That's what I said!Hunter548 wrote:It's also worth noting that the limitation on holding X number of monsters is pretty irrelevant. Pully monsters 1/2 at a time has been a thing since Arelith first existed.
Feylock Feedback
Moderators: Active DMs, Forum Moderators, Contributors
Re: Feylock Feedback
-
- Arelith Platinum Supporter
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:57 am
Re: Feylock Feedback
I like this approach too.Lorkas wrote:One of the things I really liked about the old staff-based warlock is that they had access to stun and other debuffs, but they always lasted 1 round. It was clear that the stun was a temporary thing that was there to compliment the eldritch blast damage, rather than the eldritch blast damage being something tacked on to a spell that otherwise works the way that spell would work for every other caster.
A CHA based warlock could therefore lock down a creature by focusing entirely on that creature, but can't have a target held and also be doing other stuff at the same time.
I think the ability to reliably disable one person in a mob could stay, but make it unable to occur for any others. This would allow them to pick one opponent to keep out of the fray, without making the entire encounter non-existent.
Maybe even re-work Fey Warlocks so that they are more single-target based, rather than having multi-target capabilities like vancian casters with things like confusion and mind fog as well.
-
- Arelith Gold Supporter
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:56 am
Re: Feylock Feedback
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't understand the issue with Scholar Midnight's proposal.
As it is, Feylocks can hold an infinite amount of monster, with the changes, they won't be able to. It's a shift to the right direction, not the wrong one.
Previously, they did this with full Eldritch Blast damage, not anymore.
They get +2 to the DC, that's not even the same as someone with Epic Spell Focus Enchantment. And this may shift Feylocks to Cha based instead of the Con monster sillyness they have been.
As it is, Feylocks can hold an infinite amount of monster, with the changes, they won't be able to. It's a shift to the right direction, not the wrong one.
Previously, they did this with full Eldritch Blast damage, not anymore.
They get +2 to the DC, that's not even the same as someone with Epic Spell Focus Enchantment. And this may shift Feylocks to Cha based instead of the Con monster sillyness they have been.
Re: Feylock Feedback
Edit: I apologise for this post. I took my frustration with one particular person out on many in this public thread, and it was unfair. I shouldn't have done it!
Lots of good feedback, thanks! I'll ignore the fact that most of these replies were posted within ten minutes of each other and certainly come with complements of Peppermint's pocket.
Weavemasters were not disabled because DCs are impossible to balance. I know because I had as much of a hand in the decision to disable them as Peppermint did.
Weavemasters were disabled because it's difficult and time-consuming (read: not impossible) to balance every single spell available to them when considering that Vancian casters also need to cast the same spells, but must do so with a limited number of casts. Warlocks, however, have a small subset of spells available to them. It is certainly possible and feasible to balance a DC warlock by tweaking the spells they cast.
Yes, my proposal above means that other warlock spells, such as confusion, become more powerful.
No, that's not a big deal given that they can already cast those spells, and do it well, and if it does becomes a big deal it can be tweaked.
Yes, increasing mind spell DCs by 2 makes feylocks 10% more likely to land a hold, depending on what roll the target needs to resist.
No, it isn't broken and matters very little, because 1) it's only 10%, and 2) the extra 10% doesn't matter when your target has to roll a 20 to save anyway which is the case in many epic dungeons at present. Trust me, I just finished clearing most of them on a CHA-based feylock, so I really am in a better position to judge the effectiveness of their hold spells than most, who are simply debating theory and not practice. The only case it becomes significant is when trying to hold mages or clerics, many of whom will need to roll a 1-2 in order to be held, at which point you'll land 50% more holds.
Yes, the change doesn't matter if you pull mobs one at a time.
No, this change isn't aimed at people who pull mobs one at a time.
--
With all of that said, it's clear people don't want the class changed and are more interested in bikeshedding about inane details and throwing around buzzwords (sorry, did I infringe on your design space?). On a selfish note it's in my best interest not to change things because I play a warlock, and even though there's no challenge in holding a whole room, it does make playing easy and profitable. So, rejoice! I'll set it aside.
Lots of good feedback, thanks! I'll ignore the fact that most of these replies were posted within ten minutes of each other and certainly come with complements of Peppermint's pocket.
I'll quote this post to address them all:yellowcateyes wrote:The emphasis on higher DCs for an infini-caster with disables is problematic. It's the same issue that lead to Weavemasters being disabled save for grandfathered characters. Balancing mobs for high DC feylock disablers means that vancian casters, such as traditional wizards and sorcerers, give up being anything but nukers and buffbot/shifters.
Weavemasters were not disabled because DCs are impossible to balance. I know because I had as much of a hand in the decision to disable them as Peppermint did.
Weavemasters were disabled because it's difficult and time-consuming (read: not impossible) to balance every single spell available to them when considering that Vancian casters also need to cast the same spells, but must do so with a limited number of casts. Warlocks, however, have a small subset of spells available to them. It is certainly possible and feasible to balance a DC warlock by tweaking the spells they cast.
Yes, my proposal above means that other warlock spells, such as confusion, become more powerful.
