Balance between the classes.

[Invader_Nym]

I've noticed that on Arelith there's been a very focused effort on improving the playability of casting classes at low levels; they're allowed to rest very frequently, they've been given permanent and very durable summons, and they've been given infinite castings through greater spell focus, to name a few examples.

I think there's a fair argument to be made that many of these changes are appropriate given the nature of a PW. I have noticed, however, that while an effort was made to boost the playability of casting classes at low levels, there was no corresponding effort to flatten out their power on the higher end.

If you look at the direction in which pathfinder and 5th edition have taken the casting classes, you'll find that what they've done is flattened out the power curve and eliminated almost everything that's save-or-lose.

Some examples are hold person, and finger of death, which have been modified so that they aren't so all-or-nothing.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spel ... ld-person/
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spel ... -of-death/
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Fin ... th#content

I think that if Arelith wants to keep the save-or-die spells (I think pathfinder and 5th edition indicate that the wise choice is not to), then being a wizard/cleric at low level /should/ be hell. I think that to make the lower levels a breeze without moderating the mid-higher level power constitutes a balance problem.

[flower]

Save or loose spells are already in bad spot. Most characters gearing for PvP on epic lvl will have saves nearly equal to DC or even at same value. Those who do not gear for it do not matter (because, if you focus on that you can negate these spells).

Then you got spell immunities. Death ward nearly undispensable. Clarity as well. Implosion got nerfed.

And caster clerics are even in worse spot. All good spells are save or die on fortitude and negated by death ward. Or save reflex for half damage and voila low DC + uncanny dodge which gets majority of characters. Only implosion remains and it is one trick pony where you may as well pray for 1 on save.

[Lunargent]

I think that if Arelith wants to keep the save-or-die spells (I think pathfinder and 5th edition indicate that the wise choice is not to), then being a wizard/cleric at low level /should/ be hell.

Why? What exactly about those systems indicates that removing them is 'wise'? Pathfinder is a thing in the first place because there was such a negative reaction to the way D&D was going with 4e, and now that Pathfinder is coming out with their version of 5e, those people are mad again. People are loyal to the design of 3.5, and I don't think Pathfinder ever outsold it, though it did outsell 4e handily.

Having played Pathfinder many times, I will say that wizards are pretty much unplayable. It was a hard turn in the other direction, whereas 3.5 had a ton of fun options, Pathfinder's design philosophy was a fear of any strong options, at all, for anyone. For any class, there is a ton of chaff feats/spells/archetypes which are useless, and a few obvious, optimal ones. So every wizard I made had the exact same spells, no matter how different they were in other respects. I like how on Arelith one's spell focuses can determine your spell lineup. I'm playing a sorcerer with divination right now and learning how to kill stuff with my Power Word: Kill and such instead of illusion like I'd been used to in the past. This is good. Encouraging diversity is good. Pathfinder and 5e do not do that.

I will grant you that the conjuration bonuses to summons could stand to be toned down. It makes soloing too easy and has become an obligatory choice. However, Pathfinder and 5e aren't balance philosophies to strive toward unless you like everything to be samey and boring.

[Misericordus]

Generally save-or-die spells are only reliable against PCs who haven't reached 30, lack the Spellcraft skill and/or haven't finished gearing up, and even then they are defeated by Death Ward, Clarity, Freedom of Movement, and so forth, all of which are easily available as wands for around 6-10k for 30+ charges.

Someone who uses them in PvE will generally run out of juice quick because they only kill one thing (or one group of things) per cast, as opposed to say, summons, which will continue to kill things indefinitely for as long as they're maintained.

They're not very widely used because they actually kind of suck. You're much more likely to get hosed with IGMS in your average PvP encounter because it already does pretty much what you're pulling for FoD to be changed to do, except without any save.

