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

After further testing, and for clarification:

Bards Amplify still gives a +20 to listen. There is no will save being rolled(or at least showing up in the combat log) by those around the caster. The duration seems normal to me, so it looks like this spell wasn't changed after all?

Bards Clairaudience/Clairvoyance requires the caster to choose a spot or listen buff, but gives no bonus to spot or listen, and instead causes those around the caster to roll a will save versus the casters DC. *Caster level, I guess? I don't know what the DC is based off of. This is all french to me, but I have 10 levels of bard(with 1 SD/2 Divine seeker), *no practiced spell caster(oops), 16 listen(which is what I chose to buff), and the opposing players had to beat my DC of 17. *Using inspire competence and heroism did not change the DC from 17. The duration also seems to be normal.

Judging from a few other posts in this thread, those who have the c&c spell via different classes(wizard, sorc, assassin) might not see clairaudience/clairvoyance operating in the same manner.

* Multiple edits made *

Truthiness wrote:Sonic Immunity is actually left off of the breach list, along with another immunity that I don't quite recall.

As far as the changes to amplify/c&c, it might have been better to just make the bonus based off CL (1 listen per CL, capping at 20 for amplify, 1 spot/listen per 2 cl, capping at 10 for c&c), which would have greatly lessened the massive increase of amplify/c&c wands (+12 listen total with both) yet left 20+ cl bards the same.

In pnp, amplify ONLY has a save if you center it on a unwilling creature, you can still center it on yourself and it functions the same as it does in nwn2. Clairaudience/Clairvoyance is very different in pnp, there's no bonus to spot/listen, because it's basically a short range scry.

Also, if the availability of wands is the biggest issue (and I think it is really the only thing that makes amplify remotely in need of rebalancing) then the CL based solution provided above holds a great deal of merit.

I think I've changed my mind on these changes. They are completely valid and should not be changed at all to be a flat bonus based on caster level or anything of the sort. Why the change of heart Flasmix? I hear you asking. Simple, I say!

They are will saves! I'm a DC based caster! My DC for C&C is going to be near 27-28. What is the will save for most melee sneaks? 4-7. Lol. They have to roll 20s constantly! That's not the best part, oh no! As a mage, my Will is ridiculously high meaning... Good luck hearing or seeing me!

In short, these newest changes are a huge boost to the Hipster mages and really nothing changes for the melee sneaks. Thanks for the help devs.

chambordini wrote: That's it boys let's roll it back.

Woah woah woah woah. Hipster mages are very under powered. No need to be drastic with rolling any changes back, everything is fine as is.

Flasmix wrote:Hipster mages are very under powered.

Oh Lord, that was a good laugh...thanks!

Say what you will guys, I still think this was an awesome idea. It really is about time us hips mages got the respect we deserve. A kind of respect this update has, one that will finally let us topple the OP assassin\rogue combo that has, quite frankly, been king of the hill for way too long.

I can finally go back to watching people cyber in the FAI.

Flasmix wrote:I think I've changed my mind on these changes. They are completely valid and should not be changed at all to be a flat bonus based on caster level or anything of the sort. Why the change of heart Flasmix? I hear you asking. Simple, I say!

They are will saves! I'm a DC based caster! My DC for C&C is going to be near 27-28. What is the will save for most melee sneaks? 4-7. Lol. They have to roll 20s constantly! That's not the best part, oh no! As a mage, my Will is ridiculously high meaning... Good luck hearing or seeing me!

In short, these newest changes are a huge boost to the Hipster mages and really nothing changes for the melee sneaks. Thanks for the help devs.

The thing to take away from this is that making this spell DC based makes it a worse spell for bards than just about anyone else who is going to use it. Before I RCRed Liam there were two heavily active CHA bards I knew of, Liam is no longer CHA based and the other is largely retired.

The CL based option will ensure that only the class who has natural access to the spell can cast it to full effect. So yes, I call again for Amplify to be +1 listen per bard lvl, and C&C to be flat +10 to one or the other, as doing that is already nerfing it in half, no need to make it a will save as well.

Flasmix wrote:Say what you will guys, I still think this was an awesome idea. It really is about time us hips mages got the respect we deserve. A kind of respect this update has, one that will finally let us topple the OP assassin\rogue combo that has, quite frankly, been king of the hill for way too long.

I can finally go back to watching people cyber in the FAI.

+1

I can't wait to capitalize upon the weak on my HIPS mage and exact the terrible vengeance I've wished for... I mean fight for the balance of all...

chambordini wrote:
Not only is someone able to see my saves while I'm not hostiled to them, but it spams my window every round.

Did I mention that like half of QC was explicitly against the change? And even then it went in?
Petitioning to get it rolled back to vanilla...
Sign here ______

Also, as a level 25 bard with full CL...the piglets were passing that save about a third of the time... How is that now balanced?

chambordini wrote:Did I mention that like half of QC was explicitly against the change? And even then it went in?

You mean half of the QC that have given some numbers to support this. The others were "I am 1000000% against it, just because..."

mrm3ntalist wrote:

chambordini wrote:Did I mention that like half of QC was explicitly against the change? And even then it went in?

You mean half of the QC that have given some numbers to support this. The others were "I am 1000000% against it, just because..."

Half in still half in a democratic system (Or any system which involve taking into account the opinions of multiple people really). You don't even have to like their reasons.

