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

EasternCheesE wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:02 pm I surely already did that yesterday afternoon. In fact, i don't defend current way of things, i simply point that it still allows for ways to overcome g. dispels and also point at possible balance changes it can bring that are hard to foresee here and now. Thus, i speak and try to get more idea what awaits us if that happens.
If it looks like i try to defend current state of things, sorry, if it looks like this.
I have my opinion on this, obviously, but i try to look into what this brings to server and if it will aid it for good without breaking things up.

Then that makes me happy, EC! Good work!

Deathgrowl wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:18 pm

EasternCheesE wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:02 pm I surely already did that yesterday afternoon. In fact, i don't defend current way of things, i simply point that it still allows for ways to overcome g. dispels and also point at possible balance changes it can bring that are hard to foresee here and now. Thus, i speak and try to get more idea what awaits us if that happens.
If it looks like i try to defend current state of things, sorry, if it looks like this.
I have my opinion on this, obviously, but i try to look into what this brings to server and if it will aid it for good without breaking things up.

Then that makes me happy, EC! Good work!

My main concern about dispel fix is that it will put UMD users (and pure martial classes) in less sweet situation on balance scale.
Basically, limiting g. dispel doesn't help UMD users at all (all the non-caster classes) while bumps casters who already get many nice things for no gold cost.
So, when people playing martial classes ask "and what do we get too?", what can we give them to make it not only affecting one certain range of builds?
It's not a "no to dispel", but other concern that comes from this change if it's implemented.

EasternCheesE wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:25 pm

Deathgrowl wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:18 pm

EasternCheesE wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:02 pm I surely already did that yesterday afternoon. In fact, i don't defend current way of things, i simply point that it still allows for ways to overcome g. dispels and also point at possible balance changes it can bring that are hard to foresee here and now. Thus, i speak and try to get more idea what awaits us if that happens.
If it looks like i try to defend current state of things, sorry, if it looks like this.
I have my opinion on this, obviously, but i try to look into what this brings to server and if it will aid it for good without breaking things up.

Then that makes me happy, EC! Good work!

My main concern about dispel fix is that it will put UMD users (and pure martial classes) in less sweet situation on balance scale.
Basically, limiting g. dispel doesn't help UMD users at all (all the non-caster classes) while bumps casters who already get many nice things for no gold cost.
So, when people playing martial classes ask "and what do we get too?", what can we give them to make it not only affecting one certain range of builds?
It's not a "no to dispel", but other concern that comes from this change if it's implemented.

I feel for that, eliminating the need for UMD through lowered AB/AC/dmg/HP/APR (whichever, not all, just one) for the mobs would help martials. Mirror Imagine is a big UMD "Must-have" for almost all martial, and it is because of how APR/AB/damage combines.

Coincidentally, it would also help gishes play as proper spellblades too, as they could focus on well - spellcasting rather than pretending to be a fighter.

Deathgrowl wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:34 am Since there are people here saying that 25-29 CL is fine already, and having success playing builds with those CLs, what kind of builds would actually become a problem if the Greater Dispel cap was returned to Vanilla NWN2 numbers?

To me it's not a matter of 'certain builds becoming a problem'. It's more 'I don't think anyone should be immune to dispels', I do not play a caster to be immune to dispels, they are an expected issue that I plan around needing to deal with. And I don't see why building for lower CL shouldn't come with increased vulnerability to dispels. I use lower CL with the expectation of being more vulnerable to dispels. I've learned how to deal with them. I do not find them a huge hassle in any zone other than Serpent Hills, and for that I can prepare alternate strategies instead of 'buff and bash'.

I think CL 30 people just get so used to being invulnerable to Greater Dispel and loving not having to deal with them that they can't imagine losing that benefit, while those of us who already play under-CL30 builds don't understand what the concern is all about.

Would it not then just be reasonable to allow the less-skilled players, and others, to have some more options of variety in their sub-30 CL builds?