[Hunter548]

Hold Monster and Finger of Death are dogshit, for the reasons outlined above (Plus all the stuff that's just randomly, inexplicably immune to them, for no rhyme or reason). Pathfinder's version of finger of death is straight up just not worth using in pnp, and I'm not sure 5e's a great

The idea that "you deserved to be stronger at high levels than other classes because you're so weak at low levels" is kind of absurd and spurious too. I'm not saying that's the case here on arelith (Casters aren't that strong compared to other classes) but it's an argument I've seen thrown around about casters in 3.x games a lot.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

The idea that "you deserved to be stronger at high levels than other classes because you're so weak at low levels" is kind of absurd and spurious too. I'm not saying that's the case here on arelith (Casters aren't that strong compared to other classes) but it's an argument I've seen thrown around about casters in 3.x games a lot.

I believe this is probably a hold-out mentality from older players who have experience with AD&D and 2nd Edition. Prior to third edition, each class had different XP requirements to level up- mages took more than every other class by far, and frequently died before making it out of the single-digit level range. I don't remember the exact numbers off top, but a mage with 25,000 XP was probably about 3 levels below a fighter with the same amount of XP, possibly more.

Multi-classing was also much different, and took even MORE xp per level; you didn't level up one class at a time, you leveled up both. (Tri-classing? Hah).

The game was pretty different back then. THAC0 was still a thing. Mages were harder to level-up, but a leveled-up mage was absolutely devastating in comparison to any other class of equivalent level that was playing to its theme.... which was appropriate because they had about twice as much XP.

[Invader_Nym]

I'm not saying that's the case here on arelith (Casters aren't that strong compared to other classes) but it's an argument I've seen thrown around about casters in 3.x games a lot.

We're in agreement that many people have considered the same argument I'm making and have arrived at the same conclusion as I have. I appreciate you pointing that out.

What's spurious about the idea that certain classes suffer early, and bloom late? I'd like to hear your argument, assuming you have one.

Also, if you could link me to the various threads talking about how terrible it is to be a wizard with 42DC save-or-die spells, I'd appreciate it. I'm also curious as to why there are so many clerics and wizards in the game, given that all their best spells are "dogshit."

[Invader_Nym]

I believe this is probably a hold-out mentality from older players who have experience with AD&D and 2nd Edition. Prior to third edition, each class had different XP requirements to level up- mages took more than every other class by far, and frequently died before making it out of the single-digit level range. I don't remember the exact numbers off top, but a mage with 25,000 XP was probably about 3 levels below a fighter with the same amount of XP, possibly more.

It stems from the fact that wizards start with 4hp and 1 level 1 spell that does 1d4 + 1 damage.

The reason that people claim wizard blows at low level and blooms late is because it's so overwhelmingly self-evident. It's not a radical way out there position. Like I said in my original post, great measures have been taken to make wizards more feasible at lower levels; that's in no way 'standard.' That these measures had to be taken at all only underscores the point I'm making.

[flower]

I'm not saying that's the case here on arelith (Casters aren't that strong compared to other classes) but it's an argument I've seen thrown around about casters in 3.x games a lot.

We're in agreement that many people have considered the same argument I'm making and have arrived at the same conclusion as I have. I appreciate you pointing that out.

What's spurious about the idea that certain classes suffer early, and bloom late? I'd like to hear your argument, assuming you have one.

Also, if you could link me to the various threads talking about how terrible it is to be a wizard with 42DC save-or-die spells, I'd appreciate it. I'm also curious as to why there are so many clerics and wizards in the game, given that all their best spells are "dogshit."

Because difficulty of leveling does not matter? It would only také more time. Now some people are able to get to 30rd in two weeks, it would really not be that much difficult for mages. And it is not a good way to give them in return more power.

[Invader_Nym]

Generally save-or-die spells are only reliable against PCs who haven't reached 30, lack the Spellcraft skill and/or haven't finished gearing up, and even then they are defeated by Death Ward, Clarity, Freedom of Movement, and so forth, all of which are easily available as wands for around 6-10k for 30+ charges.

