC or some very gimmicky Epic feat requirements.

When a much smarter way to go at it would be to realize that a Barbarian is a beast of its own. It lives and breaths through its ability to Rage. It allows our Barbarian to deal more damage, improves saves, and depending on the rage variant: either considerably increases hit points or AC. As a Barbarian, you want your rage to last as long as possible. This makes those extra and extend rage feats far more useful than any random Weapon Focus or Improved Critical feat is.

And while it is true that a Barbarian should aim for around 20 levels of this base class, you still have ten levels to spend on whatever. For example that 4-10 levels of Fighter does wonders to cover up your lack of feats, on top of the additional armor and shield proficiency. Or what about just going for that Dragon Warrior PRC? Elemental damage, higher will saves, fear immunity, access to beneficial skills, energy resistance, free blind-fight, and that Dragon Breath just for laughs, and all that comes with the loss of 2 skill points in lore and loss of two epic bonus feats. (Barbarian: 24, 28.) Epic Rage requirements were lowered on this server, and therefore those two bonus feats are no longer required to qualify for it. (And if you want epic feats to spent on Epic Toughness, those ten levels of fighter net you far more anyhow.)


As for Swashbuckler, it is a little bit trickier. But it is not as if high dex/int builds are totally unheard of... Although, a swashbucklers will gravitate towards races that have a racial bonus in either, or more preferably both stats. (Such as Thiefling and Drow.)

Swashbuckler 20/Shadowdancer 3/Duelist 7 should do very well against anything that is not immune to critical hits. High Dex Expose Weakness combined with that Wounding Critical will stack and tear down the HP of our opponent. If you go for Swashbuckler 20/Shadowdancer 3/Weapon Master 7, your Wounding Critical triggers more often, but you loose that 1d6 base damage and INT bonus to AC. (Shields could be used to negate that, but it costs one feat to get that proficiency.)

So if you want to boost Swashbucklers, how about an epic feat that kind of acts like the Rogues' Epic Precision for our Swashbuckler abilities?

"Epic Insight" - Your insight and grace allows you to ignore all critical hit immunities.

(Or: Insightful Strike now adds half of your intelligence modifier against critical hit immune opponents, while your Wounding abilities will have their effects halved. (-1 Str and -1 Con.))


Oh yeah, agree with Ranger's Favoured Power Attack, one feat should work for all Favoured Enemies.

You people are drowning in semantics and try to out smart-a-s-s each other. Try to get the dialogue back on track.

Anyway, I'm just eating my popcorn over here, but I still think this is pretty valuable, shouldn't be closed, just in case someone is itching atm

Dawrf wrote:blah

You lost my respect the minute you used the word "Thiefling".

One thing that was "lost" with applying the Dispel Bug fix—which was that HD was used instead of Caster Level against Dispelling—was the additional implementation of a system to scribe scrolls at various CL levels, so that UMD users could still retain buffs IF the scrolls they used were scribed by very high CL toons. Possibly, an NPC scroll merchant that would allow for choosing CL for your purchases....but, it would cost...oh, would it cost!!!

Meant to be a gold sink, it would additionally allow for ALL TYPES of PCs to "gear up" for long adventures, and be able to "deal" with dispelings, emptying spellbooks and lack of resting in Epic Areas/DM events.

Steve wrote:One thing that was "lost" with applying the Dispel Bug fix—which was that HD was used instead of Caster Level against Dispelling—was the additional implementation of a system to scribe scrolls at various CL levels, so that UMD users could still retain buffs IF the scrolls they used were scribed by very high CL toons. Possibly, an NPC scroll merchant that would allow for choosing CL for your purchases....but, it would cost...oh, would it cost!!!

Meant to be a gold sink, it would additionally allow for ALL TYPES of PCs to "gear up" for long adventures, and be able to "deal" with dispelings, emptying spellbooks and lack of resting in Epic Areas/DM events.

Not so much lost as discussed and adviced against. The issue is that this would just make UMD stronger with the dispel fix than it was without it. Many effects are tied to CL, and it's an uncomfortable notion to have everyone get long-lasting buffs like they were mages at the same potency. Only a cap could possible help fix that, but it seems more trouble than its worth IMO. Let casters be casters. QC is looking into buffing comparatively weak non-casters at the moment.

This wasn't lost, it was discussed and decided to shelve for the time being, doesn't mean it won't be implemented in the future, though higher cl scrolls will require higher umd which needs to also be taken into account.

Karond wrote:The issue is that this would just make UMD stronger with the dispel fix than it was without it. Many effects are tied to CL, and it's an uncomfortable notion to have everyone get long-lasting buffs like they were mages at the same potency.

Wait a minute...

The formula for UMD use it: 25 + spell level vs UMD score + d20.

So if a CL 30 wizard scribes a Lvl 9 spell, the DC for successful casting is 34 vs UMD + d20. That means a PC needs a UMD of 33 in order to have 100% success. That is end game stats.

Imagine if a scroll costs 1,000 Coin per Caster Level? That would mean a 30,000 coin for a lvl 9 spell lasting at CL 30, with CL 30 strength (which could still be dispeled, by the appropriate or higher CL, right?).

Is there not still a risk vs. reward here, in the basic math? And if not, how difficult would it have been to "adjust" the math to be even more "correct."