I don't understand this 'allow' sentiment. They are already 'allowed' to. They just refuse to do so. That's user choice.

I choose to ignore any 'optimal' and 'powerbuilding' sentiments, and just build what I want to build. That's made my play experience a heck of a lot more fun. The hardest part in that wasn't the build, it was getting past my own preconceived notions of what was 'necessary'. It was an issue of player mindset, to me.

If such a change went in, it'd be a clear benefit to me personally. I wouldn't have to worry about dispels anymore. But shouldn't I have to worry about dispels, if I've chosen to play a low CL caster? Does this significantly improve my gameplay in any way, having one less thing to worry about? I don't think it does. I'd even say it makes it a bit less full, because that's one less thing I have to consider when approaching fights, and yet another thing that makes 'buffing up' the most optimal caster strategy as those buffs are now largely permanent. Compared to right now, where an area like Serpent Hills, being so dispel heavy, means I need to approach groups there with different strategies, such as preparing all damage spells instead of buffs.

Hoihe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:00 pm1) - Problem, you get dispelled. Time to wait 20 minutes until you can play again.

I don't find this issue, myself. I conserve my spells and have consumables for emergencies, and I also find BG's rest timer to be super short as is.

Here is what I typically prepare for buffs, for both myself and my summon: 1 Bull's Strength, 1 Cat's Grace (both saved for bosses only), 2 Animalistic Power, 4 GMW (2 for my main weapons, 1 for summon, 1 for my vamp weapon if I need it), 1 Keen, 1 Spiderskin (for summon), 1 Haste, 1 Displacement (both saved for bosses), 2 IMA, 1 Hero, 1 Deez, 3 GHero, 1 or 2 Shadow Shield, 1 Premonition, 1 Shades, 1 Greater Planar Binding, 1 Shapechange.

The rest of my slots are used on damage spells (doubled from Reignite), debuffs/area control spells, and Tenser's Transformation. And I am a 22 Int caster that uses most of my spellslots on AC and stat gear rather than spell slot gear so I'm pretty low on spell slots as is.

If I get debuffed, and it's a spell I can re-up, then I re-up it. (Deez+Premonition to replace Shades, or Shield wands if I absolutely need to, extra GHeros, IMA wands, and Spiderskin scrolls). If I'm unable to re-up, then I hang back and use my non-buff spells. If I'm solo, I'd probably prepare extra buffs and few/no non-buff spells. But I generally don't care much for soloing epic areas.

I also just flat out avoid Serpent Hills, and don't engage in melee with Spellgaunts, which I consider the two biggest dispel threats from non-boss mobs.

I still feel that the solution to this issue (in so far as it is an issue, which I honestly don't personally see) is making NPC use of dispel less common, not nerfing the power of the dispel itself.

Hoihe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:47 pmI feel for that, eliminating the need for UMD through lowered AB/AC/dmg/HP/APR (whichever, not all, just one) for the mobs would help martials. Mirror Imagine is a big UMD "Must-have" for almost all martial, and it is because of how APR/AB/damage combines.

Coincidentally, it would also help gishes play as proper spellblades too, as they could focus on well - spellcasting rather than pretending to be a fighter.

I do agree that I'd love to see A) Mob strength reduced across the board, combined with B) More pnp-accurate mechanics for UMD (so DC 20 check to use wands). Eliminating the over-use of UMD while also reducing the need for it. And making non-buff/non-no-save spells more useful.

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:08 pm

Deathgrowl wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:34 am Since there are people here saying that 25-29 CL is fine already, and having success playing builds with those CLs, what kind of builds would actually become a problem if the Greater Dispel cap was returned to Vanilla NWN2 numbers?

To me it's not a matter of 'certain builds becoming a problem'. It's more 'I don't think anyone should be immune to dispels', I do not play a caster to be immune to dispels, they are an expected issue that I plan around needing to deal with. And I don't see why building for lower CL shouldn't come with increased vulnerability to dispels. I use lower CL with the expectation of being more vulnerable to dispels. I've learned how to deal with them. I do not find them a huge hassle in any zone other than Serpent Hills, and for that I can prepare alternate strategies instead of 'buff and bash'.