Someone who uses them in PvE will generally run out of juice quick because they only kill one thing (or one group of things) per cast, as opposed to say, summons, which will continue to kill things indefinitely for as long as they're maintained.

They're not very widely used because they actually kind of suck. You're much more likely to get hosed with IGMS in your average PvP encounter because it already does pretty much what you're pulling for FoD to be changed to do, except without any save.

Is it the contention of the people in this thread that all players who are level 30 have +35 to +40 on their fort, will, and dex save simultaneously, at all times? I'd like to see those screenshots. I've been playing the game for a long long time, and I know what's achievable, and what's standard, and what isn't.

I've never been attacked with IGMS in a PVP in around 8 years playing, incidentally.

[Invader_Nym]

(Plus all the stuff that's just randomly, inexplicably immune to them, for no rhyme or reason).

I'll definitely grant you this. A little more standardization would be good, in my opinion.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I believe this is probably a hold-out mentality from older players who have experience with AD&D and 2nd Edition. Prior to third edition, each class had different XP requirements to level up- mages took more than every other class by far, and frequently died before making it out of the single-digit level range. I don't remember the exact numbers off top, but a mage with 25,000 XP was probably about 3 levels below a fighter with the same amount of XP, possibly more.

It stems from the fact that wizards start with 4hp and 1 level 1 spell that does 1d4 + 1 damage.

The reason that people claim wizard blows at low level and blooms late is because it's so overwhelmingly self-evident. It's not a radical way out there position. Like I said in my original post, great measures have been taken to make wizards more feasible at lower levels; that's in no way 'standard.' That these measures had to be taken at all only underscores the point I'm making.

1: At level 1, the wizard has 4 HP + their con modifier (which is almost never going to be 0), making them squishy. A barbarian has 12 + con modifier, which is one more hit from a long sword. This disparity is not that great.

2: Your wizard does not start with 1 level 1 spell. Your wizard starts with 3 + int modifier spells. It's a wizard. It's going to start with 7 or 8 spells. Possibly 9 depending on your starting race and gifts. This also means you will start with 2-3 spells per day of first level, 4 if you specialize. You also get 4 cantrips.

3: A fighter's BAB at level 1 is only 1 higher than the wizard's. A wizard has the ability to summon two tanks, and sit back with a crossbow/bow/sling. This is much safer than hoping that hobgoblin doesn't crit you while you're swinging at it. 6 HP and 14 HP both die the same to an axe crit, except for the wizard the summon dies for him.

4: At level 3, you get ghostly visage and ignore most damage in challenge-appropriate levels. By level 5 you can haste and fireball, making you a more efficient killer than a fighter of equal level.


IMO, mages are much easier to level (especially early on) than their melee counterparts. They involve more decision-making, but much less risk when the correct decisions are made.

[Hunter548]

I'm not saying that's the case here on arelith (Casters aren't that strong compared to other classes) but it's an argument I've seen thrown around about casters in 3.x games a lot.

What's spurious about the idea that certain classes suffer early, and bloom late? I'd like to hear your argument, assuming you have one.

Sure. Mind that this is all PnP-specific, since that's the main arena this line of logic is applied to.

1) Wizards aren't actually that squishy at level 1. They can cast summon creature spells to get an equivalent to an equal-level fighter, and generally can have tricks like the various PHB2 specialization powers to avoid dying early.

2) Even at level one, a wizard is ending or trivializing entire combat encounters in 3.x. Sleep, Color Spray, Grease, etc. All of these trivialize combat encounters in PnP because monsters at level 1 don't tend to have either saves or immunity, and it's a simple matter for aforementioned summoned creature to walk from greater to greater coup de grace-ing them all, or have a fighter do it. This sort of disparity only gets worse as you level in 3.x, and a wizard's ability to trivialize stuff isn't just limited to combat. Charm Person makes social situations easy, invisibility and knock basically replace rogues, and healing is basically an inefficient use of your time in PnP.