No, that's not a big deal given that they can already cast those spells, and do it well, and if it does becomes a big deal it can be tweaked.
Yes, increasing mind spell DCs by 2 makes feylocks 10% more likely to land a hold, depending on what roll the target needs to resist.
No, it isn't broken and matters very little, because 1) it's only 10%, and 2) the extra 10% doesn't matter when your target has to roll a 20 to save anyway which is the case in many epic dungeons at present. Trust me, I just finished clearing most of them on a CHA-based feylock, so I really am in a better position to judge the effectiveness of their hold spells than most, who are simply debating theory and not practice. The only case it becomes significant is when trying to hold mages or clerics, many of whom will need to roll a 1-2 in order to be held, at which point you'll land 50% more holds.
Yes, the change doesn't matter if you pull mobs one at a time.
No, this change isn't aimed at people who pull mobs one at a time.
--
With all of that said, it's clear people don't want the class changed and are more interested in bikeshedding about inane details and throwing around buzzwords (sorry, did I infringe on your design space?). On a selfish note it's in my best interest not to change things because I play a warlock, and even though there's no challenge in holding a whole room, it does make playing easy and profitable. So, rejoice! I'll set it aside.
-
- Posts: 1860
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:44 pm
Re: Feylock Feedback
It's exactly the same as an epic spell focus in enchantment. Every focus is worth +2 DC. Bear in mind that a Feylock will already have GSF: Enchantment, so this change puts them in the realm of effectively having an ESF in their effective school.
Even ignoring that, a shift of two points is a lot. That's an additional 10% chance of success. It's an epic feat. It's four ability points.
The reason the proposal doesn't work is that we've taken it as a given that infinicasters being able to hold creatures effectively is a problem, and then rather than address that issue exclusively, we've elected to double down on it by essentially giving them an extra spell focus to do it even better.
Three rounds of paralysis is still a ton -- and that's assume you're planning to hold multiple mobs at once. If, say, you elect to pull encounters a couple creatures at a time (which a lot of players do already), the change has effectively no downside at all. And even the downside as presented is, frankly, questionable.
The proposal doesn't "fix" the issue with infinicast disablers. It exacerbates them. It's well-intentioned, but misses the mark.
Even ignoring that, a shift of two points is a lot. That's an additional 10% chance of success. It's an epic feat. It's four ability points.
The reason the proposal doesn't work is that we've taken it as a given that infinicasters being able to hold creatures effectively is a problem, and then rather than address that issue exclusively, we've elected to double down on it by essentially giving them an extra spell focus to do it even better.
Three rounds of paralysis is still a ton -- and that's assume you're planning to hold multiple mobs at once. If, say, you elect to pull encounters a couple creatures at a time (which a lot of players do already), the change has effectively no downside at all. And even the downside as presented is, frankly, questionable.
The proposal doesn't "fix" the issue with infinicast disablers. It exacerbates them. It's well-intentioned, but misses the mark.
You were given several actually workable solutions. No one said that the problem you raised didn't exist; they said that the solution exacerbated it. Please reread Sockss and Lorkas' posts for good, solid feedback.Scholar Midnight wrote:With all of that said, it's clear people don't want the class changed and are more interested in bikeshedding about inane details and throwing around buzzwords (sorry, did I infringe on your design space?). On a selfish note it's in my best interest not to change things because I play a warlock, and even though there's no challenge in holding a whole room, it does make playing easy and profitable. So, rejoice! I'll set it aside.
Last edited by Peppermint on Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Project Lead
- Posts: 1445
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:02 am
Re: Feylock Feedback
Thank you for setting an example for forum civility. Additionally, I find it comforting that a technical lead has the proper appreciation for design space.Scholar Midnight wrote:I'll ignore the fact that most of these replies were posted within ten minutes of each other and certainly come with complements of Peppermint's pocket.
...
With all of that said, it's clear people don't want the class changed and are more interested in bikeshedding about inane details and throwing around buzzwords (sorry, did I infringe on your design space?).
Anyways, you do agree that one of the core issues of Weavemasters was that they were infinitely able to cast the same spells that Vancian casters relied on, making it near impossible to balance the same spell pool for both types of casters.
That the Feylock's spell pool is smaller doesn't address the core issue. Despite the variety of spells available in NWN, the number of actually useful 'workhorse' spells are a far smaller subset, and the Feylock enjoys a number of them. Again, Confusion and Mind Fog are two powerful AoE spells that won't be constrained by the proposed limitations on held enemies. Not even mentioned here is the utility of Dominate Person in obtaining high-level NPC henchmen, especially as you can cast the spell safely and infinitely out of Invisibility until the target fails their save.
I, too, have played a Feylock to epic levels. I'm aware of their frankly balance-breaking features. Improving DCs in the suggested manner only compounds the problems with the class, and the server meta as a whole. Prior posters have civilly suggested a number of limitations and possibilities to make the proposed changes work.
Dinosaur Space Program is my working partner on Arelith-related projects. If my inbox is full or I take a while to get back to you, feel free to PM them questions or concerns.
Re: Feylock Feedback
As the topic opener, I think now would be the time to close the topic.
Apologies, Scholar.
Apologies, Scholar.