I think CL 30 people just get so used to being invulnerable to Greater Dispel and loving not having to deal with them that they can't imagine losing that benefit, while those of us who already play under-CL30 builds don't understand what the concern is all about.

This is a sentiment I agree with, and was the impetus behind my earlier posts.

I'd be a proponent for dispels using a higher random range with CL instead of simply increasing the static modifyer, if possible.

[Addendum] : I also support Hoith's post's two above mine. The minimum performance floor (and possibly lowering it) is entirely relevant to discussing if any adjustment to dispels accomplishes the intended goal.

EasternCheesE wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:39 pm The common situation we have on server is getting g. dispel spam, thus, i compare it allowing for up to 20 cl and up to 15 CL adjustment.
Thus, cl 29 has 5% chance to be dispelled by greater dispel cast by cl >= 20 caster. If it is reduced to +15 on spell, it means that CL29 gishes can drop practiced spellcaster or 4 spellcasting levels without risk to be g. dispelled.
As I said, going 4 less spellcasting means one can drop 4 lowish BAB spellcasting levels in favor of getting deeper dip into their martial class for extra bab/feats.

This is what I am in support of, actually, as I've brought up in my arguments.

UMDers won't have any less ideal situation. For them, it'll remain "Business as Usual". The only thing that'll change is that CL 20-25 will be able to feel safer- not completely safe, mind you.

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:08 pm To me it's not a matter of 'certain builds becoming a problem'. It's more 'I don't think anyone should be immune to dispels',

And nobody will remain immune to dispels. As it was mentioned before: Disjunctions. Spell breaches. It's wonderful that you have learned to deal with them, but don't view other players through your personal expectations, please.

Believe me, not all sub-CL30 builds agree with you about not understanding what the concern is about. I've seen a good number of them rebuild to CL30 due to being absolutely bothered and stressed out by being dispelled all the time they venture out and becoming useless in a manner of seconds.

Also, if your solution is "Avoid areas with dispels", you'll have to forgive me that I don't take such seriously as it cuts being able to explore various adventuring content on the server. That's my very personal observation

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:08 pm I don't understand this 'allow' sentiment. They are already 'allowed' to. They just refuse to do so. That's user choice.

I'm perfectly sure you do understand the sentiment. Nobody here wants to play sub-par builds unless they have a particular liking to playing the hard mode. That would be very few players in the game, including yourself The game literally promotes making powerbuilds, as I've previously written.


Overall, this change would literally not change too much. It'd make a few gish builds more available and possible to play, while the same builds would have to content with lower spell durations, powers and so on. It would make it more enjoyable for most players and comfortable to play- this would lead to more character concepts with differing strengths, weaknesses and variability on the theme. That, equally so, raises the RP possibility on the server.

On the other hand, you have... Destroying gishes as an entertaining way to play and making them play as if you're in a real-time strategy? Where's the fun at that? I understand people have grudges over how gishes were powerful before all these changes and nerfs came in, but those days are long gone. As Mentalist has mentioned- there are still builds that can absolutely roflstomp the content and only a handful of them are gishes- divine ones, at that.

And, once again, please. Everyone, stop viewing everything through personal expectations. Not everyone wants to devote enough time and dedication to become a master player 9000 or develop and enjoyment of hard mode gameplay with rewards being too few and in between.

Ravial wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:54 pm This is what I am in support of, actually, as I've brought up in my arguments.

UMDers won't have any less ideal situation. For them, it'll remain "Business as Usual". The only thing that'll change is that CL 20-25 will be able to feel safer- not completely safe, mind you.

Most of UMDers are far from an ideal situation to begin with, let alone chars without UMD. For them, the "Business as usual" is not attempting end-game areas alone, or in weak-synergy party composition. Yet, you're trying to push for a leeway for characters generally above in the power hierarchy.