3) Attacking from the other direction; Classes should, by and large, be roughly equal; By that, I don't mean purely in combat, but rather in how much utility and "value" they bring to the party. Even using the word "level" implies that there's a sort of plateau-like equality between classes, that if you take a level 18 fighter and a level 18 wizard, they're going to contribute roughly equally to the party. This is not the case to a degree as to be laughable; The wizard is generating infinite money for himself, re-routing rivers to exterminate orc tribes, one-shotting ancient dragons, and creating his own pocket plane to fill with people who he's convinced he's a god so that he'll eventually gain a divine rank after they worship him long enough. The fighter... swings his sword four times a round, but only if he hasn't moved and is in melee range; Did I mention all the mid level+ monsters who have enough reach that they can melee the fighter but he can't melee them back?

tl;dr At no point in the 3.x leveling cycle is a wizard actually "weak", and it's inherently misleading to imply that wizards and fighters are roughly comparable at the same level when they so clearly aren't.

Also, if you could link me to the various threads talking about how terrible it is to be a wizard with 42DC save-or-die spells, I'd appreciate it. I'm also curious as to why there are so many clerics and wizards in the game, given that all their best spells are "dogshit."

1) Wizards don't usually get DC 42 spells. That requires either, 1) For you to be a shadow mage (And there's a myriad of threads complaining about how/why they're bad) who takes a great INT feat and starts with max INT 2) You to be a regular mage of one of the few races that gets an ECL-less +2 intelligence, and takes three great INT feats or 3) Be a regular mage of some other race, and take five great INT feats. Most wizards take, at best, one great INT. DC 39 is a lot more "normal", and as flower pointed out, 39 is usually not as reliable as you'd think in PvP. PvE is a slightly different beast (Though there's problems with high saves there too), and it's usually more efficient to cast something else even if you can get a finger of death or w/e to stick.

2) The only one claiming hold monster and finger of death are a wizard's best spells, is you. Hold monster is solid-ish (sometimes) but would be much further down the list than "The best", and finger of death wouldn't be on the list at all, because it is just straight up bad. A wizard's "Best" spells are stuff like mass haste, IGMS, ice storm, the bigby line, confusion, etc.

A cleric is a bit of a different beast; They don't actually get either spell you mentioned, or indeed much CC at all; Hold Person, Hammer of the Gods and Storm of Vengeance are about it for their CC.

3) There's probably a lot of wizards/clerics because people like the class. You can't always conflate how strong a class is with how played it is; Case in point, I've played an actually absurd number of wizards of the years because I consider wizards fun and interesting. This despite the fact that I consider wizards to be not hugely impressively strong, and sorcerers to be a huge upgrade on wizards. I keep making wizards though, because I like wizards, and am willing to sacrifice optimality for a character I'll enjoy more. I keep making wizards. Someone save me. Help. I can't be stopped.

4) As to why there's not a lot of forum threads.... Dunno. Maybe a lot of the people who think wizards are weak would just prefer to play other classes. Maybe they don't care to make forum threads. Who knows. Speaking for myself, I don't because I usually don't think those kinds of "Buff X pls" threads to be a great or productive way to... actually get them buffed (For a variety of reasons), and because I'm not 100% sure how to buff wizards without causing other balance issues that I wouldn't want (Reversing the dynamic between wizards/sorcerer, making them strong enough as to be oppressive for non-casters, etc).

[Invader_Nym]

None of that really addresses the question. What's absurd about making an excess of power at high level come at the cost of power at low level?

I actually think you're being way too generous about the power of wizards at low level in PNP, and assuming perfectly ideal conditions. The wizard has 2 spells at level 1. Here's a curveball for you. What if there are three separate encounters in a single day?

Also, how does the position you're arguing really defeat my point? What you're saying is "hey, not only are wizards way better than fighters at high level, but they also totally rock at low level."

That sort of underscores my original position which is that there are balance problems with the casting classes that need ironing out.