The fact remains that "Team nerf C&C and Amplify" used the numbers out of context, and pointed to people "using footsteps to metagame hear you and then cast amplify." (This is, by the way, a Red Herring Argument) The problem there is the metagaming, not the spell. The context of amplify and C&C are usually (Read...99%) reactionary, and in some cases where sensitive information is being discussed, precautionary.

It was brought up that bard's permanent detection skills are already passively high, which I countered with numbers, IE the bonus of 6 from inspirations and 6 from greater heroism does nothing but cover the +12 dex bonus most sneaks have (most bards actually have a negative wis mod, so we are still at a -1). I even added that in order to get a full +6 from inspire competence you need a heavy investment in the bard class. This was countered by bringing up amplify could be on a wand, while disregarding, once again, the context of "permanent, passive" detection boosts. (Another Red Herring combined with a inconsistent comparison)

The issue with wands has been countered by the suggestion that amplify simply provide +1 listen per CL, up to a max of 20. And so far as I have seen, that suggestion has just been ignored/not addressed meaningfully in any way.

So when you say that half of QC used numbers to back up this change, I can say without hesitation that, if they used the numbers used here, that they used those numbers out of context. And if the type of debate in this thread is any indication, the most likely assumption on can make is that the issue was simply argued until no one cared to talk about it anymore, and then the silence was counted as a victory (Argument ad infinitum).

And for the sake of transparency, although I have heard this from more than one source I am apparently the only one not afraid to speak my mind publicly. Many people have commented that it seems the most ardent supporter, and indeed the most vocal QC member on this topic in general, plays a HIPSter as his main. Understand I am not throwing this out there as some sort of personal prosecution or accusation, but rather from the understanding that it is 100% impossible to remove all bias. Rather you do it intentionally or not, Mendel, you are biased against detectors and for sneaks. That's fine, everyone does it, and as I said it is impossible to control for 100%, but with that knowledge it strikes me that QC chose an odd person to champion these changes.

I would speak my mind, but I am too lazy to go through the process of being called a "sneak hater" or similar things again. I'll just repeat my favorite question here:

Is this a RP, pvp or a pve related balance change?

Boddynock wrote:And for the sake of transparency, although I have heard this from more than one source I am apparently the only one not afraid to speak my mind publicly. Many people have commented that it seems the most ardent supporter, and indeed the most vocal QC member on this topic in general, plays a HIPSter as his main. Understand I am not throwing this out there as some sort of personal prosecution or accusation, but rather from the understanding that it is 100% impossible to remove all bias. Rather you do it intentionally or not, Mendel, you are biased against detectors and for sneaks. That's fine, everyone does it, and as I said it is impossible to control for 100%, but with that knowledge it strikes me that QC chose an odd person to champion these changes.

Dont be afraid about saying what you think of me. I dont care if you or anyone else thinks i am biased. This is a community forum and everyone make their own assumptions. As i have my own assumptions about you - which are not good when the matter at hand is mechanics.

One only needs to know simple mathematics to figure this one out. Leave bard inspirations out. Leave bards out of the picture. Take any character with maxed listen. Thats 33. When you want to detect a sneak, ie when you want to have a private converstaion, then activate search mode. Cast C&C from wand, cast amplify from wand. thats another 30 on listen. for a total of 63 giving you a chance to detect a sneak with up to 82 Hide/MS. That is all it needs.

Lets take the sneak now. I will give you a +2DEX race s that you can reach 29dex +3Item = 32 for a +11mod. 33 + 11 = 44. Then take a +5 form move silently and strealthy. Thats 2 feats that you could have used for more AC or AB or Damage. Thats 49. Then the only items a sneak can find are +3boots +3belt +3armor +2hood +2ring +2ring +2Cloak +3Amulet +6dual daggers = 26. 49 +26 =75!!! That is with all slots equiped with sneak gear, sacrificing any AC, AB, saves, HP.

So a character - any character - with limited investment in detection, can reliably detect a character heavy invested in stealth. In which pararel universe, that is considered balanced? Alright, I am biased about stealth. What the numbers above make you about a +20 bonus on listen from a spell that can be crafted as a wand? Do you consider such example " balanced"?

Edit: Anyway, my days as QC are numbered. I will leave the QC team when the update issues are sorted. Then those "I am 1000000% against this change just..because" and ghost QCers can do whatever they please. Who knows, maybe then yu can ask to join the QC again, since i was the one against you joining.

mrm3ntalist wrote:+3boots +3belt +3armor +2hood +2ring +2ring +2Cloak +3Amulet +6dual daggers = 26. 49 +26 =75!!!

+3 MS is not available on a Belt unless it is (maybe) from RIG, or a DM gift, same goes for armor. Boots you could up to +6, but you would need to take one ring away since that would be used for a +6 hide ring. Anywho, point is even with granting new and improved sneak gear, it is insane that one spell should counter Stat, Skill, multiple Feat and items specifically focused on stealth. I can't even believe the argument has reached this point.

Player A - 3 Feats, 66 skill points, Min-Maxed for highest possible Dex, items focused on stealth at cost of 2 natural AC, 2 Armor AC, 3 Dodge AC and 2 deflection AC (9 lower AC!!!) to reach maximum possible stealth.

Player B - 33 skill points and 2 spells... click on search and wins automatically with negative wisdom, no feat or item (AC) cost.

Yep, that is totally fair and balanced.

chad878262 wrote:Yep, that is totally fair and balanced.

I am 10000000% certain you are biased too.