Ravial wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:54 pm Believe me, not all sub-CL30 builds agree with you about not understanding what the concern is about. I've seen a good number of them rebuild to CL30 due to being absolutely bothered and stressed out by being dispelled all the time they venture out and becoming useless in a manner of seconds.

Also, if your solution is "Avoid areas with dispels", you'll have to forgive me that I don't take such seriously as it cuts being able to explore various adventuring content on the server. That's my very personal observation

I think we have somewhat varied content, at least on the surface, where just a couple areas are dispel heavy. Isn't it a good design to have content where different classes perform differently?

Ravial wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:54 pm And, once again, please. Everyone, stop viewing everything through personal expectations. Not everyone wants to devote enough time and dedication to become a master player 9000 or develop and enjoyment of hard mode gameplay with rewards being too few and in between.

You're accusing others of what you're doing yourself. And I don't mean it as a snarky comment. We all have different visions, personal expectations and experiences. Yet, ultimately, the server needs to follow some kind of design thought that hopefully ends up being attractive to most and somewhere "down the middle".

And to be clear, I didn't come up with the current state of affairs, I simply mostly enjoyed it for what it was.

matelener wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:36 pmMost of UMDers are far from an ideal situation to begin with, let alone chars without UMD. For them, the "Business as usual" is not attempting end-game areas alone, or in weak-synergy party composition. Yet, you're trying to push for a leeway for characters generally above in the power hierarchy.

Not true.
-Barbarians20+/ClassX
-Fighter/DwarvenDefender
-MaA26/Pal4orBG4
-Wisdom Monks
-Monk/Fighter with kamas
-Rogue/assassins
-Swashbuckler/Duelist/Assassin

Depending whether you consider rangers and paladins casters, they do end game content as well.

mrm3ntalist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:01 pm

matelener wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:36 pmMost of UMDers are far from an ideal situation to begin with, let alone chars without UMD. For them, the "Business as usual" is not attempting end-game areas alone, or in weak-synergy party composition. Yet, you're trying to push for a leeway for characters generally above in the power hierarchy.

Not true.
-Barbarians20+/ClassX
-Fighter/DwarvenDefender
-MaA26/Pal4orBG4
-Wisdom Monks
-Monk/Fighter with kamas
-Rogue/assassins
-Swashbuckler/Duelist/Assassin

Depending whether you consider rangers and paladins casters, they do end game content as well.

We have literally over 60 classes, with countless character variations. The strong builds you mentioned are a droplet in the sea of possibilities.

Barbarian
Fighter
MaA
Monk
Paladin
Phantom
Ranger
Rogue
Swashbuckler

Those are the melee base classes. All of the base classes can solo end game content with at least 1 or 2 different builds.

mrm3ntalist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:21 pm Barbarian
Fighter
MaA
Monk
Paladin
Phantom
Ranger
Rogue
Swashbuckler

Those are the melee base classes. All of the base classes can solo end game content with at least 1 or 2 different builds.

I'm not contesting a powerbuild of any class won't be able to. Just like I can come up with plenty of Caster Level 5-25 doing just that.

What I'm saying is that it's not the case for most characters / most builds across the entire spectrum. Like, the next topic could be:

"Hey, my character is a 7 fighter / 4 swashbuckler / 9 Barbarian / 10 Ranger and I have trouble doing any PvE activity. Could we lower the AB of all monsters so RP characters like mine could enjoy the content without resorting to powerbuilding and ditching interesting character choices?"

matelener wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:37 pm

mrm3ntalist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:21 pm Barbarian
Fighter
MaA
Monk
Paladin
Phantom
Ranger
Rogue
Swashbuckler

Those are the melee base classes. All of the base classes can solo end game content with at least 1 or 2 different builds.

I'm not contesting a powerbuild of any class won't be able to. Just like I can come up with plenty of Caster Level 5-25 doing just that.