Moving the conversation back to Arelith, I don't think that anyone would dispute that changes were made to make wizard more sustainable at low levels, so I think my account of wizards sucking at low level and blooming late is accurate. You would, I think dispute just how much they 'bloom' at late levels. I personally am not sold on this whole "epic wizards are totally impotent and it's easy to become immune to their spells" argument.

If someone can show me the math on how players can reliably and consistently boost all 3 of their saving throws to such an extent that high-level save-or-die wizard spells are dogshit, I'd like to know. And please don't say something like...

"Well, if you drink 20 potions and use 20 scrolls all in under one minute, then you'll be unstoppable, therefore wizards blow" argument. Being able to envision this narrow and unlikely set of circumstances where a class might encounter difficulty in no way entails that that class is impotent.

[Hazard]

I disagree with a lot of this. I don't see any reason why removing such things is 'wise'. This is not 5th ed it's 3-3.5 as advertised. Just because something is in 5th is not evidence that it was a good idea. The game is different and comparing them in that way makes no sense to me. Would I like a new NWN game to come out based in 5th? Heck yes. Let's go! Do I want to see us try and force 5th into 3rd? No. Let's never do that, please.

'Save or lose' spells. The majority of them can be removed through wand use, potion use, or simply -pray ing. -pray needs to be removed. There are certain builds that are very powerful end-game, but a pure caster is so incredibly vulnerable in so many ways that nerfing their spells any more would be murder.

I disagree that casters are more powerful at lower levels (3-12). Yes, the summons are durable but only in level appropriate and lower areas, and they kill PAINFULLY slowly. At higher levels (20-30), no, they are not too powerful- They are too weak. Most places other classes can solo without any risk at all, a pure wizard/cleric summoner cannot even survive a single encounter. Even monolithic elementals get shredded in seconds in any dungeon that is 'worth looting' at end game, while a plethora of other classes are able to rush through them without risk and make literally millions of gold every week if they feel like it (they tell me and show me!)

"Well, if you drink 20 potions and use 20 scrolls all in under one minute, then you'll be unstoppable, therefore wizards blow" argument. Being able to envision this narrow and unlikely set of circumstances where a class might encounter difficulty in no way entails that that class is impotent.

No, again I disagree. Just claiming a thing does not make it so.

It is not at all a narrow and unlikely set of circumstances, it happens in every PvP encounter I've ever had with a person who wasn't very new to the game. It is more than difficulty, it is rendering you, as you said, impotent. You can hold a ridiculous amount of potions, wands, scrolls, other items- and a pray on top of that... While a wizard will run out of spells prepared. You can counter the most powerful magic users on the server by investing 15 points into UMD.

Sorry. I don't mean to come across as disrespectful, but I disagree so strongly with all of this that it might seem that way. The things you want nerfed, I want the opposite nerfed and I want them buffed.

Removal of pray, and requiring more UMD for higher circle scrolls/wands/potions might help balance things out. A buff to elementals (excluding swarm), if other classes won't be nerfed to even things out is something I'd like to see too.

[-XXX-]

IMHO the balance between the classes is more about the big picture ~ caster classes have generally easier time engaging PvE content and getting their hands on rare crafting materials in order to create better gear for their melee buddies who are in turn more tailored to partake in PvP.

But I agree that wizards/sorcerers are little more than pet herders ATM. Non-duration DC based spells and most direct damage spells are borderline useless and could probably use an overhaul, but I understand the reluctance to tamper with these, because as Hunter pointed out, the line between them being useless and oppressively broken is very thin.

[Nitro]

What's absurd about making an excess of power at high level come at the cost of power at low level?

Because it's bad design.

In a server like Arelith, the low levels are designed to be moved past. No one is going to remain level 10 forever so if you make the argument for "They're strong in the lategame but that's made up for by them being weak early!" it just means that they have a temporary weakness and will enjoy strength the majority of time once they surpass it.

Far better design, would be to have classes be at least nominally equal in power across their leveling scale. If you have one class that's only strong in the early to mid game but tapers off in the epic levels, that'll just be a go-to for people who want to grind rewards. If you have the inverse, you have a class for people who want to be optimal once they hit their peak. Balancing around temporary milestones in a characters levelspan is just a bad idea.

And as many others have pointed out, save-or-die spells are bad. Hold monster and finger of death are completely negated by a wand of FoM and death ward respectively. Or in the case of hold monster, also clarity, the mind blank line, spider totem and so on.

But let's assume then that you're a suboptimal fighter who doesn't care about UMD, deliberately making yourself weaker. At level 30, your base saves are +17 +11 +11, FORT/REF/WILL). We'll presume your fighter isn't a complete idiot and has some decent CON from base stats and gear, let's say 26, that's already 25 FORT save. We have the fighter slap +1 unisaves on 10 pieces of gear and he's up to 35, without a single potion, feat, wand or scroll used. 35 which means that even if a hostile caster tries to use Finger of Death on him with DC 38, they'd need to roll 17 or upwards to kill him. Not very good odds I'd say. Of course gearing for an equally impressive will save would be hard for our fighter, but that's because he's deliberately gimped himself. If he'd properly multiclassed, he could use consumables/feats to either bring his will save up or to grant him outright immunity to the spell in question.

So no, we don't need to make already bad spells even worse the way 5ed did. Finger of Death is laughable to the point where you'll do more damage more reliably by just casting magic missiles with the same level spell slot or using fireballs instead. 5ed did a lot of things right, but balancing damage spells is not one of them.

[ExperimentAlpha]

What I would suggest to you if you want to see the kind of parity that you're referring two is that you play the Neverwinter MMO. It's based off, surprise, 4th edition D&D. Not exactly the ones that were talking about here in this specific conversation, but almost in arguably the most balanced edition of D&D that exists and has ever been in print. How did it achieve this? Simple. It made every class absolutely the same apart from Flavor, within their specific roles. You are either a Defender, a striker, a controller, or a support. There was some vague variance and some minor imbalance, but the way that the power system works in that game meant that literally every class was as balanced as every other class. Everyone had their at-will Powers, their encounter powers, and their daily powers. Everyone had the same action economy. Fighters got to do neat things and wizards got tone down.


There is a reason why 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons it's the least played and shortest-lived edition of Dungeons and Dragons that exist. To quote The Incredibles movie, when everyone is special, no one will be. As someone who started playing fantasy RPGs with 4th edition D&D, I am intimately familiar this how utterly homogeneous all of the classes felt when you strip away the superficial layer of fluff that coated their chassis. It did end up becoming a mildly successful MMORPG, but that only cements the difference between a pen and paper RPG and a core, structured MMO.

Pen and paper RPGs center around the idea of a perfect imbalance. You make of it what you will, but the tools that are presented for you are diverse enough that everyone has a job, and the different tools allow you to do that job differently depending on how you want to do your job. instead of fitting into a specific, predefined roll, you're able to choose your own path and accomplish things that a much more restrictive system, like one presented in 4th edition, would be completely incapable of doing.

Neverwinter Nights is flexible, imperfect, and, yes, imbalanced. But that does not mean that it needs to be absolutely balanced. It is through this perfect imbalance that we support Ingenuity, creativity, and diversity. Hell, people are still coming out with new builds for Neverwinter Nights and shaking things up to this day. I mean, who would have ever thought that a brycer was a thing? I know I would not have. I also do not know a single party, PVP or not, that would not accept the presents of a Greatsword weapon master regardless of level. Especially with the changes to core Neverwinter systems that this server has implemented, we have allowed builds that very specifically focus on mundane combat to succeed and Excel far beyond where they even could in pen and paper.


I would not be so quick to try to force balance upon a system that, in my opinion and in the opinions of many, does not need it.

[Hunter548]

None of that really addresses the question. What's absurd about making an excess of power at high level come at the cost of power at low level?