What I'm saying is that it's not the case for most characters / most builds across the entire spectrum. Like, the next topic could be:

"Hey, my character is a 7 fighter / 4 swashbuckler / 9 Barbarian / 10 Ranger and I have trouble doing any PvE activity. Could we lower the AB of all monsters so RP characters like mine could enjoy the content without resorting to powerbuilding and ditching interesting character choices?"

That makes more sense. Even then though, Barbarian got reworked, Swashbuckler got reworked, many new feats were introduced, MaA is a new class, we got many paladin kits to help different play styles. New melee PRCs ( eg Thief Acrobat) that introduced immunities and feats that got removed in others( improved evasion - WD) . Where is the line drawn in deciding which classes, or builds or playstyle to help?

In the end it all comes down to what Snarfy said

Honestly, at this point I'm not even sure how "powerbuilders" are even a concern. Players are either going to A: build for power, or B: they wont, regardless of dispels, and caster level 25, or 29, or whatever. Worst case scenario is that camp A will be able to whoop content like they are already doing right now, while camp B gets to tinker around with more build varieties without the need to focus on CL29. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:08 pm I still feel that the solution to this issue (in so far as it is an issue, which I honestly don't personally see) is making NPC use of dispel less common, not nerfing the power of the dispel itself.

This is a potential solution to the problem. Does it really have a chance of happening? Would someone "comb" through each Area/Map and adjust the mobs there accordingly?

This CPRG is an experience of killing 1,000-to-1 mobs, compared to PnP. Gr. Dispel PnP values make sense in a situation where a player is often RPing, not monster killing, and has far more options in the PnP session to "deal" with mobs, to adventure, using creativity, Skills, etc., but on BGTSCC, that is not the regular option (it is only marginally available to those in DM Events, and even then often hard to come by). Whether a player is a BGTSCC soloist or a BGTSCC team-ist, the main mode of play for the majority of players is mob killing, treasure taking, Boss fighting. It is then only fair to consider the Rate, that being the rate of mobs per adventure, in a CPRG vs. PnP.

Essentially, as I see it, if one either walked back to Vanilla values for Gr. Dispel, or took a middle road of +17 like I suggested earlier in this thread, you'd essentially open up a "middle class" of builds in the CL 27-28 range that now can do what CL 29-30 can do, but still, against the greatest of content—Bosses and DMs—these CL 27-30s are STILL going to get wrecked by Mords and Breaches.

Nonetheless, if and only IF mobs where redesigned per Area to be 1/5 the rate they are now, having Gr. Dispel ability, then perhaps it would make the game still challenging in its difficulty, but not be such a reliable buff breaker.

I don't think the arguments for the walk-back are about MMO rofflestomping with abandon and no risk desires, as much as it is about not getting funneled into lesser and lesser build options, Character options, because of a paradigm of thinking that players need to be constantly challenged.

Lastly, add that a staff-only decision was made to steer players into more and more “loot runs” to increase wealth and score Items, which doubles down on pushing players to become soloists in adventure and stand-around RPers who can disregard Character Sheet stats. This players on a majority react to constantly mechanically upgrading builds, as a way to “keep up with the Joneses.”

The Server is greatly benefited by Staff that are talented players with knowledge on how to “play the game.” You need that for good perspective. But it seems that the entire Staff response in this thread is not “we will consider this request with attention” but a response of “we know how to deal with it; so should you, and the Staff is not hearing players who are saying they feel trapped in the mechanics and prevented from enjoying the variety that the Server offers but is irrefutably unenjoyable.

So please say it straight up, so at least some of us can walk away from this discussion for good (or at least for the next 5 years….): is changing the mechanics from 1d20 + max. 20 to 1d20 + max. 17 a total game-challenge breaker? And, or instead, is the Staff going to put in a mandate that all Areas get combed through with a reduction in Gr. Dispelling mobs?

After so many pages, doesn’t anyone think it’s time to stop the debate with a hard answer?