I actually think you're being way too generous about the power of wizards at low level in PNP, and assuming perfectly ideal conditions. The wizard has 2 spells at level 1. Here's a curveball for you. What if there are three separate encounters in a single day?

Because "You were weak at low level" doesn't mean you should get to replace the entire party and outshine every other class in the game at level 15. D&D is, at it's absolute core, is about 4-7 people getting together for beer, pretzels, and fantasy gaming. If the guy playing a wizard turns the game into "three hours of watching the wizard do stuff", then they quitely eat their pretzels, drink their beer, and next week stay home to watch Daredevil instead.

Also, how does the position you're arguing really defeat my point? What you're saying is "hey, not only are wizards way better than fighters at high level, but they also totally rock at low level."

That sort of underscores my original position which is that there are balance problems with the casting classes that need ironing out.

My entire point was that the "It's balanced to be really weak at low levels and be really strong at high levels" is applied mostly to PnP, and I was addressing it purely in a PnP context. Nothing I said is applicable to arelith.

Moving the conversation back to Arelith, I don't think that anyone would dispute that changes were made to make wizard more sustainable at low levels, so I think my account of wizards sucking at low level and blooming late is accurate. You would, I think dispute just how much they 'bloom' at late levels. I personally am not sold on this whole "epic wizards are totally impotent and it's easy to become immune to their spells" argument.

If someone can show me the math on how players can reliably and consistently boost all 3 of their saving throws to such an extent that high-level save-or-die wizard spells are dogshit, I'd like to know. And please don't say something like...

"Well, if you drink 20 potions and use 20 scrolls all in under one minute, then you'll be unstoppable, therefore wizards blow" argument. Being able to envision this narrow and unlikely set of circumstances where a class might encounter difficulty in no way entails that that class is impotent.

I didn't say epic wizards are totally impotent, just that spells like Hold Monster and Finger of Death aren't so good that they need to be nerfed and that epic wizards aren't the faction-destroying monsters you seem to think they are as long as everyone involved thinks a little bit.

As for the build-a-saves thing: You usually need to use two wands, and a potion or a scroll, to get total immunity coverage, and both the wands last long enough that you can pre-buff with them. The potion can be drank faster than a wizard can cast hold monster. "Drink 20 potions and use 20 scrolls all under a minute" is just reducing the "Use UMD to counter spells" argument to the absurd.

But since you asked:

Various WM builds, through a combination of UMD, fairly simple to acquire gear for a level 30 character, and feats, can get their fort and reflex high enough that they laugh at disable spells. For will save coverage, you have mind blank and clarity via scroll and potions.

Barbarians while raging get a massive boost to will while raging and can rage as an instant action. His fort is naturally huge between Constitution and Spellcraft Ranks. His reflex is lower, but he can up it with gear.

Paladins and Blackguards, I hope, need no spelling-out.

Bards have fairly high saves natively through song and gear, and usually dip cleric or blackguard.

Rogues, if they don't take a cleric/blackguard dip, are fairly squishy on the will front. Their reflex, obviously, is sky-high, and gear + spellcraft + a decent constitution can cover Fort to a tolerable degree. Clarity and Mind Blank covers will saves, as the WM builds.


You'll notice a lot of "gear and spellcraft" and "UMD consumables" answers here. Doing something like +1 Strength/+1 Con/+1 to a specific save/+2 discipline/+2 spellcraft is fairly easy to get done as "standard" gear by an epic enchanter. If you get to 30, have a steady cash flow, and stick around long enough, a lot of people start doing 5% gear. Both of those are a big contributor to why spells like Finger of Death and Hold Monster aren't useful PvP-wise, but UMD consumables really carry the day for a lot of people before they get to that point.

Death Ward wands last something like 50 minutes, and can't be breached. Freedom Wands, ten minutes; They can be breached, but you can just reapply if you need to: A wizard trying to have more breach spells than your wand has charges is going to lose. Clarity, as I said, is a faster activation than a Hold Monster, and Lesser Mind Blank scrolls last in the 15 minute range.