Steve wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 4:39 am The Server is greatly benefited by Staff that are talented players with knowledge on how to “play the game.” You need that for good perspective. But it seems that the entire Staff response in this thread is not “we will consider this request with attention” but a response of “we know how to deal with it; so should you, and the Staff is not hearing players who are saying they feel trapped in the mechanics and prevented from enjoying the variety that the Server offers but is irrefutably unenjoyable.

I am posting in this thread as a player, not as staff, because I am a player that mains a 25 CL caster. There is a separate staff discussion going on about mechanical adjustments that could be made to the issue, as EC already mentioned earlier. As staff, I personally am fine with whatever solution the team considers appropriate, and would do what I can to support implementing that direction.

mrm3ntalist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:01 pm

matelener wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:36 pmMost of UMDers are far from an ideal situation to begin with, let alone chars without UMD. For them, the "Business as usual" is not attempting end-game areas alone, or in weak-synergy party composition. Yet, you're trying to push for a leeway for characters generally above in the power hierarchy.

Not true.
-Barbarians20+/ClassX
-Fighter/DwarvenDefender
-MaA26/Pal4orBG4
-Wisdom Monks
-Monk/Fighter with kamas
-Rogue/assassins
-Swashbuckler/Duelist/Assassin

Depending whether you consider rangers and paladins casters, they do end game content as well.

Thanks for a good list of actual existing "powerbuilds" as many can see them.
I agree, these ones can go and solo stuff, one way or another.
But:
It's IMA wand, shield brooch, heroism/greater heroism potion, death ward and some others they are addicted to as UMD. They simply use gold to rebuff.
Barbs: biggest issues is lack of AC, thus, going to Graypeaks and being consistent without UMD is very hard.
DD: I omit fighter, because i myself built a lvl 30 fighter with full +4 plain gear and this one literally can't solo Graypeaks without taking it hours without UMD as well. I believe, DD players who solo balor often can confirm they still use UMD and reapply it on being dispelled.
MaA and their mixes: they lack dmg. They essentially use UMD for frost/fire weapons etc to be able to not make it ages.
Wisdom monks: Unbuffed wisdom monk with 16 dex and 30 wisdom (only +4 gear and stat items) has ~47 AC, MotLD has ~50 and 30 AB with +4 gloves. It's very doubtful they can solo graypeaks unbuffed without umd and owl's insight or very specific build that compensates their weak part of being unbuffed.
Rogues/assassins: I myself like and play this archetypes most of time. Again, hips saves, but my PC has 48 AC having 20 int, 5 IB levels, with IMA + shield Brouch. Yeah, he's lvl 23, so will get some more AC with tumble. They don't exceed 50sh AC at lvl 30 most of times if we don't go phantom + owl's elixir. Rogues are the most UMD dependent class i ever played.
Swashbuckler: Yet again, without being built properly, they lack DPR (damage per round) to be consistent in solo. They use umd too.

In my view, all you have listed only can do things "like it's easy" because they are total UMD junkies who will reapply their UMD buffs every time they are dispelled. Thus, they won't simply go to dispel-heavy area if there is no reward good enough to compensate all the UMD.
As for rangers, yeah, they can afford to not use UMD, because they are ranged. They can kite and manyshot not getting hit, their only investment are haste boots. As being said, i myself saw a crossbow hin soloing Balor with 0 use of consumables or UMD in under 15 minutes just recently.

I still hold opinion that outside of several very strong builds, every other martial build is not that effective without UMD and they will feel cheated if casters get goodies and they don't. Can you please advise more on the way to give them something too along with casters?

I just think that reducing the amount of dispels per minute in many areas is a good way (but without removing it completely. Just making mobs not having their dispel ready to fire everytime, just some times, so it is still a threat) to ease the burden for everyone. Less dispels fired = less UMD buffs reapplied, while still leaving "get ready for dispel, approach caster cautiously" a viable and useful tactics. But, this thing, i feel, should be done regardless to any decision made about this topic idea. Like, i see it being a good improvement for player experience even if this exact topic was never risen.