Covering your weak saves with consumables, even if you don't feel the desire to get the sort of huge save gear you might need, is fairly simple and easy.

[dominantdrowess]

How to kill any weapons-master:

"Use Time-Stop Scroll."
"Use Mordikinien's Disjunction Scroll (or cast Mordi's)."
"Cast Feeblemind."
"Repeat Timestop and Feeblemind after they -pray."

This tactic cannot be stopped, even with knockdown spam if the Timestop scroll is spammed from your hotbar, due to how how Neverwinter Nights scrolls and initiative functions. Scroll casts once you start the animation CANNOT be stopped.

There is literally, mechanically, no way a single weapons master can stop this tactic in a 1v1 scenario if the mage initiates on the weapons master -- even BEING knocked down will not stop this initiation, unless the weapons master kills you in a single flurry; especially if you are already hasted.... the Time-Stop will trigger, even if you get knocked down at any point while reading the scroll.

[Miskol]

How to kill any weapons-master:

"Use Time-Stop Scroll."
"Use Mordikinien's Disjunction Scroll (or cast Mordi's)."
"Cast Feeblemind."
"Repeat Timestop and Feeblemind after they -pray."

This tactic cannot be stopped, even with knockdown spam if the Timestop scroll is spammed from your hotbar, due to how how Neverwinter Nights scrolls and initiative functions. Scroll casts once you start the animation CANNOT be stopped.

There is literally, mechanically, no way a single weapons master can stop this tactic in a 1v1 scenario if the mage initiates on the weapons master -- even BEING knocked down will not stop this initiation, unless the weapons master kills you in a single flurry; especially if you are already hasted.... the Time-Stop will trigger, even if you get knocked down at any point while reading the scroll.

And that's why time stop has a 4 minute cooldown between uses.

[dominantdrowess]

True-that. Feeblemind's still a sleeper spell though. >D

[flower]

Is it not effective only versus PCs with caster levels? Don't pick bard dip, go rouge...

[Jack Oat]

Is it not effective only versus PCs with caster levels? Don't pick bard dip, go rouge...

Feeblemind: Now applies CHA damage as well. If the caster has arcane caster levels, the DC is increased by 4. If the INT would drop below 3, the target is stunned instead for 1 round/level. Metamagic functions normally.

Just gets a bonus if they have Arcane caster levels. Works normally otherwise.

True-that. Feeblemind's still a sleeper spell though. >D

Agreed. The counter-tactic to your thing would be to get hit with it during that Timestop, -pray when out of Timestop, chug an NEP, get dispelled, chug an NEP, get dispelled, etc. etc. etc. until the Mage runs out of either Breach castings or Feebleminds, the Mage switches tactics and smacks you with something else, or you run out of NEP potions. Material attrition combat.

[Misericordus]

A bog-standard Arelith 20 fighter/7 weaponmaster/3 rogue at level 30 has, inclusive of feats and base ability scores:

• 18 base fort

• 17 base reflex

• 11 base will.

Add to that 16 ranks of cross-classed spellcraft, +2 int bonus and 6 pieces of +2 spellcraft gear gives you a neat +6 saves vs. spells (30 total spellcraft ranks). Now you're at 24/23/17. Suppose you also runed +1 unisaves onto those 6 items. Now you're at 30/29/23.

Now max out your con to the soft-bonus cap of +12 and you've got a further +6 fortitude. You also have the Strong Soul feat which is +1 vs. death spells.

Now your fort save vs. FoD is +37, which will only fail against a standard level 30 necrowizard's DC 39 Finger of Death on a natural 1.

Note that this is just one example. It's far easier to get saves in this range with other classes, paladin and blackguard being the obvious ones. Is this more effort than your average player is willing to put in to immunize themselves (barring the odd nat 1) against FoD? Sure.

But it's definitely possible, and people are doing it. It's bad design to balance around people who don't understand the mechanics or aren't trying.